Administrator2
New Member
SCOTT PAGE
As much of ‘John Paul’s’ last post was tangential and did not add much to the discussion at hand, I will respond only to those issues which seemed substantive.
Therefore, I see no reason to even pursue this line of reasoning and research
“…and please explain how the patterns of synapomorphy can be ‘explained’ (or inferred) via common creator, given that: 1. it is known that mutations occur; 2. it is known that mutations are passed on via descent.
Your replies above did not deal with this at all. Perhaps I should explain – a synapomorphy is a unique shared locus between individuals (typically of differing taxa). For example, John Paul has unique mutations in his genome that are shared with members of his family, and some of these can be traced back to his ancestors. John Paul has them because mutations are heritable. Had you actually followed the link and looked at the actual data, you would see clearly definable patterns of such ‘shared mutations’ across species. The patterns observed in the data at the link match quite nicely evolutionary hyotheses of descent. Coincidence? No.
The creationist claims that it can be logically interpreted as evidence of a Common Creator using a Common Design. And putting patterns of synapomorphy into the taxa – patterns that mimic evolutionary hypotheses of descent – apparently just for fun?
Embryology is very interesting…
ReMine claims that 1667 beneficial mutations (plus some number of neutral ones) is not enough to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor in 10 million years. He does not know what the apelike ancestor was, thus he cannot know how few is too few to account for human evolution.
[ July 16, 2002, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]
As much of ‘John Paul’s’ last post was tangential and did not add much to the discussion at hand, I will respond only to those issues which seemed substantive.
Please explain how one would go about objectively testing an historic event(s). We cannot – and need not - replicate JFK’s assassination to understand that it occurred – to objectively test the notion that the president was assassinated. As I indicated previously, there is no way to objectively test abiogenesis , and I will append the alleged great transformations, to the creationist’s satisfaction. Any such testing had been pre-rejected by Whysong in the early 1970’s. Indeed, Wysong for some reason believed that “life” had already been created in the lab (testing abiogenesis?), but claimed that this was, in fact, evidence for Design rather than naturalistic abiogenesis.
Therefore, I see no reason to even pursue this line of reasoning and research
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology. This is a common creationist mantra, yet none have been able to provide any sort of support for this. Why, for example, should the DNA sequences for blood proteins match due to morphological similarities? There is no logical reason for that other than descent.
You did not even attempt to address the issues I suggested. I asked:
“…and please explain how the patterns of synapomorphy can be ‘explained’ (or inferred) via common creator, given that: 1. it is known that mutations occur; 2. it is known that mutations are passed on via descent.
Your replies above did not deal with this at all. Perhaps I should explain – a synapomorphy is a unique shared locus between individuals (typically of differing taxa). For example, John Paul has unique mutations in his genome that are shared with members of his family, and some of these can be traced back to his ancestors. John Paul has them because mutations are heritable. Had you actually followed the link and looked at the actual data, you would see clearly definable patterns of such ‘shared mutations’ across species. The patterns observed in the data at the link match quite nicely evolutionary hyotheses of descent. Coincidence? No.
The creationist claims that it can be logically interpreted as evidence of a Common Creator using a Common Design. And putting patterns of synapomorphy into the taxa – patterns that mimic evolutionary hypotheses of descent – apparently just for fun?
The pectoral fins represent the forelimbs. The vestigial pelvi-associated bones are the hindlimbs.
See http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture15/sld034.htm
Embryology is very interesting…
In the embryo, yes. (note: A limb bud contains all of the primordial necessary for a limb to develop, including a ‘thigh’)
This is at best tangential. The guenons in questions are far more similar morphologically than are humans and chimps, yet their chromosome numbers can differ by 6. If what you believe has merit – that chromosomal fusions and rearrangements are in fact very important in evolution (were it true, of course), then it stands to reason that the guenons in question should be worlds apart morphologically, if not behaviorally as well.
You can start by looking at the data in the link I provided before.
Again, I cannot provide you with the answers that you would possibly accept on these ultra-specific challenges. Therefore, you have an out. Perhaps you or one of your creation scientist contacts can tell us what genes affect such things as bipedal locomotion and your challenge can be taken up by the proper authorities. But you are garbling in toto my accusation directed at ReMine.
ReMine claims that 1667 beneficial mutations (plus some number of neutral ones) is not enough to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor in 10 million years. He does not know what the apelike ancestor was, thus he cannot know how few is too few to account for human evolution.
Yet it cannot rationally be done as you describe. As I have already explained, if one follows logically from observable premises (mutations occur and can be passed on) to analyses of sequence data, only one conclusion can logically be reached. In order for alternative conclusions to be drawn, one has to insert Divine caveat and whim into the mix. This may be theologically satisfying, but scientifically it is a dead end.
Those are not tests, by any stretch of the imagination. They are observations. The same criteria can be applied to pretty much ANY other organism.
What do you mean ‘decipher’? Are you claiming that we do not understand the genetic code or something? I know that you have not been following this, but evidence, in fact, continues to accumulate that evolutionary hypotheses of descent (and other things) are correct. Direct sequence analyses have continues to verify earlier estimates and conclusions drawn form DNA-DNA hybridization studies. Creationists have been claiming for some time now that information gleaned from the HGP will sound the death knell for evolution. I’m listening, but hearing nothing.
[ July 16, 2002, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]