Re: Wells and Molecular Phylogenies

From: Jack Haas (haas.john@comcast.net)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 08:17:53 EDT

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Re: Josh's comment on Rokas vs. Wells"

    Michael,

    Your debating experience with the Aussie creationist John Mackay is similar
    to that found earlier in
       http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/debate_with_john_mackay.htm

    To think that all these years my oxbridge friends assured me that this kind
    of thing was found only in the colonies. The times are changing.

    Cheers,
    Jack Haas

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
    Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 6:25 PM
    Subject: Re: Wells and Molecular Phylogenies

    > This is the whole point. IDers say that if something can't be explained
    then
    > the Intelligent Designer did it. The problem is that when the something is
    > expalined the gap is closed and God - sorry the Intelligent Designer - is
    > squeezed out.
    > In a review of Behe for Science and Christian Beleif I described Behe's
    view
    > as God of the Gaps wrapped up in amino acids. It was a bit cruel but apt.
    >
    > I have had a grim evening as I debated John Mackay in a local village
    hall.
    > Boy does he distrot things. He gave a serious distortion of radiometric
    > age-dating and I was asked to comment . He had come out with so much
    falsity
    > so that I all could do was to quote the 9th commandment. That did not go
    > down well One asked what God would say to me on the day of Judgement so I
    > replied that we would compare notes and agree with each other! There was
    > uproar and cries of heretic.
    > Seriously is it worth debating with such guys, who only want to
    misrepresent
    > and cast slurs.
    > Oh he even used Glenn Morton to contradict me and admitted privately he
    was
    > unfair
    > Still someone's got to do it.
    >
    >
    > Michael
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
    > To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 6:21 PM
    > Subject: Re: Wells and Molecular Phylogenies
    >
    >
    > > Josh,
    > >
    > > Thanks for the tip. I've argued all along that this would be case
    > > once more complete data is out. This is the key trouble with the
    > > Wells, Behe, Nelson, and the DI folks in general. They take a very
    > > pessimistic look at the data and look at weaknesses based in lack of
    > > information. This is because the optimistic look at the data goes
    > > contrary to their strong anti-evolutionary biases. Strickly speaking
    > > and at the moment and in the particular case, they may be correct.
    > > But the trend is and always has been there with the molecular data,
    > > the more we know the more evolutionary explanations make sense.
    > >
    > > TG
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >I think Wells' critique of molecular phylogenies will be much harder
    > > >to sustain after papers like this (Nature 425, 798 - 804 (23 October
    > > >2003):
    > > >
    > > >Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular
    > phylogenies
    > > >
    > > >ANTONIS ROKAS*, BARRY L. WILLIAMS*, NICOLE KING & SEAN B. CARROLL
    > > >
    > > >Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, R.
    > > >M. Bock Laboratories, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1525 Linden
    > > >Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
    > > >* These authors contributed equally to this work
    > > >
    > > >Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
    > > >S.B.C. (sbcarrol@wisc.edu).
    > > >
    > > >One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is
    > > >the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data
    > > >sets, such as individual genes. To systematically investigate the
    > > >degree of incongruence, and potential methods for resolving it, we
    > > >screened the genome sequences of eight yeast species and selected
    > > >106 widely distributed orthologous genes for phylogenetic analyses,
    > > >singly and by concatenation. Our results suggest that data sets
    > > >consisting of single or a small number of concatenated genes have a
    > > >significant probability of supporting conflicting topologies. By
    > > >contrast, analyses of the entire data set of concatenated genes
    > > >yielded a single, fully resolved species tree with maximum support.
    > > >Comparable results were obtained with a concatenation of a minimum
    > > >of 20 genes; substantially more genes than commonly used but a small
    > > >fraction of any genome. These results have important implications
    > > >for resolving branches of the tree of life.
    > > >
    > > >_________________________________________________________________
    > > >See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it
    > > >now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > _________________
    > > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
    > > Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
    > > Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
    > > grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
    > > phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
    > >
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 25 2003 - 08:16:13 EDT