tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post5916166767063776850..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Arguments from similarityEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-67663374159755373622011-10-10T14:42:46.356+00:002011-10-10T14:42:46.356+00:00The principle to which you appeal, "The real ...The principle to which you appeal, "The real principle we need to appeal to is that things which are similar are (or are highly likely to be) similar by a common nature or cause," needs justification. A weaker one, "things which are similar are (or are highly likely to be) similar by similar natures or causes," would seem sufficient.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12547302679904413077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-86248647966518793322011-10-10T12:29:50.115+00:002011-10-10T12:29:50.115+00:00"But is there a simpler explanation?"
P..."But is there a simpler explanation?"<br /><br />Putting your (adopted?) surname to one side, common descent is not just a simpler explanation but also a much more powerful one.<br /><br />I think the creationist author used the term "unqualified" because it is only at the very simple, basic, unqualified level of "there are similarities" that "design" and "descent" are at all comparable.<br /><br />The eyes of the fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals are wired "backwards": the nerves are on the surface of the eye and the sensors that sense the light are covered by them. Mollusc eyes are not wired backwards, light enters the eye and falls directly onto the sensors, the nerve "wiring" is behind. <br /><br />Common descent can explain that: the fish, mammals etc share a common ancestor with eyes whilst the common ancestor of that group and the molluscs was blind. Design cannot explain that, there is no reason a designer could not reuse the mollusc eye when coming up with frogs, or humans.Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-18419958309833475782011-10-10T11:49:47.596+00:002011-10-10T11:49:47.596+00:00I fail to see the point of the EvolutionNews artic...I fail to see the point of the EvolutionNews article you link to, or indeed the WP page it locks horns with, except in so far as their respective authors see their efforts as propaganda. Both sides seem to write for an audience they think to be looking for some kind of proof of their respective positions. I may have a rather strict notion of proof but I can't see either side coming up with a convincing argument without adopting premisses even stronger and hence less acceptable than the ones they use now. 150-odd years ago Darwin looked around him and came up with a wonderful guess as to how the diversity of species arose. Since then we have been working out the details. The WP article is utterly ahistorical in that none of the observations it discusses could have played a part in Darwin's thinking. And yet none of them is, as far as I'm aware, inconsistent with the modern elaboration of his great idea. I'm content to leave it there.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com