Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 694:
Line 694: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 20:07, December 13, 2009
, 20:07, December 13, 2009reply re: Dawkins gene argument
:::Please elaborate on (and correct?) your statement that "The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::Please elaborate on (and correct?) your statement that "The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::Well, this is the final form of Dawkins' argument. His line of reasoning goes like this: " If God created these eleven species and they have no common ancestor, we should not expect consensus on the most parsimonious trees." According to him, for example, the version of gene A in the pig could be similar to the version of gene A in the rabbit, while the version of gene B would be similar to the one in the kangaroo. Thus, each gene would have its own 'family tree' and there would be no consensus. What he finds is that all five genes vote for a few family trees, and he argues that this proves evolution. What he is saying is that he can think of no other reason why absolutely no gene should be more similar between the kangaroo and the pig than between the rabbit and the pig. As for myself, I can not think of a reason either, so I have to surmise that the results are incorrect. I hope I can find an explanation here, since it seems to be one of the best on-line resource for Creationism. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 13:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::Well, this is the final form of Dawkins' argument. His line of reasoning goes like this: " If God created these eleven species and they have no common ancestor, we should not expect consensus on the most parsimonious trees." According to him, for example, the version of gene A in the pig could be similar to the version of gene A in the rabbit, while the version of gene B would be similar to the one in the kangaroo. Thus, each gene would have its own 'family tree' and there would be no consensus. What he finds is that all five genes vote for a few family trees, and he argues that this proves evolution. What he is saying is that he can think of no other reason why absolutely no gene should be more similar between the kangaroo and the pig than between the rabbit and the pig. As for myself, I can not think of a reason either, so I have to surmise that the results are incorrect. I hope I can find an explanation here, since it seems to be one of the best on-line resource for Creationism. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 13:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::The logic of this argument seems convoluted because it is based on a faulty premise: what do we think God would have done? That's an absurd question. No line of reasoning can depend on it. It is reasonable to infer design from something that is statistically implausible or impossible (e.g., finding a gold watch on a beach), but trying to reason in the opposite direction is illogical (e.g., drawing conclusions from the lack of a gold watch on a beach).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)