Panda writes:
quote:
3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between anatomical homology and developmental pathways / precursors? Since such congruence is a prediction of neo-Darwinism,why isn’t it observed? Moreover, not only are there different embryological (i.e. non-homologous) processes and different genetic mechanisms to apparently homologous organs. But there is also the conundrum of homologous genetic mechanisms for analogous (i.e. non-homologous) organs. And then there is also the problem of homologous structures arising from different embryological sources, utterly undermining the evolutionary explanation. Isn’t the most straightforward reading of these facts that the adult organs have not been derived from a common ancestor? Why is it that you are happy to use those instances where embryological development and adult similarities are consistent as evidence of common descent, but set aside those instances where they are not consistent?
I would be very surprised if this question (for example) was asked during a verbal debate.
Unless you were at a biology conference, I doubt that 90% of people could understand the question - and I would expect the 90% wouldn't understand the answer either.
What I would be wary of is if they translate the
answer question into layman's terms.
Unless you can reply in similar terms, then the audience will only 'understand' the question and not understand the answer.
This could then mean that Myers loses 'by default'.
Will his audience really be that educated in biology?
(I know that I am having trouble understanding some of the questions - and they are written down. If they were read out to me, I would probably need them repeated.)
When is homology not homology? I think evolutionists need to sort out the basics of their science before trying to answer the hard questions ....
"In the quarter-century since de Beer published his essay,
many additional examples have corroborated his conclusions.
It is now clear that several distinct kinds of
dissociations can evolve between homologous genes and
homologous aspects of morphology [2,3,4,5] (Figure 1).
In such cases, homology at one level of biological organization
does not reflect homology at another [6,7].
Furthermore, evolutionary dissociations of this kind may
be more common than is generally appreciated, particularly
when comparisons are made across deep
phylogenetic divides."
http://biology.mcgill.ca/...s/Wray,%20%20Abouheif%201998.pdf
™ Version 4.2
