New transitional whale fossil

[Mallon]

Please recall that motor vehicles are the product of design, and that they evidently evidence both homology and analogy.

No, they do not evidence homology because motor vehicles are not imperfect replicators. Organisms are, so your analogy does not hold. Remember, in biology, the word "homology" has a specific meaning. Please stick to it.

Clearly note that despite evidencing homology and analogy, they are not the product of lineage, convergence, lateral transfer, or whatever other naturalistic mechanism you decide to talk about next.

Right. Because they do not reproduce!

Nevertheless, design is, evidently, an equally sensible explanation.

No, it's not because there are no rules that say a designer must create according to a specific template or by using the same set of tools. The common designer explanation is an entirely ad hoc device to prop up a broken theological framework.

As good scientists, we therefore restrain ourselves from conflating an observation with an explanation.

Are you a scientist? You sound like maybe a computer scientist or an engineer (which wouldn't be surprising. Most people on the DI's list of scientists who reject evolution are engineers with no training in biology).

 

[MiserableSinner]

No, [motor vehicles] do not evidence homology...

...the Toyota is homologous to a Toyota sedan, and analogous to a Ford.

You continue to directly contradict your fellow. Curious.

Nevertheless, design is, evidently, an equally sensible explanation.

No, it's not because there are no rules that say a designer must create according to a specific template or by using the same set of tools.

...the Toyota is homologous to a Toyota sedan, and analogous to a Ford.

Proof by pudding, as it were. Plainly, a designer is capable of creating homology.

Yes, yes, I see that you are arguing semantics. "Homology, as a classification of similarity, must be restricted to self-replicating organisms because that's the definition." It has very clearly escaped your attention that such a classification of similarity has direct application in the world of technology; e.g., motor vehicles. Indeed, everything about the definition of homology is preserved, except for the question-begging. Rigid selfishness does not promote good science, in my experience. Nor do logical fallacies.

Try to stay on point, if you can.

 

[Mallon]

You continue to directly contradict your fellow. Curious.

I know. Barbarian is wrong on this one, too.

Proof by pudding, as it were. Plainly, a designer is capable of creating homology.

No, a designer is not capable of creating homology because in biology (which is what we're talking about here) homology implies similarity due to common biological descent. If you and Barbarian want to team up and challenge me on this, then feel free. But neither of you are using the term the way it is meant to be used in the context in which we are using it. Besides, simply referring to the Barbarian as defense of your argument is a logical fallacy. It indicates an inability to properly defend your argument.

 

[MiserableSinner]

I object to the biological definition of homology. I expect you to defend the definition, rather than reassert it.

My grounds are simple: Structural similarity is the observation that undergirds homology. Such similarities are evident amidst groups of motor vehicles and amidst groups of organisms. Thus, since structural similarity can be produced by separate sources, the source of a particular example of structural similarity cannot be inferred simply on the basis of its presence. Thus, the structural similarities exhibited by organisms do not imply phylogeny.

It is therefore inappropriate to conflate phylogeny with homology, or to defend such conflation with semantics.

Barbarian is wrong on this one, too. [...] If you and Barbarian want to team up and challenge me...

Perhaps Barbarian will come around to seeing things your way, no?

 

[Mallon]

Thus, the structural similarities exhibited by organisms do not imply phylogeny.

I agree entirely with this statement. But phylogeny is not hypothesized simply on the presence of similarity alone. Rather, it is hypothesized on the distribution of similarity. Similarities are distributed across the animal kingdom in a very definite pattern of nested hierarchy. All animals with hair have amniotic eggs, but not all animals with amniotic eggs have hair. All animals with amniotic eggs have backbones, but not all animals with backbones have amniotic eggs. All animals with backbones are bilaterally symmetrical, but not all bilaterally symmetrical animals have backbones. Etc., etc., etc. The same holds true for the distribution of similarities in DNA. Likewise this pattern also holds true for the distribution of similarity in family trees. Your DNA will always be more similar to that of your father than your great-granduncle.

The only way to explain this pattern is descent with modification. Appeal to a common designer does not explain this pattern. You might be interested in checking out the following website to better understand what you are arguing against:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[MiserableSinner]

the only way to explain this pattern is descent with modification.

Yes. Now defend this assertion. Or are you actually making an appeal to incredulity? Wouldn't that be cute.

What is it, in particular, about homology that a designer is incapable of even mimicking? That's rhetorical, of course.

 

[Mallon]

Yes. Now defend this assertion.

