This is only a minor point, not like the one I was making with Spasms nor what Mioism may think is less than a whole but one I am sure you can get.
The word “product” is not one that an evolutionist would use (like we may recognize that “purpose” or “progress” are not ones either) but it can be found in Darwin’s work “product of evolution”( I can retrieve it from Goulds work). It is not meant that organisms are products like lawn mowers or hats but if ID were true it would be important for a creationist to explain what aspect of biological change creates what kinds of “products”. I can imagine a USE of evolutionary theory where we may (by artificially selecting natural selection groups) get some suchresults (this is what I intended under the term “ecosystem engineering”
http://aexion.org/ecosystemengineering.aspx ) but with the generation of some such productions the flesh of this generation would include some kind of “design” made as far as the ductility of evolutionary theory permits . This is the kind of thing lacking in current expositions of ID and creationism as far as I see it.
One would be in a precarious position as
vis a via the/a definition of homology if such a state of ecological research were to develop ( thus I am not saying that creationism has this documentability to its credit nor in it’s “hopper” even if I might). While researching a response to Spasms I came across a creationist distinction that would imply that an exaptation would need be designed by creationists in this instance where one may speak of nonessential functionality later made functional by “creation science” of these ”products’ but it would be obvious that an organ that was similar without function(al explanation) that later becomes artificially selected for and exists is still the same “homologous” organ no matter the artificiality in the selection. There may even be genetic issues that prevent such products from being designed but/and I had not taken this analysis beyond a simple phenotypic devolution.
I hope I have not made my couple of senetences more confusing. This idea is a little bit more involved than a creationist one where they may claim, as you noted, homologies are controlled by functional constraints wholly. I would suggest that that is too narrow a perspective for the creationist who thinks thus. In either case, the creationist who discusses as you noticed
quote:
For example, during development mammals develop pharangeal arches that seem to be homologous with a fish embryo's pharangeal arches. But, the pharangeal arch stage is essential for the development of individuals in both species as part of their "somatic program" so this would be considered a functional constraint.
or my own demands that the genetic base of this “somatic” program be detailed. The onus in that case would be on both of us. By calling it a “program” this other creationist would have already decided that there was a latent functionality already missed by the evolutionist while in my scenario I would say that the designer, man, creates the function (in a different sense than exaptation) that was not there before (aptation vs exaptation evolutionarily ( I am not sure Gould got aptation correct but this is taking the dissection a bit further from the creationist slant I am presenting here
Defintions and Levels of Analysis(html)
http://tbeauchaine.psych.washington.edu/...s/definitions.pdf)
I am in agreement with all in you last two paragraphs. I just thought that the “neutral” region was a bit larger than you wrote of. That is all. That is why I thought that a creationist would have an even larger issue in their brains than the evolutionist (this is why for instance Beauchaine in the pdf above can wonder why Gould had not defined the term expatation biologically first and foremost (Gould’s use of the word “feature” has never worked fully for me))if scientific creationism could create “homologies” that they had thought were “independently created by God”. Now they would find that the independence was a function of their own thought not Gods’.
™ Version 4.2
