Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In other words, phylogenetic reconstruction is sheer fantasy …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s some research done 100 miles down the road from me. Note the sentence highlighted. The actual phylogenies here were experimentally known and yet standard evolutionary theory drew completely wrong conclusions. Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me.

“Exceptional Convergent Evolution in a Virus”
Bull JJ, Badgett MR, Wichman HA, Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM, Gulati A, Ho C, Molineux IJ.
Department of Zoology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin 78712, USA. bull@bull.zo.utexas.edu

Replicate lineages of the bacteriophage phiX 174 adapted to growth at high temperature on either of two hosts exhibited high rates of identical, independent substitutions. Typically, a dozen or more substitutions accumulated in the 5.4-kilobase genome during propagation. Across the entire data set of nine lineages, 119 independent substitutions occurred at 68 nucleotide sites. Over half of these substitutions, accounting for one third of the sites, were identical with substitutions in other lineages. Some convergent substitutions were specific to the host used for phage propagation, but others occurred across both hosts. Continued adaptation of an evolved phage at high temperature, but on the other host, led to additional changes that included reversions of previous substitutions. Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data. Replicate lineages subjected to similar environmental challenges showed similar rates of substitution and similar rates of fitness improvement across corresponding times of adaptation. Substitution rates and fitness improvements were higher during the initial period of adaptation than during a later period, except when the host was changed.

PMID: 9409816 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Comments
Alan Fox:
Such a tiny can nonetheless result in a large effect in the phenotype, for example as occurs with the mutation that results in achondroplasia.
But that doesn't even lead to a new species. You not only need to account for new species but new body plans and body parts.Joseph
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Blimey! Such a tiny change can...Alan Fox
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Such a tiny change>/b> can...Alan Fox
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Chromosome restructurings are instantaneous and so were all creative evolutionary events. Gradualism is just one more defect in the Darwinian model.
The minimum mutation that can occur when DNA is replicated is a change in a single nucleotide. Such a tiny can nonetheless result in a large effect in the phenotype, for example as occurs with the mutation that results in achondroplasia. Would Dr. Davison consider this a saltational event? If so, all mutations are instantaneous saltations. Or are we playing semantic games here?Alan Fox
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
I have no idea how complex cecal valves are, so I am not going to that argument against the Darwinian mechanism being responsible for these results. But if this incredibly quick change happened in a Darwinian fashion, that means at least one lizard developed cecal valves, giving it a selection advantage, leading to the trait spreading throughout the population. Forget the wildly short time scale, how much of an advantage it really is, etc...if just 10 lizards without cecal valves was able to come up with a cecal-valve-weilding lizard within 36 years (presumably early in the period, to allow the proliferation of the trait, assuming a Darwinian mechanism), wouldn't the same genetic mutation be present in some lizards in a population of hundreds or thousands on their home island? If it really was an "accident" that the feature arose on the new island, wouldn't the same "accident" happen at the same rate on the home island, even if they aren't advantageous? I'm not saying that the home island should also be loaded with lizards with cecal valves, just that SOME lizards should have cecal valves just due to genetic mutations (if, presumably, that's how it arose on the new island). If there aren't any cecal valves on the home island, this is a clear case of some type of front-loaded evolution: biological structures responding to environmental changes, not environmental changes selecting random biological structure change.uoflcard
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Pav Chromosome restructurings are instananeous and so were all creative evolutionary events. Gradualism is just one more defect in the Darwinian model. I do not believe that any organism ever gradually transformed into another one, and I know of not a single example of its occurrence.JohnADavison
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Pav in #77 That is an interesting example. What is critical is back crossing the transplanted forms to the parental forms on the original island and to do these crosses reciprocally to look for possible maternal effects. It is not unusual for transplanted animals to undergo great initial increases in number and variability. Witness the population explosions that characterized the introduction of the English Sparrow when it was introduced into North America and the rabbits when introduced into Australia. If this is truly Lamarckian it should be reflected genetically and if it is, it will very signifcant. I will remain skeptical until such demonstration materializes. Once again, the proof is in the genetic experiments. Darwin's finches also show profound morphological changes related to diet which are clearly not Lamarckian because they are freely reversible. Many organisms have hidden phenotypic lability which selection can act upon. Any reversible effect is neither Lamarckian nor Darwinian because evolution has never been a reversible phenomenon.JohnADavison
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Tribune 7 Thanks for calling attention to my papers, something I have been recommending for some time. In it one can find an explicit explanation of semi-meiotic cytology complete with a diagram and two examples of its occurrence in contemporary organisms. The same explanation and diagram can be found in my unpublished "An Evolutionary Manifesto" also available on the side board here and elsewhere. The Manifesto, some 50 pages in length, summarizes my evolutionary perspective circa 2000. Since then my views have changed some with an emphasis on my conviction that evolution is no longer in progress. Of course none of this is acceptable to the Darwinians which is fine with me! Thanks again.JohnADavison
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
shuangman: In response to your post [76], I suggest you try and find some of the writings of the 19th century engineer Ferguson Jenkin ( there is no 's' at the end!). He develops an argument that goes along the line that as the more complex something becomes, the fewer the possibilities there are for newer forms. He uses the example of a crystal to make his point. It's been four years since I read it, and I can't even remember where I ran into it. But try online. Dr. Davison: This is a link [ http://www.physorg.com/news127667797.html ] to a PhysOrg article that came out almost a year ago to the day. It involves a lizard species transplanted from one Adriatic island to another. After the transplant, in LESS than 35 years time, it develope cecal valves in its stomach to handle the increased amount of plant life in its diet. It strikes me as Lamarkian---because of the rapidity---more so than a chromosomal change (I suspect if you took this new 'form', it would easily procreate and multiply with the lizards from the original island), but I would be interested in your take on it.PaV
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
DATCG When I say no one understands molecular evolution, I mean no one, Darwin followers or ID followers. No one can make a single informative statement in this field that has not countless contradictions. The most commonly taught information on molecular evolution is this statement from the NAS booklet on evolution: "If two species have a relatively recent common ancestor, their DNA sequences will be more similar than the DNA sequences for two species that share a distant common ancestor." But this statement is not completely true and has countless contradictions. See here my rebuttal of this statement and the response from the esteemed Darwin follower Francisco Ayala. http://www.amazon.com/review/R8WB8ZQSOUVGC The only meaningful statement in molecular evolution that has no contradictions is ‘the inverse relationship between genetic diversity and epigenetic complexity.’ The equivalent of this in more general terms is ‘the more the order/complexity of the organism relative to others, the less the disorder/randomness of the organism relative to others.’ This message is what the MGD hypothesis is all about. To increase complexity, one must reduced randomness and disorder. For example, human and bacteria. Human can tolerate very few randomness in terms of random mutations, comparing to bacteria. In evolution, there is gradual decrease in mutation rates associated with increase in genome size or organismal complexity. See here. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/03/fast-mutating-viroids-hold-clu.html Now reducing mutation/variation is slow bleeding to death to the Darwinian process. How can such process by itself leads to its own death? It would make sense only if an opposite force is pushing for order increase and disorder decrease. The key new question for ID to ponder is what is causing the decrease in mutation rates and mutations/randomness in general during the evolution process from simple to complex or from high disorder to high order. Mutation/variation in DNA is good in the Darwinian process, but is bad for the process of creating complexity and must be suppressed. And it is suppressed, which is supported by all factual observations as explained by my MGD paper. “I’m also curious why you consider the molecular clock one of the best opportunities? And what do you see as other opportunities in the molecular data?” The molecular clock is a tautological interpretation of the most remarkable result in molecular evolution, the genetic equidistance result. It is wrong but is the foundation for the field of molecular evolution. To replace the clock is to restore truth and sanity to the field. The MGD hypothesis is my attempt to do so.shuangtheman
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san Just about all of us here accept evolution to some degree. If you accept say, that lions and house cats have a common ancestor, you are going to have to come up with an explanation as to how they came to be different species. This does not mean that the word "species" should be loosely defined or meaningless, but for evolution, even as to this degree, to be true, the definition would have to break down at some point.tribune7
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san Here is the link to JAD's PDF on his SMH It is interesting and more sensible than NDE.tribune7
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Dr Davison, Thank you for your wishes of a nice day. It is spring, and nice days are coming more and more frequently! I have no wish to destroy your semi-mieotic hypothesis. I am merely trying to understand how your various statements fit together. I fully accept the matter of degree in sterility, but I have trouble seeing how it is reconciled with a rigid species concept.Nakashima
