Since most mutations come from the father the Y chromosome should have accumulated more substitution mutations since the split with the chimp lineage. This is what we find, as noted by Dr. Gauger:
Then Dr. Gauger makes this strange statement:
Without going too deeply into all of the issues within that statement, the one that really jumps out (at least to me) is why Dr. Gauger thinks that the rate of indel mutations and recombination events can be directly compared to the rate of substitution mutations. These involve very different mechanisms, so I am wondering if she has any reason for thinking that the number of bases affected by recombination, insertion, and deletion should be the same as the substitution rate, or that the indel and recombination rates should be predictable like the substitution rates are.
My question still stands "why is Ann Gauger relevant? Is she at the forefront of analyzing ancient genomes? Is she part of a lab or an institution doing cutting edge research on genomes?
She is relevant in the small world of ID/creationist debates, but not outside of it. This isn’t meant as a criticism, either. There are tons of really good scientists out there who aren’t big players in their scientific field.
The one positive is that Dr. Gauger is willing to engage in meaningful scientific discussions.
I don’t know how appropriate it is to directly post links to discussions at BioLogos, so I hope the mods can forgive at least one transgression. Dr. Gauger has a few posts in the thread below and makes meaningful additions to the conversation.
Dr. Gauger has published with Dr. Axe over at BioComplexity. Say what you want about the quality of the journal, but at least there is some real bench work found in the paper. As far as I know, Dr. Gauger is still employed by the Discovery Institute where she has access to a lab, and in my discussions with her she was planning future experiments. I have a lot more respect for ID proponents who actually handle some pipettes now and again.
BioComplexity journal is an ID journal. Marks is editor in Chief, Axe is Editor. They have published about 5 papers in the past few years total - all supporting ID. This is psuedoscience.
I was focused more on the effort than the results, along the lines of the old saw, “it is better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all”.
I think the vast majority of ID proponents have an “interest in the theological implications” of design arguments. But the point is that theological premises are not smuggled into the arguments for design. I have asked over and over again for opponents of ID to show me where, in Signature in the Cell, No Free Lunch, Darwin’s Black Box, etc., an ID proponent assumes the truth of some religious belief and bases his argument (mathematical, genetic, whatever) for design on that. So far not a single atheist or EC/TE proponent has produced a single passage.
In contrast, the arguments against ID by Ken Miller, beaglelady, etc., along the lines of “If nature is designed, then God must be a horrible, cruel monster, and I won’t accept such a God,” are arguments built on religious premises. The arguments of Darrel Falk, Ken Miller, John Polkinghorne and others that God would not want to tyrannize over nature (by determining evolutionary outcomes) but would give it some “freedom” (and hence leave evolution somewhat open-ended) are also arguments built on religious premises.
