talk.origins #23493 (41 more) \-(1)--(1)+-(1)--(1) [1] Re: 'Ev

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

talk.origins #23493 (41 more) \-(1)--(1)+-(1)--(1) From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) |-(1)--(1) [1] Re: "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis" |-(1) Date: Thu Mar 12 16:15:11 CST 1992 \-(1) Lines: 72 -( )--(1)+-(1) + \-[1] No doubt I am about to stick a big, fat foot into my big, fat mouth, (since I have not read Denton's book) but here goes anyway. (And at least I am confining myself to something I think I might understand :-). In article <2876@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes: (And in another article, Gene writes: >In case it isn't obvious, globally swap Dutton to Denton in my reply to >Bruce Salem. so I have.) > In article > salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes: >>Also, men and mice might be substancially >>similar when compared to tuna, by this measure? The former are placential >>mammals and a tuna is a boney fish. The Primates and Rodants radiated >>from ancestral stock at about the same time (50 Million years ago) >>whereas the boney fish appeared about 150 million years ago. > > That is why I also brought in frogs and tuna, for which Denton > claims the same phenomenon occurs. He also says a tuna is no > more close to a shark than a human is, for instance. Actually, I think that Bruce has a point here (not that I think Bruce has never had points before, mind you). The point is that all of humans, mice and tuna would have diverged from the common stock with sharks at the same time so you should expect tuna, frogs, mice and humans to be equally distant from sharks. I would also expect tuna and mice to display approximately the same degree of difference from each other as tuna and humans display and similarly, by this criterion (as Bruce points out) mice and humans ought to display more similarity than mice or humans to tuna. Crudely, as far as I know, something like the following relationship tree ought to hold. I would expect similarities to correspond to closer branches on such a tree and I would expect (by the molecular clock theory at least) that ALL leaf nodes that descend from a given branching node would be equally distant from any particular leaf node that does not descend from the specified branch node. cartilaginous fish A sharks --------------------+-------------------------------------------- | | boney fish C tuna +---------------+---------------------------- B | | frogs | +------------------------ | | | | mice | | +--------- | | | +---+--------------+F D E | humans +--------- Now the question is "Does Denton's data show anything different that would not be expected from such a tree?" I have already admitted that I have not read the book, so I am prepared to be embarressed, but none of the points you have cited so far have spoken to anything resembling a problem for such a tree (which, after all, is pretty conventional). That is, specifically, since tuna, and humans (for example) both descend from node C and sharks do not, it should be expected that tuna and humans are equally different from sharks, i.e., "a tuna is no more close to a shark than a human is". Or am I missing something big? -- Paul Neubauer 00PRNEUBAUER@BSUVAX1.BITNET 00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank