Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

[Justatruthseeker]

The bolded bit is only true when we have species where the variation in species is considerable compared to the difference between species. E.g. it is difficult to build a cladogram for the cichlid fish species of Lake Victoria. However, if we build a cladogram for species with more inter-species difference, then the variation within species is tiny in comparison and not a significant cause of error in the cladogram.

@Justatruthseeker - do you believe that the variation within species such as humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans etc. is small? E.g. do you believe that there is no clear distinction between humans and chimps?

Please, you don’t really believe that any more than I do. It’s like finches we have discussed. Interchanging genes since arriving on the island, of such mixed ancestory you can barely tell them apart genetically. Yet you keep classifying those variations within species as separate species, all because Darwin incorrectly believed they were reproductively isolated.

The true relationship would change the entire cladogram for finches. Why it would then show an actual family tree of interbreeding subspecies, instead of the fake trash cladogram it currently shows of separate species.

You got their direct DNA sequenced, and they still refuse to get it correct, because they have the name Darwin attached to them and have their pre-conceived beliefs which they refuse to give up.

Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

Not only are your fellow evolutionists rejecting their own Scientific definitions, but are refusing to follow the DNA data, and worse yet, ignoring what is happening right in front of their eyes.

And then every time the variation is considerable, they add non-existent common ancestors to bridge the gap between forms, because it’s the only way they can show any kind of relationship, by inserting hypothetical imaginary forms, and connecting them with hypothetical imaginary lines, and presenting it as if it was fact to fool the uninformed.....

 

[pshun2404]

What's to discuss? Other than that you seem a bit obsessed with imperfections of cladistics which is kind of a given for any sort of statistical reconstruction; there are always going to be limits of precision.

So what else is there?

It may appear that way but my position is that all the facts and positions (for AND against) should be included when a subject is taught in schools and Universities. The arguments for and against being given in an un-opinionated fashion in classrooms and textbooks will create students, potential scientists, and researchers, with open minds and the ability to be objective.

An example from Politics is when out of a pre-selected choice between only the two selected for you is then emphasized with rhetoric and propaganda that any other selection is not positive or even probable we end up convinced that only one is the right choice and thus the alleged "choice" we make is not actually real choice.

In this case the Classical Standard model of Evolutionary assumptions is the impressed core belief, that if not regurgitated in your work, test answers, and conclusions is risking failure, and rejection (sometimes even ridicule). As a result, insights regarding possibly opposing conclusions from the same data are severely minimized from consideration. Even other scientific perspectives like Punctuated Equilibrium or the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis model are mentioned and briefly covered but the majority of those graduates still end up persuaded of the Classical Standard model and go on to do all their work from a basis of that perspective.

So again...my position is that all the facts and positions (for AND against) should be included when a subject is taught in schools and Universities and that students should be taught to separate what we can really know and observe, from narratives beng attached (the historical hypothesis based interpretation).

Imagine if you will that the classic model of phylogeny had only been taught as one possibility (believed even from before Darwin), rather than as the fact, for the last 100 years...how this might have effected the interpretation of what we see now. Imagine if phylogeny had not been assumed and then taught as if true? Imagine if other alternate interpretations had been allowed by academia to be considered without recourse? Imagine if Journals did not reject articles and studies that concluded differently even though they allow so many model appropriate studies that have not even been confirmed (many of which turn out to be incorrect or even fudged)?

Take TAS's molecular analysis model. You must realize that even though one can identify similar or dissimilar regions of the genome that this does not necessitate lineage one from the other. It COULD mean that but not necessarily and therefore that model COULD BE incorrect. Even finding these is the result of the imposition of a Computer Program written to find these sections (and usually only looks for specifically selected sections).

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Please, you don’t really believe that any more than I do. It’s like finches we have discussed. Interchanging genes since arriving on the island, of such mixed ancestory you can barely tell them apart genetically. Yet you keep classifying those variations within species as separate species, all because Darwin incorrectly believed they were reproductively isolated.

The true relationship would change the entire cladogram for finches. Why it would then show an actual family tree of interbreeding subspecies, instead of the fake trash cladogram it currently shows of separate species.

You got their direct DNA sequenced, and they still refuse to get it correct, because they have the name Darwin attached to them and have their pre-conceived beliefs which they refuse to give up.

Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

Not only are your fellow evolutionists rejecting their own Scientific definitions, but are refusing to follow the DNA data, and worse yet, ignoring what is happening right in front of their eyes.

And then every time the variation is considerable, they add non-existent common ancestors to bridge the gap between forms, because it’s the only way they can show any kind of relationship, by inserting hypothetical imaginary forms, and connecting them with hypothetical imaginary lines, and presenting it as if it was fact to fool the uninformed.....

As I said in my post, for species that are very closely related (Lake Victoria cichlid fish & Darwin's species) then cladograms are difficult because species are not so clearly separated. Both in terms of intra-species variation being significant in comparison to inter-species variation.

However, the cladogram shown in the OP of this thread lists species such as humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, etc. Those species are much more clearly defined, so we can have confidence in the cladogram that shows their (including us) relationships. (With the possible exception of chimps and bonobos)

I note that you haven't answered my question of whether or not you feel that humans and chimps are clearly defined species. It appears to me that you can't dispute the original cladogram at all. And therefore you're trying to discredit all cladograms by trying to find examples where they are more arguable. How about you address the OP?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a stunning misunderstanding. Having looked around here, I've been disappointed with the weak arguments from Creationists, but this one takes the biscuit.

@Justatruthseeker - Yes, some parts of the genome are non-functional due to mutations and the gene not being preserved. E.g. humans (and other apes) that cannot synthesise vitamin C. However, your depiction of what happens to genes would only be true if NO new genetic material had been added since life started.

And, it has.

And no new genetic material was added. Can you even admit to yourself that a mutation is a “copy” error? That it simply takes what “already exists” and writes it into a new format? It’s doing nothing more than happens naturally with every mating when genes interact. See link in post above for relevent research of finches. If you think taking A, B and C and then writing it as B, C and A is adding new genetic material, you are very confused.

Mutations have damaged the genes allowing humans to synthesize vitamin C, but guess what, that gene to do so already existed once, mutations just damaged it. So here we go right back to the genome was once “more” functional. Your claims of less always seem to include examples that show just the opposite, that it was once more functional.

I will repeat again. Copying something that “already exists” is NOT adding new genetic material.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As I said in my post, for species that are very closely related (Lake Victoria cichlid fish & Darwin's species) then cladograms are difficult because species are not so clearly separated. Both in terms of intra-species variation being significant in comparison to inter-species variation.

However, the cladogram shown in the OP of this thread lists species such as humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, etc. Those species are much more clearly defined, so we can have confidence in the cladogram that shows their (including us) relationships. (With the possible exception of chimps and bonobos)

I note that you haven't answered my question of whether or not you feel that humans and chimps are clearly defined species. It appears to me that you can't dispute the original cladogram at all. And therefore you're trying to discredit all cladograms by trying to find examples where they are more arguable. How about you address the OP?

What is there to dispute besides the fact they have inserted a non-existent common ancestor to bridge the gap between apes and humans?

This is your sole connecting point between the two species. Not just for humans, but for every single solitary tree for every single species that exists. At every single point of claimed split, a non-existent common ancestor is inserted.

Your entire belief system requires non-existent imaginary forms to bridge these distinct gaps between forms. Dispute what? Imagination and non-existence? It’s disputed by the fact not one can be found for any evolutionary tree for any species where this alleged split occurred. I need not dispute anything, the evidence does that itself....

You might as well claim fairies did it, since we are going to use imagination and non-existence as proof in your belief system. Follow your own saying under your avatar....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is there to dispute besides the fact they have inserted a non-existent common ancestor to bridge the gap between apes and humans?

This is your sole connecting point between the two species. Not just for humans, but for every single solitary tree for every single species that exists. At every single point of claimed split, a non-existent common ancestor is inserted.

Your entire belief system requires non-existent imaginary forms to bridge these distinct gaps between forms. Dispute what? Imagination and non-existence? It’s disputed by the fact not one can be found for any evolutionary tree for any species where this alleged split occurred. I need not dispute anything, the evidence does that itself....

You might as well claim fairies did it, since we are going to use imagination and non-existence as proof in your belief system. Follow your own saying under your avatar....

How many common ancestors do you need to see to make you stop this nonsense?

 

[Jimmy D]

The true relationship would change the entire cladogram for finches. Why it would then show an actual family tree of interbreeding subspecies, instead of the fake trash cladogram it currently shows of separate species.

Idle speculation. Please post the cladogram you are referring to and show how it’s wrong.

Please, you don’t really believe that any more than I do. It’s like finches we have discussed. Interchanging genes since arriving on the island, of such mixed ancestory you can barely tell them apart genetically. Yet you keep classifying those variations within species as separate species, all because Darwin incorrectly believed they were reproductively isolated.

Factually incorrect, see below.

You got their direct DNA sequenced, and they still refuse to get it correct, because they have the name Darwin attached to them and have their pre-conceived beliefs which they refuse to give up.

Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

Not only are your fellow evolutionists rejecting their own Scientific definitions, but are refusing to follow the DNA data, and worse yet, ignoring what is happening right in front of their eyes.

And then every time the variation is considerable, they add non-existent common ancestors to bridge the gap between forms, because it’s the only way they can show any kind of relationship, by inserting hypothetical imaginary forms, and connecting them with hypothetical imaginary lines, and presenting it as if it was fact to fool the uninformed.....

Unsupported word salad.... See below.


What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity | BioScience | Oxford Academic

Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

...........

Populations of the same species occur on different islands, and in some cases they have different ecologies. This allows us to investigate the reasons for their divergence. Closely related species occur together on the same island and differ. This allows us to investigate the nature of the reproductive barrier between them and the question of how and why species stay apart. Thus, considering populations across the entire archipelago, we can see all stages of the speciation process, from start to finish, at the same time.

.............

Speciation: The end

Speciation is completed when two populations that have diverged in allopatry can coexist with little or no interbreeding. Medium ground finches and cactus finches occupy different ecological niches, although their diets overlap. The ecological differences presumably permit coexistence in sympatry, in an environment (e.g., Daphne Major) whose food supply fluctuates in abundance and composition. To paraphrase David Lack (1947), the species are ecologically isolated through niche differences that evolved by natural selection in allopatry. The differences may have been enhanced by selection in sympatry, thereby reducing interspecific competition for food. But how do the species maintain coexistence without interbreeding? What are the differences that keep them reproductively isolated, and how did the differences evolve?


..............

Oh look, the Grants understand the taxonomic system...

The radiation began when the initial species split into two lineages of Certhidea warbler finches (figure 8) after the initial pathway had been taken. One group of populations (Certhidea olivacea) inhabits moist upland forest, and the other group (Certhidea fusca) occupies lower habitats on other, mainly low, islands. Remarkably, despite their long separation, the two groups have retained similar mate recognition systems, and for that reason we refer to them as lineages and not species .


.............

Look at this ... SPECIATION from one lineage!

One of the warbler finch lineages gave rise to all other finch species. Early products of the diversification were the vegetarian finch (Platyspiza crassirostris), the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias inornata) on either Galápagos or Cocos Island (Grant and Grant 2002b), and the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis). The most recent products were a group of ground finch species (Geospiza) and a group of tree finch species (Camarhynchus and Cactospiza) (figure 8).

...............

Finally - Allopatric speciation

According to the standard allopatric model, speciation begins with the establishment of a new population, continues with the divergence of that population from its parent population, and is completed when members of two diverged populations can coexist in sympatry without interbreeding. We stand a virtually negligible chance of observing the whole process under natural circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible to make relevant observations in nature of all steps in the process. We have described the strong role played by environmental change at each of the three steps in the speciation of Darwin's finches.

..................

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How many common ancestors do you need to see to make you stop this nonsense?

You don’t have any.

“The age of the human MRCA is unknown. It is necessarily younger than the age of both Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA, estimated at around 200,000 years, and it may be as recent as some 3,000 years ago.”

If you actually had one, well, you’d know which one it was and hence it’s age....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Idle speculation. Please post the cladogram you are referring to and show how it’s wrong.

I’ll let you take your pick, please post whatever you think is right and show how it is correct..... you can’t....

Factually incorrect, see below.



Unsupported word salad.... See below.


What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity | BioScience | Oxford Academic

Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

Hmm, is this that missing common ancestor again? I think you missed the words.... all 14 are closely related... are of mixed ancestory. Are subspecies, but then you already refuse to accept your own deffinitions.

...........

Populations of the same species occur on different islands, and in some cases they have different ecologies. This allows us to investigate the reasons for their divergence. Closely related species occur together on the same island and differ. This allows us to investigate the nature of the reproductive barrier between them and the question of how and why species stay apart. Thus, considering populations across the entire archipelago, we can see all stages of the speciation process, from start to finish, at the same time.

I asked you which speciation process led to their speciation, you have so far been unable to show they are separate species...... speciation has never occurred.
.............

Speciation: The end

Speciation is completed when two populations that have diverged in allopatry can coexist with little or no interbreeding. Medium ground finches and cactus finchfes occupy different ecological niches, although their diets overlap. The ecological differences presumably permit coexistence in sympatry, in an environment (e.g., Daphne Major) whose food supply fluctuates in abundance and composition. To paraphrase David Lack (1947), the species are ecologically isolated through niche differences that evolved by natural selection in allopatry. The differences may have been enhanced by selection in sympatry, thereby reducing interspecific competition for food. But how do the species maintain coexistence without interbreeding? What are the differences that keep them reproductively isolated, and how did the differences evolve?

We agree they ignore the definition of speciation. Ignore they have been exchanging genes from the beginning and are of mixed ancestory. That are interbreeding without difficulty right in front of their eyes....


..............

Oh look, the Grants understand the taxonomic system...

The radiation began when the initial species split into two lineages of Certhidea warbler finches (figure 8) after the initial pathway had been taken. One group of populations (Certhidea olivacea) inhabits moist upland forest, and the other group (Certhidea fusca) occupies lower habitats on other, mainly low, islands. Remarkably, despite their long separation, the two groups have retained similar mate recognition systems, and for that reason we refer to them as lineages and not species .

Oh look, the Grants ignore the scientific deffinition of subspecies, and ignore the scientific deffinition of speciation.... and refers to them as lineages and not species. Yet refer to all the others that are exactly the same as separate species, contradicting themselves at every turn.....

.............

Look at this ... SPECIATION from one lineage!

One of the warbler finch lineages gave rise to all other finch species. Early products of the diversification were the vegetarian finch (Platyspiza crassirostris), the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias inornata) on either Galápagos or Cocos Island (Grant and Grant 2002b), and the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis). The most recent products were a group of ground finch species (Geospiza) and a group of tree finch species (Camarhynchus and Cactospiza) (figure 8).

No, one species gave rise to many subspecies. Try following the scientific definitions of subspecies for once in your life. And you have yet to show how that one finch spectated, despite my repeatedly asking....

...............

Finally - Allopatric speciation

According to the standard allopatric model, speciation begins with the establishment of a new population, continues with the divergence of that population from its parent population, and is completed when members of two diverged populations can coexist in sympatry without interbreeding. We stand a virtually negligible chance of observing the whole process under natural circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible to make relevant observations in nature of all steps in the process. We have described the strong role played by environmental change at each of the three steps in the speciation of Darwin's finches.

..................

And yet the DNA sequencing of those finches showed they had always been interbreeding, are of mixed ancestory, and are mating in front of your eyes. I bolded the part the grants and you continually ignore.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let’s get this confusion of speciation settled.

Allopatric speciation - Biology-Online Dictionary

“A speciation in which biological populations are physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier and evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation, such that if the barrier breaks down, individuals of the population can no longer interbreed.”

They are interbreeding right in front of their eyes. The DNA data shows they have always been interbreeding and every one is of mixed ancestory.

Speciation has never occurred.

 

[Jimmy D]

I’ll let you take your pick, please post whatever you think is right and show how it is correct..... you can’t....



Hmm, is this that missing common ancestor again? I think you missed the words.... all 14 are closely related... are of mixed ancestory. Are subspecies, but then you already refuse to accept your own deffinitions.

...........

I asked you which speciation process led to their speciation, you have so far been unable to show they are separate species...... speciation has never occurred.
.............

We agree they ignore the definition of speciation. Ignore they have been exchanging genes from the beginning and are of mixed ancestory. That are interbreeding without difficulty right in front of their eyes....


..............

Oh look, the Grants ignore the scientific deffinition of subspecies, and ignore the scientific deffinition of speciation.... and refers to them as lineages and not species. Yet refer to all the others that are exactly the same as separate species, contradicting themselves at every turn.....

