The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Dr. Hunter:
| Quote | | On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions. |
There's a lot to say about this paragraph, but since I'm tired and irritable, I'll give you time to support this statement if you wish. Just two questions:
If molecular phylogenies are simply exercises in forcing the evidence to match preconceived ideas, then:
1) Why do the molecular trees surprise scientists so often, and
2) How are these phylogenies able to predict patterns of SINE insertions? The Afrotheria hypothesis was validated by retroposon evidence, and while it's true that the authors posit a "hypothetical evolutionary scenario" to explain a possible discrepancy caused by one insertion, the overall pattern supports common ancestry for these mammals.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
