<< > >***** Why should anyone take his word? In EATIC, [Denton] used 14
> >cytochrome-c data to prop up his 'typology' approach, despite the fact
> >as recently as 4-5 years before it EATIC was published, there was a major
> >re-evaluation of that data with additional data using more stringent
> >of analysis that demonstrated that the 'evolutionist view' of phylogeny
> >correct. I consider that a major error of omission, one that should not
> >taken lightly, especially when he was attempting to bolster his
> anti-evolutionary claims 'scientifically..
> I am not qualified to judge whether Denton used out-of-date data in
>Evolution a Theory in Crises. If he did, it would hardly invalidate
>he said thereafter.
If he based his argument on discredited data, that discredits his argument.
##### The Dayhoff data Denton used wasn't discredited, it was just out of
date. His data (Dayhoff's) as well as additional data from additional
species was used in the subsequent analyses, which also used more precise
computationla methods to analyze it. What Denton did is, in terms of the
technology growth in molecular biology, akin to doing something really
ridiculous, like... I don't know - using estimates of the speed of light
produced in the 1700's to try to prove that light is slowing down today!