The actual model is rather more like this: (a) start with a jawless fish with no jaws but lots of gill arches (b) the first few gill arches evolve into jaws (c) much later, this now-jawed lineage splits into teleost fish (most modern "fish") on the one hand, and tetrapods+lungfish and relatives on the other.Keep in mind that the reason this is how the process is thought to have occurred is because of similarities in structure combined with a supposed functional advantage. This is how the process works – data is viewed through evolutionary spectacles and then unwarranted extrapolations are made. The key, for the neo-Darwinist, is not whether or not a process can be shown that produces common descent, but whether or not similarity in structure can be found. Thus, the gist of criticism such as Serge’s (and mine) is tossed aside under the pretense of nonsensical. One commenter to P.Z. Myers website even commented that my arguments never tell how anything occurred and, interestingly enough, that he found my arguments regarding “posts on how the bible doesn’t have moral relativism” to be “particuarlly [sic] funny” (one wonders what such an addendum has to do with cranial nerves - especially if all the neo-Darwinist is interested in are scientific explanations?). The problem with the reasoning going on by the neo-Darwinists is that they ignore the aspect of intentions – designer’s intentions. Should we assume that a lack of one for one correspondence between cranial nerves and pharyngeal arches is indicative of evolutionary processes, or should we assume that such a lack of correspondence indicates design? Consider the processes involved in engineering and construction projects. Although there are a variety of types of projects (e.g., refinery, power plant, highway, telecommunications) they typically involve using similar processes with which to achieve project completion. However, there are times when a particular phase of a project does not start even though it is physically possible to do so. In many government projects such an occurrence is usually due to the fact that the phase is not only dependent on its physical predecessor, but on legislated monetary funding as well. Government projects have the idiosyncrasy of having additional pathways, through which activities must flow, in order to achieve project completion. That such red tape stricken processes may be inefficient is beside the point, for what must be understood is that despite it appearing that a designer would not have chosen such a pathway, it is an intelligently designed pathway nonetheless. Another example would be that of a software system designed to produce monthly data for a company with regards to the status of a particular project’s financial status. Suppose that we find out that the same type of monthly data for two different projects is produced by different software code pathways. What gives? Would we be justified in concluding, because the two different pathways produced similar type of data, that the pathways were not intelligently designed? Certainly not. And not simply because we happen to know that the software was intelligently designed. The error in such a conclusion is due to the fact that the outside observer is simply not aware of why the different pathways were used. It just so happens that the type of contract the project was brokered under will determine the manner in which the financial data is calculated. This key factor indicates why two dissimilar pathways are used to achieve similar outcomes. Without understanding the full parameters of the process, as well as the intentions of the designers, claims that the system was not designed are unwarranted. That similar structures can be purposely designed to produce various functions, and that various structures can be purposely designed to produce similar functions, indicates that the designer's intentions must be considered when analyzing how functional systems came to be. And intentions can only come about through a mind. --- For further reference, check several posts I wrote regarding how planning and scheduling relates to the concept of intelligent design. I didn't Plan it that way... What are your intentions?... Attributes of the Designer... A Scheduling Nightmare... ---- Update: check Unintelligent Design, at the NYT, for another example of unwarranted assumptions. HT: World
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Something's fishy here...
In the responses to Serge’s post, Pharyngeal Phantasies?, over at Imago Dei, we see continued examples of how neo-Darwinists approach the idea of common descent in a circular fashion. If you recall, Serge raised the question, “if the structures of the human face evolved from gills in a fish, why are CN V and VII, derivatives of the first and second pharyngeal arches, not present in fish gills?” Serge was immediately taken to task for not only having too simplistic an understanding of the processes at hand, but for mistaking that we should expect evolution to operate in such a manner as to produce a one for one correlation between organisms which supposedly shared a common ancestor. Yet the arguments presented illustrate that the neo-Darwinists already assume that the evolutionary process has answered the question. Consider this scenario one dissenter presented: