Barry...for a great example, I would say MANY (not all) of your camp accept the work of Theobald in confirming a UCA, but when his process and procedures were analyzed by other equally reliable scientists they were not so convinced.
In the "Scientific World Journal", (2012), Article ID 479824, the authors (Yonzawa and Hasegawa) point out a problem with the earlier research of Theobald (Nature 465, 219–222 (2010)), who claimed his research confirmed the idea of a Universal Common Ancestor. Their analysis and review of his work led them to the following conclusion.
“The most serious problem of Theobald’s analysis is that he used aligned sequences compiled by Brown et al. [1], who were interested in resolving the phylogenetic relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes, including whether each domain of life constitutes a monophyletic clade. So they a priory assumed the existence of UCA. Indeed, alignment is a procedure based on an assumption that the sequences have diverged from a common ancestral sequence. Brown et al. wrote “Individual protein families were first computer aligned and then we manually refined the alignments. We removed poorly conserved regions in individual protein alignments.” This procedure clearly assumes the existence of UCA, and this was not a problem for Brown et al., because what they were interested in was the phylogenetic relationship among all species on Earth, and the existence of UCA was supported by circumstantial evidence . However, in proving the existence of UCA, the alignment procedure should not be used, because it gives a strong bias for the UCA hypothesis.”
It appears in Theobald’s research, using humanly programmed computer assumptions and manipulating other factors, was able to make the preconceived conclusion (UCA) look like it had been confirmed. When people pushing this belief do this, it should make all who have swallowed the notion ask questions and become suspect. When taught or used as support these facts should be revealed up front (especially in school when being taught).
So first Theobald based his model on Browns who admitting "Individual protein families were first computer aligned, and then we manually refined the alignments. We removed poorly conserved regions in individual protein alignments.'
Which reveals
a) they used a computer program to align similar areas (intelligently designed by someone already convinced the hypothesis is true) and then
b) manually REFINED the alignments (because they did not actually match up), then finally
c) removed areas they declared "poorly conserved"
Now you can call this work astounding if you would like, but I call it the result of intelligent design (necessary components of most scientific endeavor...which is fine just admit it and separate the real form the devised results) and we must not exclude the FACT that they tweaked the data to get the DESIRED result (which already was presupposed to be true).
So why would anybody with any semblance of intellectual integrity blind themselves to the role assumption plays in many of these conclusions?
In the "Scientific World Journal", (2012), Article ID 479824, the authors (Yonzawa and Hasegawa) point out a problem with the earlier research of Theobald (Nature 465, 219–222 (2010)), who claimed his research confirmed the idea of a Universal Common Ancestor. Their analysis and review of his work led them to the following conclusion.
“The most serious problem of Theobald’s analysis is that he used aligned sequences compiled by Brown et al. [1], who were interested in resolving the phylogenetic relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes, including whether each domain of life constitutes a monophyletic clade. So they a priory assumed the existence of UCA. Indeed, alignment is a procedure based on an assumption that the sequences have diverged from a common ancestral sequence. Brown et al. wrote “Individual protein families were first computer aligned and then we manually refined the alignments. We removed poorly conserved regions in individual protein alignments.” This procedure clearly assumes the existence of UCA, and this was not a problem for Brown et al., because what they were interested in was the phylogenetic relationship among all species on Earth, and the existence of UCA was supported by circumstantial evidence . However, in proving the existence of UCA, the alignment procedure should not be used, because it gives a strong bias for the UCA hypothesis.”
It appears in Theobald’s research, using humanly programmed computer assumptions and manipulating other factors, was able to make the preconceived conclusion (UCA) look like it had been confirmed. When people pushing this belief do this, it should make all who have swallowed the notion ask questions and become suspect. When taught or used as support these facts should be revealed up front (especially in school when being taught).
So first Theobald based his model on Browns who admitting "Individual protein families were first computer aligned, and then we manually refined the alignments. We removed poorly conserved regions in individual protein alignments.'
Which reveals
a) they used a computer program to align similar areas (intelligently designed by someone already convinced the hypothesis is true) and then
b) manually REFINED the alignments (because they did not actually match up), then finally
c) removed areas they declared "poorly conserved"
Now you can call this work astounding if you would like, but I call it the result of intelligent design (necessary components of most scientific endeavor...which is fine just admit it and separate the real form the devised results) and we must not exclude the FACT that they tweaked the data to get the DESIRED result (which already was presupposed to be true).
So why would anybody with any semblance of intellectual integrity blind themselves to the role assumption plays in many of these conclusions?
Upvote
0
