Bestu rök Dawkins, lygi?

Í þessu myndbandi hérna fyrir neðan er Richard Dawkins spurður hvaða rök honum finnst mest sannfærandi fyrir þróunarkenningunni.

There's an enormous amount of evidence, from all sorts of places,  and it's hard to pick one strand which is more important than any other.  There's fossils, there's the evidence from geographical distribution, there's the evidence from vestigial organs.  I think to me perhaps the most compelling evidence is comparative evidence, from modern animals -- particularly biochemical comparative evidence, genetic, molecular evidence.

If you take any set of animals, and identify the same gene in different animals, and you really can do that, because the letters of the DNA code  -- that is, the same code in all animals -- and you really can find a gene which is the same -- in, say, all mammals.  For example, there's a gene called FOXP2, which is a couple of thousand letters long, and most of the letters are the same in any mammal, so you know it's the same gene.  And then you go through, and you literally count the number of letters that are different.

So, in the case of FOXP2, if you count the number of letters that are different between humans and chimpanzees, it's only about 9.  If you count the number of letters that are different in humans and mice, it's, I don't know, 30 or something like that.  Actually, frogs have them as well, you find a couple of hundred that are different.

So, you can take any pair of animals you like -- kangaroo and lion, horse and cat, human and rat -- any pair of animals you like, and count the number of differences in the letters of a particular gene, and you plot it out, and you find that it forms a perfect branching hierarchy.

It's a tree, and what else could that tree be, but a family tree.   And then you do the same thing for another gene.  Having got the family tree for FOXP2, you then do the same thing for another gene, and another, and another.  You get the same family tree.

You also get the same family tree if you take genes that are no longer functioning, that are just vestigial, that are not doing anything.  It's like fragments of a document  on your hard disk, which are no longer being used, they're no longer on the directory, so you no longer see them.  Again, you get the same family tree.

This is overwhelmingly strong evidence.  The only way you could get out of saying that that proves evolution is true is by saying that the intelligent designer, God, deliberately set out to lie to us, deliberately set out to deceive us. 

Vandamálið við þetta er að þetta er einfaldlega rangt.  Hérna er gott dæmi um slíkt: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F2/

Þarna passar munstrið við að menn og beltisdýr (armadillo) er mest skyld en síðan önnur gen sýna að menn og fílar eru mest skyld.  Þessi dæmi eru fjölmörg og hérna eru nokkur slík:

Gene tree discordance

Mosaic retroposon insertion

Large-scale taxonomic profiling of eukaryotes

Conflicting phylogenetic signals

Svo hvernig stendur á því að Dawkins lætur svona út úr sér?  Er hann fáfróður eða finnst honum í lagi að ljúga til að boða trú sína? 

Meira um þetta hérna: For Darwin Day: False Facts & Dawkins' Whopper