Intelligent Design creationism in the Star Tribune

Throughout the article, Eaton invents fantasy critics and supporters. For instance, he declares that "many scientists now question [blah blah blah...]" [then later...] ... "Some evolutionists go too far when they insist that evolution should be taught completely without criticism."

— PZ Myers, on Pharyngula,

What the heck does that mean? Name some. ...Again, name some. I don't know any who think this.

You just don't get it, do you EA?

It's not that evolution should be taught without criticism, it's that evolution should be taught without RELIGIOUS criticism.

scientific criticism is more than welcome.

As many have said to you before, scientists love nothing more than to prove each other wrong. but we do it with solid evidence, not random hyperbole with no basis in fact.

If you don't want science to pain you as a kook, come up with a competing theory that explains all the current and past evidence that shows that evolution has taken place, explains why the currently accepted theory is incorrect (and shows exactly how the evidence was somehow misintrepeted - like the entire fossil record, like all the field experiments showing natural selection acting on heritable characteristics, like all the lab experiments and field experiments showing speciation, etc, etc), then show how your new theory produces a better explanation for all of the data, and can be differentiated by the old by new, testable predictions.

If anyone who proposes ID is somehow a scientific critique of evolutionary theory could do that, scientists would be falling over themselves to test your new theory.

However, we don't see this do we?

all we see are close minded, ignorant folks like yourself, absolutely convinced you see the "Truth", but with absolutely no evidence to support your viewpoint. Moreover, you figure if you can change the politics of the situation by your constant whining, you can simply make reality go "poof" and change to fit your viewpoint.

Open your eyes. the world is a very interesting place if you should choose to do so.

this is as nice as i can be to a troll.

"1. To imply that a high school student who believe's his existence was not entirely due to chance mutations and natural selection will be behind is ridiculous."

no, actually it is not.

Look, if you want to be a mathematician, but avoid studying algebra because it somehow "disagrees" with your religious beliefs, you would be "behind" as a student of math, yes?

If you want to be a student of biology, the issue is NO different. Without understanding evolutionary theory, you will be far behind as a student of biology.

Just think for a moment, go ahead and substitute creationism for all of evolutionary theory, and then actually try to actually DO biology. You won't be able to answer a whole lot of questions. Really, try it. Take any advanced (graduate level) text in biology, and substitute creationism where you see evoltionary theory being referenced, and see how far you get. You'll find you are now left with about 10% (maybe less) of the text actually making any sense.

This would be a good experiment for you EA. Also, as you go through that text, you will find nothing that challenges the existence of "god", or any new testament belief.

Er, that's why the Catholic Church made the statement it did. Think you know more about religion than the Pope, eh?

It boils down to this, nobody is stopping you from believing what you want, but don't expect to become a biologist and believe in creationism at the same time. Plenty of other fields that won't conflict with your belief structure to get involved with and do well in.

The reDiscovery Institute - if a bad idea works in one branch of science why not in all?

you mean if a bad idea DOESN'T work in one branch, why not try them all?

lmao @ rDI... that has to be one of the most amusing things I've ever read.

Why hasn't Apeman been banished to the bathroom wall yet?

EA-

Have you ever attended professional or graduate level biology (biochemistry) seminars? If you attend these regularly, you'll find that a good grounding in evolution is essential to fully grasp many of the concepts. You'll find neither a grasp of Intelligent Design, nor antipathy to macroevolution, useful aids to understanding.

Now, personally, I've concluded that the Apeman is just, well, aping creationists for fun. It's a common pastime around here. But, for practice, one can still parse his comment as if he were serious.

(1) Continuous repetition of "Darwinian Fundamentalist". Try and extract a definition of this. Presumably it's the basis of the entire rest of his comment, but if there are any such persons as Darwinian Fundamentalists, they must exist in vanishingly small numbers, and exert vanishingly little influence. So, right off, we're in Strawman territory.

(2) Characterization of "Sticker Controversy". First of all, notice the Apeman is not responding to the post; he's changing the subject! Then, if you look carefully, he doesn't actually say anything about the Sticker Controversey with enough substance to actually have its merits weighed. It's pure subject-change for the sake of subject-change. But he takes the opportunity to throw in a couple of those meaningless generalities: "Darwinists" (am I a "Darwinist"? Is Lynn Margulis? Was Steven Jay Gould? What's it mean?) and their supposed "religion".

