RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,03:57   

bFast blunders into Denton: (from Comment # 6)
             
Quote
I still find his discussion of the cytochrome C dilemma to be a compelling case for what amounts to a “copyright signature” in the DNA. His case seems to be badly misunderstood by a very dismissive scientific community.


Mario A. Lopez conveniently gives us a look at a portion of Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis which contains the error.

A few moments googling for Denton cytochrome c brings up a page by Gert Korthof which describes Denton's error and even draws nice pictures.  (Scroll down to "Remarkably Schwabe repeats Michael Denton(1985)'s illustration of cytochrome differences" to see the pretty pictures and also get a taste of ID's plagiarism problem.)

Without posting pretty pictures, Denton is amazed that horses, pigeons, tunas, silkmoths, wheat and yeast all have cytochrome c molecules that are equally different from bacteria!!  Denton apparently believes that yeast cytochrome c should be the closest to bacteria, because yeast are so much like bacteria, and then wheat should be next closest because wheat is more different from bacteria than yeast and so on with silkmoths, tunas, pigeons and horses.

Denton's logic would be sound IF all those organisms were descended from modern bacteria, but of course they are not.  The common ancestor of yeast, wheat, silkmoths, tunas, pigeons and horses split off from bacteria several billion years ago and the cytochrome c of bacteria and the other organisms have been picking up mutations independently from each other ever since.

Thus we see why, "His case seems to be badly misunderstood by a very dismissive scientific community."  Blunders do tend to be dismissed by the scientific community.

I remember when Denton's "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" came out twenty years ago and he was roundly criticized for this and other blunders.  A simple Google search will pull up some of those criticisms, but searching for evidence that contradicts an ID assertion does not fall under the definition of "research" as used in the ID and Creationist communities.

Had they succumbed to the temptation to test their ideas before posting, the same Google search described above finds the posting referred to above
AND This one from the NCSE AND This one at Talk Origins all on the first page of results.

And of course, even more thorough research would have found Denton's following book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he takes back most of what he wrote in "Theory in Crisis".  But that's asking a little bit too much of ID, I guess, especially of Salvadore who started the thread.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]