Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- From: poiuy@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Rowley)
- Date: 03 Jan 2006 14:37:23 GMT
From: Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:15:44 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0k7yx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
> >The Dover community understood that
> >the controversy was over a religious question, as the judge
> noted by >pointing out that letters to the editor in the York
> newspapers (both pro and >con) where overwhelmingly discussing
> the religious aspects of the >controversy.
> again, the motives behind the science
What science?
> should not cause the science to be dismissed.
> I'm sure boundaries can easily be
> established that would keep any particular religion from being
> brought in on the coattails of a scientific observation.
> Evidence for design is scientific.
If there were any scientific evidence for design it would be.
> A study of the designer is not.
If there were ant scientific evidence to base such a study on
it would be.
> Has Pandas promoted a study of the designer himself, from what
> you have read of Pandas?
It doesn't have to.
Surely you can see that teaching the existance of a "generic"
Creator could be the first step in convincing students that they
shoukd take a closer look at your particular brand of Creator?
<snip>
> His <Miller's> answer on p 118, lines 20-25, is an answer to
> Panda's mischaracterization that evolutionary theory teaches "a
> progression of increasing divergence" (p.116, lines 17, 18), and
> Panda's mischaracterization that evolutionists expect to see
> "transitions from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal" (p.
> 117, lines 1,2).
Who says that is a mischaracterization?
> Allow me to stop here and ask: Is it really a fact that
> evolutionary theory teaches that there is no progression
Progression is a valueloaded word which implies that there
is a prefered direction of progress whereas evolutionary theory
teaches that organisms evolve in anywhichway that leads to an
increase in the number of surviving decendents.
> of increasing divergence in life forms?
Divergence is definately in line with evolutionary theory.
> Is it a fact that evolution teaches that there is NOT a
> transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal?
Depends on which fish and how you define amphibian and reptile.
but basicaly no, evolution teaches that there IS a
transition from fish to amphibian (in the sense of living partly
in the water, not frogs and salamanders) to reptilelike animal to
mammal.
> Please clear this up for me. Thanks.
> Miller then proceeds to give the correct understanding of
> evolutionary history. On page 118, lines 21 to 25, he says that
"
> --all four of these (organisms) should be equally distant from
> the fish since the distance all the way down to the common
> ancestor of all vertebrates
> predicted by common descent is exactly the same."
> So if the molecular difference in cytochrome-c of the horse to
> the common ancestor is 13, and the molecular difference in cyt-c
> of the fish (carp) is also 13, does this mean that both the
> horse and the fish diverged from the same common ancestor at the
> same time?
Not the horse and carp themselves but the lineages leading to
them, yes.
<snip>
> okay, I read that. He said that "Standard evolultionary
> relationships...between these organisms, a mammal, a bird, a
> reptile, an amphibian, and a fish, actually show that all of
> these organisms share a common ancestor at an equal molecular
> distance." (lines 15-20.)
> Again the question: If the distance, as he says, all the way
> down to the common ancestor of all vertebrates is exactly the
> same, does this mean that the fish and the horse, for instance,
> diverged from the same common ancestor and at the same time?
You ask a lot of questions that you really ought to be able
to fiqure out for yourself if you really tried.
Think of linages rather than the species at the ends,
if they pass through the same point at some point in time
(the common ancestor of vertibrates, say) and are at different
points now (carp and horse) then they must have diverged right?
Now can you think of any way that the carp linage could have
diverged from the horse linage at a different point (ancestor)
or time then the point and time where the horse linage diverged
from the carp linage?
So, they must have divirged at the _ _ _ _ point and at the
_ _ _ _ time. (Just fill in the blanks.)
> >> Miller then attempts to answer the issue of equidistant
> species. But >> he only muddies the evolutionary waters more, in
> my opinion. He says, >> there SHOULD be the same distance (or
> equal differences) between, for >> instance, the frog and its
> common ancestor, and horse and its common >> ancestor. He says,
> "...the frog should be just as far removed from >> that common
> ancestor as the horse should be. So, therefore, when we >>
> compare a fish today, the distance from fish to mammal should be
> the >> same as the distance from fish to amphibian." >>
> >> Help me out here. I don't understand.
> >
> >According to Miller, Pandas examined species that are
> equidistant on the >Tree of Life, without saying so. If
> equidistant, these species would >therefore be expected to have
> equal molecular distance. Pandas points out >that they do have
> equal molecular distance, and falsely argues that >evolution
> requires they would not have equal molecular distance.
> that is my question. If the horse and the fish did not diverge
> from a common ancestor at the same time, then they should not
> have equal molecular distance, right?
Right, under special Creation there is no reason to expect any
consistant pattern.
> But if they diverged from
> the same common ancestor at the same time, then Miller's point
> makes more sense, that there should be equal molecular distance.
> So tell me again, are you saying that the horse and the fish, or
> the rabbit and the fish, or the chicken and the fish all
> divirged from the same common ancestor at the same time?
