> >TG: "Do similarities and the nested
> >patterns found in biological world support common design and
> >common ancestry equivalently?"
> SJ: I am still wondering why it must be either-or. Why can it not
> be both-and? It is not difficult imagining an Intelligent Designer
> creating new designs based at least partly on pre-existing genetic
> code.
> The real issue is not whether there is a tree of life (creationists
> could for the sake of argument concede there was), but what made it
> grow?
I suspect the difference here concerns the neaning of "common
ancestry". If creation involves any introduction of new information,
can we reasonably argue that there is no break in ancestry? My
personal preference is to speak of a monophyletic theory of origins
when referring to the evolutionary tree concept, and a polyphyletic
theory of origins where ancestral relationships convey the impression
of a forest (rather than a tree). The point you make about the use
of pre-existing genetic code is valid - although I would point out
that the argument still applies if the code concerned exists only in
the Creator's mind prior to creation.
Thanks for other points - here deleted. We are on common ground - and
you yourself draw attention to the Tree/Forest/Bush models.
> DT>Kurt contrasts the lack of evolutionary explanations for the
> >observations with that supplied by ID. By analogy with human
> >creativity, a nested hierarchy is expected.....
>
> SJ: I am not sure that Kurt's argument is sound here. Humans almost
> never create in a nested hierarchy of form. They classify things
> after the event in a nested hierarchy (eg. a library) but books are
> not written in in such a pattern. Books transpose topics, eg.
> Theology - Philosophy - Science, and they have to be cross-
> referenced in any library index.
Thanks for this comment. I thought when trying to summarise Kurt -
that this argument is not developed at all! I think you have
clarified things in my mind - ID advocates still need to develop a
coherent model to understand nested patterns.
> SJ: An evolutionary tree is not the only way to depict life's nested
> hierarchy of form. Cladists find an evolutionary tree is less
> helpful than a cladogram. Michael Pitman ("Adam and Evolution",
> Rider & Co: London, 1984), prefers the metaphor of chinese boxes.
A cladogram is surely a legitimate way of presnting and discussing
data. When stripped of its evolutionary overtones, cladistics could
provide a meaningful channel of communication between biologists
working within different paradigms.
Thanks for the feedback,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***