Do I really need to??? Do I really need to show you that biological lineages (whether at the level of family trees or higher) take the shape of a nested hierarchy, and that the distribution of similarities in morphology and DNA follow these patterns? Do you really doubt that your DNA is more like your father's than your great-granduncle's?
That's like asking me to defend gravity. It's a given in biology that descent with modification creates just such a pattern. The onus is on you to explain how something else can account for the pattern.

What is it, in particular, about homology that a designer is incapable of even mimicking? That's rhetorical, of course.

Of course, God could have mimicked the pattern of descent with modification in designing life if He wanted to. But there are no rules that say He had to. God could have completely violated the hierarchical pattern if He liked. But He didn't.
So if you want to argue that God miraculously designed life patterned hierarchically, by all means, go ahead. You're still admitting that the pattern follows that predicted by evolution. You're just designing ad hoc arguments to defend your preconvictions as the omphalos theologians do.

 

[MiserableSinner]

Do I really need to show you that biological lineages (whether at the level of family trees or higher) take the shape of a nested hierarchy, and that the distribution of similarities in morphology and DNA follow these patterns?

I note that you omit convergence. That comment was rhetorical, of course.

Anyway, you seem unable to distinguish between an observation and an explanation. Homology is what you observe. Phylogeny is how you explain it. Design also explains it. You do not "defend" an explanation by reciting the observation.

You opine that I should "explain how" something else can account for homology. Have you any familiarity with logic? It has already been demonstrated that something else can account for it; no "explanation" is necessary. The issue, as it has been from the beginning, is that you favor one explanation over the other. I have done nothing but indicate an alternate explanation and ask you to defend why yours is superior. Perhaps this defense is forthcoming. Perhaps not.

Of course, God could have mimicked the pattern of descent with modification in designing life if He wanted to.

God? Plainly, any old designer will do. Nevertheless: Game, set, match.

 

[Mallon]

I note that you omit convergence.

Convergence cannot be used to infer to infer phylogenetic relationships.

Anyway, you seem unable to distinguish between an observation and an explanation. Homology is what you observe. Phylogeny is how you explain it. Design also explains it. You do not "defend" an explanation by reciting the observation.

Observation: Characters are distributed among organisms following a nested hierarchical pattern.
Explanation: Descent with modification predicts this pattern.
In what way am I conflating observation with explanation here?

You opine that I should "explain how" something else can account for homology. Have you any familiarity with logic? It has already been demonstrated that something else can account for it; no "explanation" is necessary.

You can use God to account for anything, MiserableSinner. God is an ultimate cause. But science is not in the business of searching for ultimate causes. It is in the business of searching for proximate causes. I'll give an example.
Here's a scatter plot:

You can probably tell from the above that the data points on the Cartesian plane follow a certain pattern. How do we explain this pattern?
Using your logic, the best way to "explain" the pattern would not be to examine whether there is a relationship between variables x and y, but to simply attribute the pattern to the action of a miraculous designer. Does that really explain the pattern, though? Does it really help advance our understanding of the proximate causes that produce such a pattern? Does it allow us to make predictions about where future points should appear?
No.
If we want to understand the pattern, we have to come up with some mechanistic explanation as to what produces the pattern. The obvious explanation is that there is some linear relationship between the x and y variables. We can test this prediction by plotting a line of best fit and adding more combinations of variables to see whether they fall on the line more often than would be predicted by chance alone.
Evolution is likewise a proximate cause that allows us to explain the distribution of life and make predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, for example. This does not in any way negate the fact that God remains the ultimate cause, but confusing ultimate and proximate causes only leads to the kind of god-of-the-gaps theology you are espousing. Dangerous stuff.
You should really check out Gordon Glover's video on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6JS4V0pSEw

I have done nothing but indicate an alternate explanation and ask you to defend why yours is superior. Perhaps this defense is forthcoming. Perhaps not.

Descent with modification is a better explanation for the organization of life because it makes testable predictions. Your common designer explanation makes no testable predictions. It's not even falsifiable. How could we possibly rule out common design? How can you disprove God?

God? Plainly, any old designer will do. Nevertheless: Game, set, match.

We both know who the intelligent designer is. Don't act like you think it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[gluadys]

I note that you omit convergence. That comment was rhetorical, of course.

Anyway, you seem unable to distinguish between an observation and an explanation. Homology is what you observe. Phylogeny is how you explain it. Design also explains it. You do not "defend" an explanation by reciting the observation.

You opine that I should "explain how" something else can account for homology. Have you any familiarity with logic? It has already been demonstrated that something else can account for it; no "explanation" is necessary. The issue, as it has been from the beginning, is that you favor one explanation over the other. I have done nothing but indicate an alternate explanation and ask you to defend why yours is superior. Perhaps this defense is forthcoming. Perhaps not.

God? Plainly, any old designer will do. Nevertheless: Game, set, match.

Ok, I am having trouble with the idea that design produces homology.

I think we have got as far as understanding that homology is not simply similarity. It is a particular type of similarity--another type being analogy.

Where I am getting lost is that I cannot envision a non-biological homology. I can see that the bones in a bat's wing (along with nerve and muscle structure) are basically the same as those in the leg of a horse, the flipper of a whale, and the forelimb of a squirrel. So the same basic structure is used in a variety of forms and for different functions.

Is there anything remotely like this in Toyotas or Fords? Can anyone provide an example? What in an automobile would qualify as a homology (leaving aside the question of reproduction) and why would it be a homology rather than an analogy?

IOW once one removes the factor of reproduction and development (by which one can trace homologous features back to the same embryonic cells expressing the same genes) is it even possible to distinguish homology from analogy? If so, how?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Likewise, a Toyota pickup looks superficially more like a Ford pickup than it does many other Toyotas, but when you look at the details, you find that the Toyota is homologous to a Toyota sedan, and analogous to a Ford.
​

Perhaps you forget that the Toyota pickup and the Toyota sedan share the same designer.

Nope. Just pointing out that your metaphor doesn't work. But yes, most changes within an auto company are evolutionary. That's why the homologies exist. If they were separately designed, rather than derived from a common ancestor, they wouldn't have homologies. Of course, autos are designed, not created, so they don't have a strict set of homologies, as you see in living things.

Game, set, match.

Yep. As you now realize, homologies are seen in evolutionarily connected traits, while analogies are not. This is why they are such powerful evidence for evolution.

 

[MiserableSinner]

We both know who the intelligent designer is.

I refer to a non-divine designer; several billion of us exist. Did you know that we implemented homologous motor vehicle designs? Spare me your strawman fantasies, please. Focus on the issue.

Descent with modification is a better explanation for the organization of life because it makes testable predictions. [The] [...] designer explanation makes no testable predictions.

Response:

Observation: Design results in analogy (convergence).
Prediction: Organisms will exhibit convergence.​

Now, try this rhetorical device on for size:

"Similarities NOT due to phylogeny (but rather due to convergence) are termed analogies."
"Convergence cannot be used to infer to infer phylogenetic relationships."
Theory: Descent with modification.
Prediction: Organisms will not exhibit convergence.​

I'm not feeling it. You?

Observation: Characters are distributed among organisms following a nested hierarchical pattern.
Explanation: Descent with modification predicts this pattern.
In what way am I conflating observation with explanation here?

Thus you repudiate:

homology implies similarity due to common biological descent [...] homology [...] refers specifically to the similarity of features due to phylogeny [...] Homology [...] means similarity due to common ancestry

Barbarian,

You've still got some egg on your face. Advice: Think Before You Post.

Recall: "Design produces homology. Homology is evidence of evolution." Thus evolution is design. Dodge harder?

 

[Mallon]

I refer to a non-divine designer; several billion of us exist. Did you know that we implemented homologous motor vehicle designs? Spare me your strawman fantasies, please. Focus on the issue.

'Homology' refers only to imperfectly replicating biological systems. Not cars. Look it up in your biology text. You can't change the definition to suit your needs.

Response:

Observation: Design results in analogy (convergence).
Prediction: Organisms will exhibit convergence.

You're conflating terms again. Convergence refers to an evolutionary process whereby distantly related organisms converge on the same morphology in response to similar selective pressures. Yet you're trying to appeal to convergence in order to discount evolution. Sorry, but you're still not making any sense.

Now, try this rhetorical device on for size:

"Similarities NOT due to phylogeny (but rather due to convergence) are termed analogies."
"Convergence cannot be used to infer to infer phylogenetic relationships."
Theory: Descent with modification.
Prediction: Organisms will not exhibit convergence.

I'm not feeling it. You?

Your logic doesn't follow. Convergence is a perfectly acceptable scenario within evolution. We simply don't use it to infer phylogeny. We only use shared derived characters (synapomorphies, a type of homology) to infer phylogeny. You're conflating the process of evolution with the process of reconstructing phylogenies. Again, you should really slow down and learn about the things you're trying to argue against because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

 

[The Barbarian]

Response:

Observation: Design results in analogy (convergence).
Prediction: Organisms will exhibit convergence.​

But that isn't what happens. We see, instead of analogy in the nested hierarchy, homology. We don't see the same functions, but rather all sorts of functions, using the same, but modified structures. The opposite of convergence.