(3) Apeman now manages to work in two creationist scatter-shots in one sentence. He accuses PZ Myers of being a "pathological liar" - with, of course, the obligatory lack of any substantiation whatsoever - and that Myers thinks evolution should not be criticized. Evidence? None, of course. But the underlying assumption is that, because criticism is supposed to be healthy and welcome, a particular line of criticism is necessarily valid. Want to criticize "Darwinism"? Great! Let's talk about Gould and Margulis - not Sarfati and PT Barnum.

(4) That last paragraph is a lot like the final spectacular blowout on a July 4th fireworks show - creationist scatter-shots going off faster than you can keep track of them. But let's try:

"if you had any integrity" note insinuating use of the conditional subjunctive

"you would allow science to be taught" Myers, and presumably a shadowy cabal of "Darwinist Fundamentalists", evidently have the power to allow or disallow science to be taught!

"instead of your nihilistic athiest [sic] religion (Darwinism)" Wow. Apparently Darwinism, even though it's not defined, manages to be a "religion". (Are quantum mechanics and relativity also religions?) But it's apparently a false religion, because it's standing in the way of teaching true science. So, while True Science should not be confused with religion, it turns out that the Truth of Science is to be assessed by one particular religious faction.

You gotta hand it to him: Evolving Apeman - the M.C. Escher of creationist apers.

Now, personally, I've concluded that the Apeman is just, well, aping creationists for fun. It's a common pastime around here. But, for practice, one can still parse his comment as if he were serious.

— Russel

Paul wrote:
"Microevolution is a fact; it happened and is happening. There is debate within the scientific community on details of mechanisms and relative importance of various processes. Macroevolution is also a fact. It happened and is happening. The scientific community is in virtually 100% agreement on both processes going on, and they are both analogous in the unanimity of support and the continuing research into their precise mechanisms. Macroevolution is not a concept that undermines evolutionary thinking."

Yes, but what scientists fail to do is establish a nexus between these two phenomena and demonstrate that macroevolution is a sequelae of microevolution. Microevolution can be explained by mutation and natural selection or by other unguided processes but macroevolution, the emergence of highly organized systems and processes, cannot. It can only be explained by invoking intelligent input.
In short, a lot of microevolution does not macroevolution make.

Now, personally, I've concluded that the Apeman is just, well, aping creationists for fun. It's a common pastime around here. But, for practice, one can still parse his comment as if he were serious.

So my comments are being censored. A civil discourse is just not possible with Darwinian Fundamentalists. But your inability to reason fairly is a hallmark feature of your religion.

Toe Jam, I and others have done just fine in biology without resorting to Darwinian nihilism to explain our existence.

Profs, like PZ, harass students who are not athiests all the time. Every student knows that to get the A, you need to agree with the prof. Unless of course you "defend your views", which is never possible with Darwinists. You are simply a heretic for questioning naturalism. Censorship and harassment are key techniques for the high priests of Darwinism to ensure their ranks are not polluted with skeptics. After all we need to be sure that we continue to proclaim "..we've embraced evolution more fully than before.."

An open-minded skeptic

scientific criticism is more than welcome.

— Sir_Toejam

Here's a tip for browsing the Strib: If you don't want to register, just turn off cookies for that site. You can read it all with no restrictions.

Profs, like PZ, harass students who are not athiests all the time. Every student knows that to get the A, you need to agree with the prof. Unless of course you "defend your views", which is never possible with Darwinists.

— Apeman

If you attend these regularly, you'll find that a good grounding in evolution is essential to fully grasp many of the concepts.

— Les Lane

I would be interested in hearing about just one topic that is discussed in graduate level biochemistry seminars that requires a "good grounding in evolution.

Protein structure. I can't imagine a thorough discussion of the families of protein structure without some understanding of evolution.

What a curious and transparently false claim from our resident IDiots. The majority of my students are christians to some degree or another; do you seriously believe that only a minority of students pass my classes? The administrators at my university would be very disturbed if that were the case.

Russel,

Let me help you out. Scientists often use similar (homologous) proteins in animals or even bacteria as model for studying the form-to-function for humans, where it is less convenient. As a scientist, I see the importance of recognizing families of protein structure. Darwinists will say these families of protein structure cross-humans and bacteria due to evolution. Creationist say the creator used a common blueprint. Both our teleological and not science based. An honest scientists, will recognize the utility of the classification for understanding the function of proteins in different species. The why is largely irrelevent and untestable.

Guys, I think you misunderstand. Let's read it again:

"I would be interested in hearing about just one topic that is discussed in graduate level biochemistry seminars that requires a "good grounding in evolution."

I think he just means he would be interested in hearing about such a topic, because he hasn't, because he has no advanced education in biology or biochemistry.

Just a guess.

;-)

He asked me if I believed in evolution. When I told him I had some doubts, his advice was to drop the course because if I didn't accept evolution I didn't belong there and probably wouldn't get the grade I needed. It was a little like the priest who I went to to express some doubts about catholicism. Something along the lines of "if you don't believe, you'll probably not get into heaven"

Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine Nesse and Williams (1994) proposed a unique method to approach medicine -- from the evolutionary biologist's point of view -- that will revolutionize the way diseases and other medical conditions are diagnosed and treated. Traditionally, the medical community has not looked at the ultimate, or evolutionary, causes behind disease and medical conditions. Nesse and Williams detail the need for physicians to look at the role of natural selection when treating patients. For example, fever evolved to kill bacteria and viruses by disrupting the ideal conditions they thrive in; therefore, the current medical practice of prescribing antipyretics leads to an increase in recovery time. Why We Get Sick also asks and answers the questions behind maladaptive genes. Huntington's chorea is an autosomal dominant disorder, which affects many individuals late in life. In theory, selection would have favoured the elimination of such genes unless they held an advantage. Recent studies have shown that women with Huntington's produce a significantly higher number of offspring than those without the gene. Thus, evolutionary biologists are able to answer questions that have previously dumbfounded doctors. Why We Get Sick has tremendous implications in the high school curriculum. Renowned biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky once wrote, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Interestingly, nothing in medicine makes sense except in the light of biology. By teaching young adults the importance of evolution in understanding a variety of medical diseases, we enable these individuals to look into different possibilities for disease prevention and treatment. I highly recommend this book for any biologist, physician or layperson. It has provided me with insights into disease that I had not thought of before. I believe that if the evolutionary medicine paradigm is adopted, health care systems would save billions of dollars and countless lives.

But, Charlie, "gurus" in evolution are not priests. They are not there to hear your confession. They are not there to offer you a spiritual journey, except as their special insight into nature gives you as a by-product. (There are plenty of sometimes-unintended spiritual journeys in science -- go read PZ's posts on human bones a couple of weeks ago, at Pharyngula.com, for an outstanding example.) In an upper division science course, the material should come fast and furious. If you don't get one of the basic, elemental chunks of knowledge that everyone who passes the course must have, you had no business there.

I was an assistant in a graduate level air pollution class once, taught by the fellow who headed the lab I was working in. One of the students knew me from political stuff, and he asked me about the political leanings of the prof. Air pollution is mostly chemistry, I told him, with a lot of meteorology in the spread of it, and a lot of biology on the receiving end (crops and trees act as sinks for pollutants, and our lab measured how and how much of the poisons various plants could soak up before they started to suffer themselves, among other things). This student had assumed an air pollution class in biology was like a political science class, and that somehow the prof would be a liberal tree-hugger. When I pointed out that the guy was instead a very conservative Republican, and that chemistry doesn't have politics (I mean the chemistry itself, not the chemists), the guy changed his attitude to the course.

If one "doesn't believe in" air pollution, one has no business taking a graduate level course in how to measure it and fight it. If one doesn't "believe in" evolution, one has no business wasting time and money dedicated to fighting HIV/AIDS in humans. You were honest, at least -- which gives you a leg up on guys like Jonathan Wells, who fought against understanding the material, to avoid getting it, so as not to think about how it might rattle his theological cage.

That prof did you a favor, Charlie. Don't confuse science with religion. Don't confuse a professor with a confessor. Don't take an upper division course without having understood the prerequisite material. There probably was another course you should have taken in basic evolution. I regret you did not find it. Perhaps you can find one at a school near you -- are you close to BYU-Hawaii? I'll bet they have some outsanding undergraduate courses in biology, and Hawaii is one of God's great evolution sites. (At BYU-Hawaii you'll be reminded that conservative people of faith who take nature straight, no chaser, study evolution, too.)

I would be interested in hearing about just one topic that is discussed in graduate level biochemistry seminars that requires a "good grounding in evolution

[An examination of the posting history of "Evolving Apeman" shows him to be in violation of Rule 6, having posted under another person's name. "Evolving Apeman" is no longer accorded posting privileges here at PT. - WRE]

Charlie, and others,
Here's a link to Nesse's 2003 piece on evolution in medicine:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse/Articles/Nesse-EvolBiolMedCurric-BioScience-2003(dot)pdf

Okay, that link doesn't work. For some, no doubt interesting reason, the program won't accept the URL.

Hmmm.

Try this. Type in: "http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse/Articles/Nesse-"

Then, without spacing, add "Evol"

Then add (without spacing) "BiolMedCurric"

then add "-BioScience-2003"

and be sure to indicate it's a portable document format, by adding at the end [dot]"pdf"

Does that help? The example of why the Huntington's chorea gene is actually selected for should tell you why understanding evolution is essential in understanding and controlling genetic "diseases." Without evolution, what is the "intelligent design" answer to why we have Huntington's? The designer doesn't like us? The designer is incompetent?

— Ed Darrell

But, Charlie, "gurus" in evolution are not priests.

If one "doesn't believe in" air pollution, one has no business taking a graduate level course in how to measure it and fight it. If one doesn't "believe in" evolution, one has no business wasting time and money dedicated to fighting HIV/AIDS in humans.

Don't confuse science with religion.

There probably was another course you should have taken in basic evolution. I regret you did not find it.

Does that help? The example of why the Huntington's chorea gene is actually selected for should tell you why understanding evolution is essential in understanding and controlling genetic "diseases." Without evolution, what is the "intelligent design" answer to why we have Huntington's? The designer doesn't like us? The designer is incompetent? [/quote Thanks for the heads up on Randolph Nesse. I'll get those papers and read them. A few thoughts come to my mind, but perhaps I should wait til I read the papers. One thing that I should point out is that I have no problem with natural selection and if that's what you mean by "evolution", selection for beneficial alleles in certain environments or against harmful alleles in certain environments you will not get any argument from me. The intelligence comes in in the emergence of structures and processes that are highly organized and require insight for their assembly. In short, random processes are adequate to explain changes in allele frequencies under selection pressure but they are inadequate to explain the complex, highly organized systems. But, Charlie, "gurus" in evolution are not priests.

If one "doesn't believe in" air pollution, one has no business taking a graduate level course in how to measure it and fight it. If one doesn't "believe in" evolution, one has no business wasting time and money dedicated to fighting HIV/AIDS in humans.

Don't confuse science with religion.

There probably was another course you should have taken in basic evolution. I regret you did not find it.

Of course, survival of the fittest. Abortion and the rest of eugenics are largely based on Darwinism.

And he thinks Huntington's Chorea provides a survival advantage because of a few more kids. What a load of BS. What survival advantage do children of a debilitated and dying parent have.

On what basis do you conclude all illnesses with a genetic basis have a survival advantage.

Of course as I have said before anything to do with humans can be explained by evolution, which highlights how it is a religion to Darwinists. I suppose you could argue that being heterozygous for the hemoglobin S gene protects you from malaria despite the risk of Sickle Cell anemia for homozygotes. But examples like that are few and far between.

There is way too much emphasis on genetics in medicine these days. It is a fad as the clinical utility of gene chips, proteonomics I believe will be few and far between.

Without evolution, what is the "intelligent design" answer to why we have Huntington's? The designer doesn't like us? The designer is incompetent?

Thus, evolutionary biologists are able to answer questions that have previously dumbfounded doctors. Baloney, nothing more than atheist-teleology. Zippo diagnostic, management or treatment implications. Provide me with one reference how macro-evolution helped medicine, where ID would have interfered as an alternative explaination.

At least he's starting to be honest here. The reason he believes in macroevolution is because chance-did-it supports his ideology of nihilism. Intelligent design unlike Darwinism doesn't attempt to answer the why, but focuses on the how within the context of a broader metaphysical picture than pure naturalism.

Homologous sequences were recognized in databases and aligned by phylogenetic programs.

— Les Lane

These programs do not detect phylogenies, they detect similarities. The phylogenies are inferred from the similarities.

We could also say that the inferred relationship between hammers and nails is an assumption.

— Flint

Dr. Wagner said: These programs do not detect phylogenies, they detect similarities. The phylogenies are inferred from the similarities. A phlogeny is an evolutionary history and the programs you're referring to do not use phylogenies, they purport to infer phylogenies from similarities. There is no evidence that is convincing that similarities in gene alignment supports the notiuon of a phylogeny. That is an *assumption* that is built into the program

Similarity does not imply phylogeny, but structured similarities (especially collections of structured similarities) can (and do). Do not the DNA sequences in your individual cell types imply common ancecestry? Do not differences of DNA sequences between you and your relatives indicate phylogenetic relationships?

EXACTLY! I have been arguing for years that genetic similarities do not imply relatedness.

— steve

Charlie, you may be a pain in the butt at times, but I don't think that qualifies as being a crank. And belated congratulations on your continuing recovery.

Bob

Charlie, here's a post on how to tell crank science from real science: Comment #25442 (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000966.html

You've already made clear that you behave as cranks do. I asked you what distinguishes you from them. You've not answered this. I'm not going to argue philosophical definitions with you, because I don't generally argue with cranks. I just asked you to explain yourself, just as I asked you to explain, a few weeks ago, why biologists don't admit the validity of your ideas.

So: what distinguishes you from other cranks whose revolutionary manifestoes are ignored by the reputable scientists to whom you send them?

And after you answer that, please explain to us why you believe the medical community is lying to us about cholesterol, heart disease, and blood pressure. I suspect it might be even funnier than your previous explanations.

CW-

Exploring where your at.

Could nucleotide sequences correctly sort out (classify) children, parents, and grandparents? If so, is this not phylogeny?

How about the relationships between Equus grevyi, Equus burchelli and Equus zebra?

"Toe Jam, I and others have done just fine in biology without resorting to Darwinian nihilism to explain our existence."

oh really? prove it.

"We have no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that supports the notion that the relationships we see in the sequences of bases in the genome have any phylogenetic significance at all."

Yes, we do. I guess you forgot the read all the conclusions drawn after completion of the human genome project (just one piece of evidence among thousands)

It is 100% assumption.

No, it isn't. (see above)

If we use the following reference:

http://www.searchlores.org/trolls.htm

I would conclude that while EA is a troll, CW is more of a kook.

can we agree on this?

"..involves the search for food most often, and in almost no case means "stabbing somebody else in the back."

well, there are actually useful studies of the evolution of 'spiteful' behavior (about as hard to prove as true altruism, but it exists regardless). so that is not entirely correct.

I have no objection to ID being taught in schools as long as Darwinism gets equal time. Indeed, such a debate is more, not less, likely to inculcate a true understanding of natural selection, because theories of intelligent design and creationism are transparently absurd and driven not by a search for truth but by faith. Richard Dawkins may not be universally popular but his book, The Blind Watchmaker, kills Dr Paley's tome stone dead.

— TERENCE KEALEY

I have no problems with either ID or creationism in public (American public) schools. Science classes are, however, a misleading and inappropriate venue.

we can actaully observe nails being pounded into wood with hammers. We have no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that supports the notion that the relationships we see in the sequences of bases in the genome have any phylogenetic significance at all. It is 100% assumption.

Here's my Star Tribune e-mail:

To the Editor,

From an article about Dayton, TN in National Geographic and a more recent one in The Smithsonian, to articles earlier this year in Newsweek and Time, to the many newspaper pieces about the science of evolution vs "Intelligent Design," Creationism's latest manifestation, few reports can be found that fail to remind readers of how backward we are here in Rhea County, TN by mentioning our infamous 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial.

Then, in an article about your upcoming kangaroo court proceedings, the writer referred to your putting evolution on trial as "Scopes II." My heart leapt at the thought that here might be a place ready to abandon scientific reality and embrace this ID pseudo-science mumbo jumbo, thus getting this 80 year monkey off our backs and putting the onus on yours instead. To the people of Kansas I say: Go for it!

Sincerely,
William J. Ware
etc.

Huntington's chorea is an autosomal dominant disorder, which affects many individuals late in life. In theory, selection would have favoured the elimination of such genes unless they held an advantage.

Yeah, Huntington's is not selected against because it occurs late in life, but there are some observations that children of Huntington's parents may be more prolific. It's not clear why, or even how robust the result is.

Since children depend upon their parents and grandparents, diseases that prematurely incapacitate older people can certainly be selected against. A lineage with lots of orphans is at a disadvantage.

I don't know the particulars of the Huntington's chorea case, but it may be that the additional fertility of the parents balances out the disadvantage of their earlier death.

Since children depend upon their parents and grandparents, diseases that prematurely incapacitate older people can certainly be selected against. A lineage with lots of orphans is at a disadvantage.

— Jim Harrison

A brief description of the disease in question:

http://www.neuro.nwu.edu/meded/MOVEMENT/Huntington.html

There's a reason humans keep old folk around. They contribute to the success, reproductive and otherwise, of the family; a family that bears their genes.

Another thought....I would think that genetic diseases would not be selected against, per se. Early onset would be selected against, resulting in few cases early in life, getting propgressively more common after childbearing years have past.

The evidence seems to bear this out.....thoughts?

Could nucleotide sequences correctly sort out (classify) children, parents, and grandparents? If so, is this not phylogeny? How about the relationships between Equus grevyi, Equus burchelli and Equus zebra?

— Les Lane

Charlie may not be a troll like EA, but his MO is the same ---

— Flint

Charlie:

I wonder if you notice that your responsd couldn't match my analysis any closer if you tried: You simply omitted the supporting material as uncongenial, and rejected the conclusion. Isn't it easy to reject conclusions you don't like if you get to ignore the evidence? Even when I TELL you what you do, you do it anyway. But thanks, I enjoy seeing my observations ratified so resoundingly.

Take for example the oil well fires in Kuwait, set by Saddam. All of the computer models, advocated by experts and backed up by computer simulations pointed to an ecological disaster of biblical proportions.

CW-

Do you reject Motoo Kimura's neutral evolution insights? Do you not agree that "relative rate tests" tell us something about process similarity? How do you regard Bonobo origins? Did they arise independently of Chimpanzees? Are they as likely to have evolved from Gorilla-like ancestors as from chimpanzee-like ancestors? When two of my student's essays share 95% of the same words, need I consider them independent unless I actually saw them copying?

Of course all fish are sister species! But some (i.e. Comoran coelacanths and Indonesian coleacanths) share more recent common ancestors than others (i.e coelacanths and sharks).

CW:

"Rubbish.

I'm a teacher."

I think you had a grammatical error there, your sentence should read:

I'm a rubbish teacher.

As far as i can tell, that is all you have been attempting to "teach" here.

The second quoted sentence above is false and you know it.

Do you reject Motoo Kimura's neutral evolution insights?

— Les Lane

How do you regard Bonobo origins? Did they arise independently of Chimpanzees? Are they as likely to have evolved from Gorilla-like ancestors as from chimpanzee-like ancestors?

In addition, Kuwait is still cleaning up its desert and shorelines, estimating it could cost $1 billion to do it right. And Iraq's neighbors estimate that monitoring and assessing environmental damage has cost them $1 billion.

I don't have a clue where Bonobos or chimpanzees... or gorillas came from and neither does anyone else.

Any theory that doesn’t consider intelligent input is doomed to the dustbin of history.