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Nakashima #70. I proposed a viable mechanism for true speciation through the semi-meiotic production of a new species in a single step. I then presented a reasonable means by which that new female could breed with a male of the original wild type and through ordinary Mendelian means a new species could be established. This can offer a rational explanation for the fact that Homo sapiens/Neanderthal hybridization apparently did occur. In fact I can say with some certainty that any new soecies must have coexisted for at least a short period of time with its immediate ancestor. You see I do not believe in special creation. That does not mean that it did not occur. I don't believe you even understand the cytological mechanics of this process. You also don't understand that sterility is a matter of degree. You are hell bent on one goal only which is to denigrate my semi-meiotic hypothesis whatever it takes. Well I am sorry Nakashima, but you have failed miserably. Now if you think you have succeeded, I recommend that you publish a paper expoaing my SMH as a failed hypothesis, something no one has yet done. They won't either until it has been subjected to the testimony of experimental science. Now if you want to dispense with an untested hypothesis, that is your business but I am pretty sure you won't find a decent journal that will publish your paper. You sure aren't going to destroy my hypothesis with mere words. Science doesn't work that way. I thought everybody knew that by now. Speaking of partial sterility, why hasn't someone tried to see if a human/chimp hybrid could be produced? While it might very well be viable, I can be absolutely certain that it would be sterile for the same reason that a mule is. Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda once said - "It has not yet been demonstrated that non-Aryans cannot hybridize with apes." Apparently the Germans had tried and failed. Have a nice day!JohnADavison
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Mr DATCG, You are very kind to ask me my opinions. I prefer the definition of 'an interbreeding population in nature', which I think is from Mayr. However, I realize that this definition breaks down in places. Ring species, for example. Also for asexual life and single celled life that exchange DNA easily via conjugation. It's a fuzzy category. If a virus gets embedded in the human genome, are we the same species? Obviously not. If scientists remove huge swaths of non-coding DNA from a mouse, did it stop being a mouse? No. So whether it is approached from genetic, cladistic, or operational perspectives, it remains fuzzy. I accept that. The world has no responsibility to fit our categories.Nakashima
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Dr Davison, So spontaneous fertile crosses establish Darwin's finches as a single species. I have to assume humans and Neanderthals are a single species also, by that logic. Is that correct?Nakashima
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
This is for Tribune 7 whoever that is and I'm sure I will never know. Yes sir! Whatever you say sir! I will never make that mistake again sir! Plesae forgive me sir!JohnADavison
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
Nakashima in #65 I don't insist on the domestication of Darwin's finches at all. I already KNOW they are all the same species. That has been established by the Grants based on field observations of spontaneous crosses. I was only pointing out that the Darwinians are afraid to test their silly hypothesis. THEY ARE NOT SCIENTISTS because scientists TEST their hypotheses. You and others as well don't seem to understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in neoDarwinism that ever had anything whatsoever to do with an ascending evolution which is no longer in progress, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It is a flaming joke, an hallucination, a fantasy which has no substance and should have been discarded the same day that Darwin published his silly little book. As a matter of fact it WAS discarded by Adam Sedgwick, Darwin's geology professor the same day he read it. It has since been discarded countless times by real honest-to-God scientists. It has survived only in the minds of congenital atheists like Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, Paul Zachary Myers, Richard Dawkins and Uncommon Descent's own house Darwinian, Allen MacNeill. The Darwinian atheist based hoax will continue to survive as long as such poor souls breathe. Darwinism, like liberalism in general, has been shown to have a strong congenital component. So has whether or not one believes in a Creator. Darwinism is a deficiency disease for which there is no present cure. It is perfectly resistant to any form of reasoned arguement. It is impervious to experiment, every one of which has shown it to be without foundation. In short, it is a "disaster," a blight upon the face of experimental and descriptive science, and a perennial embarrassment to all those institutions which still permit its faculties to perpetuate it. Evolution should be taught as an undeniable reality for which the mechanism by which it took place (past tense) is still not known. Then it might be appropriate to ask the studnet whether or not he thinks it took place by chance. I offer Otto Schindewolf's summary of the evolutionary sequence with which I am in complete agreement - "This leads to the conclusion that the main features of the evolutionary trend were laid out RIGHT FROM THE START with the abrupt, discontinuous production of the type, and with evolutionary potential being restricted RIGHT FROM THE START to certain paths." Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, my emphasis in caps. In other words a "Prescribed" evolution. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohnADavison
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
