One of my favorites is some hip bone they found: it didn't fit what they thought a transitional form should take. So they came up with a cow stepping on it in mid fossilization (mid, mind you, not before: if they broke it before, it would just be broken and not "fit" the transitional form).
I'm glad Chrevbel asked this before I did.
There is a circle of knowledge, not isolated components. And I know those for whom this is a big deal, on both sides of the issue. As a teacher and a parent with children in the public school system, I know the likes of Genie Scott, and more so, her friends Dawkins and company. Not everyone can be a general in the evolutionists' war.
I know this doesn't sound fair or even may not be economically feasible for you, but if your really care about what to teach your children, don't send them to public schools. When I was a teen, I never met someone like Genie Scott in high school. In fact, all I ever cared about was to go to college. But when I think about it, my high school AP biology teacher, who I enjoyed her teachings very dearly (better than any college professor I have listened to) and perhaps helped me realize my passion, was also very spiritual, who was excited to hear about my spiritual retreats with my church at the time. She did one day jeer at the idea that men has a missing rib, but she never hid her religious side outside the classroom. I was still skeptical with evolution at the time, but I had not thought much about evolution as much as I just wanted to move on to college.
And you're only worried about what children learn in the classroom? What about what children learn after school, or at lunch? What about the social atmosphere that teens provide, at times very illegal, at other times very hostile. Teachers, for the most part, provide an atmosphere not just of teaching, but of support for students in such an atmosphere. I can go home and learn about something, and the Church can twist and change that for me, that already has happened. But surely evolution in classroom to me, assuming it's wrong, is not as dangerous as peer issues students face, and this is where I would like, and am glad to see, the Church spends more time addressing.
You argue for descent from similarities, but you admit that not every similarity means descent.
Like I said, I implied descent from homology. You seem to not want to get past that point.
You seem to assume that convergence only operates on a superficial level, not lower.
Well, for the most part, when studying homology, a lot of the study depends on skeleton. It is in this where convergence is hardly seen.
But you assume shark species are homologous, and not analogous.
This is vague, are you saying between different shark species, or between shark and dolphin species? I said that dolphins and sharks are analogous, NOT homologous. I never mentioned anything about the differences in shark species, but ya, I would say there's a lot of homology there. What's your point exactly?
Case in point which has nothing to do with evolution: angels are all analogous, yet they are of the same "genus" angel (or would we say "domain"?).
I feel weird doing this, but if you want to use angels as an metaphor for what you're trying to convey, I disagree. If they are of the same "genus" or "domain," they are all homologous, not analogous. But then again, you're talking about those within the same species. Yes, there's homology between YOU and ME, because we're of the same species, but to the highest degree, much higher than homology between humans and chimps let's say. I would even say there's homology between angels and humans because in common we both have spirits (or we both are spirits, with humans being "incarnate spirits").
Let me repeat:
Analogy-->dolphin flipper and shark pectoral fin;
Homology-->skeleton of dolphin flipper and skeleton of human arm (or any mammalian arm for that matter)
I'm sorry to say, but again, you just proven to me how you're mixing terms. Over and over again, you've consistently shown you don't know enough about evolution.
yes, I understood that. I'm saying that you haven't ruled analogy out.
I'm saying if you knew enough about evolution, you would have understood I never implied analogy to begin with. So yes, it was already ruled out from the start.
ID doesn't rule out common descent. Doesn't prove it either.
I've noticed that as I read more about ID, ID does not really address the scientific questions that evolution already answered. For instance, ID fails to address the genetic similarities between chimps and humans. Yet, all it talks about is the origin of life, not the evolution of life, which goes through reproduction. They talk about where did the flagella come from or where did DNA and its interactions with other molecules for transcription and translation come from. All ID cares about is origins, which has nothing to do with evolution (well with the exception of the bacterial flagella, since it has already been shown how that has been evolved). It's no wonder now to me that the main supporters of ID seem to be related to some sort of field of chemistry (as well as philosophy, law, and math), and very little to do with biology. The question ID is addressing is how do we go from chemistry to biology, not how to explain the propagation of biology. My DNA was not directly created by an Intelligent Designer, but rather was propagated through centuries upon centuries of mating from my ancestors all the way down to my parents. Evolution talks about that propagation, not about origins. It is true that some biochemists are so keen into taking evolution further into chemical and physical/astronomical domains, but we don't have any studies on that yet. We've only started to scratch the surface of chemical studies, and how we can turn chemistry into life.
It's interesting then you hit the nail right on the head here. ID does not rule out common descent. Therefore, if anything, ID seems to not even rule out evolution to begin with with the arguments they bring. However, ID proponents still use the "God of the gaps" argument, which is a dangerous argument, one that has been used everytime with no result but disappointment.
That it explains the origin of life, its progress and the why of it.
You didn't answer the question. You only made a statement.
I think you need to come to a realization that evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life, but the propagation and advancement of life. The "progress" and "why" of the progress, or more accurately "how" of the progress has been answered. Unless you can give me specifics. So if you have evidence, please give us evidence.
As for origin, yes, it doesn't explain origin at all. Even Dawkins admits that.
No, you might say Common Descent is, but the problem is that breeding doesn't produce species. Now if sustained intellegent breeding hasn't led to species, how does unguided, random natural selection?
Breeding does produce species. Breeding requires selectivity and separation, whether it be by nature or by human means. We see the evidence through DNA, and through the fact that we can actually measure rate of allelic change. In fact, we see both the results of natural and intelligent breeding, which has lead to speciation:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
I'm not talking of evolution at all.
Another reason why you don't know enough about evolution to talk about it.
I feel however that if you are to say God bred species after species until we reached humanity, then there is a theological problem. You open the door to saying that God created viruses and bacteria and prions for the destruction of living beings. You open the door to show that God bread certain chimps with tyrannical characteristics over their multiple mates and intruding males. You're reading something into it here, that's not there. Is there a good and bad "evolver?"
I'm saying evolution is all over the place. Traits that can be helpful for propagation in one species can harm another. Like, bacterial resistance against antiobiotics. Can we say God made the bacteria resist antiobiotics, so that we can be more susceptible to disease? Sure, we can say God may have a hand on the good traits in our own species, like the complexity of the human brain and the development of the vocal folds, but even the latter has a bad side effect, like an increased susceptibility to choke. Are you saying when God breeds, he wanted humans to choke more easily?
You open the door to show a certain incompetence God had in creating man with a descended epiglottis to speak, but to also increase the risk of choking. For everything to be the directly bred product of God holds a lower view of God in my opinion. It's no different than saying God directly punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience. We know no such God in Orthodoxy. God is one who created all things, but in a manner that allows things to take their course. That would be the road to hell. God stopped that. We're not deists.
Of course, I haven't denied God's salvation through the incarnation of the Logos, and His intervention in all things spiritual and eventually in the second coming, physical. I haven't denied there are miracles that do happen, although I personally remain skeptical, since most stories of miracles seem to be vain magic, rather than have spiritual significance.
If you read my signature, I do not believe in vain existence. That includes deism. With that being said, I believe what St. Athanasius teaches, that man was created like all created things "impermanent," but received a grace of incorruption. But man's disobedience showed that man chose nature over spiritual, and thus man joined the rest of nature, which included the law of death, the law of competition and strive for survival, the law, as it is clear to me now through my scientific studies, of evolution.
Dualist, ditheist, it's the same to me. It not dualism to say the same God created two things using the same designing principles.
But you said He was breeding species, not created them separately with similar principles. And besides, how is the Soviet Union and the US "one Intelligent Designer" using "similar principles?" I see two there.
Both using the same principles of aerodynamics to get the results they want (i.e. analogy, not homology).
Do you remember what I asked you when you gave me the metaphor of US and Soviet ships? I asked you how do you explain the genetic similarities between chimps and humans. That is not analogy, that is homology. Furthermore, I don't see analogy between two space shuttles. I'm no engineer, but if an engineer would like to confirm, the central "skeleton" (or as you say, "central principle") of a space shuttle must be "homologous." Unless, both US and Soviet engineers developed extremely radical and different ways of flying into outer space (kinda like wings of a bird versus wings of a bat), then I would call that an analogy, not a homology.
And even if you're talking about analogy, are you still saying that the god who created dolphins is not the same god who created sharks? How is that still not ditheism?
Once again, you claim you know, but your metaphors show how much you don't know.