Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic evidence of primate evolution
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 29 (3228)
01-31-2002 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
01-31-2002 4:27 PM


Larry,
I'd be very interested in the paper,
On a similar note, I've posted this question before, & not got an answer, but it is relevant.
Creationists tell me that humans & chimps are unrelated. But that the genetic sequence similarity is explained away by similar phenotypes needing similar genotypes. At least, this is what they think is required. So, if similar phenotypes are requiring similar genotypes, why do non-phenotypic genes, such as that that makes cytocrome c, itself a molecule used in Krebs cycle, so match the morphological phylogenies?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 01-31-2002 4:27 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 29 (3266)
02-01-2002 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
02-01-2002 2:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Just so we understand each other- phylogeny, as conducted by the so called 'mainstream', assumes the ToE is indicative of reality and its conclusions are biased accordingly.

The old complaint that ToE is assumed & everything is bent to fit. Did it occur to you that it actually provides evidence of the ToE without assuming it. If not, explain what retroviral gene insertion hereditability does provide evidence for........
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 02-01-2002 2:51 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 02-04-2002 3:51 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 29 (3402)
02-04-2002 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
02-04-2002 3:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
It's not a complaint, just an observation. Materialistic naturalism is the prevailing bias. That is just the way it is.
Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:
Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material world in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

Rule no.1 is spot on & with good reason. The supernatural has never been observed. Natural mechanisms have. What would you go with?
Unless you can give good reason to the question :
"Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when:
1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum.
2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.
Obviously your answer is one of inferrence. But why chuck what is POSSIBLE for an entire frame of reference that has never been observed? There are natural phenomena that make the likes of abiogenesis possible, & give evidence of the big bang, so why go elsewhere? Not just elsewhere, but to somewhere that has NEVER been, or has any reason, for being inferred over a natural mechanism.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 02-04-2002 3:51 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Big B, posted 08-05-2002 10:03 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 29 (5069)
02-19-2002 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 5:04 PM


I want to bump this back to the top again.
I have heard a lot of creationists tell me that the evidence of evolution is guesswork, or "it's how you interpret the evidence". So, by all means, interpret away.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 5:04 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024