.............

No, one species gave rise to many subspecies. Try following the scientific definitions of subspecies for once in your life. And you have yet to show how that one finch spectated, despite my repeatedly asking....

...............

And yet the DNA sequencing of those finches showed they had always been interbreeding, are of mixed ancestory, and are mating in front of your eyes. I bolded the part the grants and you continually ignore.....

Lol, Justafinchseeker. The Grant’s article isn’t that hard to understand, I don’t know why you’re having such difficulty. Where exactly did you get all your info about finch dna and mating patterns from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol, Justafinchseeker. The Grant’s article isn’t that hard to understand, I don’t know why you’re having such difficulty. Where exactly did you get all your info about finch dna and mating patterns from?

The actual scientific definitions are even simpler to understand, so why do you seem to be having so much trouble understanding them and following them?

Your claims are meritless, which is why you have failed to provide the process of speciation. The one you proposed is in direct opposition to both the DNA data and actual emperical observation.

Typical evolutionist, ignore science when it conflicts with your beliefs.

Again, the actual data is not in dispute. The claim of allopatric speciation is when it requires reproductive isolation. The DNA data that they have always been interbreeding and are of mixed ancestory is not in dispute. The emperical data that they are interbreeding right in front of your eyes is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is your ignoring what allopatric speciation is, while claiming it, when they are humping like rabbits right in front of their eyes. All it shows is they can’t or won’t accept the data or their own scientific definitions. I believe one of your own evolutionists said exactly what an argument is that attempts to rewrite the dictionary...... ask him what he thinks about your need to rewrite the dictionary....

But that’s your entire argument, that we ignore the actual scientific definitions, so they can claim anything at any time....

 

[pitabread]

However, your depiction of what happens to genes would only be true if NO new genetic material had been added since life started.

Just to give you some context, at one point on this forum Justatruthseeker was trying to argue that the only truly 'novel' genetic material could from the addition of all new nucleotide bases. For some reason in his mind, duplication and re-arrangement of existing nucleotides even if it creates novel genes doesn't count as "new".

In a way, he seems to think that one can't create any new words or writings unless one first invents new letters for the English alphabet. No, it doesn't make any sense, but this appears to be his mindset.

 

[pshun2404]

As for molecular Phylogenetics, first they expect that sequences conserved in various organisms will accumulate mutations over time, but this is not always the case, because many alleged differences interpreted to be mutations (indicated by the assignment of the term insertion or deletion once the separating sequence alignment has been applied) may not be mutations just differences between these unique equally possibly unrelated organisms. I say this because they cannot demonstrate these alleged mutations were once something different in the same type of organism (one thing mutating into another).

Second there is an assumption of “constant rate of mutation” that simply does not exist.

a) There are real mutations and those alleged to be as a result of noted differences

b) We KNOW the rate is not actually constant so this assumption biases the interpretation of data

From this assumption they devise imagined molecular clocks that are based on this misinformation and from this they devise their evolutionary or phylogenetic “trees” believing and most stating these to be probable.

Only this “probable” is based on the assumptions mentioned above. Therefore it may be likely only IF

a) All the alleged mutations actually are mutations (which is not factually known, many existing in those organisms as far back as we can determine)

b) If the various organism’s mutation rates are actually constant (which we KNOW they are not)

c) And if this skewed conslusionary thinking actually implies a lineal relationship (which it may not)

So though we KNOW the idea of relationship and transformation one onto the other over time is the essential already accepted paradigm we can see that the facts are being interpreted to support the preclusion rather than being able to allow the facts to create a conclusion based only on the data (and its alternate possible explanations).

Let’s face it, the whole evidential implication is drawn from the homological aspects of the sequences that the program searches and for and aligns (which do not occur naturally in sequence).

These areas do not occur in the natural sequence of each type of organism in the same place, and often have different sequences preceding and/or following (and we all know what just a couple of actual mutant base pair differences can do let alone how the sequences preceding and/or following can effect function of the similar sequences in different organisms).

In some organisms different sequences perform similar functions and same sequences can and sometimes do perform different functions. So in the end we know we can use this to see phylogeny (paternity and maternity) in a given species and its subsequent sub-species but that is it. Nothing more about historical transformations can be factually implied only speculated based on the pre-held conviction (which existed and was believed from before Darwin without a hint of evidence except hypothesis based interpretation of fossils and geological layers). And do not forget the new discovery of horizontal gene transfer, and commonality of biogeographic factors influencing multiple life forms simultaneously.

So this particular cladistics approach MUST ASSUME:

a) Classification must be arranged to support the presupposition of phylogenetic descent, and

b) That all the taxa deemed to be valid for the study must be monophyletic (all are ancestors of a common descendent)

Neither of which are conclusions one can draw FROM the data but effect construction and interpretation of the data.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

And no new genetic material was added. Can you even admit to yourself that a mutation is a “copy” error? That it simply takes what “already exists” and writes it into a new format? It’s doing nothing more than happens naturally with every mating when genes interact. See link in post above for relevent research of finches. If you think taking A, B and C and then writing it as B, C and A is adding new genetic material, you are very confused.

Mutations have damaged the genes allowing humans to synthesize vitamin C, but guess what, that gene to do so already existed once, mutations just damaged it. So here we go right back to the genome was once “more” functional. Your claims of less always seem to include examples that show just the opposite, that it was once more functional.

There are plenty of examples of new genetic material being added. E.g. thousands of mutations leading to new function. Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information Mutations are a 'copy error', but they can result in an improvement in the organism, which then spreads through the population. That's evolution for you.

Also, many genes that code for advanced functions in living things are repurposed genes for other functions. See, e.g., here: Evolution: Genomic remodelling in the primate brain

Genetic information can be gained in several ways. E.g. gene duplication. Gene duplication - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

That genetic information can increase is easy to show. We have huge amounts of evidence of common descent. http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~genovese/depot/archive/evidence-CD.pdf We can easily see that many living things have far more genetic material than their single cell ancestors. See, e.g. Genome size - Wikipedia (That graph is from Wikipedia but the associated article has a full set of references.)

So, here is plenty of references covering huge amounts of evidence that you are wrong. Of course, it will only take you a fraction of a second to hand-wave it away and pretend that it doesn't exists.

I will repeat again. Copying something that “already exists” is NOT adding new genetic material.

No, but as shown above, if you copy something that already exists, and then change one of the copies, that IS adding new genetic material. Particular for those changes to one of the copies that results in an improvement.

What is there to dispute besides the fact they have inserted a non-existent common ancestor to bridge the gap between apes and humans?

This is your sole connecting point between the two species. Not just for humans, but for every single solitary tree for every single species that exists. At every single point of claimed split, a non-existent common ancestor is inserted.

Your entire belief system requires non-existent imaginary forms to bridge these distinct gaps between forms. Dispute what? Imagination and non-existence? It’s disputed by the fact not one can be found for any evolutionary tree for any species where this alleged split occurred. I need not dispute anything, the evidence does that itself....

You might as well claim fairies did it, since we are going to use imagination and non-existence as proof in your belief system. Follow your own saying under your avatar....

What do you mean by 'non-existent'? Do you mean that it's extinct (which it is) or that it never existed? The former would mean that you have no argument as many (but not all) common ancestors are extinct. If the latter, then perhaps you could provide some evidence for that.

You just claiming that the common ancestor is 'non-existent' is not evidence. So, what is that evidence you mention?

You also claim that when there are species split, that the ancestor can never be found. That's not true. In some cases of speciation the ancestor species continues to exist. E.g. see the case of the fish Galaxias maculatus. This is a galaxiid fish that evolved when the southern continents were one piece of land, Gwondwanaland, and is the parent species for galaxiids that evolved separately in Australia, New Zealand, and South America as well, after those land masses split up.

If you want a simpler example, the Brown Bear is the parent species of the Polar Bear. But, now, we have both Brown Bears and Polar Bears. The term for an species that survives after a speciation event that created a daughter species is 'paraspecies'. If you want to really understand how evolution works so that you can discuss it from a position of knowledge, not ignorance, you might want to look that up.

 

[pshun2404]

So gala

There are plenty of examples of new genetic material being added. E.g. thousands of mutations leading to new function. Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information Mutations are a 'copy error', but they can result in an improvement in the organism, which then spreads through the population. That's evolution for you.

Also, many genes that code for advanced functions in living things are repurposed genes for other functions. See, e.g., here: Evolution: Genomic remodelling in the primate brain

Genetic information can be gained in several ways. E.g. gene duplication. Gene duplication - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

That genetic information can increase is easy to show. We have huge amounts of evidence of common descent. http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~genovese/depot/archive/evidence-CD.pdf We can easily see that many living things have far more genetic material than their single cell ancestors. See, e.g. Genome size - Wikipedia (That graph is from Wikipedia but the associated article has a full set of references.)

So, here is plenty of references covering huge amounts of evidence that you are wrong. Of course, it will only take you a fraction of a second to hand-wave it away and pretend that it doesn't exists.



No, but as shown above, if you copy something that already exists, and then change one of the copies, that IS adding new genetic material. Particular for those changes to one of the copies that results in an improvement.



What do you mean by 'non-existent'? Do you mean that it's extinct (which it is) or that it never existed? The former would mean that you have no argument as many (but not all) common ancestors are extinct. If the latter, then perhaps you could provide some evidence for that.

You just claiming that the common ancestor is 'non-existent' is not evidence. So, what is that evidence you mention?

You also claim that when there are species split, that the ancestor can never be found. That's not true. In some cases of speciation the ancestor species continues to exist. E.g. see the case of the fish Galaxias maculatus. This is a galaxiid fish that evolved when the southern continents were one piece of land, Gwondwanaland, and is the parent species for galaxiids that evolved separately in Australia, New Zealand, and South America as well, after those land masses split up.

If you want a simpler example, the Brown Bear is the parent species of the Polar Bear. But, now, we have both Brown Bears and Polar Bears. The term for an species that survives after a speciation event that created a daughter species is 'paraspecies'. If you want to really understand how evolution works so that you can discuss it from a position of knowledge, not ignorance, you might want to look that up.

Though I do agree that speciation results in functionally new information in the genome what we see in your examples is galaxids from galaxids and bears from bears....I am sure JTS would agree with that application...

JTS do YOU believe preliminary bears led to varieties of bears? If so IMO as well this is a form of new information (nothing like bears becoming whales and such, but change nonetheless)

 

[PsychoSarah]

JTS do YOU believe preliminary bears led to varieties of bears? If so IMO as well this is a form of new information (nothing like bears becoming whales and such, but change nonetheless)

Based on the fact that Justatruthseeker thinks that human "races" are too different from each other to be the result of mutation, I'd say there's no way that he thinks that, say, panda bears and grizzly bears had a common ancestor.

Which is confusing, since he has said that he believes that mutations can create variations in color, etc. I haven't gotten him to explain how he thinks human "races" have differences that aren't covered by minor mutations, with him only saying stuff like "you can tell apart races by genetic testing", which is only kinda true, one can tell a person's basic traits via their genes, like their skin color, but I have no idea what that point is of that. Does he think minor mutations being common to large populations of people makes it impossible for it to be the result of mutation? I have no idea.

 

[pshun2404]

Raxes are a

Based on the fact that Justatruthseeker thinks that human "races" are too different from each other to be the result of mutation, I'd say there's no way that he thinks that, say, panda bears and grizzly bears had a common ancestor.

Which is confusing, since he has said that he believes that mutations can create variations in color, etc. I haven't gotten him to explain how he thinks human "races" have differences that aren't covered by minor mutations, with him only saying stuff like "you can tell apart races by genetic testing", which is only kinda true, one can tell a person's basic traits via their genes, like their skin color, but I have no idea what that point is of that. Does he think minor mutations being common to large populations of people makes it impossible for it to be the result of mutation? I have no idea.

Human "races" do not exist...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Human "races" do not exist...

I don't disagree with you, which is why I always put it in quotes. Justa, on the other hand...

Also, he's kinda a wingnut, even for a YEC, considering that he thinks dog breeds are too different from each other to arise via mutation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You don’t have any.

“The age of the human MRCA is unknown. It is necessarily younger than the age of both Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA, estimated at around 200,000 years, and it may be as recent as some 3,000 years ago.”

If you actually had one, well, you’d know which one it was and hence it’s age....

You didn't answer the question, you simply moved the goalposts. So let's try again: how many common ancestors would you need to be shown for you to stop this nonsense? We already have the wolf, the galaxiid and the brown bear but that obviously isn't enough. My suspicion is the answer is "if you can't show me a specific one of my choosing then I will continue my nonsense."