Analogies exist, especially where selective pressure is strong. Sharks, dolphins, and icthyosaurs all are convergent, and show analogous structures, which are formed from different structures in different ways.

Now, try this rhetorical device on for size:

"Similarities NOT due to phylogeny (but rather due to convergence) are termed analogies."
"Convergence cannot be used to infer to infer phylogenetic relationships."
Theory: Descent with modification.
Prediction: Organisms will not exhibit convergence.​

And that's quite right. Convergence, like shark/dolphin, or wolf/thylacine doesn't involve common descent with regard to the analogous organs. And when we check other data, like DNA, it confirms the fact. However, it always fits in the cases of analogy. And homology never shows up where the hierarchy of organisms doesn't indicate common descent.

I'm not feeling it. You?

It's a curable condition. But you have to put in a little work to understand biology. Worth a try.

You've still got some egg on your face. Advice: Think Before You Post.

See above. Not a good day for you, um?

Design produces homology. Homology is evidence of evolution." Thus evolution is design.

Let's take a look at that reasoning: "Cold fronts produce clouds. Clouds are evidence of water. Thus water is a cold front."

Something is wrong with that reasoning. Can you guess how you can fix it?

Dodge harder?

Nope. That won't help.

 

[MiserableSinner]

'Homology' refers only to imperfectly replicating biological systems. Not cars. Look it up in your biology text. You can't change the definition to suit your needs.

I object to the biological definition of homology. I expect you to defend the definition, rather than reassert it.

My grounds are simple: Structural similarity is the observation that undergirds homology. Such similarities are evident amidst groups of motor vehicles and amidst groups of organisms. Thus, since structural similarity can be produced by separate sources, the source of a particular example of structural similarity cannot be inferred simply on the basis of its presence. Thus, the structural similarities exhibited by organisms do not imply phylogeny.

It is therefore inappropriate to conflate phylogeny with homology, or to defend such conflation with semantics.

Descent with modification is a better explanation for the organization of life because it makes testable predictions. Your common designer explanation makes no testable predictions.

Observation: Design results in analogy (convergence).
Prediction: Organisms will exhibit convergence.

Sorry, but you're still not making any sense.

It's a design prediction. Also, you can stop attempting to educate me, if you like.

 

[pgp_protector]

It's a design prediction. Also, you can stop attempting to educate me, if you like.

I'm so saving that quote

 

[gluadys]

I refer to a non-divine designer; several billion of us exist. Did you know that we implemented homologous motor vehicle designs? Spare me your strawman fantasies, please. Focus on the issue.

Example?

 

[Mallon]

It's a design prediction

It can't be. That miraculous design can produce evolutionary convergence is an oxymoron.

Also, you can stop attempting to educate me, if you like.

I can only hope you will educate yourself, then. You can start with the websites I provided. Some good books on natural theology couldn't hurt, either. Gordon Glover's Beyond the Firmament is a good one.

 

[Mallon]

It can't be. That miraculous design can produce evolutionary convergence is an oxymoron.

For those who would stumble in their faith over this, I should point out that there really is no conflict between evolution and design because the final design of any system stands apart from the way it was made. Each of us is designed by God, for example, even though we develop in our mothers' wombs quite naturally. So too it is with evolution. It's important not to conflate design with magically poofing things into existence. That's why I specified above that evolution stands in contrast to miraculous design. It does not stand in contrast to the doctrine of design. The two are quite compatible.

 

[MiserableSinner]

It can't be. That miraculous design can produce evolutionary convergence is an oxymoron.

I'm not talking about miraculous design:

I refer to a non-divine designer; several billion of us exist.

I'm also not talking about evolutionary convergence:

Design results in analogy (convergence).

The parenthetical statement is a clue that I am referring to the observation of similarities unexplainable by heredity and positing an alternate explanation (i.e., design, instead of selective pressures). I am sure you have long since forgotten, but it was in fact Barbarian who has correctly explained that design results in analogy. But, once again, you demonstrate your inability to distinguish between an observation and an explanation. Please stop.

Moreover, the fact that you haven't understood even one of my arguments and keep committing the same basic scientific errors is a clue that your perception of my ignorance may be inaccurate.

Summary of what we've learned so far:

Design results in homology and analogy.
Design correctly predicts analogy in organisms.

Conclusion: It is inappropriate to automatically assume that any given example of homology is not due to design, thus fossils should not simply be labeled "transitional."

We have also learned that the only observed designers are non-divine.

It's important not to conflate design with magically poofing things into existence.

So don't do it; the only person talking about miraculous design is you.

Example?

the Toyota is homologous to a Toyota sedan, and analogous to a Ford

Who said this?