Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Just recalled that Pontiac's Rebellion was right after the FAIW. Bad time to be out and exploring in a small party.
“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?"
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.
"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!"
I looked it up and see it is called the Blind Watchmaker program.
I thought it was called something else. I thought it was called the biomorph program biomorph is the word I didn't remember.
You guys are so paranoid that simple honest questions seem like a threat to you.
The point being it is based on random number generation, which was brought up in some onctext or the other.
Thank you for reading the article though.
Typical gobledygook. Trying to sound profound when all you are doing is being unintelligible.
You have not answered my question as to why these species have not been mutating for 400 million years. There are always improvements possible regardless of how limiting the environment may be. In fact, if punk-eek is to be true for example, the species in the limited environment must overcome the limiting environment in order to spread itself past its boundaries. I also see no particular limitation to the coelacanth's environment. The oceans are huge and there is no reason why the species could not have improved itself. Unless of course the demi-god Darwin ordered them to stop mutating, to stop adapting, to stop evolving.
I noticed this in one of "Junior"'s posts
If you are going to make a statement, at least try to get some of it right. I've been going over your "God hates idiots too" post and find this sort of sloppy thinking and wording throughout. BTW, I'm putting together a rather lengthy refutation of that particular piece.
Now the reason I was reading through "Junior"'s drivel is that I have a friend who actually is studying psychology and I'd mentioned that we had a case of full-blown mental illness on one of the discussion groups here and he asked for a couple of sample postings...
Nonetheless what I noticed here was this: You claim to have totally refuted every bit of the famous Eastwood-quote post and, while it's one thing for me not to take these claims of refutation seriously, it's got to be more telling to have one of your own clique not take them seriously. I mean, if "Junior" believed your claim to have refuted all of that stuff, why would he put himself to the trouble of trying to devise an entire new refutation?
In other words, "Junior" apparently thinks you're full of ####, Reep.
Like I said. You project your own limited ideas in to things.
Just because you have recently learned and almost understand some basic ideas in molecular biology, such as smymbiotic theory to explain eukaryotic emergence doesn't mean you have any great knowledge.
You keep trying to go back to pedestrian stuff like mitochondria as remnants of prokaryotic cesll as if it is somehow anything but basic.
To you a "mind blowing" story is in actuality a rather obvious observation.
It's cool sure.
You are such a weird person, very cloistered it would seem.
What's the trippiest thing about it (ie mind blowing)?
But you do not understand. Look, you don't really know the subject but you like it and are keen to learn, and I like that, but don't go around like a moron.
Remember way back, I mentioned mitochndria and ribosomal differences? The made the aside that they were related.
Obviously it went right over your head.
Seldom have I seen an example of a more ignorant buffoon showing off his ignorance.
My mistake is sometimes I think you actually know even a fraction of what you know and do not need to talk down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.