Replies

Osteocalcin itself may not be able to determine the puzzling lineages of australopithecines and humans over the past two million years, but the method could be applied to other proteins that might give a clearer picture.
I find it amazing that evos blast christians or IDers for their 'faith' but they readily accept this article as proof of whatever they want it to be without reading the last sentence. IOW, "We are concerned that this discovery will fail to provide any conclusive evidence just as many others have failed, but we'll trumpet the discovery long enough to get in included in textbooks long after it's been discredited."

As I think Nebullis mentioned, this is just one protein of many. Here's what happens when they examine a range of sequences:

MULTI-GENE COMPARISONS
Cytochrome c phylogenies are sometimes imperfect, since they are based on a single gene, and mutations can occasionally reverse previous mutations. In Figure 1, the lamprey [cytochrome c] appears closer to humans than does that of tuna fish, contrary to evolutionary expectations*. Biologists have addressed this problem by looking at more and more genes. Some genes evolve faster than others, some slower. Of course, the fact that some genes change faster or slower than others doesn't disprove evolution.
A recent study (Kumar and Hedges 1998) involved hundreds of genes, for dozens of species. In Figure 3, the 50 genes used to compare old world monkeys to humans have a strong "peak" indicating 23 million years (MYa) since the last common ancestor of these species. The bell-shaped curve centered at 23 MYa is nothing less than a strong biotic "signal." When 107 genes of primates and rabbits are compared, these differences correspond to 90 MYa since the primate/rabbit common ancestor. The "message" is clear: humans are genetically much closer to old world monkeys than they are to rabbits. This accords perfectly with evolutionary expectations: the last common ancestor of primates and rabbits is much farther back in time than the last common ancestor of humans and old world monkeys. Had the genes turned out otherwise, Darwin's "fantasy" would have evaporated.

Figure 3. Comparisons of hundreds of genes. (Data from Kumar & Hedges1998)
- Dave Thomas, NMSR/TCCSA Debate, round 1a

Nice chart. Of course this all assumes that the common ancestor exists. When you start with the result, it's not as hard to find an equation that works. As the article stated:

Biologists have addressed this problem by looking at more and more genes.

Had the single gene shown what the biologists already assumed, they would never have looked at the 50. If it had taken 100, 200 or 3000 genes, then they would have continued until they recieved the desired result.

My point is that there is a science to evolution and there is a religion. The creationists will jump on every failure of evolution as proof of creation and the evos will continue massaging the equation until the results yield the already pre-assumed outcome, which seems to be that there is no 'intelligence' of any kind in the process, and that chance, time and law are enough to yield information-enhancing mutations. Which I personally doubt.

The faith of the evo is just as great as the faith of the creationist. So great in fact, that known hoaxes and errors will continue to be presented loud and far as fact, rather than face the prospect of admitting wrong. The evo acts exactly the same way when confronted with something such as ID as the creationist does when confronted with evolution. These threads are proof of that.