The lineage that later split and led to horses, rabbits, chickens,
frogs, velociraptors, dogs, iguanas, robins, bats, cats, pandas, etc
divirged from the lineage that later split and led to carp, salmon,
tuna goldfish, etc at the last common ancestor of all of the above
at some point in time, yes.
> This is the third time I've asked the question because I want to
> be crystal clear on where evolutionists stand on their theory.
Good luck, I think your problem is that you insist on grabbing
a minute detail to pin your misunderstanding of evolution on
probably in the belief that you can then knock that one "pin"
out and bring the whole theory tumbling down.
But the TOE doesn't have a linchpin, whether you actually are
trying to understand it or merely intrested in attacking it you
need to look at the whole picture if you expect to get anywere.
<snip>
> >Why don't you have a look at http://www.tolweb.org/tree/. It
> will help >answer your questions.
> okay, so the tree of life does not depict a time line, I take
> it?
> And where does the fish fit in on that tree? I'm not seeing it.
If you click on the frog that gets you to "Terrestrial Vertebrates"
which shows the split between Amniota (reptiles, birds, mammals)
and Living Amphibians, klicking on those links gets you closer to
modern species, klicking on the arrow on the left of the tree
(or bush!) twice gets you to "Gnathostomata" which shows the split
between "Sarcopterygii" which leads to us and "Actinopterygii"
which leads to the carp if I'm not mistaken.
> And are you saying that the 13% molecular difference is between
> the Tetrapoda common ancestor and the fish/chicken/horse? I
> thought the 13% difference was between the fish and the
bullfrog,
> the fish and the snapping turtle, the fish and the chicken, and
> so on?
Yes, (roughly) 6-7% difference between the last common ancestor
and all of it's surviving descendants, but since the differences
between the LCA and the carp are mostly different from the
differences between the LCA and the horse you have to add them
to get 13% difference between carp and horse.
The horse and chicken have a later LCA and so have accumulated
fewer differences since their LCA so they are less than 13%
different from each other.
<snip>
>>> The idea now current is that evolution is more like a bush, a
>>> wandering shrub, not a tree. So is Miller behind times here?
> >Not particularly. Miller was explaining that Pandas offers an
> >erroneous linear model for evolution, which has never been part
> >of the evolutionary theory since its inception.
> I didn't see a mention of linear evolution.
It's implied in the mistaken idea that since the line of descent
goes from an (ancient) fish to an (ancient) reptile to mammals that
a (modern) fish should be more similar to a (modern) reptile than
it is to a (modern) mammal.
The modern fish is (and should be) as different (geneticaly) from
the ancient fish as the modern mammal is and the modern reptile is
as different from the ancient reptile as the modern mammal is.
> I saw mention of
> progression and divergence by Pandas, which Miller claims is a
> mischaracterization of ToE.
Where does he do that?
What I saw him say was that it was false to claim that the data
don't show a divirgence.
<snip>
> >No. You are arguing by analogy, and the analogy is not apt.
> >The beta globin cluster genes are shared by all mammalian
> >orders. Non-primates do not have the errors in question.
> I see you're calling them errors, too.
Well they keep the genes from working.
> And if all organisms came
> from the same common ancestor, should the prediction not be that
> these so-called errors will be found in all organisms?
No, they will be found in the descendants of whichever organism
they first occured in.
<snip>
> >> now. My question at the moment is, has anyone checked to
> >> see if the genes on chromosome 2 are identical to the genes
> >> on the chimp's two chromosomes that seem to match the human
> >> Chomosome 2? Does a similar banding pattern mean similar genes
> >> as well? Does the much-touted 99%
> >> similarity reside in chromosome 2?
> >Yes. This goes back several decades, as shown by a simple
> Internet search. See Sun et. al., "Chimpanzee Chromosome 12 is
> Homologous to Human Chromosome 2q", DOE report CONF-770871-2,
> 1977. For more recent research see
> >http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/11/1651
> homologous means that the chromosomes are corresponding in
> structure, position, character, right? My question was, do the
> genes on human chromosome 2 produce the same proteins as do the
> genes of chimp chromosomes 12 and 13? Not if they LOOK the same
> in pattern and/or position, but if they produce the same
> proteins.
Yes! In the same sense that the KJV and NIV of the bible contain
the same verses, the ones that aren't identical are recognizable
variants of the same proteins. Mostly, I understand that there are
_some_ genes that are unique to humans or chimps and there are
some genes that have moved to other chromosomes.
> And are you saying that the 99% similarity between humans and
> chimpcs reside only in chromosome 2 of the human's chromosomes?
> If so, where did the genes from the other 22 human chromosomes
No, he's saying that it "resides" in all chromosomes _including_
#2.
Eric
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- From: Zoe
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- References:
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- From: Zoe
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: 13 things that do not make sense
- Next by Date: Re: The real Dawkins on TV...
- Previous by thread: Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- Next by thread: Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
