Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (olegt @ Dec. 31 2010,20:15)|
|Prediction: in his reply, Hunter will cite Woese, Doolittle, or both.|
You win, though technically, he didn't cite them by name. He just rambled on about Archaea and Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes and how we don't know everything yet, etc.
You gotta love this bit, though:
|Another example are the many significant similarities between distant branches in the tree of life. Both morphological as well as molecular comparisons show extremely high similarities that don't make sense on the common descent model.|
Stuff on distant branches has too many similarities, therefore they can't possibly be related via common descent.
OK, now get ready for the best part. Right before that he said this:
|Another example are the many significant differences between nearby branches in the tree of life. Everything from the genomes (completely different proteins for as much as a fifth of the proteome) to development (different embryonic development pathways).|
Got that? Nearby branches are too different. Distant branches are too similiar. Thus, Common Descent is clearly wrong.
How Corny has decided stuff is distantly or closely related when, apparently, both morphological and molecular data are useless in making these determinations, I don't know. Probably something to do with thylacines and Jesus.
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio