Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 02-21-2002, 06:03 AM

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-108.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-108.htm</a>

Far worse for the evolution hypothesis of common ancestry are the latest data of molecular homology, amino acid and nucleotide sequence studies. Patterson said that if Mayr and evolutionary theory are saying anything, they must be saying that those forms more recently descended from a common ancestor have a greater similarity among their genes and gene products than those more distantly related. Certainly, it would seem, that is the clearest, simplest, most direct deduction based on the theory of descent from a common ancestor. But concerning this foundational principle of evolution, Patterson concludes: "The theory makes a prediction, we�ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely."

Clearly this is another example of ICR deception. It's a different quote than the one dealt with at talkorigins.org

What is the ICR talking about? What exactly is being tested here?

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

Jack the Bodiless · 02-21-2002, 06:36 AM

I guess it came from <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pattam06.html" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

The prediction is that the amino acids common to B the viper, C the crocodile and D the chicken, that BC would be greater than CD. And here of course are his findings:

BC = 8 out of 143 5.6%
CD = 25 out of 143 17.5%
BD = 15 out of 143 10.5%

Here we are. The theory makes a prediction, we've tested it and the prediction is falsified precisely. CD far outweighs BC so something is wrong with the prediction. Something is wrong with the theory. But, of course, we know that falsification is never absolute, for you're never sure what it is you have falsified.

So "the theory" isn't evolution, but the theory that the viper and the crocodile are more closely related than the crocodile and the chicken.

Which is no surprise. Crocs and chickens share a more recent common ancestor, an archosaur.

So it's a creationist deception.

tgamble · 02-21-2002, 07:07 AM

Quote:

So "the theory" isn't evolution, but the theory that the viper and the crocodile are more closely related than the crocodile and the chicken.
Which is no surprise. Crocs and chickens share a more recent common ancestor, an archosaur.

Makes sense. But why didn't Mayr know that? Why would he make such a prediction in the first place?

Valentine Pontifex · 02-21-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


Makes sense. But why didn't Mayr know that? Why would he make such a prediction in the first place?

Mayr does. :-)

The context of the Patterson quote is a talk about systematics and nothing else. This was in the days when the very idea of cladistic classification was very controversial. If one classifies by cladistics who goes with who is different than in traditional Linnean classifications.

tgamble · 02-21-2002, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:
Mayr does. :-)

oh. Well, it had me fooled.

So he just made the prediction knowing that it would fail to make a point?

ICR is also claiming that there were other recordings of the talk aside from the creationist one. I seriously doubt this. Naturally no names are given.

tgamble · 02-22-2002, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
Let's check again with the turtle, turtle myoglobin. B is the turtle (terrapin as I remember), C is crocodile and D is chicken.

BC 11.8% (B is turtle)
CD 5.2% (C is crocodile)
BD 5.9% (D is chicken)

This seems to say that two reptiles are more similar than a reptile and a bird. This seems to contradict what evolution predicts. Now I'm totaly confused!

Jack the Bodiless · 02-22-2002, 03:48 AM

Tests of a single trait, like the myoglobin structure, don't really prove anything either way. It's entirely possible that avian myoglobin developed along a divergent path. It's the overall genome similarity that matters.

Evolution predicts that, on average, the crocodile genome should resemble that of birds more than that of snakes or turtles (particularly in places where changes can freely accumulate without affecting natural selection, e.g. in junk DNA). AFAIK, this is the case.

02-21-2002, 06:03 AM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	ICR misquote of patterson (not the one on fossils. A different one) <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-108.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-108.htm</a> Far worse for the evolution hypothesis of common ancestry are the latest data of molecular homology, amino acid and nucleotide sequence studies. Patterson said that if Mayr and evolutionary theory are saying anything, they must be saying that those forms more recently descended from a common ancestor have a greater similarity among their genes and gene products than those more distantly related. Certainly, it would seem, that is the clearest, simplest, most direct deduction based on the theory of descent from a common ancestor. But concerning this foundational principle of evolution, Patterson concludes: "The theory makes a prediction, we�ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely." Clearly this is another example of ICR deception. It's a different quote than the one dealt with at talkorigins.org What is the ICR talking about? What exactly is being tested here? [ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ] [ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2002, 03:48 AM	#7
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Tests of a single trait, like the myoglobin structure, don't really prove anything either way. It's entirely possible that avian myoglobin developed along a divergent path. It's the overall genome similarity that matters. Evolution predicts that, on average, the crocodile genome should resemble that of birds more than that of snakes or turtles (particularly in places where changes can freely accumulate without affecting natural selection, e.g. in junk DNA). AFAIK, this is the case.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.