Steve typed this in from Gish's book "Creation Scientists answer their
critics":
>> Dr. Gary Parker, then a member of the Institute for Creation Research
>> staff, had suggested another unacceptable conclusion based on
>> comparison of the structures of proteins. I had heard him describe
>> this situation in a lecture.
>> Subsequently, he published the account. After describing the
>> problems evolutionists have with the hemoglobins, Parker says:
>> `The same seems to be true for a fascinating protein called
>> lysozyme.... By comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, Dickerson was
>> hoping to "pin down with great precision," where human beings branched
>> off the mammal line. The results are surprising. In this test, it
>> turned out that humans are more closely related to the chicken than to
>> any living mammal tested! Every evolutionist knows that can't be
>> true, but how can he get around the objective evidence? In his
>> concluding diagram, Dickerson slips in a wiggly line for rapid
>> evolution, and that brings the whole thing back in line again with his
>> evolutionary assumptions. But notice that his protein data, the facts
>> that he observed, did not help him at all with his evolutionary
>> idea. ("What is Creation Science", 1982)
I checked out Parker's source material (Dickerson and Geis, "The
Structure and Action of Proteins", 1969) and it is obvious, even to
someone without any biochemical expertise, that Parker totally fouled up
his analysis and was comparing apples to oranges. My wife was shocked
at the evident dishonesty in Parker's argument, and found it difficult
to believe that it could have been unintentional (I convinced her it
probably was).
Parker further misrepresents Dickerson and Geis by not mentioning that
the "wiggly line" is not an ad-hoc fix; they give such a good reason for
why rapid change would be *expected* at that point in the tree that it's
presence could probably be considered as confirmation of the idea of
molecular evolution. They also say that using the evidence as Parker
does in this case would be a "simple-minded" use of the idea of
molecular clocks, as it obviously breaks some of the preconditions
needed for such use.
Yet another misrepresentation is Parker's claim that D&G hoped to "pin
down with great precision" the human split by using lysozome and
lactalbumin. That phrase comes from another chapter of D&G, and there
is *no* indication that they were using lysozome for this purpose.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder