1. Firstly, creationists will always deny that junk DNA is in fact junk. They will say that just because we have no idea what it does, that doesn't mean it does nothing. I can't address this in the article, so is there another way that I can 'uncouple' biochemistry from anatomy, or otherwise validate this method?
Well, in the first place most non-coding DNA is not conserved.
In the second place, I believe I'm right in saying that people have made experimental organisms where they've snipped out large chunks of nonconserved noncoding DNA, with the organisms being none the worse for it.
2. The 'assumption' of common descent, rather than common design. Creationists seem to think that designed objects, like cars, can be categorised in a nesting manner too. So they don't see nesting as evidence of anything. I've currently got this:
Well, your answer looks good to me. I don't think I can add much to that except the words: "Oh no they don't", or perhaps: "Bollocks".
By the way, I do like that page. I especially like the cladograms contrasting cladogenesis and orthogenesis. Do you have the copyright info for those pictures?
I believe that this exquisite example of the illustrator's craft was composed by one of the more talented of the new generation of artists, a young man who calls himself "Dr Adequate", using a highly sophisticated piece of software that those of us "in the know" refer to simply as "Microsoft Paint".
Do you think contributing to two wikis would be too much for you? EvoWiki could always do with more contributors. Otherwise, I'd just ask you to link to some of our pages in your external links sections. For example, we have a very (very!) comprehensive article on Archaeopteryx. In fact, it's bordering on unreadable, being authored by a paleornithology student. I'll certainly be linking to the SkepticWiki in future!
Well, the SkepticWiki, like other wikis, is non-profit, non-copyright, take anything you like from it. That way, if I write an article on evolution, I can contribute to two wikis for the effort of contributing to one.
However, I do think, strange that it may seem, that we
ought to duplicate our efforts. When I'm writing an article like that, I look at talkorigins and the EvoWiki
last, to see if there's anything I've missed. It's good that people come at it from different perspectives and different angles, using different examples and references.
I see what you mean about the
Archaeopteryx article.
Here's mine.
Sometimes, a picture really
is worth a thousand words.
---
P.S: Not only is the phrase "twin-nested heirarchy" not an actual term in biology, but even if it was, it would be spelt "hierarchy".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.