Joined: July 2007
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,14:54)|
| It wasn't my quote so how could I be "mining" it?|
|He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:|
|The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern.|
Big deal. Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.
That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other.
Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.
|No one disputes this.|
Which is why you employ it as a straw man.
|What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.|
Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer.
If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS.
|For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.|
No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush.
Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence?
|And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature: I read what I can online.|
That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature?
|I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure.|
So why do you consider your uninformed conclusions to be more correct than mine?
|And I'm happy to discuss any evidence you want to discuss.|
Let's discuss this paper, then:
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.
|It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance.|
Sorry, but you're supposed to familiarize yourself with the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion.
I understand all of it. None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.
|What part of this don't you understand?|
I don't think you understand it at all, since you blew it off as mere similarity.
|No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments. His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based.|
To know that, you'd have to be familiar with the evidence, not just that someone offered citations. Are you familiar with these data, or are you faking it? Do you realize that science is not about appraising arguments, but about predicting and grappling with the actual evidence, not what anyone says about it?