tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8105175841641758864..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Branko Kozulic respondsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49344327365053221672014-04-27T19:50:47.709-04:002014-04-27T19:50:47.709-04:00In biology, successful designs remain in the biosp...In biology, successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life. We are the result of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, for our children. The resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11524807021394420522014-04-27T19:31:46.584-04:002014-04-27T19:31:46.584-04:00Upon reflection and harking back to lessons learne...Upon reflection and harking back to lessons learned on this forum - I need to revisit Misconception 13: Evolution is directional or has a goal. It leads to perfection.<br /><br />Correction to my Correction: Evolution can be the result of random mutations, grist for selection generating the organisms better adapted to their current environment. <br /><br />However, modern humans are no 'more evolved” than modern chimpanzees or intestinal parasites.<br /><br />That all said - random Genetic Drift is probably the major driver of evolution and most evolution is neutral.<br /><br />I am in debt to those patient teachers who take the time and effort to correct my naïvetéTom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22804643384596499912014-04-27T13:14:49.831-04:002014-04-27T13:14:49.831-04:00Over the years, I have tallied a list of common mi...Over the years, I have tallied a list of common misconceptions uttered by my students. Remarks such as if Chimpanzees evolved into Humans, why are there still Chimpanzees… etc<br /><br />And over the years, I have attempted to compile a list of responses to such common misconceptions that adhered to my professional code of conduct, I am not permitted to belittle or disparage religious belief.<br /><br />I am not certain exactly who will take greater umbrage at my list – Larry and his supporters or Branko and his acolytes.<br /><br />My intent was to bring so-called Intelligent Designers aka Creationists-lite up to speed on certain questions and avoid unnecessary palaver.<br /><br />I reckoned if Intelligent Designers aka Creationists-lite could master the answers provided to these misconceptions, we could spare much band-width and waste much less time.<br /><br />My answers were not designed to be the final definitive responses to these questions, but rather a gentle point of entry for Intelligent Designers. A foundation that could be built upon as it were. Don’t forget this list was complied with high school students in mind.<br /><br />There I hope Larry feels better now… <br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12942208968012013352014-04-27T12:37:32.313-04:002014-04-27T12:37:32.313-04:00Misconception 21: Evolutionary Science would ha...Misconception 21: Evolutionary Science would have us believe that Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny, in other words, human embryos at some point have yolk sacs and gills.<br /><br />Correction: Not at all. Comparative Embryology reveals similar stages in development (ontogeny) among related species. These similarities do help establish evolutionary relationships (phylogeny), but embryonic development does not recapitulate or replay evolutionary history. <br /><br />Why do we imagine human embryos have structures that resemble gills slits, tails and yolk sacs? That is because our ancestors’ embryos had similar embryonic structures that immediately developed into gills slits, tails and yolk sacs! However, small and subtle changes in embryogenesis lead to profound evolutionary change! <br /><br />For example, human embryos have pharyngeal slits and pharyngeal arches which resemble the embryonic pharyngeal slits and pharyngeal arches in fish embryos. However, neither human embryos nor fish embryos have gills per se. Those pharyngeal slits and pharyngeal arches develop into different structures in different animals, that much is clear. <br /><br />Evolution merely claims that these common embryonic stages represent the basic vertebrate embryonic body plan of the common ancestor of all vertebrates which still remain the same starting points for all descendent embryos! The fact that mammal embryos must undergo incredibly convoluted and illogical developmental pathways is testament to their evolutionary heritage. Meanwhile, the fossil record confirms the intermediate/transitional evolutionary stages for these structures as they evolved to assume different functions.<br /><br />Misconception 22: The missing link for apes and humans has never been discovered, so evolution remains unproven.<br /><br />Correction: There are a number of problems with this attempted rebuttal. First of all there is no such thing as a single missing link. Humans can trace their ancestry back to a great number of ancestral forms. Chimpanzees can do the same. In other words, there are many links, not just one. <br /><br />This misconception could be construed differently. Perhaps the fossil for the last (most recent) common ancestor of both humans and chimpanzees lineages has not yet been discovered. That is debatable in light of the recent “Ardi” discovery. In any case, the argument is still not valid. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence!<br /><br />That said, the common ancestry of many other disparate and divergent lineages has been well established including those lineages belonging to horses, whales and plants. For the record, horses and whales are “cousins” in evolutionary terms, as they have a relatively recent common ancestor. The reality of Evolution is indisputable, both as fact and as theory.<br /><br /><br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23658769745481942262014-04-27T12:36:22.547-04:002014-04-27T12:36:22.547-04:00Misconception 19: Mules and hinnies are infertile...Misconception 19: Mules and hinnies are infertile and represent evolutionary “dead-ends”. This proves chromosomal rearrangements cannot provide a mechanism of reproductive isolation and speciation.<br /><br />Correction: Such reasoning puts the evolutionary cart before the horse (pun intended). Simply put, an ancestral population A can generate a different population B by some chromosomal rearrangement (or “indel”) event. These two populations can still interbreed, albeit with reduced fertility. Population B can also generate a different population C by yet a different chromosomal rearrangement (or another indel event). These two populations can also interbreed, albeit again with reduced fertility. However, Population A and Population C cannot interbreed! <br /><br />That means, reproductive isolation can occur before lineages diverge by adaptive radiation. For example, the karyotype of the domestic horse (2n = 64) differs from that of Przewalski's horse (2n = 66) by an extra chromosome pair either because of the fission of domestic horse chromosome 5 in Przewalski's horse or the fusion of Przewalski's horse chromosomes 23 and 24 in the domestic horse.<br /><br />This is the clincher! Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse (despite their karyotype differences) can be crossed to produce fertile offspring, with varying karyotypes. <br /><br />Misconception 20: Speciation via reproductive isolation is a priori impossible. If the first individual in a new lineage is reproductively isolated from the original population, with whom would this individual mate to establish a new lineage?<br /><br />Correction: Any reproductively isolated individual at the beginning of a new lineage could always interbreed with siblings who shared identical chromosomal rearrangement or indel events. Such inbreeding would establish a new population leading eventually to a new species. That is what scientists think may have happened with humans. All 7 billion humans have a very limited level of genetic diversity; merely on the order of a somewhat large chimpanzee population. Genetically, humans resemble an inbred subset of the chimpanzees.<br /><br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47833503563128145542014-04-27T12:34:15.176-04:002014-04-27T12:34:15.176-04:00This deerves its own post:
Misconception 18: Re...This deerves its own post:<br /><br />Misconception 18: Recent DNA sequencing evidence establishes that human and chimpanzee DNA identity is far less than 99%. This new evidence supports the Creationist contention that chimpanzees and humans could not have evolved from a common ancestor.<br /><br />Correction: When comparing human Chimpanzee DNA similarities, the old fashioned interspecies DNA hybridization- hydroxyapatite assays underestimated the insertion-deletion differences (“indels”) that could only be determined by direct computer comparison of chimpanzee human sequences. There may be merely 35 million nucleotide differences, but there are also 5 million “indels” and even chromosomal rearrangements to take into account. Depending on how these later categories are counted as "DNA differences" would add around another 3% to 4% to the total DNA differences between humans and chimpanzees. <br /><br />The fact remains – humans and chimps are still more closely related to each other than horses are to donkeys!<br />The new data actually supports evolutionary theory by with the so-called "less is more" hypothesis. A relatively minor number of "genetic events" (viz. those “indels”) can actually result in dramatic global changes in gene expression together with dramatic morphological and behavioural changes; and all with a relatively small number of genetic “indel” events. Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed the fossil record could be best explained by “Punctuated Equilibrium” where evolutionary change was rapid and drastic. These “indels” could provide just such a mechanism for “Punctuated Equilibrium”.<br /><br />Furthermore, human – chimpanzee differences may be no greater than differences already existing between sub-populations or sub-species of chimpanzees. That sequencing still remains to be done. Barbara McClintock taught us that the genome is always in dynamic flux and not at all static, we should remember her insightful contributions when attempting to understand evolution.<br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89772380433588531762014-04-27T12:31:45.587-04:002014-04-27T12:31:45.587-04:00Misconception 11: Evolution contradicts the Secon...Misconception 11: Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy contradicts Evolution. The complicated intricacy of life forms could not be getting more complicated i.e. more ordered as time progresses.<br /><br />Correction: A naïve misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics suggests that any and all systems in the universe get more disordered and random as time goes on. