New Link in Human Evolution: Homo Naledi

[Loudmouth]

Allegedly.

So this is about the common ancestor, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

The question isn't about human and chimps.

The evidence for the how is the human and chimp genes that I discuss.

Do you want the evidence or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Guesses and suppositions.

Are you saying that there is not conservation of gene sequences?

 

[justlookinla]

So this is about the common ancestor, correct?

No, this is about the alleged process which acted on the alleged common ancestor and the evidence based on the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

Are you saying that there is not conservation of gene sequences?

Are you saying that conservation of gene sequences produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, this is about the alleged process which acted on the alleged common ancestor and the evidence based on the scientific method.

Are we talking about the claims that theory of evolution makes, or the claims that you make?

 

[justlookinla]

Are we talking about the claims that theory of evolution makes, or the claims that you make?

I'm talking about the claims that certain views of evolution, such as promoted by UC-Berkeley, make.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The question has remained the same from the beginning. HOW.

The lack of evidence has remained the same from the beginning.

You've changed the question again. Just a short while ago you asked:

What you posted doesn't offer the evidence for the process which created pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

So, the question jumps back and foward between the HOW being there or not, and whether it's about 'created' or not. Fundamentally, you're avoiding asking us a reasonable question because you know we can answer it all too easily. It isn't just sloppiness on your part, because when ask simple yes no questions, you avoid them.

The answer to your question of HOW is 'evolution'. The evidence for this is the evidence that evolution has occurred. Ubiquitous genes are one example of strong scientific evidence that evolution has occurred, by showing that hugely different organisms such as pine trees and humans have a common ancestor, and therefore that this common ancestor must have evolved into both.

Unless you ask a more detailed question, the answer to HOW is 'evolution', and the evidence is the evidence for evolution, as posted many times.

Question: Answered
Evidence: Provided

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you saying that conservation of gene sequences produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago?

Can you find a single post where I said any such thing? Let's see what I really said.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection. This scientific theory makes a specific and testable hypothesis, that we should see a difference in the rate of accumulation of mutations in different parts of the genome. Specifically, we should see conservation of functional DNA sequences. That is exactly what we see. When we compare the chimp and human genomes we see the conservation of sequence in human and chimp genes compared to junk DNA."--post #310

I am saying that random mutations filtered through natural selection produced humans from ancestral apes.

I then showed how this hypothesis was testable through the scientific method, and how conservation of sequence was the observation used to test that hypothesis.

I didn't say that conservation of sequence caused humans to evolve from ancestral apes.

I didn't say that humans emerged from the simple, single celled protest that was the common ancestor of pine trees and humans.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm talking about the claims that certain views of evolution, such as promoted by UC-Berkeley, make.

Then please stop asking about your view which is not the view shared by UC-Berkeley. You are the only one with a view of evolution where a single celled eukaryote gives birth to a full fledged human and a full fledged pine tree.

 

[justlookinla]

You've changed the question again. Just a short while ago you asked:

The question remains the same.....HOW.

So, the question jumps back and foward between the HOW being there or not, and whether it's about 'created' or not. Fundamentally, you're avoiding asking us a reasonable question because you know we can answer it all too easily. It isn't just sloppiness on your part, because when ask simple yes no questions, you avoid them.

I've been asking for days now. Apparently you can't easily answer....or answer at all.

The answer to your question of HOW is 'evolution'.

'Evolution' doesn't offer evidence for the HOW.

The evidence for this is the evidence that evolution has occurred. Ubiquitous genes are one example of strong scientific evidence that evolution has occurred, by showing that hugely different organisms such as pine trees and humans have a common ancestor, and therefore that this common ancestor must have evolved into both.

HOW? Describe the process and support it by offering evidence for the HOW based on the scientific method.

Unless you ask a more detailed question, the answer to HOW is 'evolution', and the evidence is the evidence for evolution, as posted many times.

Question: Answered
Evidence: Provided

Of course you're not going to provide evidence for the HOW, in spite of your claim you have 'hundreds of references'. Neither will anyone else.

 

[Loudmouth]

The question remains the same.....HOW.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection. This scientific theory makes a specific and testable hypothesis, that we should see a difference in the rate of accumulation of mutations in different parts of the genome. Specifically, we should see conservation of functional DNA sequences. That is exactly what we see. When we compare the chimp and human genomes we see the conservation of sequence in human and chimp genes compared to junk DNA."--post #310

 

[justlookinla]

Can you find a single post where I said any such thing? Let's see what I really said.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection.

