The Discovery Institute is back on track with a new post that purports to expose one of the glaring “weaknesses” of evolution theory. Their title is: Does Similarity Imply Common Ancestry? It was written by Cornelius Hunter — a Discoveroid “fellow” who teaches at a bible college.
Cornelius stunned all of us recently when he defended the Inquisition’s heresy trial of Galileo — see Discovery Institute Defends the Inquisition. Let’s find out what he has for us today. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
According to evolution, the species arose as a consequence of random events, such as mutations. Yet the biological world is full of repeated designs.
Repeated designs! Then he says:
These so-called convergences are ubiquitous. And while a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory is that similarity implies common ancestry, convergences are similarities found in more distant species — they cannot have arisen from a common ancestor. This falsifies the fundamental tenet that similarity implies common ancestry.
Gasp — the evolutionary concept of common ancestry is falsified! Ponder that, dear reader. Cornelius implies that similarity of function can only be the result of common ancestry, not Convergent evolution. If that were true, it would mean that according to evolution, because birds and bats can fly, they must be direct descendants of flying insects.
Cornelius’ principle that a phenomenon can have only one cause makes sense in the context of intelligent design, because devotees of that “theory” claim that everything in the universe is “explained” as having one cause. That cause is the magical work of the intelligent designer — blessed be he!
After his stunning announcement, Cornelius tells us:
The tension can be further amplified by complexity and multiplicity. With similarities in different species that are highly complex, it can be difficult to explain how they evolved once, let alone twice in independent lineages.
He’s right. Darwin was a fool!
Cornelius concludes his brief post with a reference to a press release about what he says is: “a new study out of Germany on the evolution of jawed vertebrates called ‘astonishing examples of repeated evolution’.” However, the abstract of the published paper doesn’t seem to support Cornelius’ creationist conclusions — see Phylotranscriptomic consolidation of the jawed vertebrate timetree.
This “one cause” principle has far-reaching consequences. In the context of physics, for example, it would mean that if something contracts, it can only be the result of one thing, like gravity — not cooling, or electromagnetic attraction, some external pressure, or any other cause. Now we’ll have to re-think everything!
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.