JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 16 2007,15:26) | John W
The spider part was yours, not blipey's. My error. I looked at the aricles and the "tree" is arranged by some appearrance/trait criterion with no relationship to their supposed evolutionary history. |
Aren't those the criteria by which we infer their evolutionary history?
| Quote | | All trees are man-made devices and do not prove anything except that we can arrange items in a series. |
Trees aren't series, and for sequences, we let computers calculate the trees. Evolutionary theory predicts that with the exception of experimental and systematic errors, THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE TREE THAT FITS THE DATA. If you had bothered to read such papers, you might have noticed that p values are often supplied, and they are tiny.
That's why your objection is not only wrong, but would be irrelevant if it were right.
| Quote | | I will have to find another source. But do you believe that we have always had AIDS or that it is a recent addition? |
When we apply modern evolutionary biology to AIDS, the best hypothesis is that its ancestor moved from chimps to humans in the first half of the 20th century. What's your hypothesis, and what data support it?
| Quote | | Can you prove to me that there were more STDs other than syph. and gon. in decades past? |
Yes, but since you made the claim, it's your responsibility to support it.
And if your opinion is that they are new, where did they come from?
|
