razzelflabben said:
Who said that the blood was from the suspect? The blood can be from the victum,
You are making up scenarios different from your original. The original scenario was that the blood was from a suspect, not the victim. Now, say you have suspects Dave and Dan. YO do a DNA analysis of the blood and find it came from Dan. Now you know Dan was at the scene and not Dave. Dave is off the hook by that evidence.
No I haven't read Origins. (I get blames for not answering every question with a yes or no, because I elaborate on the answer sometimes) Where does the information for comparative morphology come from and how is it observed. the same for comparative physiology, and how is it unique to the TOE?
Morphology is how a plant or animal looks. For instance, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals all have one upper arm bone and two lower arm bones. No matter what the limb does: swim, run, climb, dig, fly. All mammals have fur. Their physiology is how the body works. An example is that all mamamls have a constant body temperature (warm blooded). So, how is it observed? By looking. The physiology is done by looking, taking temperature, and doing some lab experiments -- on how the kidney handles salt, for instance.
How these are unique to TOE and falsify TOC is that different kinds were separately created, each for their separate tasks. And God supposedly made them for these tasks. So, when Darwin observed woodpeckers living on the plains of Argentina hundreds of miles from any tree, it was apparent that God had not specially created the woodpecker there. Also, since the different tasks of swimming, digging, running, climbing, and flying would be more efficiently done with different bone structures of the upper limb (arms), the reason all these different creatures had the same bone structure would be by inheritance from a common ancestory, like inheriting red hair in a family.
How about developmental biology, same questions, heck the same questions for each of these areas.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/index.html There are chapters there that detail the relationship of developmental biology and evolution. But let me give you one:
As embryonic birds develop, they make teeth! Now, adult birds all have beaks without teeth. So later in embryonic development, the teeth are resorbed (disassembled). Now, TOC would not have embryonic birds making teeth; there is no point. It's a stupid thing for God to do and God isn't stupid. BUT, if birds evolved from an dino that had teeth, then developing teeth in the embryo is a holdover from that ancestor.
In order for it to be evidence that goes beyond the fossil record, we must meet two criteria, well three really.
1. Must rely on something other than fossils to test.
2. Must be unique to the TOE
3. Must prove the TOE as more than just a guess,
Not bad criteria. Not great either. Let's try this idea of evidence:
1. Must be a deduction, or consequence of TOE. Or, put another way, must be evidence
predicted by TOE.
2. Is not predicted by any other theory.
Now, if the evidence fits #1 and #2, then #3 follows as a consequence.
in other words, we cannot assume that because we can interbreed to species and they produce an infertile offspring that evolution can occur,
Can you explain this one in more detail, please? You've said this before and it puzzles all the evolutionists here because this isn't what happens!
Production of an infertile offspring by two species is a
consequence of evolution, not evolution happening.
Let's get back to horses, donkeys, and mules. Horses and donkeys are
not interbreeding to make a new species "mules". Mules are
not a new species. I'm afraid you have the process backwards. Horses and donkeys are descendents of a common ancestor. A measure of how far apart they are as species is that a mule cannot mate with another mule to give an offspring. However, a mule can interbreed back to a donkey
or a horse to produce a fertile offspring. So, donkeys and horses are recently formed species that are not completely separated.
Now, in biology there is a process called "hybridization". This happens almost exclusively in plants. Many plants just cast their pollen onto the wind and it can land in a plant of another species. Sometimes, when the DNA of the two species are similar, the result is a hybrid between the two plants. The hybrid can be a new species that is fertile with other hybrids but not fertile with the two parent species.
This has been done in a lab study. There is a species of sunflower called Helianthus anomalus and molecular evidence suggested it was formed by hybridization of H.annuus and H. petiolarus. Again, this is a process in which two species hybridize, and the mixed genome of the hybrid becomes a third species that is reproductively isolated from its ancestors.
So what the researchers did was hybridize H. annuus and H. petiolarus and produced 3 independent hybrid lines undergoing different regimes of mating to siblings and backcrossing to H. annuus. After 5 generations the DNA was analyzed for comparison to wild H. anamalus and to see which ancestral genes persisted in the hybrids. The genes from the hybridization in the lab matched with the wild H. anomalus! Remarkably, despite the different crossing regimes,
all 3 lines converged to nearly the identical gene combinations, all H. anomalus. The gene recombinations were complex, but repeatable in all 3 hybrid lines.
So, in regard to your criteria, this did not rely on fossils, but used living plants. It's unique to TOE, because TOC says that kinds can breed with their own kinds. An H. anomalus can't breed with H. annuus or H. pertiolarus but only with other H. anomalus. Since we got a new kind and observed it, it proves that TOE is more than a guess.
I didn't know that.
