Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 17) Message-ID: <465@psivax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-May-85 16:12:06 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.465 Posted: Wed May 22 16:12:06 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 21:13:49 EDT References: <359@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 62 Summary: In article <359@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 29. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the > sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein that is > common to almost all forms of animal and plant life. The > results of this study seriously contradict the predictions > of the theory of evolution [a-d]. > > d) Dr. Colin Patterson is the Senior Principal Scientific > Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British > Museum of Natural History. In a talk he gave on > November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the > American Museum of Natural History, he presented some > new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins > of a number of animals. The relationships of these > animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been > taught in classrooms for many decades. Dr. Patterson > pointed out to a stunned audience that this new data > contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, > ''The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and > the prediction is falsified precisely.'' Although he > acknowledged that scientific falsification is never > absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he > now realized that ''evolution was a faith,'' that he > had ''been duped into taking evolution as revealed > truth in some way,'' and ''that evolution not only > conveys no knowledge but seems to convey anti- > knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to > systematics [the science of classifying different > forms of life].'' [''Prominent British Scientist > Challenges Evolution Theory,'' Audio Tape > Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, 5 > Griffin Drive, Apalachin, New York 13732. Also see > Luther D. Sunderland and Gary E. Parker, ''Evolution? > Prominent Scientist Reconsiders,'' ICR IMPACT, No.108, > June 1982.] > There is a basic falacy here. Evidence against a particular phylogenetic hypothesis, even a widely accepted is a *far* cry from evidence against evolutionary theory. The overall theory makes predictions about *mechanisms* of change, not about particular changes. Any given phylogeny is a hypothesis about particular that appear resonible and are supported by available evidence. Given that the results in the sequencing study are as unexpected as claimed, they need to be replicated by other scientists, and then carefully examined as to thier significance to current phylogenetic hypotheses. P.S: (Many of these studies suffer from "small sample" problems and must be evaluated with considerable care - I am talking about too few distinct species being included in most sequencing studies. If you want a discourse on the statistical reasoning behind this I will post it). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen