Yikes DNA proves what??

[Carey]

To add to the uniqueness of the platypus, studies of its mtDNA forced evolutionists to give upon mtDNA to 'prove' evolution. The studies showed that it was closer to eutherian mammals (cows, men, etc.) than the marsupials (kangaroos, koalas).




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_sc/controversial_scientist

Watson, 79, and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York announced his departure a week after the lab suspended him. He was chancellor of the institution, and his retirement took effect immediately.
Watson shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins in 1962 for co-discovering the structure of the DNA molecule. He is one of America's most prominent scientists.
In his statement Thursday, Watson said that because of his age, his retirement was "more than overdue. The circumstances in which this transfer is occurring, however, are not those which I could ever have anticipated or desired."
Watson, who has a long history of making provocative statements, ran into trouble last week for remarks he made in the Sunday Times Magazine of London. A profile quoted him as saying that he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."
He said that while he hopes everyone is equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true." He also said people should not be discriminated against because of their color, adding that "there are many people of color who are very talented."

 

[Split Rock]

To add to the uniqueness of the platypus, studies of its mtDNA forced evolutionists to give upon mtDNA to 'prove' evolution. The studies showed that it was closer to eutherian mammals (cows, men, etc.) than the marsupials (kangaroos, koalas).

Do you have a reference for this?

You do realize that the platypus is a monotreme, not a marsupial.. right?

 

[Carey]

Do you have a reference for this?

You do realize that the platypus is a monotreme, not a marsupial.. right?

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm

 

[Chalnoth]

To add to the uniqueness of the platypus, studies of its mtDNA forced evolutionists to give upon mtDNA to 'prove' evolution. The studies showed that it was closer to eutherian mammals (cows, men, etc.) than the marsupials (kangaroos, koalas).

What does this have to do with anything? As Split Rock said, the platypus is neither a eutherian or a marsupial. It's a monotreme (an egg-laying mammal). This means, essentially, that it's from a completely different branch: all eutherians and marsupials are more closely related to one another than they are to the platypus.

If what you have claimed above is correct, it would say nothing more and nothing less than mtDNA has changed more in the marsupial line than the eutherian line. But I have my doubts that this characterization is in any way accurate.

The rest of your post has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, so why do you bring it up at all?

 

[Carey]

[/font]
What does this have to do with anything? As Split Rock said, the platypus is neither a eutherian or a marsupial. It's a monotreme (an egg-laying mammal). This means, essentially, that it's from a completely different branch: all eutherians and marsupials are more closely related to one another than they are to the platypus.

If what you have claimed above is correct, it would say nothing more and nothing less than mtDNA has changed more in the marsupial line than the eutherian line. But I have my doubts that this characterization is in any way accurate.

The rest of your post has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, so why do you bring it up at all?

One side says our understanding of DNA proves Evolution.

The other newer studies say DNA disproves evolution.

Then you have some of the so called greatest minds on DNA spouting things like I added to this post.

The point is whatever we think we know about DNA is very questionable it seems to me.

So using DNA to prove evolution seems stupid as using it to disprove it .

 

[Chalnoth]

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm

Ah, I see. You got it from a creationist website, naturally.

Edit: I see the sources were listed, though not cited in the text. Looks like they used a news release as a source for the mtDNA claim:
http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=2130
This news release in no way discounts evolution, it just shows that one hypothesis is apparently better supported by the mtDNA evidence than the other.

Why not read a well-sourced article, like this one?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

In summary, the features of the living platypus, and the evidence available from its scanty fossil record, are both consistent with the idea that it has evolved from primitive mammals which still had many reptilian characteristics.

 

[Split Rock]

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm

Thanks for the reference! I was able to get to this link through the link you provided (which had little useful information): http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=2130

You didn't bother to read the Duke Medical News link.. did you? From that link:

Using a more comprehensive method to analyze the genetic material of 15 types of mammals, Duke researchers have shown that the mitochondrial DNA method that links disparate animals (hippo and whale, kangaroo and platypus) is statistically unreliable when it comes to evolutionary genetics, said Randy Jirtle, professor of radiation oncology at Duke University Medical Center. Their own research using nuclear genes (genes from the nucleus or core of cells) has shown a nearly 100 percent statistical likelihood that the Duke results are correct.

"Our study is the first to provide statistically unambiguous results in favor of classifying mammals using the Theria hypothesis, as paleontologists have long done through studying fossils,"

So, this new methodology supports the hypothesis that paleontologists came up with by studying the fossil record. Now we will see if their conclusions hold up or not to the scrutiny of their colleges. This shows how science works... new data can lead to a re-examination of hypothesizes or even accepted theories. Too bad Creationism is not held to the same standard.. hmmm?

 

[Carey]

Ah, I see. You got it from a creationist website that didn't bother to cite its sources. Lovely.

Why not read a well-sourced article, like this one?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

So creationists cannot be well sourced??

Why ??

 

[Chalnoth]

One side says our understanding of DNA proves Evolution.

The other newer studies say DNA disproves evolution.

Yeah, no. I'd like you to find one peer-reviewed scientific paper that says this.

 

[Chalnoth]

So creationists cannot be well sourced??

Why ??

I corrected my post since you quoted it. But there's a good reason why they tend to be poorly-sourced: they're wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

One side says our understanding of DNA proves Evolution.

The other newer studies say DNA disproves evolution.

Then you have some of the so called greatest minds on DNA spouting things like I added to this post.

The point is whatever we think we know about DNA is very questionable it seems to me.

So using DNA to prove evolution seems stupid as using it to disprove it .

