Intelligent Design

Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy

Spread the love

In my previous article, I presented a critique of the first of Wikipedia’s eight lines of evidence for common descent: the evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry. In this article, I will discuss the second of those lines of argument, namely, the evidence from comparative anatomy.

Click here to continue reading>>>

22 Replies to “Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy

  1. 1
    Mirrortothesun says:

    Here’s the problem with every single post on this site, including this one. They are all examples of motivated reasoning. The authors start with what they wish were the truth– that evolution is false– and then they look desperately for evidence that their wish is true. They construct arguments around that wish. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas.

  2. 2
    Eocene says:

    DOUBLE STANDARD and Pot Calling Kettle Black!!!

    Your telling everyone that pure as the driven snow Lab Coated scientists never have bias inserted into their own evolutionary experiments and NEVER once set out to prove their worldview ??? You mean every experiment they’ve ever conducted showed up proving evolution by some lucky accident ???

    Somewhere Gerald “The Closet IDer” Joyce has fallen off a chair!

  3. 3
    Eugene S says:

    Some people have elevated the idea of evolution to the rank of religion. Little wonder, no argumentation helps in such cases.

  4. 4
    Petrushka says:

    Most vertebrate evolution occurs at the level of gene expression. There are few gene differences that distinguish mammals.

    The human tail is not caused by a mutant gene, but by an anomaly in development. Most “atavisisms” would fall into this category. I birds, the anomally can be induced. Something like this induced gene expression switching caused the Thalidomide babies.

    It doesn’t change the fact that the genes for bird teeth exist or that the genes for tails exists in humans. It just means that the expression of these genes is normally switched off, and occasionally not.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Mirror, now those are some pretty strong accusations. Now please help me here, here is a short condensed list of Theistic arguments that trump any purported atheistic counter arguments. Please show me where the superiority of Theism over Atheism is contrived in any way in any of these arguments and/or how materialism provides a more coherent answer to any of them?!

    Richard Dawkins Lies About William Lane Craig AND Logic! – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1cfqV2tuOI

    1. Argument From Contingency – God is the best explanation for why anything exists rather than nothing.

    2. Kalam Cosmological Argument – God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

    3. Teleological Argument – God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe for intelligent life.

    4. Moral Argument – God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties in the world,,, even for the existence of evil which is a departure from the way things ‘ought’ to be.

    5. Ontological Argument – modal – The very possibility of God’s existence entails that God exists.

    6, Comprehensibility Argument – God is the best explanation for why the universe can be grasped and understood by the mind of man in the first place.

    7. Law Like Structure Argument – God is the best explanation for why the universe obeys a set of invariant transcendent laws.

    God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – article discussing each argument
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ml?start=1

    Reasonable Faith – Dr. William Lane Craig’s official website:
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

  6. 6

    Can you name an experiment in which a scientist has set out to “prove their worldview”?

    But it’s interesting that you sense a double standard, because, of course, that’s exactly what it looks like from the other side as well.

    Which is something both sides might like to consider.

  7. 7
    MedsRex says:

    You know wiki could have published an entry called “Evidence for and against Common Descent” or allow an additional entry entitled “Evidence against CD” or publish the entry almost exactly as is but include a section of counter-arguments….etc. An insane idea, I know.

  8. 8
    Eocene says:

    “Can you name an experiment in which a scientist has set out to “prove their worldview”?
    ====

    I gave you one just above at the bottom of my post.
    —-

    “But it’s interesting that you sense a double standard, because, of course, that’s exactly what it looks like from the other side as well.”
    ====

    Totally agree, but I was responding to the poster who was bashing “every single post on this site” as he put it.
    —–

  9. 9
    kellyhomes says:

    MedsRex,
    I guess the great think about the whole Wiki idea is that you yourself can go and propose that right now on the relevant page and even start to put it together yourself to prove it’s workable and worth doing.

    There are also some great alternative resources out there that are not afraid to speak it as they see it, for example:

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

    What I do find surprising however is that they have a section devoted to Creation science and Creationist explanations for the Kangaroo, a paragraph on evolution and even one on the Dreamtime:

    Some Australian Aborigines believe that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the Dreamtime.

    But surprisingly no ID viewpoint on the origin of the Kangaroo. Personally I would not know where to start with that, but anybody else got any ideas/thoughts/evidence about how ID explains the Kangaroo?

  10. 10
    Petrushka says:

    I gave you one just above at the bottom of my post.

    A link would help.

  11. 11

    I gave you one just above at the bottom of my post.

    Don’t see one, could you give a link?

    Totally agree, but I was responding to the poster who was bashing “every single post on this site” as he put it.

    Fair enough 🙂

  12. 12
    Joseph says:

    1- Wikipedia admits that it is not a credible source of information

    2- Comparative anatomy can be evidence for a common design and/ or convergence

    3- Descent with modification does not predict/ expect a nested hierarchy.

  13. 13
    Joseph says:

    There isn’t any evidence that one type of vertebrate can “evolve” into another type and there isn’t any way to scientifically test the claim.

    THAT is the main problem…

  14. 14
    kellyhomes says:

    Joseph,
    Why do you have “evolve” in “scare quotes”?

    If ID is not anti-evolution as you say then what gives with the quotes?

  15. 15
    kellyhomes says:

    Joseph,

    1: And? Does that mean that if you have the facts on your side you should not attempt it anyway? What kind of defeatist attitude is that?

    2: Is there anything that differentiates common design and common descent?

    3: What sort of hierarchy does it predict/expect?

  16. 16
    rhampton7 says:

    How do you define “type”? For example, do you believe wolves evolved from foxes?

  17. 17
    kellyhomes says:

    From reading Joseph’s somewhat disturbing blog it seems Joe is a baraminologist. As such “type” probably just means “kind” as they define it.

    Joseph, could I perhaps suggest you get out more? You blog is, well, let’s put it like this: It’s a valuable insight into your personality and how your mind works.

  18. 18
    Collin says:

    Jonathan,

    This is a great article and made me think a lot. Thank you.

    I especially enjoyed learning about how different chordates develop their neural tubes in different manners. That makes me think that a designer was implementing a common design in different ways to suit different animals.

  19. 19
    MedsRex says:

    Kelly, your idea is great. What I will do is suggest that wiki links to jonathon m’s articles. . .you know when I get time between my 3 jobs. Just one point regarding wiki’s credibility via analogy: if I were to consider dating a girl who stated, in no uncertain terms, that she was a cheater, should I be shocked when I catch her with the pizza man?

  20. 20
    Acipenser says:

    if your only considering dating a girl why should she conform to any of your expectations? it’s not like you committed any effort into any relationship with the poor gal outside of ‘considering dating her’. So no, why should you be surprised to find her with the pizza guy.

  21. 21
    Acipenser says:

    your= you’re .—=/

  22. 22
    MedsRex says:

    Oops..i should have added: once I do decide to give her a chance. :p I truly meant to. But your point is legitimate AP. however, I wont be too shocked if Wiki turns down suggestions for a more even-handed entry.

Leave a Reply