New Link in Human Evolution: Homo Naledi

[justlookinla]

I am not the one playing games. Just answer the question.

The common ancestor of humans and pine trees? Is that who you are talking about?

From one of the many previous posts of mine......."pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago".

You're playing games.

 

[Loudmouth]

From one of the many previous posts of mine......."pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago".

You're playing games.

Is that single life form the common ancestor? Please answer the question.

 

[justlookinla]

Is that single life form the common ancestor? Please answer the question.

Does "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago." suggest a common ancestor?

You apparently have some sort of 'gotcha!' moment you're wishing to use.

Oh....and here the question in it's entirety, which you haven't responded to with evidence....."The process, the HOW, of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago."

 

[Loudmouth]

Does "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago." suggest a common ancestor?

It does to me. I am asking you to make sure this is the question you are asking.

You apparently have some sort of 'gotcha!' moment you're wishing to use.

I don't. I just get tired of you refusing to discuss the evidence the moment the words "common ancestor" are uttered.

Oh....and here the question in it's entirety, which you haven't responded to with evidence....."The process, the HOW, of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago."

Is that single life form the common ancestor of pine trees and humans (as well as all of the other plants and animals within those lineages)?

 

[justlookinla]

It does to me. I am asking you to make sure this is the question you are asking.

What does "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago" mean to you if that's not answering your question?

I don't. I just get tired of you refusing to discuss the evidence the moment the words "common ancestor" are uttered.

Utter common ancestry all you wish, that's not what the question has been about for the last 100+ times it's been asked. Once more, the issue is concerning the PROCESS, the HOW, of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Is that single life form the common ancestor of pine trees and humans (as well as all of the other plants and animals within those lineages)?

It's the starting point. As I've indicated time and time again.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago" mean to you if that's not answering your question?

I am asking YOU what YOU mean. Are you referring to a common ancestor?

Utter common ancestry all you wish, that's not what the question has been about for the last 100+ times it's been asked.

Why not?

Once more, the issue is concerning the PROCESS, the HOW, of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And I keep telling you that this process involves common ancestry, and you refuse to listen.

It's the starting point. As I've indicated time and time again.

Common ancestry happens at almost every step. Start with this phylogeny.

Humans and pine trees are not found at the start. What we have is animals being just one branch on that tree. The entire process involves common ancestry occurring over and over and over. The evidence for the process involves evidence from common ancestry.

You claim that you want to understand the process, but you run away from it every time.

 

[justlookinla]

I am asking YOU what YOU mean. Are you referring to a common ancestor?

I'm asking why this doesn't answer your question.

Why not?

And I keep telling you that this process involves common ancestry, and you refuse to listen.

Start at the alleged life form from which pine trees and humans were produced by some process and give evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process which produced the pine trees and humans. The alleged life form from which pine trees and humans proceeded isn't pertinent to offering evidence for the process.

Common ancestry happens at almost every step. Start with this phylogeny.

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

Humans and pine trees are not found at the start. What we have is animals being just one branch on that tree.

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

The entire process involves common ancestry occurring over and over and over. The evidence for the process involves evidence from common ancestry.

What is the process, the HOW? Describe it. Offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for pine trees/humans.

You claim that you want to understand the process, but you run away from it every time.

You haven't presented the process, based on the scientific method, for HOW pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm asking why this doesn't answer your question.

I ask what it means to you.

Your answer is to ask what it means to me.

I think it is pretty obvious how that doesn't answer my question. What I think it means has nothing to do with what you think it means.

Just answer the question already.

Are you referring to a common ancestor?

Start at the alleged life form from which pine trees and humans were produced by some process and give evidence, based on the scientific method, for the process which produced the pine trees and humans. The alleged life form from which pine trees and humans proceeded isn't pertinent to offering evidence for the process.

Since you are asking me for the evidence, I will determine what is and isn't pertinent.

I have determined that common ancestry is pertinent since the process, the how, involves common ancestry. Now, do you want to discuss this or not?

 

[justlookinla]

I ask what it means to you.

Your answer is to ask what it means to me.

I think it is pretty obvious how that doesn't answer my question. What I think it means has nothing to do with what you think it means.

Just answer the question already.

Are you referring to a common ancestor?

Just answer the question, what you do you think I'm referring to when I said "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago" . How can you not understand that?

Since you are asking me for the evidence, I will determine what is and isn't pertinent.

Since you've offered no evidence, it's a moot point.

I have determined that common ancestry is pertinent since the process, the how, involves common ancestry. Now, do you want to discuss this or not?

Simply offer the evidence for the HOW, the process. Describe it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just answer the question, what you do you think I'm referring to when I said "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago" .

I already answered it in post 424. Now it is your turn to answer it.

Are you referring to a common ancestor?

How can you not understand that?

How can you understand that my understanding has nothing to do with your understanding?

Since you've offered no evidence, it's a moot point.

Already have.

"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]

I already answered it in post 424. Now it is your turn to answer it.

I didn't find it in post 424. Mind quoting it?

Are you referring to a common ancestor?

Are you going to answer my question?

How can you understand that my understanding has nothing to do with your understanding?

We'll see...if you ever give your understanding.

Already have.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection.

Guesses and suppositions. Nothing supported by the scientific method.

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.

Apply that to the process which produced pine trees and humans, base it on the scientific method and get back to me.

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

This is about the process, the HOW, of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago, based on the scientific method. Go back to the beginning.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't find it in post 424. Mind quoting it?

justlookinla: Does "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago." suggest a common ancestor?

Me: It does to me. I am asking you to make sure this is the question you are asking.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Are you going to answer my question?

Already did.

Guesses and suppositions. Nothing supported by the scientific method.

