RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 27, 2016 at 12:39 am
(This post was last modified: June 27, 2016 at 12:40 am by dom.donald.)
(June 24, 2016 at 6:47 am)SteveII Wrote:(June 23, 2016 at 10:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How? Inheritance, that we -do- know. How did we get it wrong with our previous assessments? Is that the question you mean to ask? Perhaps some examples would shed light on that?
For those that want to know more about this subject, they should read about it from a scientist and not the interpretation of a non-scientist (me).
Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352
I don't see any support in this document for the claims made by SteveII. THe document seems (to my untrained eye) to raise some questions on the details of the TOL and the ability of certain kinds of statistical analysis to resolve clear lineages / branches. This may turn out to be an issue with the datasets, or the limitations of the statistical analysis itself. That the TOL can't be resolved into a perfect tree (rather, some areas are more cloudy) doesn't have to be a problem or a 'gap' in the theory itself. It certainly doesn't provide anything that contradicts the theory of evolution. I don't think anyone ever claimed to have completed the TOL - in fact Dawkins says this won't happen for another 10 years.
If the analysis had shown that the TOL simply didn't exist, and that there were just distinct species with no apparent lineage or organised relationships, then the analysis would have suddenly become a subject of huge interest and would have been pulled apart by scientists eager to verify (or reject) the findings.