CW-

I'm beginning to get a feel for where you're at (not that I agree with you). I'm not going to let you off the hook with Kimura (who's one of my intellectual heroes). Kimura was largely disbelieved early in his career. Because Kimura's ideas are simpler (and more limited) than Darwin's they can be more easily tested. No scientist I know considers Kimura's ideas "weaker and less convincing." Random mutagenesis exhibits "clock like" behavior, much like radioactive decay. Unlike radioactive decay it consists of several chemically independent processes. Despite the complexity, the number of neutral mutations per unit length of DNA is a clock. It varies somewhat in rate, but "relative rate tests" show it to be useful. In a given lineage it's certainly good enough to distinguish older from younger. "Relative ages" obtained from a given gene sequence predict relative ages of other genes in the same set of organisms. The clock has been tested with laboratory organisms and behaves similarly to the natural clock. Laboratory tests of necessity cover short time periods (with few accummulated mutations).

We discussed fathers and grandfathers earlier. Your DNA sequence as a fixed time point is sufficient to establish a vector which would distinguish which DNA sequence was your father's and which was your grandfather's. However simplistic, this is phylogeny.

Probability and statistics are crucial to undertanding evolution. Processes are not deterministic in the same way they are in classical physics. If you're convinced that Felsenstein is wrong, I believe it's your solemn reponsibility to convince him (or have him convince you).

Re: Charlie

Why the heck is anyone paying any attention at all to this nut case . . ?

I'm waiting for him to explain why he believes the medical community is lying to us about cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart disease. I asked him to a while ago in comment 26592. I believe it will be funnier than his crank biology.

Why the heck is anyone paying any attention at all to this nut case . . ?

"Some say that evolution (natural selection and its various attributes) does not include God and therefore must be anti-God. Of course, scientific evolution does not include God it cannot. Evolution is a branch of science and God is beyond the reach and measurements of science. Science is man's methods of measuring what is created (the physical world) and cannot measure the creator who is not created. God is beyond measurement because all man's means of measurement are part of the physical world. To measure God, man would also have to be God. "What is the creation? We refer to it as mass (matter), energy, space and time. All these things can be measured by the rules and laws of the physical world because they are defined by the laws and rules. Now, if God existed before the physical world and is separate from the physical world, then God cannot be measured by these laws and rules and therefore cannot be measured by science. In other words, there is no scientific way to either directly prove or disprove God. I can measure a gram of water or wavelengths of light. Try to measure an ounce of God or light up a flashlight with the energy of a soul. But is God still there? My faith says, 'Yes.' My proof is written only inside."

Vernon L. Gilliland is awesome. Buy that guy some barbecue and an ice cold beer.

I'm not going to let you off the hook with Kimura (who's one of my intellectual heroes).

— Les Lane

Charlie, plase tell us why you believe the medical community is lying to us about cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart disease.

CW-

You're too literal here. Lack of constancy doesn't mean "wrong". Clocks don't have to run at constant speed to be useful (it's nice if they do). Clearly neutral means "roughly neutral". The "clock" is useful only when the bulk of mutations are "neutral". For organisms evolved over the last 20 million years the clock is useful for restricted lineages (especially mammals). Obviously one can't use it for lineages that encompass more than one kingdom.

Kimura's critical insight is that nonselected mutations become fixed (in fact at a higher rate than selected mutations). Variations in DNA synthesis and repair may alter clock rates but, at least over short time periods, selection will not. It's fixation of random "neutral" mutations which makes molecular phylogenetics "accurate" (and why it's less accurate with ancient lineages).

The fossil record is incomplete. One would expect it's agreement with "clocks" to be limited. Again, limited precision doesn't mean "false"

And when there are fossils available to compare with, molecular clocks invariable overestimate the age of the forms. Well, considering that most evolutionary biologists are probably somewhat surprised at how slow evolution has "progressed" (i.e. in regards to amount of change), it is quite probable that the current amount of diversification (phylogenetics!) could easily have arisen in a substanially less amount of time than is currently accepted.

Of course, this is not even considering the fact that large bottlenecks have occurred on this planet, most of the time from natural disaster. Don't you consider the vast array of extant mammals is (at least) somewhat of an explosion - maybe even on the order of the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" [sic] - especially considering that it all began with a few little furry creatures?