Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms
of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may
imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where
similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d)
or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common
designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c.	“By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity
between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic
[evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that
the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the
higher categories of units, ...”  Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous
[similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental
pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not
produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically
demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common
ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the
Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d.	Fix, pp. 189–191.

Denton, pp. 142–155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical
genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of
genotypes. It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed
that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor
explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be
ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the
genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which
are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the
differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what
mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous
organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by
the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been
answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly
Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of
the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem
(London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e.	“Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all
vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity
(sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the
lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the
top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to
matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of
which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore,
correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to
similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the
egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.”
Ibid., p. 13.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html#wp1612912

Pahu wrote:
> Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2
> 
> It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms
> of life always imply a common ancestor

It might well be, but that isn't what we see around us.

What we see is a massive phylogenetic tree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

A much simplified version is here:
http://www.tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm

For these living entities to fit into such a gradual structure and 
then for their genes to confirm the gradual progress from one to the 
other is remarkable.

To suggest that a designer, for which there is no evidence, went out 
of his/her/its way to construct life to fit into an incredibly 
complex tree with the genes (good genes, bad genes, broken genes...) 
interlocking like a jigsaw, would be completely illogical, even 
stupid, possibly deceitful. You'd have to be completely away with 
the fairies to say that.

The only logical explanation is that life has evolved from a common 
ancestor. There is no other explanation that fits the facts - none.

Face up to it Pahu, my friend, evolution from a common ancestor is 
now established by truly overwhelming evidence - established way, 
way beyond any reasonable doubt.

regards, Ian

On Sep 9, 3:13 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Pahu wrote:
> > Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2
>
> > It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms
> > of life always imply a common ancestor
>
> It might well be, but that isn't what we see around us.
>
> What we see is a massive phylogenetic tree:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
>
> A much simplified version is here:http://www.tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm
>
> For these living entities to fit into such a gradual structure and
> then for their genes to confirm the gradual progress from one to the
> other is remarkable.
>
> To suggest that a designer, for which there is no evidence, went out
> of his/her/its way to construct life to fit into an incredibly
> complex tree with the genes (good genes, bad genes, broken genes...)
> interlocking like a jigsaw, would be completely illogical, even
> stupid, possibly deceitful. You'd have to be completely away with
> the fairies to say that.
>
> The only logical explanation is that life has evolved from a common
> ancestor. There is no other explanation that fits the facts - none.

Don't know about that. How about a callous and incredibly incompetent,
pissed-up misogynous trainee deity with a nasty, vicious streak. He
gets great pleasure from watching amputees and paraplegics squirm,
although he has a tiny if inexplicable soft spot for 1 in 100,000
'incurable' cancer victims. His biggest kicks he gets from major
natural disasters - the more innocent victims, preferably babies, the
better. We haven't seen anything of him recently because he's been
taken off R & D until he starts paying attention in class and agrees
to attend rehab. It's unlikely to be any time soon because he bunked a
session to slip out of school and go experiment on another planet. He
gave one of his disciples (Ridley Scott) a sneak preview back in the
70s. RS was thus inspired to direct his most famous blockbuster at the
end of that decade.

PG wrote:
> On Sep 9, 3:13 pm, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>> Pahu wrote:
>>> Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2
>>> It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms
>>> of life always imply a common ancestor
>> It might well be, but that isn't what we see around us.
>>
>> What we see is a massive phylogenetic tree:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
>>
>> A much simplified version is here:http://www.tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm
>>
>> For these living entities to fit into such a gradual structure and
>> then for their genes to confirm the gradual progress from one to the
>> other is remarkable.
>>
>> To suggest that a designer, for which there is no evidence, went out
>> of his/her/its way to construct life to fit into an incredibly
>> complex tree with the genes (good genes, bad genes, broken genes...)
>> interlocking like a jigsaw, would be completely illogical, even
>> stupid, possibly deceitful. You'd have to be completely away with
>> the fairies to say that.
>>
>> The only logical explanation is that life has evolved from a common
>> ancestor. There is no other explanation that fits the facts - none.
> 
> Don't know about that. How about a callous and incredibly incompetent,
> pissed-up misogynous trainee deity with a nasty, vicious streak. He
> gets great pleasure from watching amputees and paraplegics squirm,
> although he has a tiny if inexplicable soft spot for 1 in 100,000
> 'incurable' cancer victims. His biggest kicks he gets from major
> natural disasters - the more innocent victims, preferably babies, the
> better. We haven't seen anything of him recently because he's been
> taken off R & D until he starts paying attention in class and agrees
> to attend rehab. It's unlikely to be any time soon because he bunked a
> session to slip out of school and go experiment on another planet. He
> gave one of his disciples (Ridley Scott) a sneak preview back in the
> 70s. RS was thus inspired to direct his most famous blockbuster at the
> end of that decade.
> 

Ah, yes - I'd missed that possible explanation. The one where the 
deity pouffes everything into existence and goes overboard to fake 
the evidence so that it just appears to have been evolved over 
billions of years instead of just the 10,000.

Quite a sense of humour, eh?

Or else maybe it really did evolve over billions of years? Now, 
where did I leave Occam's razor?

regards, Ian

PG wrote:

>>
>> The only logical explanation is that life has evolved from a common
>> ancestor. There is no other explanation that fits the facts - none.
> 
> Don't know about that. How about a callous and incredibly incompetent,
> pissed-up misogynous trainee deity with a nasty, vicious streak. He
> gets great pleasure from watching amputees and paraplegics squirm

Yes,why is it that god hates amputees?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

regards, Ian

On Sep 9, 1:13 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:

> Face up to it Pahu, my friend, evolution from a common ancestor is
> now established by truly overwhelming evidence - established way,
> way beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> regards, Ian

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone
   but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on
   reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."


            --James D. Watson "Molecular Biology of the Gene"
              Fourth edition, Menlo Park, CA, 1987.
              Watson, along with Francis Crick won the
              Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure
              of the DNA molecule.


Hewy

"Hewy"  wrote in message 
news:75ae1552-ff1b-4778-9e88-b5fccf64bf7e@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 1:13 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:

> Face up to it Pahu, my friend, evolution from a common ancestor is
> now established by truly overwhelming evidence - established way,
> way beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> regards, Ian

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone
   but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on
   reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."


            --James D. Watson "Molecular Biology of the Gene"
              Fourth edition, Menlo Park, CA, 1987.
              Watson, along with Francis Crick won the
              Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure
              of the DNA molecule.

And also Maurice Wilkins!!!!!!!

On Sep 9, 7:35 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> PG wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 3:13 pm, Ian Smith 
> > wrote:
> >> Pahu wrote:
> >>> Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2
> >>> It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms
> >>> of life always imply a common ancestor
> >> It might well be, but that isn't what we see around us.
>
> >> What we see is a massive phylogenetic tree:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
>
> >> A much simplified version is here:http://www.tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm
>
> >> For these living entities to fit into such a gradual structure and
> >> then for their genes to confirm the gradual progress from one to the
> >> other is remarkable.
>
> >> To suggest that a designer, for which there is no evidence, went out
> >> of his/her/its way to construct life to fit into an incredibly
> >> complex tree with the genes (good genes, bad genes, broken genes...)
> >> interlocking like a jigsaw, would be completely illogical, even
> >> stupid, possibly deceitful. You'd have to be completely away with
> >> the fairies to say that.
>
> >> The only logical explanation is that life has evolved from a common
> >> ancestor. There is no other explanation that fits the facts - none.
>
> > Don't know about that. How about a callous and incredibly incompetent,
> > pissed-up misogynous trainee deity with a nasty, vicious streak. He
> > gets great pleasure from watching amputees and paraplegics squirm,
> > although he has a tiny if inexplicable soft spot for 1 in 100,000
> > 'incurable' cancer victims. His biggest kicks he gets from major
> > natural disasters - the more innocent victims, preferably babies, the
> > better. We haven't seen anything of him recently because he's been
> > taken off R & D until he starts paying attention in class and agrees
> > to attend rehab. It's unlikely to be any time soon because he bunked a
> > session to slip out of school and go experiment on another planet. He
> > gave one of his disciples (Ridley Scott) a sneak preview back in the
> > 70s. RS was thus inspired to direct his most famous blockbuster at the
> > end of that decade.
>
> Ah, yes - I'd missed that possible explanation. The one where the
> deity pouffes everything into existence and goes overboard to fake
> the evidence so that it just appears to have been evolved over
> billions of years instead of just the 10,000.
>
> Quite a sense of humour, eh?
>
> Or else maybe it really did evolve over billions of years? Now,
> where did I leave Occam's razor?

As Stephen Gould put it ...

"No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature
(though Newton's clock-winding god might have set up the machinery at
the beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel
evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is
not manifest in the products of nature."

pg

On Sep 9, 4:17 pm, Hewy  wrote:
> On Sep 9, 1:13 am, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>
> > Face up to it Pahu, my friend, evolution from a common ancestor is
> > now established by truly overwhelming evidence - established way,
> > way beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> > regards, Ian
>
> "Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone
>    but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on
>    reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."
>
>             --James D. Watson "Molecular Biology of the Gene"
>               Fourth edition, Menlo Park, CA, 1987.
>               Watson, along with Francis Crick won the
>               Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure
>               of the DNA molecule.
>
> Hewy

Probably should have said: "a brainwashed fundy moron minority" but
his statement still gets right to the heart of the issue