Saturday, May 16, 2009

Finally ... a direct challenge to the Discovery Institute

I am afraid that we might be waiting an awful long time for this challenge to be answered:

Posted by The Atheist Missionary at 9:20 AM
Labels: ,

7 comments:

  1. Hey wait a minute!

    The challenge is based on the presupposition that the gene evolved! Where is the proof that it evolved? Do they have the pre-evolved gene in hand?

    ReplyDelete

  2. Mao, if there is no common descent to all species, why is it that, when protein sequences from disparate species are compared, we can use the points of dissimilarity to infer a phylogenetic structure?
    What possible reason would there be for edit distance to translate so neatly into the same general phylogenetic structure when different genes are used, if there isn't an actual historical phylogeny underlying the evolutionary paths? If random mutations of proteins had been happening among species with no common ancestors, any phylogenetic analysis would just produce useless noise. Think about it.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Answer 1. Fact: Dissimilarity defines phylogenetics, nothing to do with the challenge.

    Answer 2. Your reasoning is an assumption, and thus circular based on the presupposition.

    If I understand you correctly, you assume that the mutations were random?

    "Thinking about it" depends on one's level of knowledge. One's bias defines the approach. So I respect your position, however it is not proven in any way to date.

    ReplyDelete

  4. Mao, all mutations are random - that is the definition of a mutation. Most mutations offer no survival advantage to a species. Those mutations which afford an advantage cause natural selection: see Darwin's pitbull uses the simplicity of Twitter to...

    ReplyDelete

  5. Mutations do occur randomly AND as a function of the environment. These mutations do not prove evolution of species as I understand it. I believe these mutations are on a micro level within the species, however across species lines is not proven to me. I haven't seen any convincing transitional forms.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Mao, mutations don't prove evolution, they enable it.

    As I have previously stated, my view is that the tracing of mitochondrial DNA should be sufficient to convince the most hardened skeptic about the fact of evolution. Have you read Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True?Every new fossil discovery lends credence to the fact of evolution: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/15/tech/main5015948.shtml

    ReplyDelete

  7. Mao,

    This is also fairly strong evidence to support evolution. It's called chromosome 2. You'll be familiar that all apes on the planet, including us, are believed to have evolved from a common ancestor.

    Humans are unique amongst the apes with respect to chromosomal pairs as they have 23, as opposed to 24 that the rest of the apes have. Want to know why we have 23 and they have 24?:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

    Read that and just try and tell me that isn't even slightly convincing. There will be more articles on it than that floating about, but that sums it up nicely.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)