New Link in Human Evolution: Homo Naledi

[justlookinla]

"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

And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.

It's the same process all the way through.

You have no evidence for that. Mutation and natural selection producing both pine tress and humans from an alleged single life form is a process which is based on guesses and suppositions

It is evidenced by the same evidence all the way through.

There is no evidence for the process "all the way through".

At each fork in the phylogeny you have a collateral branch where shared DNA is preserved.

Meaningless concerning the HOW, the process which created pine trees and humans.

That is used to test the hypothesis that random mutations and natural selection are the how.

The only test, based on the scientific method, for the process of mutation and natural selection concludes that bacteria produce bacteria, finches produce finches and moths produce moths.

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.

This isn't about common ancestry.

We do have the evidence.

Why hasn't anyone presented it?

 

[Loudmouth]

And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.

"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

You have no evidence for that.

"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

Scientific hypothesis and supporting evidence highlighted.

There is no evidence for the process "all the way through".

"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."--post 440

Meaningless concerning the HOW, the process which created pine trees and humans.

And this is where you stick your head in the sand. You ask for the process and evidence. What do you do? Stick your head in the sand when it is presented.

 

[justlookinla]

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection.

Guesses and suppositions.

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

And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.

"The how is random mutations filtered through natural selection.

Guesses and suppositions.

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

Scientific hypothesis and supporting evidence highlighted.

And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.

"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."--post 440

And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.

And this is where you stick your head in the sand. You ask for the process and evidence. What do you do? Stick your head in the sand when it is presented.

Simply saying "mutations and natural selection" isn't offering evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW pine trees and humans were produced. Node distances do not offer evidence for the PROCESS of random mutation and natural selection producing a pine tree from an alleged single life form of long ago. All you're offering are subjective opinions.

 

[florida2]

Guesses and suppositions.



And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.



Guesses and suppositions.



And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.



And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.



Simply saying "mutations and natural selection" isn't offering evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW pine trees and humans were produced. Node distances do not offer evidence for the PROCESS of random mutation and natural selection producing a pine tree from an alleged single life form of long ago. All you're offering are subjective opinions.

I was just about to write a lengthy post with arguments and links to various papers and references, but then I thought - what's the point?

Let's be honest - you're never ever going to accept any evidence for evolution because of your religious beliefs. If you don't want to accept evolution purely because of your religion I don't have a problem with that - it's a free country. I do have a problem with handwaving away anything posted and never reading anything offered to you and never doing any of your own research.

If you genuinely want to learn about science - great. AVET can sometime be obtuse, but sometimes asks genuine questions which I'm happy to answer. If you want to ask sensible questions and have a civil discussion - fantastic. Otherwise, forget it. I've posted papers and links for you before which you haven't read, why should I do it any more? Let me know when you're willing to learn rather than argue and we'll start from there.

 

[justlookinla]

I was just about to write a lengthy post with arguments and links to various papers and references, but then I thought - what's the point?

You're right, there would be no point in offering several haystacks with an alleged needle in them. The typical scenerio is to offer haystacks, claim there's a needle and say, 'go find it'.

Why not instead simply post the pertinent content showing evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (Darwinist evolution) and reference the source of those claims? We both know you, nor anyone else, will do that.

Let's be honest - you're never ever going to accept any evidence for evolution

If you have evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, of Darwinist evolution, post it.

because of your religious beliefs.

As contrasted to the faith-based belief that only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goallesss mechanisms (Darwinist evolution) produced all of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago?

If you don't want to accept evolution

I don't accept faith-based Darwinist evolution. If you have the faith in the alleged process, the HOW, of Darwinism, that's your choice.

purely because of your religion I don't have a problem with that - it's a free country. I do have a problem with handwaving away anything posted and never reading anything offered to you

No evidence, based on the scientific method, has been offered to me.

and never doing any of your own research.

I've done plenty of research over quite a few years. All I've found for the HOW, the process, within Darwinism are guess, suppositions, could be's, might be's and best guesses. Evidence for the HOW, the process is completely missing.

If you genuinely want to learn about science - great. AVET can sometime be obtuse, but sometimes asks genuine questions which I'm happy to answer.

Are you suggesting my question, which I've asked probably more than a hundred times and for weeks and months now, isn't a genuine question? Simply because, you, nor anyone else, can offer the evidence asked for doesn't make it a frivolous question.

If you want to ask sensible questions and have a civil discussion - fantastic. Otherwise, forget it. I've posted papers and links for you before which you haven't read, why should I do it any more?

Links and book titles aren't evidence based on the scientific method. Tell you what, post just one of the links, specifically referencing the content in the link which offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago. Not a 'here's the haystack, there's a needle in it for you to find'...when in fact there's likely not a needle, but actual references in actual content.

You're not going to do this. You'll make some sort of excuse, and once again avoid presenting the evidence asked for.

Let me know when you're willing to learn rather than argue and we'll start from there.

Let me know when you have content, actual evidence, to present.

 

[florida2]

You're right, there would be no point in offering several haystacks with an alleged needle in them. The typical scenerio is to offer haystacks, claim there's a needle and say, 'go find it'.

Why not instead simply post the pertinent content showing evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (Darwinist evolution) and reference the source of those claims? We both know you, nor anyone else, will do that.



If you have evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, of Darwinist evolution, post it.



As contrasted to the faith-based belief that only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goallesss mechanisms (Darwinist evolution) produced all of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago?



I don't accept faith-based Darwinist evolution. If you have the faith in the alleged process, the HOW, of Darwinism, that's your choice.



No evidence, based on the scientific method, has been offered to me.



I've done plenty of research over quite a few years. All I've found for the HOW, the process, within Darwinism are guess, suppositions, could be's, might be's and best guesses. Evidence for the HOW, the process is completely missing.



Are you suggesting my question, which I've asked probably more than a hundred times and for weeks and months now, isn't a genuine question? Simply because, you, nor anyone else, can offer the evidence asked for doesn't make it a frivolous question.



Links and book titles aren't evidence based on the scientific method. Tell you what, post just one of the links, specifically referencing the content in the link which offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago. Not a 'here's the haystack, there's a needle in it for you to find'...when in fact there's likely not a needle, but actual references in actual content.

You're not going to do this. You'll make some sort of excuse, and once again avoid presenting the evidence asked for.



Let me know when you have content, actual evidence, to present.

Firstly, I'd love to know where you've done your research - to be honest from your posts you don't show any evidence of it.

If you want to know about the mechanisms of evolution then this is a great place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms thought this is even better http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html though you would be best reading all the sections which deal with other evidence such as genetic and molecular. It describes the predictions made by evolution. You could also try here for a simpler version http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14

Your question is somewhat frivolous by your arbitrary selection of humans and pine trees. I very much doubt you'll find a scientific paper discussing those two specific things, anymore than you would find one about watermelons and vultures. If you want to ask a serious question about the common ancestry of plants and animals, which I assume you are trying to do, then we can work from there.

In terms of animal-plant ancestry, a pretty cool scientific paper is this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689654/pdf/10097391.pdf
They give you plenty of genetic evidence via the scientific method and discuss their results about when different groups of organisms had a last common ancestor:

The three-way split of plants, animals and fungi, 157688 Ma (¢gure 3), establishes the earliest time for divergences within animals.

There is also another interesting looking paper using statistics to determine common descent, but unfortunately it is behind a paywall. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html however its conclusions are discussed in this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/

Common ancestry is also clearly shown and discussed here http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

Hope this helps

 

[justlookinla]

Firstly, I'd love to know where you've done your research - to be honest from your posts you don't show any evidence of it.

No, the issue is with 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 claim to have such evidence, but so far you've not presented it. Links aren't evidence, based on the scientific method, and neither are titles of books

If you want to know about the mechanisms of evolution then this is a great place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms thought this is even better http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html though you would be best reading all the sections which deal with other evidence such as genetic and molecular. It describes the predictions made by evolution. You could also try here for a simpler version http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14

Your typical rabbit trail of needle in a haystack (and there ain't no needle)response. As I've pointed out many times, you have nothing....no evidence, no content....nothing.

Your question is somewhat frivolous by your arbitrary selection of humans and pine trees. I very much doubt you'll find a scientific paper discussing those two specific things, anymore than you would find one about watermelons and vultures. If you want to ask a serious question about the common ancestry of plants and animals, which I assume you are trying to do, then we can work from there.

I don't doubt I'll not find evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, of pine trees and humans being produced from a single life form of long ago, and neither do I doubt you'll not offer it. It doesn't exist.

In terms of animal-plant ancestry, a pretty cool scientific paper is this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689654/pdf/10097391.pdf
They give you plenty of genetic evidence via the scientific method and discuss their results about when different groups of organisms had a last common ancestor:

1) This isn't about common ancestry, it's about the HOW, the process
2) More of your 'find the needle in the haystack' evasion

The three-way split of plants, animals and fungi, 157688 Ma (¢gure 3), establishes the earliest time for divergences within animals.

LOL. This is the evidence for the HOW, the process, based on the scientific method? LOL.

There is also another interesting looking paper using statistics to determine common descent, but unfortunately it is behind a paywall. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html however its conclusions are discussed in this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/

Common ancestry is also clearly shown and discussed here http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

Hope this helps

Doesn't help one bit. You're doing nothing but completely failing in offering the evidence asked for and instead, as is so typical with Darwinists, attempt to change the issue to common ancestry or evade with the 'needle in the haystack' evasion.[/QUOTE]

 

[florida2]

No, the issue is with 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 claim to have such evidence, but so far you've not presented it. Links aren't evidence, based on the scientific method, and neither are titles of books



Your typical rabbit trail of needle in a haystack (and there ain't no needle)response. As I've pointed out many times, you have nothing....no evidence, no content....nothing.



