A young @Paul_Nelson in this follow on video.
Did you post that so we could see a young Paul Nelson, or did you have some attempted point? Do you think the video makes sense?
I thought @Paul_Nelson might stop in here and discuss his point of view. I think the above video makes some interesting points but there is not common use of the word homology as they describe it as mere similarity vs similarity due to common descent.
Spam.
What interesting points? Who describes it as mere similarity?
Meyer, Nelson and Berlinski.
The discussion in general is interesting but until terms are agreed upon it is pretty difficult to comment. I don’t think common descent or homology are defined in a way you would agree with.
The discussion is also critiquing Neo Darwinism which is not what all scientist agree is the current TOE. Wells comments that common descent requires a mechanism (RMNS) to explain it and I know this is not your position.
What did you find interesting, and why?
If these terms aren’t defined the way they are in their respective fields, of what possible use are the criticisms of them in the video then?
1 Like
Have you listened to the video? If so what do you think are the weakness of their arguments especially the one that states that homologous structures can have different developmental paths.
Let’s say this is true. How does it support separate creation?
That I don’t see what the problem is. And by that I mean I know what the argument is trying to accomplish(it is trying to undermine the evidence by pointing to some particular issue), but I don’t understand why you’re not seeing it’s obvious flaw.
Mere similarity was of course never really how common descent was inferred(it was about the nesting hierarchies). Convergent evolution of a character just means it isn’t a useful candidate for use in tracing relationships, it doesn’t mean there’s suddenly no informative characters or that no characters can be trusted to be informative.
This whole thing is as usual straining at gnats while ignoring the bigger picture.
It is ironic that in attempts by creationists to point out flaws with inferring common descent on the basis of nesting hierarchical structure in shared similar morphological characteristics, they undermine another creationist argument.
If different developmental pathways can give rise to similar morphological structures, then it is all the more significant when the twin nesting hierarchies of morphology and genetics are congruent.
This essentially contradicts the often-invoked creationist rationalization that we should expect “similar genetics” to give rise to “similar morphology” as an explanation for why independently derived phylogenetic trees based on morphology and genetic sequences are nevertheless highly significantly congruent.
3 Likes