Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: js1138; gore3000
One thing about that Duke study: it seems to point up unreliabilities in mtDNA as a research tool. Despite this, mtDNA is still used all over the place. I have been unable to find out one way or the other if there is some reason--some stratgegy mitigating the problems pointed up in this 2 or 3 year old report--why there hasn't been more of an impact on how genetic relatedness is studied and reported.

Just for one thing, mtDNA is the basis for the repeated proclamations that "Genetic studies have shown that Neanderthals are NOT ancestral to humans ... etc." Creos like gore love to trumpet that one for gap-gaming purposes, but here's gore speaking out of the other side of his mouth going after the basis of his contention.

1,540 posted on 07/12/2003 6:40:47 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1486 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
One thing about that Duke study: it seems to point up unreliabilities in mtDNA as a research tool. Despite this, mtDNA is still used all over the place.

Gee, I guess science doesn't have all the answers. Might as well give up and go home. And scientists actually disagree with each other and get published. Someone must be asleep at conspiracy central.

1,546 posted on 07/12/2003 8:48:05 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1540 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
One thing about that Duke study: it seems to point up unreliabilities in mtDNA as a research tool.

It does much more than that, it shows serious problems with evolutionary assumptions of the relatedness of species. If evolution were correct, it should be quite simple to tell the descent of species through their DNA. The differences in DNA should gradually build up as the pruported tree of life grows in time with species at the higher levels being approximately equidistant in DNA differences to those lower down the tree. Since by now it is pretty well incontrovertible that phenotype is an expression of the genotype, the concordance of long assumed phenotypic relationships should be confirmed by the new genotypic evidence. That it does not is a strong refutation of evolutionary theory. It lends strong support to Intelligent Design theory which in contradiction to evolutionary theory claims that differences in genotype between species are due to the functional requirements of an organism not to descent.

It should be noted that it is not just mtDNA which disproves descent and confirms ID. The presence of numerous examples of what evolutionists hypocritically call 'convergent' evolution confirms ID and disproves evolution. The complete disproof of Haeckel's fraudulent proposition that development follows the steps by which evolution supposedly occurred is an even stronger confirmation of ID.

1,548 posted on 07/12/2003 9:06:10 AM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1540 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
One thing about that Duke study: it seems to point up unreliabilities in mtDNA as a research tool.

It does much more than that, it shows serious problems with evolutionary assumptions of the relatedness of species. If evolution were correct, it should be quite simple to tell the descent of species through their DNA. The differences in DNA should gradually build up as the pruported tree of life grows in time with species at the higher levels being approximately equidistant in DNA differences to those lower down the tree. Since by now it is pretty well incontrovertible that phenotype is an expression of the genotype, the concordance of long assumed phenotypic relationships should be confirmed by the new genotypic evidence. That it does not is a strong refutation of evolutionary theory. It lends strong support to Intelligent Design theory which in contradiction to evolutionary theory claims that differences in genotype between species are due to the functional requirements of an organism not to descent.

It should be noted that it is not just mtDNA which disproves descent and confirms ID. The presence of numerous examples of what evolutionists hypocritically call 'convergent' evolution confirms ID and disproves evolution. The complete disproof of Haeckel's fraudulent proposition that development follows the steps by which evolution supposedly occurred is an even stronger confirmation of ID.

1,549 posted on 07/12/2003 9:06:38 AM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1540 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson