Evidence for God from Science

Sandy,

That's one study at one lab. It's not surprising that a single lab would be able to generate a single tree, and particularly not when they are studying such a closed set. I guess we'll have to wait and see if that study is reproduced elsewhere.

Here's an alternative study that illustrates the problems by drawing two contradictory trees for mankind:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Bower_99.html

Practitioners of what has been dubbed anthropological genetics now operate with a sense of caution and a hunger for better explanations of how evolutionary forces produce genetic diversity among individuals and groups.

"A lot of us have been too eager to assume that a strict out-of-Africa model is correct because it's compatible with the genetic data, without considering that the data also fit with the multiregional theory," says anthropologist John H. Relethford of the State University of New York at Oneonta. "It's time to go back to the drawing board on this issue."

A fundamental conflict between the two current theories - each of which has several proposed variations on its theme - lies in their differing assumptions about the evolutionary significance of genetic differences among individuals and populations, Relethford asserts. DNA analyses appear unable to determine which perspective proves superior, he says.

According to the more common assumption, which supports recent African origins for humanity, DNA disparities between modern populations arose as prehistoric populations split into distinct regional groups, which then rarely interbred. Computer programs retrace this tree-like evolutionary pattern back to a common genetic ancestor, based on estimates of the presumed rate at which particular DNA regions undergo change.

Such reconstructions of an evolutionary tree branching from a single ancestor have hinged on evidence that sub-Saharan Africans have accumulated more variations in their genetic makeup than any other geographic group. According to the theory, they therefore have existed as a relatively separate population for a longer time. Moreover, African DNA diverges in particularly pronounced ways from the genetic material of people living elsewhere in the world, the presumed result of a longer period of African evolution.

Beginning with the first reported branching analysis in 1987, directed by Rebecca L. Cann of the University of Hawaii at Manoa in Honolulu, evolutionary trees portray all modern H. sapiens populations as descendants of a single African population living 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. At some more recent time, part of the original African group departed its homeland and trekked into Asia. Further splits, migration, and occasional interbreeding between some human groups yielded distinctive human populations now found throughout the world.

Only about 10,000 breeding adults comprised the founding block of H. sapiens, according to these investigations. That number could not have supported the network of interbreeding populations proposed in the multiregional model.

The alternative perspective on these same genetic data, however, favors the multiregional picture of human evolution. It holds that genetic variation within and among groups arises from low but consistent levels of interbreeding combined with the buildup in regional groups of random changes in the makeup of DNA.

Proponents of this view argue that Africa's greater genetic diversity arose because more people inhabited Africa than any other continent during the rise of H. sapiens, not because the African population is older. DNA determinations of ancient population sizes represent conservative estimates that may turn out to be unreliable, these scientists argue.

The standoff between contrasting genetic perspectives shows no signs of resolution, Relethford contends. Attempts to confirm presumed splits of prehistoric human populations face particular difficulty, he says. However our species originated, it's likely that interbreeding has occurred among dispersed human populations during the past 100,000 years. The resulting jumbling of DNA traits and patterns has diminished the reliability of reconstructed evolutionary trees and estimates of their ages, in Relethford's view.

A bit more on the problems of genetic evidence...

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/faculty/huelsenbeck.html

The Phylogeny Problem. Evolutionary biology is founded on the concept that
organisms share a common origin and have subsequently diverged through
time. Phylogenies represent our attempts to reconstruct those evolutionary
histories, and there is probably more interest in phylogenetic reconstruction
today than at any time in the past. Phylogenies are central to virtually
all comparisons among species, and they have found practical uses in
tracing routes of infectious disease transmission (e.g., dental transmission
of AIDS/HIV) and in identifying new pathogens such as the New Mexico hantavirus.

The phylogeny problem--the estimation of the genealogy of organisms from DNA
sequences--is not a standard statistical one. Hence one cannot simply consult
statistical texts for a solution. Our research concentrates on how phylogeny
can be estimated and how phylogenies can be used to address questions in
evolutionary biology. In general, we have taken a Bayesian approach to the
inference of phylogeny. Bayesian inference is a widely used method for
making statistical inferences but has found only limited use in evolutionary
biology. The technology I use to perform Bayesian analysis of DNA sequences
is Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). MCMC takes valid, albeit dependent,
samples from the probability distribution of interest and has made Bayesian
inference practical for many scientific problems. Here we outline a few of
the phylogenetic questions that we are interested in.

Estimating large phylogenies. There are only three possible trees that could
represent the phylogenetic history of three species: (A,(B,C)); (B,(A,C));
and (C,(A,B)). Even a method that picks one of the trees at random, then,
has a reasonable chance of correctly inferring phylogenetic history. However,
for a "small" phylogenetic problem involving 10 species, there are 34,459,425
possible trees, and for a problem of only 22 species, there is over a mole of
trees. Today, most phylogenetic problems involve over 80 species and there are
some data sets that have over 500 species. (For 500 species, there are
approximately 1.0085 X 101280 possible trees, only one of which can be
correct.) The analysis of phylogenetic problems involving hundreds of sequences
poses enormous compuational problems.

Most of the methods for tackling such large problems have serious deficiencies.
The optimality criteria used by these methods often have dubious statistical
justifications. Also many of the methods are simply step-wise addition algorithms
and make no effort to explore the space of trees. However, the methods having the
best statistical justification, such as maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference,
are also the most difficult to implement for large problems. We are using Bayesian
inference using MCMC to infer large phylogenies. There are several advantages of
such an approach. For one, the optimality criterion uses all the information
present in the data and the method provides the posterior probability of trees.
Also, some variants of MCMC can allow better exploration of the space of trees.

Comparative analysis. The comparative method in evolutionary biology involves
comparing one or more features across species. The comparative method has
provided much of the evidence for natural selection and is probably the most
widely used statistical method in evolutionary biology. Since the mid 1980's
it has been realized that phylogeny must be accommodated in comparative analyses;
failure to take account of the similarity in features across species that is
caused by a common history can seriously bias comparative analyses, rendering
them meaningless. Hence, the gold standard for a comparative analysis today
includes the phylogenetic history of the species. These methods all, however,
suffer one serious problem: They all assume that the phylogeny is known without
error. Yet, almost all phylogenies have a large degree of uncertainty. How can
comparative analyses be performed that accommodate phylogenetic history but do
not depend upon any single phylogeny being correct?

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/genesevolution.htm:

Jonathan Losos, professor of biology at Washington University and director of that school's Tyson Research Center, writes:


"By comparing DNA sequences for the same gene or genes in different species, biologists can draw INFERENCES about how species are related evolutionarily. Although controversy exists about the best method of deducing phylogenetic relationships from DNA comparisons, researchers agree that species that have more similar DNA are, in most cases, more closely related to each other than to another species whose DNA is less similar" (2001: 66 [emphasis added]).

Zimmer himself, despite his previous statement, has also shown that genetic mapping only provides inference for, not proof of, evolution. Instead of showing a clear map of how a given species evolved from a lower life-form, the genetic record shows a gigantic amount of genetic mutations that neither harm nor improve the species (called "neutral evolution"). Zimmer reports: "The irony [of this discovery] was inescapable: scientists finally had a chance to tune in to evolution on its most basic level, but the signal of natural selection seemed to be swamped by the static of neutral evolution" (2001b: 16).

Worse, the signs of evolution by natural selection, supposedly visible in the genetic record, are simply not there, so inferences have to be made, as Zimmer admits:


"…[R]esearchers can't go back millions of years to read a gene's ancestral sequence, nor can they know the precise history of mutations that led up to its current form. But biologists can make some INFERENCES by comparing the genes of closely related animals….But the evidence from real genes is rarely so clean, and thus some uncertainty inevitably creeps in" (Ibid. 18 [emphasis added]).

Wall-dog wrote:the genetic arguments are inherently flawed. ...

Here's an alternative study that illustrates the problems by drawing two contradictory trees for mankind:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Bower_99.html
A bit more on the problems of genetic evidence...
http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/faculty/huelsenbeck.html
[http://news-info.wustl.edu/sb/page/normal/343.html]

All three groups of researchers you quote admit that this is a difficult problem. All of these experts are doing research in this area. But you say that their arguments are inherently flawed. The scientists you reference obviously see this as an interesting problem to work on, not a hopeless morass of contradictory conclusions. Why don't they share your pessimistic outlook? It's one thing to say the answers aren't known yet, but you seem to be arguing that there is no solution. I don't get that impression from reading what the scientists have at their websites. [I do get the idea that it is more difficult to determine phylogenetics for very similar closer groups than for more widely disparate ones.]

All three groups of researchers you quote admit that this is a difficult problem. All of these experts are doing research in this area. But you say that their arguments are inherently flawed. The scientists you reference obviously see this as an interesting problem to work on, not a hopeless morass of contradictory conclusions. Why don't they share your pessimistic outlook? It's one thing to say the answers aren't known yet, but you seem to be arguing that there is no solution. I don't get that impression from reading what the scientists have at their websites. [I do get the idea that it is more difficult to determine phylogenetics for very similar closer groups than for more widely disparate ones.]

Actually, you've got it backwards. Scientists are trying to use similar groups because those are easier to work with. Similarities are too common. That's true and that is one major problem. But that problem grows as you move further away. You'll have many more species sharing four genes than two. That of course is to be expected, but not to the degree that genetics comes up with.

Why do I consider it an unsolvable problem? Because the whole genetic argument starts with the contention that genetic similarities are caused by proximity in relationship. In other words, the argument is circular. It's something like this: "We believe they are related because they are genetically similar. They are genetically similar therefore they must be related." But I don't think genetics are inherently flawed. Genetics just tell a different story than darwinists like to hear. I think August has posted in this thread about how genetics point to ID. Just like other branches of science, genetics looked to have great implications for evolution until scientists got too far. Then cracks began to form. The more they look at the cracks they bigger they get. But they aren't cracks in genetics. Rather they are cracks in evolution. It isn't the science I disagree with. I disagree with the conclusions. The fact that apes and men are between 98 and 99% identical but ALL of the 'body-building genes' are in the 98 to 99% of shared genes really says quite a bit about how the genetic picture is not a complete one. According to genetics, not only did we evolve from apes, but we should still be apes. Obviously there are differences but they are NOT where genetics say they should be.

And in the meantime there is a perfectly acceptable alternative theory - that genetics are but a tool used along with intelligence.

Wall-dog wrote:

Where did you get this? This is not the case.

You are refuting Dr. Jonathan Wells. Considering his credentials, I'm going to have to ask for more than just you saying he is wrong.

Please, this is just what I thought would happen. You can't use his credentials as a shield, you still need to provide evidence. Credentials don't credit an opinion as much as personal attacks discredit an opinion, so please stop with these credentials!

Wall-dog wrote:If Dr. Wells says that sending the same gene to different labs produces different results, I'm going to have to take his word for it unless you can give me more than just 'this is not the case.'

When scientists mean completely different phylogenic trees, thery don't mean that all of a sudden ducks are related to sheep. What they mean is that the closely related animals relationships get shuffled.

Wall-dog wrote:If you listen to Dr. Wells you will find out that throwing more genes into the mix doesn't pin-down the results but creates even more possibilities for matches. In other words, with one gene you get multiple trees but with many genes you get a forest.

Please provide a reference to the study.

Wall-dog wrote:The problem really is the way genetics work. For starters, we don't know that similar gene patterns implies relationship.

Then why is it admisable in a court of law?

Wall-dog wrote:Next, we don't really know what the genes all do. We share 98 to 99% of our genes with the ape for example.

Why do we need to know what the genes do?

Wall-dog wrote:That would imply that the differences between us and the ape are all in the 2% that are not shared. That however is not the case. Actually ALL of the body-building genes are in the 98 to 99% we share with the ape. The one to two percent of genes that are different don't deal with anatomy.

I thought you just said we don't know what all the genes do. Which one is it? You seem confused.

Wall-dog wrote:Really the big problem with genetic trees though is how they are created. People look at the genes and try to find similarities - as you have done in your illustrations. It's like a jigsaw puzzle of a snow-storm with pieces that can be fit together hundreds or even thousands of ways.

No it's a statistical analysis, it's done mathmatically.

Wall-dog wrote:And the more pieces you add the more options you have for reconstruction. This is highly subjective. That's why you get different trees. When you take bad science and add more bad science to it you don't get good science. It just doesn't work that way.

Your not even talking directly about the subject. What sort of misdirection tactic is this? How can you characterize it as bad science, on what basis?

Wall-dog wrote:

You do, because there are possibilities for phylogenic similarities, for instance multiple occurances of venom in snakes or other examples of convergent evolution. The genetic evidence is stronger than phylogenic trees based on physical features. For instance the hyenna is more closely related to cats than dogs altho many would think the reverse.

We don't know enough about genes to make that statement - and particularly not when different labs come up with different results. That's conjecture based on the fact that a tree based on anatomy creates a different tree than the myriad of trees based on genetics.

For the most part the two trees agree, it is only the details which are at odds. For example the relationship between the various canines are roughly the same in both trees.

Wall-dog wrote:But again, the real problem is that the results created by genetics are subjective.

So genetic analysis is useless?
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/forenscr.html

Wall-dog wrote: How much do you know about medical science? The art of diagnosis can be subjective too. Some tests are very conclusive but most tests only point in particular directions. In many cases many tests are needed before a diagnosis can be done. This is why doctors are so highly trained and so well paid - because their jobs are highly subjective and mistakes can cost lives so we want to make sure they know what they are doing.

The point is that an array of tests makes the results more reliable.

More measurements make the results more reliable.

Wall-dog wrote:Your description rightfully shows the subjective nature of genetics.

Again how is genetic analysis subjective, have you looked at the publications at all?

Wall-dog wrote:

Care to share the source? Where is the data to show this is the case. In any comparative analysis of genes multiple statisticle methods are used, they will yield different results, but not drastic as you seem to be imagining.

That was a direct quote from Doctor Wells, who holds two PHDs.

Again with credential, I am arguing you not Dr. Wells. Let's say tomorrow there is breaking news which invalidates his opinions. Will his "QUOTES" still be bullet proof because he has "TWO PHDs".

Wall-dog wrote:I'll cite Dr. Wells as my source. Should I post his credentials again? He is one of the nations top experts in this field. I don't know his source. I haven't seen the data. But based on his credentials I'm going to have to take his word for it.

Could you post a source for these quotes?

Wall-dog wrote:The assumption is not based on statisticle analysis. It is based on the fact that genes for different animals have inactive sections which can have any sequence. Yet they are similar. Why? Why not have all the same sequence? Or why not have random sequences?

Why do you call it an assumption? Either Doctor Wells is correct that the genetic trees can point anywhere - that creating them is subjective - or he is making it up.

What are you talking about, I was responding to the quote. Is it this easy for you to lose your train of thought? Look back at the original post and try again.

Wall-dog wrote:Based on his credentials, what rational reason would I or anyone else on this board have not to take his word for it? Is Doctor Wells not a noted expert? Would his testimony not be admissible in court?

Don't you think this is getting old? Your focusing on an individual and neglecting the subject at hand. Are we arguing about Dr. Wells or the validity of genetic analysis? Are you confused?

Wall-dog wrote:The problem isn't that sequences can't be shown to be similar. The problem is that other sequences can also be shown to be just as similar with different organisms.

The results are in direct oposition to this statement.

Wall-dog wrote:It's all over the map. Using genetics to show a direct relationship - mother, father, brother, uncle, etc. has been shown to be reliable. Using genetics to show a relationship between species? Too many assumptions and too many possible results. It's subjective.

This is a strange statement given that more distant relationships are actually easier to work out than closer relationships.

Remember the sequences I posted earlier?
Try these.

Skipjack Tuna
GDVAKGKKTF VQKCAQCHTV ENGGKHKVGP NLWGLFGRKT GQAEGYSYTD ANKSKGIVWN ENTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RQDLVAYLKS ATS

Rabbit
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKDE RADLIAYLKK ATNE

Sheep
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE REDLIAYLKK ATNE

See how its much more easier to tell that the tuna is less related.

Wall-dog wrote:

If it occurs at certain levels how can it be shown that it does not occur at higher "levels". What defines levels? How can you show these levels statistically through gene analysis? Do these levels actually exist?

I wouldn't use something subjective like genetics to prove anything.
What defines the levels? People do. Do the levels exist? You bet. They are standard classifications. What may or may not exist are relationships between them. And that's kind of the point to this whole debate. The thesis that these relationships exist belongs to evolution so I don't know why you would try to refute them now.

I am not refuting them, I am questioning you're understanding of them. I am questioning your ability to discern the significance of classification.

Wall-dog wrote:

Is it possible that some groups of animals have changed so much they can no longer interbreed? Doesn't this requirement seem arbitrary? For instance a dog and a wolf can interbreed. So can a tiger and lion. But a cat and tiger can't yet we consider them related. What about a sheep and a cow?

We don't really know that a tiger and lion are related. They look like they might be and evolution is a legitimate theory at that level. Even at that level though it is only a theory.

Yes a theory, but would you say an unlikely or a likely theory? Remember "microevolution" was shown in a lab environment.

Wall-dog wrote:

Is'nt it strange how the same skeletal structure is reused over and over again, when there is no need for it to? And they are used differently in each case. Look below.

Isn't it also strange how well that structure works in all three situations? Isn't that a strong case for a designer - who would be likely to re-use ideas for similar situations?

Fish and whales live in the same environment lets look at their designs.


Aren't these similar situations? Why isn;t the idea reused here?

Wall-dog wrote:In fact, those similarities were used as an argument for design before they were used as an argument for evolution.

The current theory is that development itself has undergone evolution and that changes indevelopment can occur at anytime during the development of an organism.

So then you are saying that it means nothing. I think we agree.

I'll just take it you don't understand.

Wall-dog wrote:

Take a look at the embryo's of a whale a bird and a horse, the part of the embryo which are homologous all develop into the arm bones of each animal, even though each animal has a different function for theri limbs.

That would be a great argument except that they all function so well. These similarities can be just as easily used to show design, where a designer used a similar technique for a similar situation.

Some function better than other's would you not agree? In other words I am certain you would agree that some individual horses are faster and more fit than others.

Wall-dog wrote:

This is not the case, the cambrian fossils are not primary evidence, and neither are embryo's. Studies of development don't counter evolution, you are only countering Haeckles theory which has been overturned, and then protesting that the theory has been replaced?

But they were supposed to be the primary evidence.

No look back at my original posts, Haeckle came after Darwin. And many in there enthusiasm for the new theory embraced Haeckles ideas, prematurely it would seem.

Wall-dog wrote:They have been replaced not because they didn't mean anything but because they pointed the other way.

No this is not the case, the current understanding is that ontegeny does have a relationship with phylogeny. Just not as direct as Haeckle had proposed.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 1&SRETRY=0
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/news/articles/evo-devo.html

Wall-dog wrote:I'm protesting because the underlying theory has not been replaced. The underlying theory is evolution.

Proteins come from genes.
Genes are subject to change.
Mutations occur.

Big changes or little changes? Do they still occur or are there limits to evolution? How can you possible know that evolution occurs at the macro-level? Nobody is questioning that it occurs within species...

Again what is a species if not a population which consists of individuals with a broad spectrum of traits? Are you saying that populations which are separated geographically cannot possibly diverge?

Wall-dog wrote:

Please show me the studies.
Again please reference source.

Based on what? Is he aware that enzymes(proteins) further produce additional genes from the primary genes?

How so?

Reference sources and studies? You've been complaining about my use of sources and now you want to see them? Never mind that you are taking something that was a direct quote and asking to see the source. I've alredy cited those.

I didn't perform the studies. Nor do I need to. I'm not a scientist. That's why I prefer to quote. If I cited myself as a source I'd be laughed off this forum. I don't have the expertise. If I DID perform a study on something like this myself the results would be considered highly suspect for the same reason.

The data is greater than an individual scientist, just link to a reference which shows that the data can lead to the greatly varying results your Dr. Wells seems to be claiming.

Wall-dog wrote:Is Doctor Wells aware that enzymes(proteins) further produce additional genes from the primary genes? Are you really asking that???

Well if he were aware then he would know that a 2% difference is quite adequate to explain differences. As enzymes interact a 2 % difference can become a 10% difference in overall protein composition. He is either unaware of the secondary source of proteins and it's implications, or purposely trying to mislead others.

Wall-dog wrote:

One has to admit that what one accepts as transitional is subjective. What for instance is a transitional form between a dog and a shared ancestor between dogs and cats. It would look neither like a dog or a cat but share anitomical features to both. But then you would ask for a half cat half dog specimen. Or say it doesn't show enough similarities to a dog. But then what is the organism if not a cat nor a dog?

Have you ever seen the cartoon Cat Dog? It's subjective because it hasn't been shown to exist. Again - that is kind of the point!

And please don't say it's just a jaw. There is no need to discuss your objections, the point is we don't have a complete knowledge but there is compelling evidence. If you wish to object that is fine, but if you want to discuss these objections please take it to another discussion board.

Can I call it just a picture of a jaw then? Actually if you look at it another way it looks kind of like a duck. I can even hear it quacking. What's your point? Oh - and the duck thing is a joke. Though it really does kind of look like a duck. LOL!

To a trained professional it has features which both dogs and cats share.

Wall-dog wrote:

Again quote's without the evidence is annoying to argue, please provide a paper or some type of study next time.

I'm sorry it annoys you but I'm not going to stop using expert testimony to prove my point.

I don't see how quoting someone else adds anything of value to this discussion. The point of this thread was to show that science is based on empirical measurements. Quotes are not empirical, to say the least.

Please, this is just what I thought would happen. You can't use his credentials as a shield, you still need to provide evidence. Credentials don't credit an opinion as much as personal attacks discredit an opinion, so please stop with these credentials!

Please provide a reference to the study.

Again with credential, I am arguing you not Dr. Wells. Let's say tomorrow there is breaking news which invalidates his opinions. Will his "QUOTES" still be bullet proof because he has "TWO PHDs".

Don't you think this is getting old? Your focusing on an individual and neglecting the subject at hand. Are we arguing about Dr. Wells or the validity of genetic analysis? Are you confused?

The data is greater than an individual scientist, just link to a reference which shows that the data can lead to the greatly varying results your Dr. Wells seems to be claiming.

I don't see how quoting someone else adds anything of value to this discussion. The point of this thread was to show that science is based on empirical measurements. Quotes are not empirical, to say the least.

To a trained professional it has features which both dogs and cats share.

OK. I guess we'll have to talk about this. I'm going to start with the last statement. You clearly state that to a trained professional the jaw has features which both dogs and cats share. Clearly then you agree to the notion that something may look different to a trained professional than to the rest of us. I'm not a trained professional - nor are you. To me that could be the jaw of a beagle.

This is a forum used to discuss God and science. If this were a court of law you would not even be allowed to bring up statistical data. You would start and someone would object on the grounds that you are not a subject matter expert. You don't have the qualifications to discuss these studies in a court of law. If you wanted to use those studies as evidence in a courtroom, you would first have to get an expert witness. The key word there is not 'witness.' The key word is 'expert.' Courts place a tremendous amount of weight on the knowledge of the witness. You can't testify to something you know nothing about!

Studies are being conducted all the time. Some say one thing. Some say another. It is very easy for you or for I to post data from a study without really understanding that study or without knowing how that study fits in with other studies including studies that may well refute it. Furthermore, we are not qualified to draw conclusions. We can determine whether or not a conclusion makes sense to us and we should very well press the issue if it does not. We should also seek other experts who may have other opinions on what conclusions should be drawn. We can do a tremendous amount of damage misleading people with data we may not understand properly.

And what do you post?

There are over 60,000 species of animals and another million known insects with perhaps as many as another million species of insects that have not been classified. I got that from: http://www.worldstory.net/en/species.html. You posted the genetic sequences for a whopping three. Am I to assume that you posted three at random or three that you thought would illustrate your point? Why should I believe you have any special knowledge that tells you what three species of animals might make a good example? Because you read it on some website yesterday? There are over 60,000 species of animals. According to actual scientists like Dr. Wells (verified by a study posted by Sandy - and you'll notice that Sandy posted the study such that an expert was describing it for us) you can get many trees when you start trying to build a tree of life based on genetics. You say that the closely related species are the hard ones. Wrong. The ones that genetics suggest could be closely related really are pretty easy because when you take all of the species that have say 99.999% similar genes, there aren't all that many. You can put those you find in pretty much any order you want, but you don't have many to choose from. But then you move out to say 95% and you have many more. Move out far enough and you'll have all of them. That's why you get multiple trees. But you won't see that if all you do is post numbers. You need to actually understand those numbers and the only way you'll gain that kind of understanding is if you listen to those who are experts.

Furthermore, there are so many studies out there that it would be very easy to miss some and potentially some very important ones. Who is best equipped to stay on top of all the studies taking place in a given field? I'll tell you who - people who have devoted their lives to that particular field. In other words, experts.

You post numbers and letters that can be very misleading to the vast majority of people who look at them. What do I post? I post expert testimony discussing studies - in some cases specific studies and in other cases discussing them in a more generalized fashion but discussing studies none the less. That's what scientists do. Just because you don't like their conclusions doesn't detract from them.

What you are asking is for us to take the raw data from these studies and try to decide what they mean without using the insights of those that devote their lives to those specific fields even though such experts are easy to find. Not only isn't that sound logic but it isn't even admissible in a court of law. You talk about Dr. Wells' opinion like it doesn't mean anything. Dr. Wells' opinion is admissible in a court of law. He is one of America's top scientists in his field! For you to say that his opinion doesn't matter is just plain stupid. His opinion matters a tremendous amount more than either yours or mine. Really I should ask that you stop posting data unless you can also give expert testimony regarding what that data means. You posting it shouldn't cut it here any more than it cuts it in a court of law. There is a reason courts don't allow that.

Listening to you discussing your opinions on the conclusions we should draw from complex experiments - well, you might as well start giving legal advice too because essentially you have become the scientific version of a latrine lawyer.

The devil is in the details. In the case of science really the devil is in the conclusions. Only rarely is the 'science' bad. Usually if there is a problem it is in the conclusions. You telling us to look at the data (one-sided data provided by you no less), making it sound as complicated as possible when you have every opportunity to simplify it for the majority of the people who post here, and then posting your opinion of what that data shows when you have no qualifications for doing so, is beyond belief. I'll say that again - it is beyond belief. I don't know where you got that notion but it sounds like something from the third star over and straight until daylight. And then to criticize me for continuing to rely on conclusions of experts rather than conjecture from the likes of you? Who do you think you are? And then you have the gall to talk about the scientific method? Perhaps you should be talking about the methodology for bad debate tactics instead.

I'll grant that studies are valuable. You need to grant that experts discussing studies is even better - and that it doesn't matter much whether they are discussing specific studies or discussing 'studies' in a more generalized fashion. And even if an expert is just giving his opinion you need to recognize that an expert opinion carries a tremendous amount of weight in a court of law. That opinion is based on a tremendous understanding of the subject matter at hand.

Let us talk for a moment of intent. My intent in this forum is to broaden my knowledge, build my faith, and show with whatever limited skill my Creator has bestowed upon me that faith in God is scientifically rational. What is your intent?

I'll continue the debate tomorrow, and as usual I will rely on experts to augment my arguments rather than throwing out the debate equivalent of smoke-and-mirrors.

Dr Well's states that phylogenic trees are used as evidence for evolution. And then continues that phylogenic trees cannot be reliable created from the evidence. Therefore, one of the foundations of evolution is false.

The problem with this analysis is twofold.
Discrepencies between phylogenic trees are small. He makes it sound like random relations appear in the analysis.

Second it is the similarity, homology of genes which is a strong indicator for common descent. He cannot dispute this.

Third he misrepresents the application of the first inference with the observations made from the application. In other words science uses a discovery as a basis for further study. Once homology is determined it is the next step to try to determine the exact nature of the relationships. As stated earlier there are section of protein which do no encode the active site. Meaning any number of sequences will maintain the function of the protein, yet a pattern exists even along the inconsequential sections of these genes. Why?

Wall-dog wrote:This is a forum used to discuss God and science. If this were a court of law you would not even be allowed to bring up statistical data. You would start and someone would object on the grounds that you are not a subject matter expert. You don't have the qualifications to discuss these studies in a court of law. If you wanted to use those studies as evidence in a courtroom, you would first have to get an expert witness. The key word there is not 'witness.' The key word is 'expert.' Courts place a tremendous amount of weight on the knowledge of the witness. You can't testify to something you know nothing about!

Exactly, which is precisely why if you want to argue an issue you should take the time to know the subject.

At least cite a source from your source, don't you think looking at the data Dr Wells is using would help in this discussion?

Wall-dog wrote:Studies are being conducted all the time. Some say one thing. Some say another. It is very easy for you or for I to post data from a study without really understanding that study or without knowing how that study fits in with other studies including studies that may well refute it. Furthermore, we are not qualified to draw conclusions.

Perhaps, but don't you think you should at least attempt to examine the data, rather than take someone's word for it? Can you list a source used by Dr. Wells?

It is easier to mislead those who lack the knowledge, don't you think you should arm yourself with the knowledge?

Wall-dog wrote:And what do you post?

There are over 60,000 species of animals and another million known insects with perhaps as many as another million species of insects that have not been classified. I got that from: http://www.worldstory.net/en/species.html. You posted the genetic sequences for a whopping three. Am I to assume that you posted three at random or three that you thought would illustrate your point?

No the data is public knowledge, you pick three. Look under CYCS under protein or nucleotide sequence. Go ahead pick any three.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

Wall-dog wrote:Why should I believe you have any special knowledge that tells you what three species of animals might make a good example? Because you read it on some website yesterday?

Again scientific findings are in the public domain, you can if you take the time, discover sources on your own.

Wall-dog wrote:There are over 60,000 species of animals. According to actual scientists like Dr. Wells (verified by a study posted by Sandy - and you'll notice that Sandy posted the study such that an expert was describing it for us) you can get many trees when you start trying to build a tree of life based on genetics. You say that the closely related species are the hard ones. Wrong. The ones that genetics suggest could be closely related really are pretty easy because when you take all of the species that have say 99.999% similar genes, there aren't all that many.

You misunderstood the differences in phylogeny are within clades not among clades. For instance genetic analysis will yield turtles as being related to a number of different reptiles, but the data never shows turtles as being related more closely to mammals than to another order of reptiles.

Perhaps you want to take a second look at the links both you and Sandy posted. You will notice that the issue lies in the method of statistical analysis, the observation that related organisms share more similar genetic code than more distantly related species is not in question. It is the ability to extract exact information regarding precice relations and accurate times of divergence which is being addressed. In one of the articles the proposed solution is naturally allowing multiple techniques to determine a convergence of data.

You will also notice that the idea of common descent is not even in doubt.
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Bower_99.html

The recent African-origin model championed by many genetic researchers relies on genetic findings that fit just as easily into a contrasting multiregional model. That is, populations of H. sapiens living in different parts of Africa, Asia, and Europe interbred enough over at least the past 1 million years to evolve collectively as a single species.

And lets take a look at another source.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 6&start=90

Estimating large phylogenies. There are only three possible trees that could represent the phylogenetic history of three species: (A,(B,C)); (B,(A,C)); and (C,(A,B)). Even a method that picks one of the trees at random, then, has a reasonable chance of correctly inferring phylogenetic history.

A random method has a one in three chance inselecting the correct tree out of the possible three.

However, for a "small" phylogenetic problem involving 10 species, there are 34,459,425 possible trees, and for a problem of only 22 species, there is over a mole of trees.

Notice they are calculating possible trees, not the number of resulting trees. Yet statistical analysis will lead to similar trees, ruling out the posibility that the statistical analysis is random. You may not get the same details however a general pattern does emerge.

Today, most phylogenetic problems involve over 80 species and there are some data sets that have over 500 species. (For 500 species, there are approximately 1.0085 X 101280 possible trees, only one of which can be correct.) The analysis of phylogenetic problems involving hundreds of sequences poses enormous compuational problems.

Computational problems yes, to discover the correct tree out of so many possibilities is a large problem, however any of the various techniques will rule out quickly a large proportion of the possibilities. Leaving us to try to determine the details.

Don't confuse possibilities with results. I assure analysis of the data does not lead to 1.0085 X 101280 actual trees.

Wall-dog wrote:You can put those you find in pretty much any order you want, but you don't have many to choose from. But then you move out to say 95% and you have many more. Move out far enough and you'll have all of them. That's why you get multiple trees. But you won't see that if all you do is post numbers. You need to actually understand those numbers and the only way you'll gain that kind of understanding is if you listen to those who are experts.

On what basis can you make this statement? This is not how you get multiple trees. What is an alternative explanation for the appearance of trees similar to geneologies if common descent is eliminated as an explanation?

Wall-dog wrote:Furthermore, there are so many studies out there that it would be very easy to miss some and potentially some very important ones. Who is best equipped to stay on top of all the studies taking place in a given field? I'll tell you who - people who have devoted their lives to that particular field. In other words, experts.

Quotes don't show how the data is misleading. You are taking the word of a man that there are problems with certain studies but fail to look at the studies yourself? Is this prudence or gullability? Your source must have sources, can we see these?

Wall-dog wrote:You post numbers and letters that can be very misleading to the vast majority of people who look at them. What do I post? I post expert testimony discussing studies - in some cases specific studies and in other cases discussing them in a more generalized fashion but discussing studies none the less. That's what scientists do. Just because you don't like their conclusions doesn't detract from them.

I post links to studies along with the data which corelates to those studies. All I am asking for is a link to those studies, is that to much to ask? How is the data misleading? I layed the framework to understand the codon sequences as best I could. All you could give me was
"Bam! an Alligator!"
We can discuss what these sequences mean if you want.

See.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/3/263

You have yet to show me these vastly different phylogenic charts.

Wall-dog wrote:What you are asking is for us to take the raw data from these studies and try to decide what they mean without using the insights of those that devote their lives to those specific fields even though such experts are easy to find.

I am trying to show how one can analyze this data on their own. That's what those introductory biology texts are for. To introduce one to biology concepts, and hopefully some will choose to make it their profession.

Wall-dog wrote:Not only isn't that sound logic but it isn't even admissible in a court of law.

This isn't a court room, it is a forum, do you still want to be shielded from the actual science and view it as an object of mystery? No one is on trial here, do you want to deny yourself education?

Wall-dog wrote:You talk about Dr. Wells' opinion like it doesn't mean anything. Dr. Wells' opinion is admissible in a court of law. He is one of America's top scientists in his field!

I doubt it, he seems sorely outdated, especially in his critique of Heackel's theory which hasn't been accepted for 100 year's. There have been new developments in the past century, please inform Dr. Wells.

Wall-dog wrote:For you to say that his opinion doesn't matter is just plain stupid. His opinion matters a tremendous amount more than either yours or mine. Really I should ask that you stop posting data unless you can also give expert testimony regarding what that data means. You posting it shouldn't cut it here any more than it cuts it in a court of law. There is a reason courts don't allow that.

Again I post the data along with the source. You can read the articles yourself, but I am afraid that you would not agree with the premise nor the conclusions.

Wall-dog wrote:Listening to you discussing your opinions on the conclusions we should draw from complex experiments - well, you might as well start giving legal advice too because essentially you have become the scientific version of a latrine lawyer.

Stick to the issue, and the issue is the scientific method of evolution. Do you still doubt that the various fields of science which support the evolutionary theory operate without the scientific method?

Wall-dog wrote:The devil is in the details. In the case of science really the devil is in the conclusions. Only rarely is the 'science' bad. Usually if there is a problem it is in the conclusions. You telling us to look at the data (one-sided data provided by you no less), making it sound as complicated as possible when you have every opportunity to simplify it for the majority of the people who post here, and then posting your opinion of what that data shows when you have no qualifications for doing so, is beyond belief. I'll say that again - it is beyond belief.

I challenge you to print out this thread and take it to a professional in the field. Then come back and tell me where I have erred. All I did was post data. Do you have a problem with my analysis, then show me. The data is there, there is nothing to hide.

Wall-dog wrote:I'll grant that studies are valuable. You need to grant that experts discussing studies is even better - and that it doesn't matter much whether they are discussing specific studies or discussing 'studies' in a more generalized fashion.

What you seem to be leaving out, is the fact that your "expert witness" does not represent mainstream thinking. I could for each of your quotes bring up several hundred in opposition. Would that be productive?

Wall-dog wrote:And even if an expert is just giving his opinion you need to recognize that an expert opinion carries a tremendous amount of weight in a court of law. That opinion is based on a tremendous understanding of the subject matter at hand.

For an expert, your source seems to make alot of mistakes.
"If you compare this molecular tree with a tree based on anatomy, you get a different tree"
He makes it sound like the phylogenic tree is some sort of concrete document which is set in stone.
A tree constructed from physical features will yield different results than a tree created through genetic analysis, but not drastic differences as he seems to be suggesting.

Also this doesn't take away from the fact that a tree can indeed be constructed. The details may be in refute but there is no dispute that kangaroos are mammals and not reptiles.

Wall-dog wrote:Let us talk for a moment of intent. My intent in this forum is to broaden my knowledge, build my faith, and show with whatever limited skill my Creator has bestowed upon me that faith in God is scientifically rational. What is your intent?

You ask me to refute your quotes, and now you question my intent? Your continued insistance that I continue is why I am still posting in this thread. I am sorry I took up your challenge, I should have left well alone from the start. Please do not ask me to continue this discussion. My intent is simple, to answer questions regarding science. It doesn't matter if you do not accept evolution as a possibility, you cannot however undermine research and experimentation by quoting someone disputing overturned ideas, and mischaracterizations of the theory itself. Are you saying that the work and effort of millions of scientists are all a lie draining our hard earned tax dollars? This discussion ends here.