Prove it. Offer evidence that random mutations filtered through natural selection produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

This scientific theory makes a specific and testable hypothesis, that we should see a difference in the rate of accumulation of mutations in different parts of the genome. Specifically, we should see conservation of functional DNA sequences. That is exactly what we see. When we compare the chimp and human genomes we see the conservation of sequence in human and chimp genes compared to junk DNA."--post #310

Why are you offering conservation of functional DNA sequences as evidence when you say you've made no such claim. And the question isn't about humans/chimps.

I am saying that random mutations filtered through natural selection produced humans from ancestral apes.

And I'm saying you have absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, that such a process produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago. You've offered no such evidence.

I then showed how this hypothesis was testable through the scientific method, and how conservation of sequence was the observation used to test that hypothesis.

The conservation of sequence does NOT offer evidence for the HOW. For the process.

I didn't say that conservation of sequence caused humans to evolve from ancestral apes.

Ok.

I didn't say that humans emerged from the simple, single celled protest that was the common ancestor of pine trees and humans.

Well, did they or did they not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it. Offer evidence that random mutations filtered through natural selection produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You prove it. You are the one claiming that a single celled protist gave birth to humans and pine trees hundreds of millions of years ago. No one else is making that claim.

What I am giving evidence for is what the theory of evolution actually claims.

Why are you offering conservation of functional DNA sequences as evidence when you say you've made no such claim.

"I am saying that random mutations filtered through natural selection produced humans from ancestral apes.

I then showed how this hypothesis was testable through the scientific method, and how conservation of sequence was the observation used to test that hypothesis."
--post 389

And the question isn't about humans/chimps.

The evidence for the answer is about human and chimp genes. You don't get to choose what evidence I use. I get to choose.

And I'm saying you have absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, that such a process produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago. You've offered no such evidence.

A single celled eukaryote giving birth to a human hundreds of millions of years ago is your claim, not mine. You said we were discussing the real theory of evolution, not your views on evolution.

The conservation of sequence does NOT offer evidence for the HOW. For the process.

Sure it does. The difference in the number of mutations in junk DNA vs. functional DNA is evidence that there was selection against negative mutations.

"In genetics, the Ka/Ks ratio (or ω, dN/dS), is the ratio of the number of nonsynonymous substitutions per non-synonymous site (Ka) to the number of synonymous substitutions per synonymous site (Ks), which can be used as an indicator of selective pressure acting on a protein-coding gene."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka/Ks_ratio

We can directly test for the randomness of mutations in scientific experiments like the fluctuation test:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment

The test of the hypothesis is a comparison of the chimp and human genome. If random mutations and natural selection were responsible for the emergence of humans from an ape ancestor then we should see different Ka/Ks ratios in genes compared to junk DNA. That is exactly what we see. Hypothesis confirmed, all in keeping with the scientific method.

Well, did they or did they not?

For the 20th time, no single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human or pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

[justlookinla]

You prove it. You are the one claiming that a single celled protist gave birth to humans and pine trees hundreds of millions of years ago. No one else is making that claim.

What I am giving evidence for is what the theory of evolution actually claims.

You're at odds with UC-Berkeley's view of evolution??

"I am saying that random mutations filtered through natural selection produced humans from ancestral apes.

I then showed how this hypothesis was testable through the scientific method, and how conservation of sequence was the observation used to test that hypothesis."
--post 389

You've not given one single bit of evidence for the HOW, the process, with produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

The evidence for the answer is about human and chimp genes. You don't get to choose what evidence I use. I get to choose.

I get to point out that you're not offering evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

A single celled eukaryote giving birth to a human hundreds of millions of years ago is your claim, not mine. You said we were discussing the real theory of evolution, not your views on evolution.

That's not my claim. I've not claimed that anything 'gave birth'.

Sure it does. The difference in the number of mutations in junk DNA vs. functional DNA is evidence that there was selection against negative mutations.

"In genetics, the Ka/Ks ratio (or ω, dN/dS), is the ratio of the number of nonsynonymous substitutions per non-synonymous site (Ka) to the number of synonymous substitutions per synonymous site (Ks), which can be used as an indicator of selective pressure acting on a protein-coding gene."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka/Ks_ratio

Ok, so there are mutations and natural selection. No problem there. The problem arises when it's claimed those processes produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago and the complete lack of evidence for such a view.

We can directly test for the randomness of mutations in scientific experiments like the fluctuation test:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment

Ok.

The test of the hypothesis is a comparison of the chimp and human genome. If random mutations and natural selection were responsible for the emergence of humans from an ape ancestor then we should see different Ka/Ks ratios in genes compared to junk DNA. That is exactly what we see. Hypothesis confirmed, all in keeping with the scientific method.

The question is about the HOW, the process, which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

For the 20th time, no single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human or pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago.

Nobody's claimed "gave birth".

