vjtorley (Vincent Joseph Torley) has posted on Uncommon Descent. The title of his posting is Someone’s wrong. Who is it?. The issues is whether the similarities of mammalian embryos is PREDICTED by modern evolutionary theory. PZ Myers says "no" and Ken Miller probably agrees. They are both correct.
Do those similarities provide support for common descent even though they may not have been predicted by evolutionary theory? Yes, they do, in the same sense that common pseudogenes support evolution even though pseudogenes are not a necessary part of modern evolutionary theory.
So here's the question ... who is wrong about this issue?
- PZ Myers
- Ken Miller
- Vincent Joseph Torley
14 comments :
I would take Ken Miller's side. PZ is right in a sense that from evolutionary theory alone the similarity does not automatically follow. But add knowledge that we have from cell biology and biochemistry, couple it with some common sense and one has to be a total moron not to expect a high degree of morphological similarity between various mammalian embryos.
How does any of this help creationism, I don't know - and don't care. Leave creationist lunatics alone - responding to them is the same as feeding trolls.
3
As a first approximation, anything posted on UC is wrong.
It is worth repeating. Evolution theory contains contradictions that are not acknowledged by evolution enthusiasts.
The theory does not stand up to critical analysis.
I loved this bit:
I also realize that ontology doesn’t recapitulate phylogeny
3. Vincent Joseph Torley
He has ignored the context of PZ's statements, and in doing changed their meaning.
Evolutionary theory does not predict that early embryonic development is necessarily more conserved than later stages of development, or adult characteristics.
I agree with the prior Anonymous.
What we need is something like a court case where evolution is put on the stand and given the critical analysis it deserves since "scientists" are too scared to study it.
I can't wait to see the day when Dr. Dembski et al, get their day in court to ravage evolution to tatters with their cold hard steel logic and facts.
Anus. The Utmost IDiot insists on trying some further creationist/ID rhetorical crap (that's why in this case "Anonymous" abbreviates into "Anus.").
Here, I fixed it for you:
It is worth repeating. The numerous straw-man of evolution theory, such as those built by IDiots, contain contradictions that are happily acknowledged by evolution enthusiasts.
These straw-men theories do not stand up to critical analysis.
Bye bye IDiot.
Wasn't that reference to a court case sarcasm? Dembski bailed from the last court case.
Anonymous posted:
"I can't wait to see the day when Dr. Dembski et al, get their day in court to ravage evolution to tatters with their cold hard steel logic and facts."
I have a suggestion. Start with the critique I have posted here:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/05/junk-jonathan-part-8chapter-5.html?commentPage=2
Respond to it.
@anonymous I can't wait to see the day when Dr. Dembski et al, get their day in court to ravage evolution to tatters with their cold hard steel logic and facts.
Wasn't Dembski dropped like the hot steaming turd that he is by the Thomas More Law Center as an expert witness for the defence in the Kitzmiller v. Dover IDiot trial ?
Bill D is such a cowardly wimp that he ran away from Dover not even waiting to be deposed - he scared tishless that he would have to face his nemesis Shallit. And this bozo who can't hold down a job at even a bible diploma mill wants to take on John Marburger?
Truti
steve oberski writes:
Wasn't Dembski dropped like the hot steaming turd that he is by the Thomas More Law Center as an expert witness for the defence in the Kitzmiller v. Dover IDiot trial ?
It is a bit more complicated than that. Five expert defense witnesses withdrew or were dropped, Dembski among them. The official reason given was that defense counsel would not allow the expert witnesses to have separate representation by Discovery Institute attorneys.
There are two fundamental problems with the credibility of this explanation (or if you prefer a more direct way of stating it, two reasons why we can be virtually certain this was a lie to cover up the witnesses' unwillingness to face cross examination and/or the defense's unwillingness to have them do so):
- Two of the five withdrawing experts were not DI members, so a desire to be represented by DI counsel would not apply. Yet no separate explanation was offered for the withdrawal of the non-DI experts.
- In a 32+ year legal career, with experience in large scale litigations involving multiple expert witnesses, I have never seen nor even heard of expert witnesses requiring separate counsel. It contradicts the very notion of being an expert for a party to the litigation.
By agreeing to become an expert witness, you are representing that in your judgment your expert testimony will align with the interests of the party hiring you. On the other hand, a requirement for separate counsel is a definitive statement that your interests are not aligned with those of the party who hired you. If it is the case that you no longer feel your opinions are aligned with the party that hired you, the only option is immediate withdrawal, not separate representation.
It is as if you were a house painter who no longer felt you wanted to paint a house the color the residents had asked for, and instead of quitting and returning any advance payment, you insisted the residents hire a decorator who favored the paint color you preferred. The very notion is absurd - as absurd as separate representation for an expert witness. Thus we can be virtually certain this was a charade cooked up by the withdrawing witnesses and/or defense counsel. I know you're shocked - shocked - to hear it.
"The theory does not stand up to critical analysis."
Let me guess - you are a computer programmer or have a background in engineering?
Post a Comment