Helen (Fryman) Setterfield is a very active internet creationist. One of her several claims to fame is her personal relationship with many well known actors in the field of creeationism (in many of its guises). Like most lay creationists, Helen makes what I call matter-of-fact statements about topics in which she has demonstrated little, if any, actual understanding. She tends to cut and paste or re-word statements that she has read on a private creationist listserv, and to later reiterate those statements despite having their errors pointed out ot her.

Below is one such example.
In this thread at the Baptist Board, Helen is repsonding to statements regarding cladistics written by one David Cox, or rather, the use of either physical traits or molecular data to reconstruct evolutionary schemes of relationships. Helen has been caught with her pants down on this issue numerous times in the past, making false and often inflammatory claims (such as her claim that those engaged in such research manipulate the data), yet she continues ot believe that she has some sort of ultimate knowledge on the subject. I will refute Helen's latest series of gaffes below.


HELEN

David, when a cladogram is constructed, it must be constructed around a chosen trait or set of traits, must it not?

Who chooses those traits?

Who chooses which genetic sequences will be used? (I believe only a couple of organisms, or at least VERY few even have their genomes fully sequenced yet…)

And why?

And when you say 'or any other shared derived characteristics', you are automatically assuming common descent from the first. You cannot then use the results of your presupposition as evidence for that same presupposition. That is what is circular. All you are doing is giving evidence that you HAVE that presupposition, not that it is true.


I will reply to each of Helen's points one at a time.

"David, when a cladogram is constructed, it must be constructed around a chosen trait or set of traits, must it not?"

While this is technically correct, the way in which it is stated - along with the context - conveys the true meaning. It is being implied that the choice of traits chosen has some ulterior purpose.
In reality, traits are chosen by their ubiquity, or their uniqueness. Ubiquity in that the trait must be present in as many of the taxa under investigation as possible (any specific trait can have multiple states) in order to facillitate a comparison; unique in that the traits should ideally possess some phylogenetically informative characteristics that will allow for resolution in the analysis. For example, the presence or absense of hair would be a ubiquitous trait, hair color can be a unique trait. All creatures with hair would end up in one group, and those with different colors of hair would be grouped accordingly.

" Who chooses those traits?

Who does she think chooses them? Obviously, the researcher in question. Again, the implication is that some funny business is going on. Coming from a creationist, such an implicit accusation is almost comical, considering that in fact whenever creationists enter the scientific arena on this issue (they call it baraminology, microevolution within the original kinds), THEY in fact engage in data manipulation and distortion. See bottom.

"Who chooses which genetic sequences will be used? (I believe only a couple of organisms, or at least VERY few even have their genomes fully sequenced yet…)"

Since this has been explained to her probably a dozen times, her repeated pseudo-inquiry reeks of deception. Slef-deception, most likely. The sequences used in a phylogenetic study are chosen for a number of reasons. Again, ideally all of the taxa under investigation should HAVE the locus (lest you cannot do any sort of comparative analysis!). Some loci mutate at much higher rates than others. Depending on the extent of the analysis, loci with lower rates might be preferable in some instances, loci with higher rates in others. One cannot simply paint with a borad brush, as the creationist likes to do.

Also, this brings up some interesting position statements of creationists in general and Helen specifically. John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Science, "predicted" more than 10 years ago that advcances in molecular biology would bring about the downfall of evolution in 5 years. This sentiment is echoed - with adjusted time tables - by many prominant creationists. I predict that, in 10 years, creationists will still be saying the same thing, just as they keep saying that a "growing number" of scientists are rejecting evolution and embracing creationism. Problem is, their lists are pretty much the same as they were when those claims were originally made.
Helen's lament about the scarceness of completely sequenced genomes is a direct fallout from one of her earlier "predictions/challenges", and it is a common theme in creationist circles these days. A few years ago, on the CARM discussion board, Helen had written that she would find it "troubling" to her position if she could be shown genetic data indicating a 'smooth' distance transition between species, especially those from different genera and higher. I provided a link to this web page showing just such a transition.
Helen's response? Well, she then said that she didn't know enough about "gene sequencing" to address the information, and that she would wait until the entire genome was sequenced. Other creationists have made similar cop-out statements, and for good (rhetorical) reason - they will never have to accept that their 'challenges' have been met. They will simply keep adding additional criteria. Human genome sequenced? They want to wait until the chimp genome is sequenced, and they predict that when it is, creation will be declared victor. When the chimp genome is sequenced, and evolution still looks strong - they will wait until the gorilla genome is sequenced, and they predict that when it is, creation will be declared victor. And so on. In fact, I recently read where a creationist has put off judging DNA data until many Primate genomes are sequenced. And, in yet another dodge, come creationists, includign Helen, are taking to claiming that DNA isn't really the stuff of heredy after all, and they point to some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo (that or some wildly extrapolated science) to support their skepticism...
As an aside, Helen is a proponant of the creationist notion that the speed of light was infinitely higher at the creation, some 10,000 years ago, and has been slowing to the present rate ever since. Somehow, this is supposed to answer the questions about atomic decay rates and such that creationisdts have no vlaid answers for. The notion that light has been slowing was inferred by using a series of hand-picked measurements of light speed taken obver the past few hundred years, starting with some crude mechanical techniques and ending with modern tests using lasers and computers. "Amazingly," the speed of light became more or less constant upon being measured with the more sophisticated processes. This is not due to the lack of resolving power of the earlier methds - oh no. This is because the speed of light has been slowing down... Until the 1960s, anyway... When we started using lasers and such...

As Helen continues to make false and inflammatory claims, I will continue to address them as time permits.