 

[Loudmouth]

You're at odds with UC-Berkeley's view of evolution??

You are the one at odds with the UC-Berkeley view of evolution. They agree with me that there was never a simple eukaryote that gave birth to a human or a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You are the only one here who thinks that.

You've not given one single bit of evidence for the HOW, the process, with produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

I get to point out that you're not offering evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

That's not my claim. I've not claimed that anything 'gave birth'.

Yes, you did.

"whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago."

The problem arises when it's claimed those processes produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago and the complete lack of evidence for such a view.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

The question is about the HOW, the process, which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

Nobody's claimed "gave birth".

Yes, you did. You said it wasn't common ancestry. Birth is the only option left.

 

[justlookinla]

You are the one at odds with the UC-Berkeley view of evolution. They agree with me that there was never a simple eukaryote that gave birth to a human or a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You are the only one here who thinks that.

From UC-Berkeley....

"Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."
​

Pine trees and humans had a single shared life from on which the HOW, the process, acted producing both pine trees and humans. Evidence, based on the scientific method, is missing concerning the HOW, the process though.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

I haven't claimed "gave birth". I'm simply presenting a certain view of evolution.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

I haven't claimed "gave birth". I'm simply presenting a certain view of evolution.

Yes, you did.

"whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago."

That's the claim of certain views of evolution, as shown by the UC-Berkeley site.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

I haven't claimed "gave birth". I'm simply presenting a certain view of evolution.

You are the only one who thinks that a single celled eukaryote gave birth to a human and a pine tree hundreds of millions of years ago. You prove it.

I haven't claimed "gave birth". I'm simply presenting a certain view of evolution.

Yes, you did. You said it wasn't common ancestry. Birth is the only option left.

The question about the HOW, the process, isn't about common ancestry. Alleged common ancestry (per the UC-Berkeley site) would simply be the starting point for the HOW, the process. Which isn't based on evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

From UC-Berkeley....

"Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life . . .​

​

You already stated that this is not about common descent.

Pine trees and humans had a single shared life from on which the HOW, the process, acted producing both pine trees and humans.

No single shared life form gave birth to both pine trees and humans. Humans didn't emerge until about 2 million years ago, and they emerged from ancestral apes. Pine trees emerged 150 million years ago, and they did so from ancestral conifers. Apes and conifers are not a single life form. UC-Berkeley agrees with me.

I haven't claimed "gave birth". I'm simply presenting a certain view of evolution.

You said it wasn't common ancestry. So what other choice is there but direct birth?

The question about the HOW, the process, isn't about common ancestry.

Then what is the process? Be specific.

 

[justlookinla]

​

You already stated that this is not about common descent.

It's not. It's about the HOW, the process, acting on an alleged single life form of long ago, producing pine trees and humans.

No single shared life form gave birth to both pine trees and humans.

I haven't claimed "gave birth". I'm simply presenting a certain view of evolution.

Humans didn't emerge until about 2 million years ago, and they emerged from ancestral apes.

And ancestral apes emerged from something which wasn't an ancestral ape on down to the alleged life form from which both pine trees and humans emerged. By some process.

Pine trees emerged 150 million years ago, and they did so from ancestral conifers.

And ancestral conifers emerged from something which wasn't ancestral conifers on down to the alleged life form from which both pine trees and humans emerged. By some process.

Apes and conifers are not a single life form. UC-Berkeley agrees with me.

Nobody said that apes and conifers are a single life form.

You said it wasn't common ancestry. So what other choice is there but direct birth?

It's about the HOW, the process acting on the alleged common life form which produced pine trees and humans. Start at the beginning and go forward, with evidence, for the HOW, the process.

Then what is the process? Be specific.

That's what I've been asking for days and dozens and dozens and dozens of posts. The HOW, the process, with evidence based on the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not.

Then what is the relationship between humans, pines, and this single life form if it isn't common ancestry. How are you saying that they are related if it isn't by common ancestry.

I haven't claimed "gave birth". I'm simply presenting a certain view of evolution.

And ancestral apes emerged from something which wasn't an ancestral ape . . .

You only want to talk about pine trees and humans, so we can only talk about the life forms immediate adjacent to humans and pine trees.

Nobody said that apes and conifers are a single life form.

You said that humans and pine trees emerged from a single life form. Ancestral apes produced humans. You do the math.

It's about the HOW, the process acting on the alleged common life form which produced pine trees and humans.

Once again, you said this is not about common ancestry. You need to make up your mind.

Start at the beginning and go forward, with evidence, for the HOW, the process.

Since you only allow us to discuss pine trees and humans, the starting points would be pine trees and humans. That process goes back to their immediate non-human and non-pine ancestors, and stops there since you refuse to discuss common ancestry.