Dr Huang, "My impression of ID people is that they know very little about molecular evolution. In fact no one does." This is a refreshing attitude. This blog has both scientist and lay people. And "ID people" might include anyone from Dembski, Meyers, or John Sanford, Cornell geneticist, author of Genetic Entropy to lay people like me :), a college educated software analyst, but with little knowledge of molecular evolution theory except undergrad courses and what I've read recently. I'm rusty to say the least on current issues. As to who post here day to day, some are highly qualified. At the very least its open dialogue I enjoy that is not found at other blogs where doctrine is enforced above realistic questioning of failed theory to date. In fact the ridicule escalates to levels of hatred it seems at other blogs. "The theoretical foundation for the interpretation of molecular evolution is largely incorrect." Would you tell that to the Darwinist? And maybe you can elaborate what "is largely incorrect?" Include your data on molecular clocks if you like? I look forward to reading your paper(s). The abstract I read on molecular clocks is intriguing. Hope you continue to post here. "If ID really wants to contribute to the scientific literature, it needs to come up with scientific explanations of factual data that scientists collect daily." They are working on it. Please see Biologic Institute "The best opportunity is to come up with a theory to explain the molecular clock and other molecular data accumulated in the past 46 years." It is interesting that Francis Crick considered DNA Code to be generated by intelligence, possibly seeded. The question is, are there optimal design codes and laws of design? If so, what then do we know today of our own design constraints for optimum performances and do they exist in nature? Linguistically, why must scientist use engineering metaphors to desribe pieces of the puzzel in organic life? For example, like ATP - "smallest motor in the world?" Is this trivial, or a language forced upon researchers? Why must a motor be described in RPM between human made inboard motors for example and flagellum? There is no other way of comparison but in engineering terms of force, velocity and motion. A nano structure far surpassing anything our best engineers have made to date. I'm also curious why you consider the molecular clock one of the best opportunities? And what do you see as other opportunities in the molecular data? "These data remains unexplained by any of the existing theories, neodarwinism, neutral theory, ID, etc." Agreed. But ID has only formed within the last 10yrs or so, and only seriously got off the ground in research efforts the last year or so. Darwinism has 150yr head start. Plus at least 70yr dominance in research funding. Today, if anyone dare mention Design as an alternative, your career can be ruined if you do not have tenure. The Darwinist still own the financial structure. They still have the keys to appointed chairs and funding. They are backed by the Media. Media can care less or does little to expose the hypocrisy at major US universities.DATCG
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
Mr Nakashima, I'm trying to eliminate some confusion on my part. I'm curious what your definition of species is and/or examples. To me it has always seemed a fuzzy definition even with college courses, or maybe I'm confusing the debates past and discussions now with old course material. Dr Davison stated,
"If two forms produce fertile hybrids they are BY DEFINITION the same species. It was Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Darwinian by the way, who gave us this unambiguous, eminently testable definiton of what a species really is. It is sound as a dollar, it is testable and its results are not to be ignored. That is why the Darwinians choose not to use it."
Do you agree with the initial statement in bold? It appears you do not. If not, why not? I was going to say more, but in an attempt of getting clear definitions and understanding where you stand, I'll stop here. I appreciate the new posters here at UD. And hope you continue.DATCG
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Dr Davison, OK, so we are dropping statement 3, the species definition based on fertile hybrids. I agree with that choice. Though now I don't see why you've insisted on the domestication of Darwin's finches.Nakashima
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
JAD, Catholics believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. Satan is no god. His fall was because he sought to be like God.tribune7
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Nakashima in #58. If you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion all the products of evolution are a single species. My insistence that Neanderthal was a separate species of the genus Homo is based on the same morphological characters that led others to conclude the same. Today we no longer have the intermediate forms to examine and test. I have offered a perfectly reasonable reconstruction which you seem mostly interested in discrediting. Thanks and keep up the productive work.JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
shuantheman I have no idea how anyone can hope to understand a preplanned, prescheduled phylogeny. It is not necessary to understand how this is possible. It is only necessary to prove that it is so. I believe that proof is already at hand. The same can be said for how many Gods there are or were. There is no doubt in my mind that the forces we now call Gods must have once existed. Actually, my suggestion on there being two, one benevolent, the other malevolent is already part of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Isn't Satan (Lucifer) a fallen angel? Satan is my second God and his handiwork is evident in those that refuse to postulate any Gods at all now or in the past. They are known as atheists and Richard Dawkins, Christpher Hitchens and P.Z. Meyers are the results of Satan's influence. I regard those three in particular as truly evil. They are deliberately trying to undermine everything that made Western civilization great. Can you imagine a scientist plastering his atheist pontifications on the sides of London busses? You don't have to imagine it as it is a reality. And how about Myers calling the President of the United States "asshole-in-chief" and calling the Holy Father "bennie." That is just the surface of the hideous invective that is Myers' constant daily fodder for his adoring fellow gutter-mouthed Darwinian atheist flock. Incidentally, Pharyngula is a member of MacNeill's blogroll. Others include Panda's Thumb and richarddawkins.net. I list those blogs and many others on my sidebar under the caption "Darwinian Sorcery." I have been banished from them all and I am proud of it. I am nominally a Roman Catholic who has to struggle between faith and science as many other scientists have before me. The simple truth is that nobody knows a damn thing about God or Gods. All I do know is that there had to be one or more in the past to produce the world we now see around us. For Catholic and nonCatholic alike I recommend "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods Jr. The word evolution derives from the Latin verb "evolvo" meaning to unfold as the pages of a book. All I am saying is that some thing or some things wrote the book.JohnADavison