"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."--post 310

Completely supported by the scientific method.

Apply that to the process which produced pine trees and humans, base it on the scientific method and get back to me.

Just did.

This is about the process, the HOW, of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago, based on the scientific method. Go back to the beginning.

"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]

justlookinla: Does "pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago." suggest a common ancestor?

Me: It does to me. I am asking you to make sure this is the question you are asking.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Well, let's go with your understanding then.

"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."--post 310

Where's the process pine tree/human part of the evidence? "Conservation of functional DNA" has not been observed to produce new life forms, such as pine trees and humans from a previous life form...or series of life forms.

Completely supported by the scientific method.

You have no idea what the scientific method is then.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection.

That's the CLAIM. Random mutations filtered through natural selection has NOT been shown, based on the scientific method, to produce anything but like life forms.

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

What about pine trees and humans?

 

[Loudmouth]

Where's the process pine tree/human part of the evidence?

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection."

"Conservation of functional DNA" has not been observed to produce new life forms, such as pine trees and humans from a previous life form...or series of life forms.

It is the evidence for random mutations filtered through natural selection.

You have no idea what the scientific method is then.

I constructed a hypothesis and tested it with repeatable observations. How is that not consistent with the scientific method?

That's the CLAIM. Random mutations filtered through natural selection has NOT been shown, based on the scientific method, to produce anything but like life forms.

I am showing you that evidence.

What about pine trees and humans?

I just told you about them.

 

[justlookinla]

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection."

That's certainly your claim...which isn't supported by evidence based on the scientific method.

It is the evidence for random mutations filtered through natural selection.

It's not evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW, the process, which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

I constructed a hypothesis and tested it with repeatable observations. How is that not consistent with the scientific method?

Where's the pine tree, where's the human being produced as evidenced by the scientific method?

I am showing you that evidence.

Of course you aren't. No, pine tree, no human in the process, beginning with the alleged single life form of long ago.

I just told you about them.

You've certainly made baseless claims on how pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's certainly your claim...which isn't supported by evidence based on the scientific method.

It is supported.

"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

A testable hypothesis supported by repeatable observations. Entirely scientific.

It's not evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW, the process, which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Why isn't a phylogeny of shared and conserved DNA evidence for random mutations and natural selection? Please explain.

Where's the pine tree, where's the human being produced as evidenced by the scientific method?

I just showed you the how.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection."

Of course you aren't. No, pine tree, no human in the process, beginning with the alleged single life form of long ago.

The modern species are the end product of the process, not the process itself.

You've certainly made baseless claims on how pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form.

I gave you the evidence based on the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

It is supported.

"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

A testable hypothesis supported by repeatable observations. Entirely scientific.

Start with the alleged single life form, apply the scientific method, show pine trees and humans being produced by your alleged process and get back to me.

Why isn't a phylogeny of shared and conserved DNA evidence for random mutations and natural selection? Please explain.

Where are the pine trees and humans being produced from the alleged life form in this process as evidenced by the scientific method?

I just showed you the how.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection."

Where are the pine trees and humans being produced from the alleged life form in this process as evidenced by the scientific method?

The modern species are the end product of the process, not the process itself.

Allegedly.

I gave you the evidence based on the scientific method.

Where have you referenced the non-pine tree life form and the non-human life form (the alleged single life form from which both proceeded by some process) in your alleged evidence? Remember, it has to be based on the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

Start with the alleged single life form, apply the scientific method, show pine trees and humans being produced by your alleged process and get back to me.

Already did.

""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

Where are the pine trees and humans being produced from the alleged life form in this process as evidenced by the scientific method?

They are at the ends of the branches on the phylogeny, along with all of the other species that share a common ancestor within those lineages. It is this phylogeny that provides the evidence for the process.

Where are the pine trees and humans being produced from the alleged life form in this process as evidenced by the scientific method?

They are at the end of the process, as shown in the phylogeny.

Allegedly.

As supported by evidence and the scientific method.

Where have you referenced the non-pine tree life form and the non-human life form (the alleged single life form from which both proceeded by some process) in your alleged evidence? Remember, it has to be based on the scientific method.

It is part of the phylogeny.

Start here: http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

 

[justlookinla]

Already did.

""The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection.

Where are the pine trees and humans being produced from the alleged life form in this process as evidenced by the scientific method?

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

Where are the pine trees and humans being produced from the alleged life form in this process as evidenced by the scientific method?

They are at the ends of the branches on the phylogeny, along with all of the other species that share a common ancestor within those lineages. It is this phylogeny that provides the evidence for the process.

Now, start with the beginning of the branches and give the evidence, supported by the scientific method, for the production of pine trees and humans by some process.

They are at the end of the process, as shown in the phylogeny.

They started at the beginning of the process. It's this beginning, and following the subsequent processes, which you have absolutely no evidence based on the scientific method.

As supported by evidence and the scientific method.

You've presented none.

It is part of the phylogeny.

Start here: http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

Nothing there about the process.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where are the pine trees and humans being produced from the alleged life form in this process as evidenced by the scientific method?

"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

Now, start with the beginning of the branches and give the evidence, supported by the scientific method, for the production of pine trees and humans by some process.

It's the same process all the way through. It is evidenced by the same evidence all the way through. At each fork in the phylogeny you have a collateral branch where shared DNA is preserved. That is used to test the hypothesis that random mutations and natural selection are the how. What we should see is a correlation between sequence and evolutionary distance. The farther away the node is the fewer similarities we should see. That is the testable hypothesis. What does the data show? That very thing. We have the data going back to the very early branches, such as fungi and yeast genomes.

They started at the beginning of the process. It's this beginning, and following the subsequent processes, which you have absolutely no evidence based on the scientific method.

We do have the evidence.