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of that same system is getting more disordered. But what exactly is meant by disorder? Let us examine the thermonuclear reactions of stars. The intricate complexity of the entire periodic table of elements is being generated as time progresses; starting with the simple fusion of Hydrogen atoms. Atomic Evolution is no different than Biological Evolution from a thermodynamic point of view; viz. complexity increases with time.<br /><br />Misconception 12: Evolution is “Survival of the strongest”. The strongest wins…<br /><br />Correction: Survival of the fittest. Fittest refers to reproductive success. Whoever makes the most babies wins…<br /><br />Misconception 13: Evolution is directional or has a goal. It leads to perfection.<br /><br />Correction: Evolution is the result of random mutations and as a process can select for the organisms best adapted to their current environment. Modern humans are no more “evolved” than modern chimpanzees. <br /><br />Misconception 14: Individual organisms evolve.<br /><br />Correction: Individuals cannot change their genetic make-up; only populations can change allelic/gene frequency.<br /><br />Misconception 15: Evolution does not take very long.<br /> <br />Correction: Evolutions is ongoing – it has been happening for as long as life has been on this planet. Mind you, punctuated equilibrium as a phenomenon has also been suggested.<br /><br />Misconception 16: Evolution stopped a long time ago.<br /><br />Correction: Changes in the frequency of alleles in populations are continually happening – evolution is still happening. Taking the flu shot constitutes tacit admission that evolution must be true.<br /><br />Misconception 17: Evolution implies that apes evolved into humans; in other words, today’s species are derived from present-day organisms. <br /><br />Correction: Apes and humans share common ancestor several million years ago. There is a big difference! Anybody who persists in citing “the croco-duck” fallacy is being intellectually dishonest. Similarly; any spurious straw-man argument that Chimpanzees evolved into humans is simultaneously disingenuous and insulting to Chimpanzee-kind. (… with a tip of the hat to Thomas Henry Huxley)<br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61583725568325135272014-04-27T12:30:47.802-04:002014-04-27T12:30:47.802-04:00Misconception 9: “Creation Science” or” Intellige...Misconception 9: “Creation Science” or” Intelligent Design” are cogent alternative scientific theories to Evolution.<br />Correction: By definition, the supernatural cannot be measured or observed by science. By definition, “Creation Science” or “Intelligent Design” invoke the supernatural. Therefore, neither is measurable, testable, empirical or scientific.<br /><br />The empirical method is testable and therefore scientific. Let us discuss the empirical method. Observations are made, data is collected and laws are made. Laws are simply generalized descriptions of observations. Scientists then construct predictive models to better explain their Laws. In short, scientific laws explain what is happening; theories describe how or why things happen. <br /><br />Remember that in science, theories are as good as it gets and remember that different theories can co-exist. Darwin was the first to recognize that the Theory of Natural Selection could co-exist with the Theory of Natural Selection.<br /><br />As important as Johannes Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion were; Kepler nonetheless provided no empirical model or explanation why planets moved as they did. Instead, Kepler suggested that planets were being pushed along their orbits by angels. OK, Kepler’s laws were empirical. But because Kepler's theory invoked the supernatural, his theory was ipso facto non-empirical. <br /><br />Later on, Newton came up with his law of universal gravitation (a more general and inclusive summary of Kepler’s Laws) and then proposed a theory that proposed gravity was some emergent property of matter. Newton’s laws and theory were excellent approximations of the effects of gravity on a small or local scale. On a cosmological scale, Newtonian law and theory both break down. Einstein accounted for the new data with his theories of Relativity. Relativity Theory is only required when there is a need for extreme precision (such as describing Mercury’s orbit) and when dealing with extremely massive and dense objects (such as stars). <br /><br />Einstein came up with a different Theory of Gravity, proposing gravity was in fact a property of the curvature of space-time. Newton’s theories allow us to keep our satellites in synchronous orbit around our planet. Einstein’s theories allow us to synchronize satellite’ clocks with our clocks back on Earth. As even more data was collected at both the quantum level and cosmological levels, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose supplemented Newton’s and Einstein’s theories with a yet another and even more modern theory of gravity – and so the story continues! <br /><br />Nobody ever dared suggest that Gravity was untrue, even as new theory superseded old theory. Gravity is fact as well as theory. Similarly, Evolution is also fact and theory. Theories of Evolution and Gravity are both empirical and by definition are not based on faith or supernatural intervention. The champions of “Creation Science” or “Intelligent Design” invoke divine intercession and are no different than Johannes Kepler who invoked the existence of those very patient and obliging angels charged with the unenviable task of pushing planets along their orbits. <br /><br />Misconception 10: The interconnected and intricate beauty of the human body could only be explained by “intelligent design”.<br /><br />Correction: As a matter of fact, the design of the human body is very unintelligent and very jerry-rigged. Sinus infections occur with unnecessary frequency because our sinuses are still “designed” to drain when we are in the horizontal position, as were once our evolutionary ancestors. Hemorrhoids, inguinal hernias and herniated vertebral discs are all a consequence of what amounts to poor structure design of our bipedal species but perfectly understandable in the light of evolution, when presuming a quadrupedal ancestor. Many other examples could be cited; check out the writings of Stephan J. Gould or Neil Shubin.<br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81838904300187696612014-04-27T12:28:01.516-04:002014-04-27T12:28:01.516-04:00Misconception 6: Empirical Science is hostile to...Misconception 6: Empirical Science is hostile to faith and religion. Science cannot respect religion. Science leads to atheism.<br /><br />Correction: Not at all! As far as the existence of God or any other religious belief is concerned – science is neutral. As a matter of fact, many scientists are devoutly religious. It is true that the empirical point of view is very restricted, which would explain why everyone (scientists included) also have a variety of non-empirical beliefs. Let us presume all scientists are enlightened and believe in the inherent and equal worth of all individuals. How can such an idea be dissected or placed under a microscope to be studied by the empirical method? Granted, a Creationist may have a slightly larger repertoire of non-empirical beliefs than some scientists. However, all scientists are constrained to respect any such non-empirical thinking given the very existence of scientists’ own non-empirical repertoire of beliefs; especially when considering commonalities based on identically enlightened premises. <br /><br />Misconception 7: There are many scientists who do not support the theory of evolution.<br /><br />Correction: Scientists may disagree which mechanism is most important and when; but, support for evolution and natural selection is constant. There is no such thing as a bona fide Biologist who denies evolution. There are a few misguided and confused individuals with Biology PhDs who embrace “Creation Science”. There also exist some bona fide scientists (specialists in other fields) with little or no expertise in Biology who remain unclear on evolution. However, no bona fide peer-reviewed scientists publish any version of Creationism in professional scientific journals. That is a very important distinction.<br /> <br />Misconception 8: Evolution is only a theory and that means it is only a guess. <br /><br />Correction: Evolution is fact and theory. The only facts in science are data points. Scientists use the term “theory” differently than laypeople. In science, “theory” does not imply “imperfect truth” or some sort of guess. In science, Theories are as good as it gets; better even than Scientific Laws. Scientific Laws can be contradicted (ex. There exist many contradictions to Mendel’s Genetic Laws). Other scientific theories include cell theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease. The notion that the Earth goes around the Sun (and not vice versa) is also theory, no different than Evolution. “Truth” is the purvey of epistemology and theology; whereas “theory” is as good as it gets in science!<br /><br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78343878990135794552014-04-27T12:25:40.598-04:002014-04-27T12:25:40.598-04:00I am not certain how gladly recieved these series ...I am not certain how gladly recieved these series of posts will be - but here goes:<br /><br />Misconception 1: Darwin formulated the Theory of Evolution.<br /><br />Correction: Darwin did describe two mechanisms by which evolution can occur. These theories are called the Theory of Natural Selection and Sexual Selection. There are other mechanisms as well.<br /><br />Misconception 2: Evolution contradicts the Bible. Christians cannot believe in Evolution.<br /><br />Correction: This is a minority Christian view. First of all, there are many contradictory and contending versions of Christian Creationism that can be summarized under the two competing categories of “Young Earth” vs. “Old Earth”. Adherents to one or other version of Creationism include; Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Missouri and Wisconsin Lutheran Synods, Pentecostal Churches (including Pentecostal Oneness churches), Seventh-day Adventist Churches, the Christian Reformed Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. <br /><br />Catholic and Orthodox Christians endorse evolution; together with all mainline Protestant denominations; including as well a variety of different Baptist and Lutheran churches. Bottom line: the majority of Christians do not believe that Evolution contradicts the Bible.<br /><br />Misconception 3: Any reading of the Book of Genesis necessarily contradicts Evolution!<br /><br />Correction: Only a bizarre and literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts Evolution. Any such literal interpretation of Genesis would compel astronauts to wear scuba-gear and water-wings. According to the Book of Genesis, the world is flat and the center of the universe; the moon, sun and stars are embedded in a crystalline firmament, beyond which exists primordial water. In other words, outer space is full of water. It gets better: when God opened the windows of this firmament, all that celestial water rushed in causing Noah’s flood. <br /> <br />Let us examine how the Book of Genesis starts: "In the beginning” (Heb. בְּרֵאשִית בָּרָא). Remarkably, Genesis does not start with “בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה” as is employed so frequently in the Hebrew Testament elsewhere. Clearly Genesis did not intend to teach the sequence of the Creation. The structure and vowelization of the Genesis’ בָּרָא is quite peculiar. Much commentary has been written on this one expression prompting exhaustive midrashic clarification. Since time immemorial, Jewish sages (including Akiva and Rashi) understood the literal sequence of the Creation (as written in Genesis) to be impossible. In other words, a proper appreciation of the original Biblical Hebrew obliges an appreciation that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) cannot blindly be read in a mindless and literal manner. Ultra-orthodox rabbis including Chassids all agree on this point. <br /> <br />Misconception 4: There is no evidence to support evolution and the theory of natural selection<br /><br />Correction: There are ‘tons’ of evidence from fields as diverse as zoology, botany, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, geology, physics, cosmology, archaeology, prehistory and history.<br /><br />Misconception 5: Belief in Evolution is just as much “belief-driven” and “faith-based” as Christian embrace of scripture.<br /><br />Correction: "Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories" E. O. Wilson in Consilience.<br /><br />“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about [scientific] reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about [scientific] reality.” Karl Popper<br /><br />By restricting themselves to the empirical method, scientists restrict their endeavors to what can be directly measured and observed in the natural world. Nothing in the empirical method requires an act of faith or suspension of belief. Science by its very nature remains undeniably testable, measurable and objective. <br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27785644941815087262014-04-27T12:21:01.675-04:002014-04-27T12:21:01.675-04:00@Quest,
Joe Felsenstein nailed it with … the perc...@Quest,<br /><br />Joe Felsenstein nailed it with <i>… the percent similarity between humans and chimps is not the issue</i><br /><br />The issue here is one of subtlety, a subtlety that is lost on those unversed in what scientists are really talking about.<br /><br />Stop focussing on calculated similarities/differences of humans vs. chimps, but rather focus the identity and commonalities of the human/chimp similarities/differences vis–à–vis other lineages.<br /><br />Chimps and humans clearly belong to a common lineage!<br /><br />Check out this elementary introduction that can bring non-scientists up to speed before embarrassing themselves in public: <br /><br />http://www.phschool.com/atschool/phbio/active_art/cladograms/index.html<br /><br />Cladograms reveal probable relationships and degrees of relationships between groups of organisms, along with the relative times when different lines branched off (speciation occurred), showing common ancestry.<br /><br />Even my high school “Young Earth” Creationist students get it! They recognize there is a coherent and cogent story here that cannot be dismissed out of hand.<br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43084568978039409472014-04-27T02:50:32.411-04:002014-04-27T02:50:32.411-04:00I'd love to see one of these bozos try and def...I'd love to see one of these bozos try and defend a paternity suit with their logic. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73900310142264128602014-04-26T19:12:01.320-04:002014-04-26T19:12:01.320-04:00Joe, I'm 98% sure that anyone who can equate 9...Joe, I'm 98% sure that anyone who can equate 98% similarity in DNA sequence with 98% water won't agree that anything is fairly persuasive. But good luck.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36695862040693793082014-04-26T17:13:34.048-04:002014-04-26T17:13:34.048-04:00@Quest, the percent similarity between humans and ...@Quest, the percent similarity between humans and chimps is not the issue. The question is, whether when we examine different parts of the genome, and construct an evolutionary tree from each, we tend to see the same tree instead of getting unrelated trees.<br /><br />You do understand that this is the argument, right? And if we do see evidence of this common underlying phylogeny, you do agree that this is fairly persuasive, right?Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50803893475678030362014-04-26T16:58:13.654-04:002014-04-26T16:58:13.654-04:00Joe,