No, no no. One hypothesis is that monotremes broke off from the other two types of mammals early, and the other hypothesis says that monotremes are more closely related to marsupials than to eutherians. Neither "side" claims mammals are not related through evolution (common descent).

How do we handle this dispute? Further experimentation! What a novel concept! Now I ask you this: Why don't "Creation Scientists" do the same?

 

[Carey]

Thanks for the reference! I was able to get to this link through the link you provided (which had little useful information): http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=2130

You didn't bother to read the Duke Medical News link.. did you? From that link:





So, this new methodology supports the hypothesis that paleontologists came up with by studying the fossil record. Now we will see if their conclusions hold up or not to the scrutiny of their colleges. This shows how science works... new data can lead to a re-examination of hypothesizes or even accepted theories. Too bad Creationism is not held to the same standard.. hmmm?

Creationism does hold itself to this standard even though Creationits know beyond a shadow of a doubt after every re-examination of any hypothesis the outcome will always eventually prove the Bible 100 % correct and any hypothesis that woould appear to disprove anything in the Bible will be found to be in error.

Creation science is not for the creationist it is for the decieved.

The reason there are soooo many well sourced creationist sites is because they want to help lead the poor decieved and mislead to the truth.

 

[TheOutsider]

Creation science is ... for the deceived.

Fixed that for you.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

One side says our understanding of DNA proves Evolution.

It gives very strong evidence for evolution.

The other newer studies say DNA disproves evolution.

List these studies, I want direct links to the peer reviewed studies. I garantee you will ignore this, because such studies don't exist. It's a creationist fantasy, that there are peer reviewed and credible scientific studies against evolution, and that creation institutes are actually researching something remotely scientific.

Then you have some of the so called greatest minds on DNA spouting things like I added to this post.

The mind behind the idea doesn't matter, it's the evidence that counts.

The point is whatever we think we know about DNA is very questionable it seems to me.

It seems very questionable to you because you don't know enough about DNA to cover the very basic terms nor do you know what evidence indicates what conclusion.

So using DNA to prove evolution seems stupid as using it to disprove it .

No it isn't. That's like saying using mathmatics to prove 1+1=2 is as stupid as using it to disprove 1+1=3 just because the proof is too complicated for someone who hasn't studied mathmatics extensively, and trust me, you probably don't understand the proof behind 1+1=2 unless you have a graduate degree in mathmatics. You don't know what constitutes proof either way, because you don't know enough of the given subject to be able to decide either way. So you just assume both are wrong and insert your own therefor statement.

 

[Split Rock]

Creationism does hold itself to this standard even though Creationits know beyond a shadow of a doubt after every re-examination of any hypothesis the outcome will always eventually prove the Bible 100 % correct and any hypothesis that woould appear to disprove anything in the Bible will be found to be in error.

This is called bias. But how can we tell if a Creationist is wrong (gasp) about their interpretation of scripture?

Creation science is not for the creationist it is for the decieved.

Correction: It is a method for deceiving people who are not scientists that Creationism is science. Isn't deception the tool of Satan?

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

Creationism does hold itself to this standard even though Creationits know beyond a shadow of a doubt after every re-examination of any hypothesis the outcome will always eventually prove the Bible 100 % correct and any hypothesis that woould appear to disprove anything in the Bible will be found to be in error.

No it doesn't, creationists still list the fraudulant statement that DNA can't be read backwards as proof against the fused chromosome hypothesis. Even though when the creationists first fantasized that statement to be true, it was already widely known by many scientists to be false. I have even submitted this to many creationists sites, along with many others(even devote creationists) this error, but yet, it still remains.

 

[Carey]

It gives very strong evidence for evolution.

List these studies, I want direct links to the peer reviewed studies. I garantee you will ignore this, because such studies don't exist. It's a creationist fantasy, that there are peer reviewed and credible scientific studies against evolution, and that creation institutes are actually researching something remotely scientific.

The mind behind the idea doesn't matter, it's the evidence that counts.

It seems very questionable to you because you don't know enough about DNA to cover the very basic terms nor do you know what evidence indicates what conclusion.

No it isn't. That's like saying using mathmatics to prove 1+1=2 is as stupid as using it to disprove 1+1=3 just because the proof is too complicated for someone who hasn't studied mathmatics extensively, and trust me, you probably don't understand the proof behind 1+1=2 unless you have a graduate degree in mathmatics. You don't know what constitutes proof either way, because you don't know enough of the given subject to be able to decide either way. So you just assume both are wrong and insert your own therefor statement.

I have posted many links that have the scientific studies.
You just dont like the facts and findings because they are found by creationists scientists.

here are a couple I saved to my favorites.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/topiclist.html

http://www.evolution-vs-creation.net/dna-evolution.html

http://www.2001principle.net/gse2.htm

there are 1000's more where these came from.

 

[Carey]

This is called bias. But how can we tell if a Creationist is wrong (gasp) about their interpretation of scripture?

If a creationist is trying to interpret scripture then obviously he is wrong beccause scripture interprets itself in the few parts it is not literal.


Correction: It is a method for deceiving people who are not scientists that Creationism is science. Isn't deception the tool of Satan?

Creationism is a tool of an entity that evolutionist say does not exist??

 

[TheOutsider]

Just a little hint for you, Carey. Linking to a Kent Hovind's website will lose you credibility very very quickly.

 

[Atheuz]

One side says our understanding of DNA proves Evolution.

The other newer studies say DNA disproves evolution.

Then you have some of the so called greatest minds on DNA spouting things like I added to this post.

The point is whatever we think we know about DNA is very questionable it seems to me.

So using DNA to prove evolution seems stupid as using it to disprove it .

Oh I know this game - And niether of the studies show any sign of Intelligent Design or Creationism, at all!