From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 15:22:36 EDT
Jack
That's a good swipe about Oxbridge types (I 'll get my own back one day). In
1971 I was laughed at in my seminary (americanism - as we call it a
theological college) in Durham that YEC was to be a problem. YEC is now
taught in some schools near Durham - which were found by among others one of
my teachers in Durham and a fellow student. In UK it is LEGAL to teach such
rubbish and here I have to say very reluctantly that the Americans have
wisely made it illegal in every state so far.
M ichael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Haas" <haas.john@comcast.net>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Wells and Molecular Phylogenies
> 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 - 17:36:17 EDT