I'm willing to accept the evidence that...Joe, <br /><br />I'm willing to accept the evidence that does not require faith to believe it.... <br /><br />That is why I'm trying to learn and find evidence from you...<br /><br />Just because you and Larry believe that chimp and humans' genomes are 98% "similar.... it doesn't necessarily mean that they had the same common ancestor... (I'm not even going to mention non-coding part of the genome, because I know what is going to happen....)<br /><br />A cloud and a watermelon are 98% water, but does that mean they had the same common ancestor...?<br /><br />Last time I checked the definition of evidence, it was still the same... I don't have to tell you Joe, the world's authority in genetic population acknowledged by both sides of the issue what evidence is...I feel privileged you even wanna have a discussion with me... I mean ...who am I to question you or Larry...? <br /><br />At least I'm done with Dawkins and Coyne... I'm not going to say publically what I think about those two individuals...<br /><br />What I can do... and I think I'm entitled to... is to QUESTION OR DEMAND THE TRUTH... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19621134900000538062014-04-26T09:17:09.018-04:002014-04-26T09:17:09.018-04:00Quest thinks that, if a woman conceived a child th...Quest thinks that, if a woman conceived a child thru artificial insemination by an anonymous sperm donor, unless she knows exactly who that donor was, the child <i>has</i> no male ancestor.<br /><br />Therefore God. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44953148395520344442014-04-26T08:41:56.989-04:002014-04-26T08:41:56.989-04:00typo, should be: ... by showing that ...typo, should be: ... by showing that ...Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92166903841525504072014-04-26T08:37:10.571-04:002014-04-26T08:37:10.571-04:00What would you accept as evidence? The kind we us...What would you accept as evidence? The kind we use to investigate common descent? You know, but showing that different parts of the genome tend to favor the same evolutionary tree.<br /><br />You do know about that, don't you?Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77168242569088128942014-04-26T08:15:42.652-04:002014-04-26T08:15:42.652-04:00It doesn't matter whether I agree..
Provide ...It doesn't matter whether I agree.. <br /><br />Provide evidence there was common ancestor ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81716804331486179812014-04-26T00:07:57.653-04:002014-04-26T00:07:57.653-04:00They diverged from the human-chimp common ancestor...They diverged from the human-chimp common ancestor. The question is, do you agree that there was one? We can have evidence that there was one (say, one more recent than the human/gorilla common ancestor, or the chimp/gorilla common ancestor. <br /><br />Do you understand that? Or are you under the misapprehension that we have to know what that species "was"?<br /><br />So we get back to what the evidence is that, of species A, B, and C, that (say) B and C are more closely related than A is to B, or than A is to C.<br /><br />Is there any evidence that you would find persuasive, given three species A, B, and C, that this was true? Saying we have to say what the common ancestor of B and C "was' indicates that you don't understand how arguments about common descent work.<br /><br />Sorry to put you in that position. Are you in that position?Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5547809459688614662014-04-25T20:48:31.972-04:002014-04-25T20:48:31.972-04:00Joe,
I didn't mean to put you in a position ...Joe, <br /><br />I didn't mean to put you in a position where you would have no evidence to support your beilef... Sorry about that... Just present your theory instead.... that will be fine for my students for now... I hope.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50809693982970226592014-04-25T19:54:13.037-04:002014-04-25T19:54:13.037-04:00Show me a person who has never heard of a kinkajou...Show me a person who has never heard of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinkajou" rel="nofollow">kinkajou</a>, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.<br />You ask for evidence, Quest… but it's far from clear that you'd recognize any such evidence if you saw it. Felsenstein is right to ask you what <i>you</i>, Quest, would accept as evidence for the notion that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Your refusal to answer Felsenstein's question is persuasive evidence that you're Yet Another Goddamn Creationist who doesn't know jack about evolution, but nevertheless <i>knows</i> that evolution <i>must</i> be wrong.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64754677546351730862014-04-25T15:38:37.101-04:002014-04-25T15:38:37.101-04:00Joe,
Let's start with proof and theory about...Joe, <br /><br />Let's start with proof and theory about the ape-like common ancestor... humans and chimps have diverged from...<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2284696036640469982014-04-24T22:13:20.036-04:002014-04-24T22:13:20.036-04:00By the way, Joe does know of a way of extrapolatin...By the way, Joe does know of a way of extrapolating the genome of an ape-like creature that both chimps and humans have diverged from. In case that provides you with a reason to concede Joe's point above.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26832991424683561672014-04-24T20:42:10.039-04:002014-04-24T20:42:10.039-04:00Back to the issue one question at the time:
1. D...<i>Back to the issue one question at the time: <br /><br />1. Do you know or is there a way of finding out or extrapolating what the genome of an ape-like-creature was like both chimps and humans have diverged from....? </i><br /><br />I thought we were first going to discuss whether humans and chimps were related. Have you conceded that and are going on from there? If you have not conceded that, we can start there.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.com