Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.

---

Gene trees are broadly congruent with each other. You yourself have mentioned "species trees". Do you ACTUALLY know what a species tree is? It is a tree based on other congruent phylogenies!!!!!! The point of molecular phylogenetic analyses is that statistical tests can be applied to the results to see if they are meaningful, or pure chance (simplistically).A tree that either fails to resolve a node, or resolves it in such a way that other other trees disagree, is suspect (that node). If the weight of evidence points to a particular resolution (via other trees), then that is what is accepted as the consensus for that species tree.If phylogenetic analyses failed the statistical tests, & gene trees were not congruent AT ALL, then it would be a blow for the ToE, & a point scored for creationism. Why? Because the prediction failed to bear out.The problem faced by phylogenetic analyses, is that sometimes, various nodes are resolved by very small character changes, & those changes need not always reflect actual phylogeny. The point is, if small character differences are all we have to work with, then occasionally we will see incongruent surprises. This sort of thing is best seen in slowly evolving molecules, when attempting to produce "young" phylogenies. A histone phylogeny of primates would be nigh on useless, the small differences would have no phylogenetic value whatsoever, as a single fixed mutation could completely change the clade an organism is placed in.The point is, that this is expected to happen when resolving nodes on more informative phylogenies from time to time. BUT, the statistical tests that are applied tell us that something is indeed begging for an explanation.If you cast your mind back, your first response to me was when I was attempting to show to Philip that molecular phylogenies were excellent evidence of evolution. I pointed out that a 10 taxa phylogeny had over 34,000,000 possible trees. That's 1,156,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of getting two perfectly congruent trees. Because of the sheer number of possible trees, only getting a 50% congruent tree is staggering also.The question is, why are phylogenies congruent at all if they were created separately? Take molecules like cyt c, for example. They have no morphological bearing whatsoever, yet they are congruent with morphologically based cladograms/phylogenies. Why? Why don't we ALL have identical cyt c? It does exactly the same job everywhere.The same can be said for retrovrii, pseudogenes etc. There is no morphological or chemical reason that these phylogenies should be congruent with other phylogenies, UNLESS common descent is indicative of the truth.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-09-2002]

quote:

---

You also still don't get the point of non-random mutations, is it?

---

You think non-random mutations/hotsposts are directed, & somehow placed by the creator in order to improve the genome, right? What's NOT to understand?So, why do I have to wait generations for this to happen (well, that would be too late, i guess). I don't see where I've missed your point.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.

---

Ye olde argument from incredulity....------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Sonnike,To Karl,

quote:

---

Why is every design analogy I submit dismissed by you?

---

Because it is an argument from spurious analogy.http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ptic/arguments.html#similarityMark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

S:WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!

​

M: Yes we are...did you rip that quote off from the elephant man?

---

Mammuthus, are you getting paranoid my hairy, betusked friend? Perhaps this wouldn't be the time to tell that joke about the nun, the policeman, & Cyrano de Bergerac. Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Sonnike,

quote:

---

if humans = animals
then mathematically, animals = humans.

---

The "species" ultimately belongs in a subset of the kingdom, in this case, animals. Lots of species can fit in the kingdom set & be different species but of the same kingdom. So, mathematically animals aren't humans just because they belong to the same set, just that anything within that set is an animal, including humans.A bat is an animal, so is a cow & an alligator. According to you an alligator is a cow, & a bat is an alligator because they belong to the same set!! Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JEP,

quote:

---

JEP: Very true. The evolutionists have a tendency to dismiss the fossil record because there is no evidence in it at all, in its overall continuum, that will substanciate transitionals, macroevolution, gradualistic neo-darwinism, or punctuated equilibrium (here-in-after referred to as punk-eek). There is simply nothing there to support their pseudo-science wrapped in a religion called evolution.

---

Say US$1,000 that I can provide something that supports all you say has nothing in support of it?I will happily go higher if you can. The only proviso is that the evidence is acceptable in science, & the wagers are held by a trusted (by both of us) third party(ies) before I commence.OK?Percy/Admin, will you hold the wagers? TC is an admin here too, & given he is also a creationist, I will accept him as a judge alongside Percy, or any other Evo, if Percy isn't interested.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JEP,I'm not putting obstacles in the way, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Not feeling so confident now?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JEP,

quote:

---

Yes, but you are not putting your intellect where your mouth is. There is no need for arm waving or grandstanding, and I am feeling quite confident. Just attack the argument if you can. If you cannot, then perhaps you might want to go play on the junior level somewhere. The argument has been expressed, the PhDs seemed to have disappeared, so want a go at me? Do it. If not, quit posting to me and go play checkers with Barney the Dinosaur or something.

---

But I AM putting my intellect where my mouth is. If I don't come up with the goods I lose the argument & $1,000.Am I the only one who finds it strange that a creationist feeling confident doesn't feel able to make a bet? Not that confident, I guess.Mark

Jep,Please use the "reply" button at the bottom of the post you reply to, rather than the big fella at the bottom. It makes it easier to keep track of who replied to who. It's obvious you're replying to Percy now, but in several pages time, it won't be, since people post replies over several pages as a rule.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JEP,Sorry, mate, it looks like I'm on your case tonight. I'm not, I promise!You are under no obligation to to do this, but could you please use the quote functions? In brackets put "quote", before the text, followed by in brackets "/quote", after the text. You can use the preview option to test your results. That's the "square" brackets nearest the enter key.It makes it much, much easier to see who said what & what you are replying to.Thanks again,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-14-2003]

JEP,

quote:

---

Mark is on my tail. But I have deduced that Mark is from Oz. Because it is not night in Missouri and no one else would call me 'Mate, therefore, I forgive him.

​

So when is it proper to use the quotes? When I am quoting the text I am responding to?

---

Yes.But I'm from the UK, not Oz Funnily enough we have some new Aussies moved in nearby, a pub conversation involves at least 20% of the total vocabulary used as being the word "mate", & it's not just them.....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JEP,

quote:

---

Got it. And you must be an OK guy because Tony Blair is one of my heros. Blair has got to a creationist.

---

If he is, he isn't of the aggressive type. We have Darwin on our new 10 notes .Mark.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.