Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How does science test single cell ancestary?Jet Black said:then how would you test for that. i.e. how would you demonstrate that there is no common ancestor between a dog and a lion, or a chipmunk and a banana?
Trying to deal with one thing at a time. I still have people claiming that I think the fossil record in falsified evidence. Put the other observations out there and I'll eventually get to them.false, will you please please please stop ignoring the vast majority of what I say. the fossil record is categorically not the only bit of evidence we have for common ancestry. there are a great deal of other evidences which I have pointed out to you ad nauseum.
No, but it does stop the possibility for evolution of the species. A prediction made by the original TOC.Jet Black said:two groups of individuals. does the inability of the horse to breed with the donkey and produce viable fertile offspring result in the extinction of both?
NOgluadys said:What do you mean by "even between themselves"?
Do you mean the new species will have difficulty maintaining inter-fertility with the parent species?
YesIf so, that is what we expect to see. That is evidence that evolution is happening.
Or do you mean that members of the new species will have difficulty breeding with each other because of inbreeding?
But it is enough to question the validity of the TOE especially when one considers that all living organisms can from one living organism. This would mean that the TOE has some big problems if inbreeding results in reproductive problems. In contrast, the TOC predicts that inbreeding will cause problems. A further study of the bible shows us that this interbreeding was limited in time, not carried down for millions of years, thus, the TOC totally explains this phenomina, antistipates the problem of interbreeding and the creator addressed the issue. Thus, the TOC predicts and explains what we observe.It is a problem in some cases that when a population is too small, inbreeding will make adaptation and survival difficult. But this applies only to specific cases.
You need to check more data.
Many species start off with sufficient numbers that inbreeding is not a problem.
Lack of viability in the new species is a feature of some specific situations. It is not a general rule.
I have already gone over this, and you're still catching up, you probably haven't seen the replies, and that's cool, you are coping admirably with a large colume of people answering your questions. but it goes like this. It is the parent species of the donkey and the horse species, that has split into the donkey speckes and the horse. the donkeys and the horses have drifted away from one another genetically and now they are two new species. The mule isn't the new species, the donkeys and the horses are the new speciesrazzelflabben said:No, but it does stop the possibility for evolution of the species. A prediction made by the original TOC.
by comparisons of the genomes that code for certain proteins that we share with seveal single celled organisms. there are more diffrences between us and them for example than there are between us and dogs. note that these are often mutations that result in no functional difference, since they code for the same amino acid.razzelflabben said:How does science test single cell ancestary?
it's ok, you're still catching upTrying to deal with one thing at a time. I still have people claiming that I think the fossil record in falsified evidence. Put the other observations out there and I'll eventually get to them.
Okay, let us look at the evidence objectively.Jet Black said:they come from the DNA of living organisms and the distribution of the animals around the planet. from the former we can parsimoniously construct phylogenetic trees from various features in the Genetic code, from Alu sequences through ERVs, pseudogenes and chromosome banding patterns. This can be done otherwise completely independently of knowing what the organism actually is (i.e. you could just send the DNA in a test tube to a lab and they could construct the tree for you). The generated phylogenetic trees match the phylogenetic trees that we would expect from analysis of the fossil record.
to give an example, ERVs, or Endogenous RetroViral sequences are viruses that insert themselves into the genome and become crippled in some way before they can do the rest of what viruses do. Occasionally they will embed themselves in a gamete, either a sperm or an egg, and become integrated in the animal that develops, remaining within every cell of this animal. By genetic drift, these retroviral sequences may become embedded in the entire population, and hence will also be present in the entire population of any groups that split off from the main group and speciate in their own right. looking at whether an ERV is present in an organism or not can indicate relatedness to other organisms, so for example if we have an ERV that is present in humans and chimps, but not Gorillas, then this ERV was inserted after the human-chimp line broke away from the Gorilla line. We would not expect to find that same ERV in the Orang-Utan line, since the Orang Utan line split away before we and chimps split from the Gorilla. so using these principles we can construct entire phylogenetic trees based purely on ERVs (if ERV A is present in species 1 and 2 but not in 3, then 1 and 2 are more closely related than either is to 3). These phylogenic trees match what we expect. ALU sequences are chunks of mobile DNA within our DNA, and can serve a similar purpose of identification. Pseudogenes are genes that have been crippled in different organisms, and can again be used to construct phylogenic trees.
Biogeography allows us to look at the distribution of different organisms around the planet and again construct phylogenetic trees, based on migration patterns, distribution patterns and also take into account geographical phenomenon such as plate tectonics. again the phylogenetic trees from these techniques also match the phylogenetic trees as expected from an analysis of the fossil record, and also DNA.
I get group a group b group c group xyz, it is a word picture, peace of cake. What you fail to understand is that the entire TOE is brought into question if the species cannot evolve because of reproductive problems.Jet Black said:you are misunderstanding again. It is not the infertile offspring that is the new species, it is the two parents of the infertile offspring that are the separate species - note that the parents can still breed with their own species no problem. they can clearly reproduce with one another (otherwise no offspring) however it is very difficult and the offspring are infertile. this makes the two groups genetically separate and hence separate species.
no we aren't really. these are independent sets of data that just happen to match. we are not relying on one in order to sort out the other. It is like tracking someone round the country by looking at where mobile phone calls were made from, and where their credit card was used. they are two independent methods that chart precisely the same route around the country.razzelflabben said:Okay, let us look at the evidence objectively.
1. we are still relying on the fossil record. quote The generated phylogenetic trees match the phylogenetic trees that we would expect from analysis of the fossil record. One of the prerequisites, was not related to the fossil record.
aah, the dismissal. I fail to see what is inconclusive about endogenous retroviral sequences. we know full well what they are - they are viruses that have been inserted into the genome and been crippled by a mutation. ALU sequences are bits of floating DNA that copy themselves around the genome. they are independent to ERVs but can be used to demonstrate the same sort of phylogenetic tree. Chromosome banding patterns are another example. they can be independently used to construct phylogenetic trees.But let us go ahead and examine this information for conclusive properties.
2. DNA is still new and we learn more about it daily and though someday, when I have more time, I would be interested in further information on the topic, we cannot be sure that this evidence is conclusive. In fact, the references from this post that relate to the phylogenetic trees, states clearly that this is not proof of E. So we cannot use this as overwhelming evidence.
really? why would the TOC predict identical ERV sequences in identical locations in unrelated organisms? The odds of an ERV being embedded in a particular location in any cell are billions to one. the odds of an ERV being embedded in two gametes from two completely different organisms and then becoming fixed within the populations via genetic drift is absolutely astronomical.3. The results that I have viewed (yes limited, I freely admit that) are not inconsistant with the Original TOC. The theory allows for some evolving of species, though it is limiting. Therefore, some phylogenetic results would be consistant. What would not be consistant would be in the case of mankind. and the second criteria was that it is unique to the TOE.
but you have just dismissed these pieces of evidence as "not overwhelming" without ever actually pointing out how they might be erronous. you can claim it is not overwhelming until the cows come home, but such statements mean nothing until you actually detail why it is not overwhelming. can you give alternate explanations to why we see the distributions of ERVs that we do? can you give an alternate explanation as to why we see the distributions of ALUs that we do? can you give an alternate explanation as to why we see the comparisons in chromosome patterns that we do? can you explain why all of these totally independent methods return precisely the same phylogenetic tree?So, we are back to no overwhelming evidence, in this case even by the scientists writing the papers.
absolutely, we do not currently have enough information to know, the theory is still only theory. The point however was not that it is inconclusive as to John the Baptist (you have more faith that it is right now than I do), but rather what was said about the requirement for proof, read it again. quote short of an inscription with John's name in the cave, there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there.Jet Black said:because here we are making a very specific claim about the existance of an individual. the things we can draw from this so far are that (1) people were baptised here and other rituals were carried out here (2) someone belonging to a sect that did not allow members to cut their hair worked here. (3) someone may have had their head severed here. there is nothing identifying a particular individual, though I think it is pretty likely that it was John. I will let the scholars argue it though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3571502.stm
Jet Black said:stop spamming.
razzelflabben said:So, we have a breeding with b producing c. C is infertile and cannot produce offspring. We have just witnessed the fall of the TOE. For the TOE to be viable, the reproductive nature of c must continue independent of a and b or not. In other words, if C cannot breed with A, B, or C, evolution ceases, and is not viable. Though we do not see this in every instance of speciation, we see it often enough to question the validity of the TOE.
not really. there is a big difference between saying a particular individual was somewhere. I think it is conclusive that baptisms were performed in that cave, but the claim that a particular individual mentioned in a text worked there is a much much more specific claim and so the standards required to support that claim are far more stringent. the TOE comparison is not good, because the standards required are much lower, because we are talking about general populations and not individuals.razzelflabben said:Note the word conclusive. Without the inscription, we do not have or can we have overwhelming evidence to conclude that John the Baptist lived. Now either science is being extremely biased in this case, trying beyond all reason to disprove the bible, or...the theory of E by the same standards does not have overwhelming evidence to support it. Which do we want to go with. An extreme bias against the bible which would include C? or, the TOE lacks overwhelming evidence? You choose.
