Evidence that would falsify evolution

[Loudmouth]

Shared building blocks used by a creator.

Why would this produce a phylogeny?

And....no tree/bush based on anything but guesses and suppositions for the alternate view.

Genome sequences are not guesses or suppositions. They are facts.

 

[justlookinla]

Why would this produce a phylogeny?

You'd have to ask the designer.

Genome sequences are not guesses or suppositions. They are facts.

The conclusions are guesses and suppositions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Shared building blocks used by a creator.

And....no tree/bush based on anything but guesses and suppositions for the alternate view.

They aren't functional in fox DNA, they are vestigial junk. Many of the DNA sequences we and other animals share with plants are not active in any regard. They could just as easily have random unrelated sequences. If it is junk, then why would it look like nonjunk in something else? Why not just make all junk universally junk, to prevent confusion? Even worse, how much of that junk we share fits evolution as observed in fossils, something which could only be explained from your standpoint as god trolling people. It might be excusable if it actually was necessary to have that much junk, but as seen in the pufferfish, it is not.

 

[justlookinla]

They aren't functional in fox DNA, they are vestigial junk. Many of the DNA sequences we and other animals share with plants are not active in any regard. They could just as easily have random unrelated sequences. If it is junk, then why would it look like nonjunk in something else? Why not just make all junk universally junk, to prevent confusion? Even worse, how much of that junk we share fits evolution as observed in fossils, something which could only be explained from your standpoint as god trolling people. It might be excusable if it actually was necessary to have that much junk, but as seen in the pufferfish, it is not.

When you can design and create a fox or coconut, you may have a point.

 

[PsychoSarah]

When you can design and create a fox or coconut, you may have a point.

We aren't that far off from being able to do that, we make various animals glow by inserting genes, but since you claim god was able and did create these things, the logic of it still applies.

 

[justlookinla]

We aren't that far off from being able to do that, we make various animals glow by inserting genes, but since you claim god was able and did create these things, the logic of it still applies.

You're a gazillion miles from doing that.

 

[AV1611VET]

We aren't that far off from being able to do that, we make various animals glow by inserting genes,

QV please:

Would someone please explain to me, from an evolutionary perspective, how a Rangifur tarandus can acquire the ability to emit electromagnetic radition in the 620-750 nm range from its rhinarium.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Software may draw a tree/bush for the common ancestor between a fox and a coconut, but reality won't do it.

Denying the facts doesn't make them go away.

Running genomes through the pattern matching algorithm from random species always results in the same basic phylogenetic tree. That's just the way it is.

Wheter you look for the matches manually or through an automated process doesn't make a difference.

It's not "programmed" to come to a certain result. It's programmed to find matches and map out the pattern thereof.

And that pattern happens to always be a phylogenetic tree with nested hierarchies. Exactly how it should be if evolution is true.

Again, no "guesses or suppositions"... Just facts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Show that foxes and coconuts have a common ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree#/media/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

That tree is automatically generated based on completely sequenced genomes

 

[DogmaHunter]

The resultant conclusion that foxes and coconuts share a common ancestor is based on guesses and suppositions.

No. That conclusion is based on how DNA works.
It's how we can do DNA testing to find biological parents.

As you have been told already, we can compare genomes and map out the pattern of the matches.
This produces a tree.

The nodes on the tree represent common ancestry for the branches of the tree.
If that last statement is wrong, then DNA testing to find biological parents can't work.

But it does work. so.... yeah....

 

[AV1611VET]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree#/media/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

That tree is automatically generated based on completely sequenced genomes

Looks like a game of connect-the-dots to me.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Looks like a game of connect-the-dots to me.

...he said sulkily.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Looks like a game of connect-the-dots to me.

It's more like a derive the dots game

 

[Loudmouth]

Looks like a game of connect-the-dots to me.

It's called "following the evidence". You should try it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You'd have to ask the designer.

I am asking you.

Why would YOU expect a nested hierarchy among designs with a common designer?

If you can't explain why YOU or anyone would expect to see a nested hierarchy, then YOU don't have an explanation for the nested hierarchy.

The conclusions are guesses and suppositions.

The conclusions are drawn from the evidence. That's how science works.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you can design and create a fox or coconut, you may have a point.

Humans are already designing organisms, and when we do so we regularly violate the nested hierarchy.

 

[justlookinla]

Denying the facts doesn't make them go away.

Running genomes through the pattern matching algorithm from random species always results in the same basic phylogenetic tree. That's just the way it is.

Wheter you look for the matches manually or through an automated process doesn't make a difference.

It's not "programmed" to come to a certain result. It's programmed to find matches and map out the pattern thereof.

And that pattern happens to always be a phylogenetic tree with nested hierarchies. Exactly how it should be if evolution is true.

Again, no "guesses or suppositions"... Just facts.

Sure it's programmed. Some programmer(s) wrote code (you can't have functional code without a programmer), making certain guesses and suppositions about random, chance events, and voila!, you have a tree/bush!

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure it's programmed. Some programmer(s) wrote code (you can't have functional code without a programmer), making certain guesses and suppositions about random, chance events, and voila!, you have a tree/bush!

DNA is an element of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Humans are already designing organisms, and when we do so we regularly violate the nested hierarchy.

Let me know when humans start from a [insert alleged first life form here] and create a human/fox/coconut/pine tree (select one or all) by random/chance naturalistic processes.

Oh..and when humans are designing organisms (note word: design), they're of course do not have a goal in mind in their design, do they?

 

[justlookinla]

DNA is an element of evolution.

DNA is an element of life.