Wall-dog wrote:I'll continue the debate tomorrow, and as usual I will rely on experts to augment my arguments rather than throwing out the debate equivalent of smoke-and-mirrors.

I will no longer participate in this debate, the point was to show that evolution is based on empirical data, If you want to dispute evolution there are plenty of other discussion forums geared specifically for such a purpose. Please take it there.

BeGood,

The problem I have with showing data from studies is that people often show data in ways that are not intellectually honest. If you haven't read it already you should read the book How to Lie with Statistics.

http://www.robelle.com/library/smugbook/stats.html

How to Lie with Statistics, a Book Review
Mark Twain is reputed to have said: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.", which is a lie in and of itself, and is actually attributed to Disraeli in the front cover of the book How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff (Norton), is essential to any programmer survival kit, because misleading color graphics are everywhere. The author teaches you how to talk back to a statistic. This brief, humorous, and entertaining book "is a sort of primer in the ways to use statistics to deceive....the crooks already know these tricks. Honest men must learn them in self-defense." The author shows how to take a graph and make it say anything you want.

But suppose you wish to win an argument, shock a reader, move him into action, sell him something. For that, this chart lacks schmaltz. Chop off the bottom. Now that's more like it ....The figures are the same and so is the curve ....nothing has been falsified - except the impression that it gives ... a line that has climbed halfway up the chart, all because most of the chart isn't there any more ....Why stop with truncating? Simply change the proportion between the ordinate and the abscissa ....That is impressive isn't it.

You are posting just a few pieces of data from studies and then without using any expert qualifications what-so-ever you are making your own conclusions on that data. That is intellectually dishonest.

Do you know why I look for expert sources to post conclusions? It's not because I'm afraid to have an opinion. I think everyone here has figured out by now what my opinion is. I do so because I don't want to be careful not to post bad conclusions. If I can't find an expert who is willing to state a conclusion, I won't post it because there is probably something wrong with it. I'm pretty sure that most scientists who have taken the time to get a doctorate in their given field are not going to lie or misrepresent data. Doing so would be professional suicide. I'm just a computer programmer so I could lie all day and it wouldn't be professional suicide but I'm also a proud former Marine and I take my integrity seriously. I'm not afraid of gaining knowledge and criticizing a conclusion I don't agree with, but I want to do so in such a way that I know without any degree of error that I'm on firm ground. I quote subject matter experts because I am afraid that if I do make a bad conclusion someone might make the mistake of listening to me.

I'll post data when I have it available but you will never see me post a conclusion unless I can back it up. You on the other hand post conclusions and then look for data to support it with no regard for what the evidence really says. I show the subjective nature of genetics and you post three genes. I show again how it is subjective - and just to make you happy even look-up a specific study (but still quote experts for conclusions) and you say they don't know what they are talking about. When you say something as stupid as that Dr. Wells needs to get an education because he disagrees with you, you lose all credibility.

You are a nice guy BeGood, but you have an agenda on this board and you are not conducting yourself in an intellectually honest manner.

Let's talk about studies. How many studies have been conducted on genetics? I think the first serious study was conducted in 1937 and written about in the book Genetics and the Origin of Species. How many have more studies have there been since? I don't have an answer for that but I'm confident that there have been thousands.

But what do these studies show? The vast majority are very specific. The one Sandy posted (and note that Sandy - who has shown a tremendous amount of intellectual honesty even though I disagree with much of what she says - did not post raw data but instead found conclusions made by subject matter experts and posted that) dealt only with a certain variety of yeast cells.

Let us talk about genetics.

A perfect environment for genetics would be what? How about someone who leaves dna at a crime scene and that dna is later matched with that person's dna? how accurate is that? Now we aren't just comparing species to see how similar they look. Now we have an exact match. Must be really accurate, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01210.html

Modern DNA tests have confirmed the guilt of a Virginia man who had proclaimed he was innocent of murder and rape even as he was strapped into the electric chair and executed more than a decade ago, the governor announced yesterday.

The results stunned and disappointed those who have fought a 25-year crusade to prove that Roger K. Coleman was innocent. They also dashed hopes among death penalty foes that the case would catalyze opposition to capital punishment across the country.

Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) yesterday said genetic analysis conducted in recent weeks proves that Coleman, who was executed in 1992 for the slaying of his 19-year-old sister-in-law, was a rapist and killer. The tests show there is a one in 19 million chance that semen found on the victim's body belonged to someone else.

Now, I'll agree that a one in 19 million chance is worth a conviction if you find the suspect first and then collect the dna, but what if you went the other way such as you do with the conclusions you make? What if we start with the dna and then use that to find a suspect? There are almost exactly 300 million people in the United States. Statistically then 15,789 of them match that dna perfectly. Think about that. 15,789 people in the United States match that DNA perfectly. What are the odds one of them lives in your city? I'll bet at least one of them lives in every major American city. and that is a 100% match!! But only one of them committed that murder. Think about that.

I quoted earlier that there are over 60,000 species of animals on the face of the earth and between one million and two million insects. What are the odds that some of those will show similarities even if there are no relationships at all? And you aren't looking for anywhere near 100%!

Dr. Wells says that taking the similarities shown through genetics and using it to try and prove relationships between animals is subjective. He also calls it a circular argument. I think when you really look at genetics and really understand them you would have to agree.

Genetics show genetic similarities. Nothing more.

Yet statistical analysis will lead to similar trees, ruling out the posibility that the statistical analysis is random. You may not get the same details however a general pattern does emerge.

Sure - you'll get general patterns. You'll be able to show that species that are genetically similar are genetically similar. To take that and infer relationship? That is conjecture. If you were a scientist - or even as knowledgeable as you claim to be (plus intellectually honest) we would be debating how logical an inference it is rather then whether or not it is an inference.

Computational problems yes, to discover the correct tree out of so many possibilities is a large problem, however any of the various techniques will rule out quickly a large proportion of the possibilities. Leaving us to try to determine the details.

Don't confuse possibilities with results. I assure analysis of the data does not lead to 1.0085 X 101280 actual trees.

For you to do more than infer, anything more than one tree is too many. And I've quoted subject matter experts saying that.

On what basis can you make this statement? This is not how you get multiple trees. What is an alternative explanation for the appearance of trees similar to geneologies if common descent is eliminated as an explanation?

What scientists like Dr. Wells who do not agree with the relationship-conclusion would say is that it shows nothing more than that similarities exist. Not surprising considering that we all inhabit the same Earth.

Quotes don't show how the data is misleading. You are taking the word of a man that there are problems with certain studies but fail to look at the studies yourself? Is this prudence or gullability? Your source must have sources, can we see these?

Well, I guess we could do it your way and look at the data we like from the studies we like and then ignore the rest, and then we could make conclusions we like and tell everyone that we are so smart we don't even need experts.

I'm sure my source has sources. Making the statements he's made without them would be professional suicide. My not knowing what his sources are doesn't mean he doesn't have them. But he isn't looking at specific studies because he is familiar with the data from all of the studies in his particular field. He has to base his conclusions not only on what one study shows - as you do - but he has to put the results from different studies together and ask the much more substantial question of 'what do we really know and what can we safely infer from it?' More than that maybe 'what other studies can we perform to test some of the conclusions made from previous studies?' THAT is what science is about!!! You spouting off a single study and then telling people evolution is fact - that's just not intellectually honest!

I post links to studies along with the data which corelates to those studies. All I am asking for is a link to those studies, is that to much to ask? How is the data misleading? I layed the framework to understand the codon sequences as best I could. All you could give me was
"Bam! an Alligator!"

Yes you do sometimes do that. Other times you just post a picture and dare me to say it's a jawbone. I say paleontology building skulls is subjective. You post a picture. I show

why

it is subjective and I quote paleontologists in doing so. You post another picture.

You keep saying that I don't post studies, but many of the quotes I've posted do refer to studies and even the ones that don't clearly are based on the empirical evidence available from studies. But quoting a real expert goes further than that. Dr. Wells is particularly good because when he moves from fact to opinion he does another thing real scientists do - he tells you he is doing it.

I use experts for the same reason our court systems use them - because we need to make sure that the conclusions we reach are based in science and to do that we need people who understand not only the results of specific studies but also the context other studies put those results into.

Bam! There's a crocodile!!

If you look, you'll see that I was illustrating a quote, and that I was very open about it being an exageration. Personally I thought it was kind of funny and I thought it made the point pretty clearly.

You have yet to show me these vastly different phylogenic charts.

Like I'm going to post one so that you can pick it apart. My position is that you can NOT make an accurate one. Why don't you create one for every species on the Earth - all going back to the same single cell organisms - and I'll pick it apart. That would follow the argument better I should think.

Neither one of us have posted one. You've posted like three animals and even then selectively.

I am trying to show how one can analyze this data on their own. That's what those introductory biology texts are for. To introduce one to biology concepts, and hopefully some will choose to make it their profession.

If all you had to do was read some introductory biology texts to make firm conclusions then you wouldn't need people to make a profession out of it.

This isn't a court room, it is a forum, do you still want to be shielded from the actual science and view it as an object of mystery? No one is on trial here, do you want to deny yourself education?

I have an education, but it is in computer science. I also have opinions on evolution but I recognize that there are many people who are much more knowledgable than I am in that subject matter. Frankly if I can't find an expert opinion that matches mine, I wouldn't dream of wasting anyone's time by posting it. My opinion on these matters is worthless unless I can back it up. How about yours? Can't you find a single expert who agrees with you? The purpose of quoting experts isn't to hide behind them. It is to show the readers of this forum that the conclusions reached really are worth something. Otherwise it could be just another bad statistic.

I doubt it, he seems sorely outdated, especially in his critique of Heackel's theory which hasn't been accepted for 100 year's. There have been new developments in the past century, please inform Dr. Wells.

Actually, the title of his book is Icons of Evolution and Heackel's drawings are still shown and taught as fact in many modern biology textbooks. That's why he included it.

Again I post the data along with the source. You can read the articles yourself, but I am afraid that you would not agree with the premise nor the conclusions.

What would really impress me would be for you to quote the conclusions and then link to the data. But posting hundreds of links so that looking them all up isn't practical seems more your style. That's another tactic discussed in How to Lie with Statistics.

Stick to the issue, and the issue is the scientific method of evolution. Do you still doubt that the various fields of science which support the evolutionary theory operate without the scientific method?

Actually, I have demonstrated pretty convincingly that various fields of science have used the scientific method to disprove macro evolution. And not once have I had to lie with statistics to show it.

Do you have a problem with my analysis, then show me.

That's exactly what I have been doing.

What you seem to be leaving out, is the fact that your "expert witness" does not represent mainstream thinking. I could for each of your quotes bring up several hundred in opposition. Would that be productive?

Actually, yes it would. We would then be able to start separating what is scientifically known from what is inferred and do so without the risk of misrepresenting facts by building our own conclusions. It's professional suicide for real scientists to post things that aren't really supportable.

For an expert, your source seems to make alot of mistakes.
"If you compare this molecular tree with a tree based on anatomy, you get a different tree"
He makes it sound like the phylogenic tree is some sort of concrete document which is set in stone.
A tree constructed from physical features will yield different results than a tree created through genetic analysis, but not drastic differences as he seems to be suggesting.

Also this doesn't take away from the fact that a tree can indeed be constructed. The details may be in refute but there is no dispute that kangaroos are mammals and not reptiles.

Actually, his point is that genetics can not be used to show that mammals and reptiles are related. And that is the whole point!

You ask me to refute your quotes, and now you question my intent? Your continued insistance that I continue is why I am still posting in this thread. I am sorry I took up your challenge, I should have left well alone from the start. Please do not ask me to continue this discussion. My intent is simple, to answer questions regarding science. It doesn't matter if you do not accept evolution as a possibility, you cannot however undermine research and experimentation by quoting someone disputing overturned ideas, and mischaracterizations of the theory itself. Are you saying that the work and effort of millions of scientists are all a lie draining our hard earned tax dollars? This discussion ends here.

What I am saying is that you are misrepresenting some of the statistical data you are posting, and that much of what you infer from the raw data you show is not supportable and thus not something you would be able to find a reputable source

to

quote.

I'm happy to continue this debate, and I won't hold it against you if you mistakingly post something that is less than accurate. But I will ask that if you continue the debate you do so in a manner that is intellectually honest.

Due to certain issues which both BGood and Wall-dog have been made aware to, I am closing this thread so noone feels an onus to respond. If desired though, feel free to continue this discussion privately.

Kurieuo