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Dr Davison, On this thread, you've made the following statements: This theoretical reconstruction is given credibility since it is now apparent through the work of Eric Trinkhaus that Homo sapiens and Neanderthal hybridized. Neanderthal is uquestionably a separate species from Homo sapiens. If two forms produce fertile hybrids they are BY DEFINITION the same species. I don't think that all three can be true.Nakashima
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
AmerikanInKananaskis "Nevertheless, this doesn’t change the fact that you are simply WRONG about your claims of neutral theory." My view and challenge to neutral theory actually got published in peer reviewed journals. Here are two: The Genetic Equidistance Result of Molecular Evolution is Independent of Mutation Rates http://www.omicsonline.com/ArchiveJCSB/Ab01/JCSB1.092.html Ancient fossil specimens of extinct species are genetically more distant to an outgroup than extant sister species are http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2649772 What do you have to show for your understanding, shall we misunderstanding, of the neutral theory? But I am glad that you passed the honesty test about cheating by Coyne. All Darwin followers failed that test when I challenged them. Okay, you are a true IDer. But you do need to learn more about Darwinism in order not to grant it too much credit. Start with calling natural selection random. I am astonished that ID people has yet to refute this stupid claim and even grant this to be true. For example, Jonathan Wells granted this when he debated Massiomo Pigliuchi, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460&ei=T7vjSYj9K6O0qAOik62OCg&q=Massimo+Pigliucci&client=safari For my refutation of this lie, see here, http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/2009/04/natural-selection-is-randomchance.htmlshuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
And so I can't be said to have ignored your question, I will answer it. "Yes", Coyne cheated in his book. It vastly over-simplifies numerous things, and he claims consilience where there is none. (For example, as I recall, at some point he says something like all genes point to the proper species tree. This is simply untrue, but it's actually easily explained in terms of lineage sorting, etc.) All in all, it's not a particularly good book because it forgoes ACCURACY for EASE OF EXPLANATION (aka propaganda). Nevertheless, this doesn't change the fact that you are simply WRONG about your claims of neutral theory. And apparently unable to admit it. I have made my own view of ID clear here already. Biological limitations were 'pre-loaded' in order to guide evolution and increase biodiversity. I fully trust in the power of natural selection and random mutation otherwise. NOW I'm done with you.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Oh, how I love being called a "fake ID follower." Hilarious. I guess promoting self-criticism and intellectual honesty in the promotion of ID is something to be avoided. You know, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I could say the same about you. Just watch: "No one who makes arguments as obviously hollow and meaningless as you could possibly be on our side. You're intentionally setting up strawmen for the Darwinists to knock down." You see how easy that is? Grow up, Huang. I'm done with you.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Borne, Far, far, far be it for me to offer any aide to Allen MacNeil...but... I am fairly certain he was reacting to the constant beating he has taken from Davison over the past few days. Wheather that beating was by chance or neccesity, is not my call. Davison will have to speak for himself (which no one can imagine not happening). Beyond that, your observations are on the money. ...carry on.Upright BiPed
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
John, I am familiar with all your papers. You may right, in the sense that most religions may be, that there is a God. But saying God has role in evolution is not a theory that can direct daily research. Neither is saying that there is designer for this and that. What one needs is a theory that explains and predicts facts that scientists collect everyday. If yeast A shares 40% identity in a gene with yeast B as well as with human, which is called the genetic equidistance result first found in 1963 by Margoliash, we need a theory to explain this. neodarwinism would predict that yeast A and B should be much more closer than A is to human. This has been proven to be sheer nonsense. Thus, came the molecular clock and the neutral theory, which says yeast B and human have the same mutation rate or clock rate. This is also sheer nonsense as one can easily prove that yeast and human have vastly different mutation rates and generation times. So the genetic equidistance result, also called molecular equidistance by Mike Denton in his 1986 book, remains a puzzle. Can the PEH or ID theory explain it? I dont think so. For ID to make inroads to science, start with an explanation to this result that can be tested?shuangtheman
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply