Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

Hi Robin, Think about this statement for a minute . When was DNA discovered? When were reliable sequencing techniques developed? Well after the theory of evolution was established.That the molecular phylogenies would match up to those drawn up by analysing fossils was a clear prediction, once the techniques were in place. The experiments were then done to test that prediction. Nothing ad hoc about it - just in the past.As a matter of interest (and to keep on topic) do you see a problem with this reasoning? Or do you feel that it has been badly explained in this and other posts? Edit: Oh Bum! Mod has just beaten me to it! In a much more effective way.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-03-2006 03:38 PM

This is quite an interesting statement. I view both types of evidence as extremely direct tests for change over time.Can you explain why you think that fossils - and the predictions borne out by them - are direct but sequences of DNA are indirect? Maybe I've missed it somewhere upthread

I think I see.You've accepted the framework of predictions and tests that have been carried out to show that the fossils support the ToE. You agree that the Rocks are indeed ancient. All of that is very touchable, 'real' science to you. You can accept the conclusions drawn from those tests: that Today's species evolved by changing over time in a very particular way.The molecular evidence comes at the problem from a different angle, but is surely no less direct. Today's species must have come from somewhere. Morphology and fossils suggest an order in which things evolved. Molecular evidence tests this order and comes up trumps. Just because it came later than the first fossil data doesn't make it any less valid, surely?

As WK has already pointed out, I don't think this is a fair asessment of the molecular evidence but that is definitely a topic's worth on its own. Suffice to say that it throws up enough questions about special creation to suggest evolution . Besides, I've been mulling this over and think that this statement is more revealing about the different attitudes: This appears to be one of the main differences in how the two sides approach the argument, and is therefore of vital importance to understand.It seems to me that arguments which are more symphathetic to the creationist side will constantly think of pieces of evidence totally independent of one another. As a result they often attempt to pick them apart one by one, hoping that it will unravel the whole theory.Those coming from the evolution side of things are more likely to view it as a body of evidence. The evidence should be viewed as struts which form a very solid supporting framework for a theory. No one strut is more important than the others because they answer different questions. The only difference is the order they went up.Hope that makes my position clearer - I fear that I may have gone over the top with the analogies

I not accusing you of that.But you were arguing that the molecular evidence for evolution could not stand up on its own. You were arguing that special creation was just as likely an explanation. This is certainly an argument which is sympathetic to the creationist cause. In fact, it's one of their common rallying calls. so am I. My point is that by viewing fossils and molecular evidence as independent strands of evidence, and by ranking one over the other, I think that you fall into the same trap as creationists do. I suppose what I want to know is why.