Flann 5 wrote:
The problem for me Harry is that R.D.is well aware of the problem of conflicting family trees in comparative genomes yet flat out asserts that on the contrary these show clear cut hierarchies and a "perfect family tree."
This is simply false. These problems are well known by biologists.
Well, you know what Kuhn found about new paradigms - the resistance from advocates of the old paradigm can be downright intransigent. I looked at the guardian piece and it does look interesting, and new to me.
I knew about micro-organisms exchanging genetic material - in fact that was the basis for Rifkin's objections to GMO's and still has not received a satisfactory answer.
I also know about hybrids - usually these are sterile, which is a requirement for declaring separate groups to be separate species. They are allowed to have interbreeding capacity, but the offspring must be, at least for the most part, sterile.
It may be a while before I get around to checking out "new creationist" and "new geologist" source material. Creationists are just not honest. Whenever one of their anomalies gets explained, they just move on to some other new material.
The fundamental problem is that science needs to be a program for investigation. When an anomaly shows up, if nobody has a hypothesis for following up further investigation of a mechanism, there is no place for it. It cannot be turned into science. If creationism ever gets around to positing a mechanism that is based on special creation and can be investigated, then it has some chance of being supported by evidence. But so far the extent of their science is "there are anomalies" and they have no mechanism to explain that, which might be investigable.
Flann 5 wrote:The theory has lots of problems but for a philosophical naturalist it's the only game in town.
I think that is quite literally true. There is no alternative conceptual structure with any possibility of being investigated.
Flann 5 wrote:Homology of limbs can just as easily be explained by common design as common ancestry.
So what difference does it make? If a designer works by ancestry, as is overwhelmingly the case, then ancestry is the mechanism. And if there is some other mechanism, how can we sniff it out and elucidate its workings?