Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: VadeRetro
“Mitochondria are tiny little powerhouses that produce energy in each and every cell of your body. Just as your body contains many organs that perform different functions, the cell contains many organelles that also perform specific functions. The mitochondrion is an organelle whose task is to produce energy molecules the cell can use to accomplish its tasks. “

“However, mitochondria are also the only organelle to contain their own DNA. Certain proteins necessary to the function of mitochondria are coded for by the mitochondrial DNA and not by the nuclear DNA like every other protein in the cell. One other unique aspect of mitochondria is their maternal inheritance. That is, all the mitochondria in your body are descended from the ones you initially inherited from your mother. The sperm injects only its DNA into the egg cell, not its mitochondria. Therefore, an analysis of mitochondrial DNA reveals maternal history only, uncluttered by the mixture of paternal DNA like nuclear DNA. That's why these studies only revealed an African Eve, though other recent studies claim to have followed DNA from the Y chromosome to indicate an ancient "Adam."

“Now these scientists don't actually think they have uncovered proof of a real Adam and Eve. They only use the names as metaphors. But this action does reveal a shift in some evolutionists minds that there is a single universal ancestor rather than a population of ancestors. This at least is closer to a biblical view rather than farther away. “

“Dawkins refers to this river of DNA as a digital river. That is, the information contained in the DNA river is completely analogous to the digital information of languages and computers. “

“Surprisingly, Dawkins gives away the store in this first chapter. In pressing home the digital analogy, Dawkins first uses probability to indicate that the code arose only once and that we are all, therefore, descended from a common ancestor…”:

“So it is reasonable to use probability to indicate that the code could not have arisen twice, but there is no discussion of the probability of the code arising by chance even once. A curious omission! If one tried to counter with such a question, Dawkins would predictably fall back on the assumption of naturalism that since we know only natural processes are available for the origin of anything, the genetic code must have somehow beaten the odds.”

Dawkins makes his case for the reliability of these molecular phylogenies in general. Here he glosses over weaknesses in the theory and actually misrepresents the data. On page 43 he says, "On the whole, the number of cytochrome c letter changes separating pairs of creatures is pretty much what we'd expect from previous ideas of the branching pattern of the evolutionary tree." In other words, Dawkins thinks that the trees obtained from molecular sequences nearly matches the evolutionary trees we already had. Later on page 44, when speaking of all molecular phylogenies performed on various sequences, he says, "They all yield pretty much the same family tree which by the way, is rather good evidence, if evidence were needed, that the theory of evolution is true.”

“Well, besides implying that evidence is not really needed to prove evolution, Dawkins stumbles in trying to display confidence in the molecular data. What exactly does "pretty much" mean anyway? Inherent in that statement are the numerous contradictions that don't fit the predictions or the ambiguous holes in the general theory. But then, evidence isn't really needed anyway is it? “

“While this chapter contained the usual degree of arrogance from Dawkins, particularly in his disdain for the original account of Adam and Eve, it was somewhat less compelling or persuasive than is his usual style. He hedged his bet frequently and simply waived his hand at controversy. Unfortunately, this may not be picked up by the unwary reader.”

“Dawkins further closes off criticism by declaring that "there will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been. These will be challenges to our ingenuity, but if our ingenuity fails, so much the worse for our ingenuity." So if explanations fail us, the fault is not with the evolutionary process, just our limited thinking. How convenient that the evolutionary process is so unfalsifiable in this crucial area. But after all, he implies, this is science and intelligent design is not!”

If this "evolution is smarter than you" statement is plausable - why isn't "God is smarter than you?"

983 posted on 03/20/2002 3:05:03 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies ]


To: Heartlander
Yes, you can use mitochondrial DNA as a clock to make trees of descent and to guess at time of divergence. And it's matrilineal.

It isn't what I'm coaxing from tallhappy, a really mind-blowing evolutionary story. He doesn't want to tell it. He's sympathetic to the "I can't handle the TRUTH" crowd.

More on DNA clocks and cytochrome c here and here.

As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only one base (a 0.3% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.

The combined effects of DNA coding redundancy and protein sequence redundancy make DNA sequence comparisons doubly redundant; DNA sequences of ubiquitous proteins are completely uncorrelated with phenotype, but they are strongly causally correlated with heredity. This is why DNA sequence phylogenies are considered so robust.


985 posted on 03/20/2002 3:16:31 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander
If this "evolution is smarter than you" statement is plausable - why isn't "God is smarter than you?"

"Evolution is smarter than you are" basically says "Don't give up! You can figure this out."

"God is smarter than you are" means "Hang it up!"

986 posted on 03/20/2002 3:17:56 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander
Note, in the post you're responding to, I asked him why mitochondria have their own DNA. The first time you hear it, it's a stunner.
987 posted on 03/20/2002 3:20:22 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander
The single female and single male ancestors are actually an consequence of probability theory. If you draw a random family tree and allow more or less arbitrary matings and have some prbability of dying before breeding, you will get the single ancestor phenomenon. A similar thing happens with Chinese family names. A branch may die out thus losing its tag (or name). Eventually (with probability one) there will be only one branch left.

As there are two simultaneous branches being looked at (male and female), there will be a single line for each branch. There is no reason that the single ancestor of the male branch is anywhere near in time (or location) to the single ancestor of the female branch. It's not clear that any deep philosophical insight can be drawn from the single ancestor phenomenon.

1,043 posted on 03/20/2002 7:35:05 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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