I don't doubt I'll not find evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, of pine trees and humans being produced from a single life form of long ago, and neither do I doubt you'll not offer it. It doesn't exist.



1) This isn't about common ancestry, it's about the HOW, the process
2) More of your 'find the needle in the haystack' evasion



LOL. This is the evidence for the HOW, the process, based on the scientific method? LOL.



Doesn't help one bit. You're doing nothing but completely failing in offering the evidence asked for and instead, as is so typical with Darwinists, attempt to change the issue to common ancestry or evade with the 'needle in the haystack' evasion.

[/QUOTE]

Your response makes no sense. Surely if I was evading I would post any links at all?!?!?

Again, you've made your question frivolous by arbitrarily choosing humans and pine trees. The development of plants and animals is a massive question which can't be answered in a single post. I've given you links to help you make a start but you'll need to do some serious reading to get a grip on such a complicated question. There are people on the forum more expert than I am who can give you a better answer - I'm just trying to help

The HOW is evolution, the mechanisms of which are described in the links I posted. I'm not going to copy and paste walls of texts into the forum.

 

[justlookinla]

[QUOTE="florida2, post: 68656392, member: 292762"

Your response makes no sense. Surely if I was evading I would post any links at all?!?!? [/QUOTE]

A link isn't evidence, based on the scientific method. A link is the typical find the needle in the haystack evasion, which isn't uncommon from those who do not have the evidence asked for.

Actually post content.

Again, you've made your question frivolous by arbitrarily choosing humans and pine trees.

It's not frivious at all. The issue is about the HOW, the process whereby those life forms were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process.

The development of plants and animals is a massive question which can't be answered in a single post.

No, it's a simple question. Pine trees and humans were produced by some process. What was the process? Simply saying "evolution" or posting links isn't identifying the HOW, the process and neither is posting links and saying, there....go find it.

I've given you links to help you make a start but you'll need to do some serious reading to get a grip on such a complicated question. There are people on the forum more expert than I am who can give you a better answer - I'm just trying to help

You don't have evidence, based on the scientific method, do you?

The HOW is evolution,

And a perfect example of one of the favorite evasive responses from Darwinists.

the mechanisms of which are described in the links I posted.

What mechanisms? Actually post something of value, not empty claims.

I'm not going to copy and paste walls of texts into the forum.

You don't have to post walls of text. Simply give the process and the evidence for the process.

 

[Jimmy D]

You don't have to post walls of text. Simply give the process and the evidence for the process.

A short answer is hand waved away as 'not evidence' a more detailed answer in the form of a link or scientific paper will be ignored as a 'needle in a haystack' or 'wall of text' so what's the point of asking?

Why not stop the trolling and actually go and research the mechanisms of evolution if you're genuinely interested.

 

[florida2]

[QUOTE="florida2, post: 68656392, member: 292762"

Your response makes no sense. Surely if I was evading I would post any links at all?!?!?

A link isn't evidence, based on the scientific method. A link is the typical find the needle in the haystack evasion, which isn't uncommon from those who do not have the evidence asked for.

Actually post content.



It's not frivious at all. The issue is about the HOW, the process whereby those life forms were produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process.



No, it's a simple question. Pine trees and humans were produced by some process. What was the process? Simply saying "evolution" or posting links isn't identifying the HOW, the process and neither is posting links and saying, there....go find it.



You don't have evidence, based on the scientific method, do you?



And a perfect example of one of the favorite evasive responses from Darwinists.



What mechanisms? Actually post something of value, not empty claims.



You don't have to post walls of text. Simply give the process and the evidence for the process.[/QUOTE]

You don't seem to understand that evolution is a process! Why is that so difficult to understand?

Mutation, natural selection, genetic drift are all part of that process.

Which one do you want to start with?

 

[justlookinla]

A short answer is hand waved away as 'not evidence' a more detailed answer in the form of a link or scientific paper will be ignored as a 'needle in a haystack' or 'wall of text' so what's the point of asking?

Why not stop the trolling and actually go and research the mechanisms of evolution if you're genuinely interested.

I've researched and all I've found are guesses and suppositions, maybe this and possibly that. Not a single bit of evidence, based on the scientific method, is to be found.

A short answer would reference the content in the link which is pertinent to the issue. Would you like to actually offer something of content other than the usual evasion?

 

[Loudmouth]

Guesses and suppositions.



And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.



Guesses and suppositions.



And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.



And still nothing about the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both pine trees and humans beginning with an alleged single life form of long ago.



Simply saying "mutations and natural selection" isn't offering evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW pine trees and humans were produced. Node distances do not offer evidence for the PROCESS of random mutation and natural selection producing a pine tree from an alleged single life form of long ago. All you're offering are subjective opinions.

And back on ignore.

 

[justlookinla]

And back on ignore.

Anything to hide the truth of your failure to present evidence?