Now you are adding evidence to the scene of the crime. Blood splatters are all you have, you do not have a suspect, a weapon, a victum, motive, etc. What will the DNA evidence tell you? Unless you are able to determine a victum and/or a suspect, your DNA says nothing. More is required. That is exactly the point. Fossil evidence is not enough to convict a theory of being falsified or prove a theory as having overwhelming evidence. Very simply put, more is needed.Susan Sto Helit said:What do you mean? Of course DNA evidence can be used to eliminate suspects (or to conversely, prove -- at the very least -- that a given person was at the crime scene). The DNA extracted from the blood is compared to victim's and the suspects' DNA.
imput! imput! Give me more!Comparative morphology comes from our anatomical analyses of different organisms, obviously. Same with developmental biology.
As long as it is independent of the fossil record and unique to the TOE bring it on.We have plenty more evidence than the fossil record alone, as other people have already pointed out in this thread.
However, the claim is that 1. the TOC has been falsified by the evidence. Therefore, the overwhelming evidence must be unique or it is not overwhelming. 2. the TOE has overwhelming evidence to support it, support for the TOE cannot occur if the evidence supports both theories, unless we make a leap of faith, something that also has been claimed to not be a part of the TOE.Incorrect, evidence can and does apply to a great deal of theories. Scientific fields are not hermetically sealed.
The infertile offspring brings into question the probability of the TOE. That is the point. I will not boast that it disproves E, for that is a biased statement without more information, however, I can look at our observations and declare with accuracy that the data questions the probability of the TOEAnd here we go again. The infertile hybrid offspring has got nothing to do with the mechanism of speciation, except as proof that a) the two populations are now separate species, otherwise their hybrid offspring would be fertile b) the two species are still genetically close enough that viable offspring can be produced, which is evidence of close common ancestry.
------SSH (these are my screen-name's initials, by the by, you don't have to repeat them when quoting, as the quote itself already has my name)
gluadys said:You are crossing the line with this nonsense, Ian.
Evolution does not present early hominids (or any other critter, for that matter) as a "lower form of life."
Some life forms appear earlier than others. Some life forms are more complex than others.
That doesn't make them "higher" or "lower" except in your imagination.
What would be the standard of comparison by which we could say one life-form was "higher" or "lower" than another?
And the fossil record does that, but it does not offer conclusive proof for the TOE. Just as studies and experiments, etc. can prove that the cave was used by someone who fit John's description, but cannot prove John without an inscription.gluadys said:It would be necessary in order to show that the person baptizing there was John the Baptist and not someone else.
With fossils, we are not trying to indicate that this fossil was one particular individual. It is enough to show that the species existed and to have enough material to show what sort of species it was and how its characteristics were similar to or different from other species.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the picture was not put forward as proof of progress onward and upward (and away we go...). It was put forward as proof of a solid chain of fossils showing their is no clear deviding line were a skull is clearly chimpansee or clearly human. It shows this transition. The upward and onward interpretations is yours, and yours alone.mrversatile48 said:I'll let open minded readers examine the earlier posts here that were presenting a long series of skulls as proof of progress onwards & upwards
The evolutionary ladder/chain is surely universally known as a "how-to-go-from amoeba to modern man, & many such presentaions are interpreted by Afro-Caribbeans & Asians, quite understandably, as racist insults
I won't print the racist , Alf Garnet-style epithets that such rubbish inspired
I left school in '66, but I've never forgotten feeling insulted, on behalf of African friends, by such white supremacist complete claptrap
(Never had to mod a mod before: we live & learn, huh?)
Ian
And of the instances shown to me, some are not. This opens the door for questions that are not answered. But I forgot again, the TOE answers all questions. I have to remember that!gluadys said:As a general rule, evolving populations can and do reproduce. That is what we all have been trying to tell you.
Who views evolution as a ladder or chain? You need to update your understanding of the theory. Please show us the documentation for the Afro-Caribbean and Asian response you refer to. And then show us what presentations they were responding to.mrversatile48 said:The evolutionary ladder/chain is surely universally known as a "how-to-go-from amoeba to modern man, & many such presentations are interpreted by Afro-Caribbeans & Asians, quite understandably, as racist insults
I did not make the claim that the TOC had overwhelming evidence. You claimed that the TOE did, therefore, the burden of proof is up to you not me. My burden is to show you how your proof is not conclusive.gluadys said:Why the double standard here? You have consistently used evidence for TOE as supportive of TOC and you have provided no evidence which is unique to TOC in its favour.
btw: I agree with your standard. Evidence for each theory should be unique to that theory. But you need to apply it to TOC as well.
What evidence for TOC can you supply that is unique to TOC and not shared with TOE?
gluadys said:Hmm. Looks like Ian (MrVersatile) or someone edited out the part of his post that contained the evolution =racism nonsense.
Good thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?