Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
What baffles me is that he is probably aware that one of the people that actually worked on sequencing the chimp genome as well as the paper, posts in this very forum.

It's like he has no shame whatsoever. In his place, I'ld be a bit more reserved in making such wild claims, while knowing that that person might actually read it and hand me my own behind on a golden plate.

How arrogant must one be as a random internet forum poster, with no scientific credentials whatsoever, to tell one of the team members of the chimp genome project, that he has no clue what he is doing and that his conclusions are completely incorrect?

I'm not really sure. But it sure is a level of arrogance that I don't encounter in real life....
Yah well get him here and let’s see if he can be honest.....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Why's that a problem? It's better to be open minded and receptive to evidence than to reject evidence out of hand because of dogmatic beliefs. That's your problem, not mine mate.

Besides it's one paper about ape genome comparison, if it was found to be "fantasy" or whatever you called it wouldn't be earth shattering news would it. Common descent would still be corroborated by multiple lines of evidence.



Yes it is. Unfortunately you don't know where it's applicable - because I never made such an argument. Clueless as usual.



That's not what I said. While you're on wikipedia looking up logical fallacies check out what a "straw man" is.
That’s exactly what you said...

“Meh, I take it at face value, it makes no real difference to me whether they're correct or not.”

You don’t care if they are correct or not as long as it’s the popular opinion......

You said what you really meant, don’t try to double talk your way out of it....

Sad, sad, sad that all some people care about is if what they belief is the popular opinion and could care less if that opinion is actually true or not.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Even creationist Walter ReMine acknowledged that neutral mutations can affect phenotype. As has been explained to you in this thread already, neutral refers to fitness, that is, these mutation neither increase nor decrease fitness. They may well do nothing at all, but they can also alter phenotype, albeit in such a way so as to not affect fitness.

This will be fun - yes, please pay attention...

1. It is not the accumulation of mutations in and of itself that imply divergence.
2. Do YOU not assume that the created Kinds produced 'sub-kinds' over time,and that these 'sub-kinds' would be similar to the parental Kinds? You are arguing against your own beliefs, as is often the case, and do not see it.
3. I have presented a series of abstracts on this forum more than a dozen times that demonstrate the accuracy of using DNA analysis for inferring ancestor-descendant relationships. Neither you nor any other creationists has ever even tried to deal with that in a rational, scientific way.
1. I know, mutation has little to do with it...

2. And they remain the same kind. Just as bacteria remain bacteria, fruit flies remain fruit flies and dogs remain dogs...... stop trying to imply that horizontal variation means evolution.....

3. Because their is nothing rational or scientific in could be, maybe, and millions of years arguments that don’t match what we observe......

Relevance?
No change is no change.

So you are saying that as mutations accumulate, things get MORE similar?
No, as mutations degrade the genome less variability is available for breeding to work with. That’s why they have all but abandoned mutation in plant and animal husbandry...

Illogic on top of naive folk genetics.
Says the person that thinks a genome today contains millions of years of history. When if a mutation were to change something, what it was before would be impossible to deduce being the change was random....

Hint - there IS NO 1-to-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUTATIONS AND PHENOTYPE.
I know, there is no evidence there is any...

The accumulation of neutral mutations is informative for various reasons, but phylogenetic analyses are NOT done to assess morphological changes.

Please read up on these subjects?

Misrepresentation due to ignorance.

What does that even mean?

Actually, some interesting experiments have indicated that beneficial mutations occur much more commonly that previously believed, but whatever. Your basic premise is flawed, so just another error won't really matter.

Laughably erroneous.

More naive folk genetics.

Pity that one of the side-effects of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is that those under its spell lack the ability to grasp how wrong they are.
Pity you keep having to refer to millions of years because nothing in reality supports your claims......

I’d look in the mirror first when uttering those words about being affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect. You’ll be able to see it first hand.....
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That’s exactly what you said...

“Meh, I take it at face value, it makes no real difference to me whether they're correct or not.”

Yes, that is what I said. And I stand by it, it makes no real difference to me if that paper is correct or not. I didn't even know of it's existence until you posted it.

That does not mean that I "don't care what I believe is true" as you said.

You don’t care if they are correct or not as long as it’s the popular opinion......

You're doing it again, my post never mentioned popular opinion.

You said what you really meant, don’t try to double talk your way out of it....

LOL

Sad, sad, sad that all some people care about is if what they belief is the popular opinion and could care less if that opinion is actually true or not.

It seems that you simply lack the ability to understand the point that people are trying to make, a common theme in your posts.

Because what you have written in no way sums up what I meant, or what I believe.

I suppose that you are going to tell me that I'm wrong though, and that you actually know my mind better than me.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
He's a real poster boy for creationism, I'd put him on ignore but it can be amusing to see what gems he comes up with.
Agreed - sometimes, one has to do an awful lot of digging to find 'proof' of the flaws of creationist claims - this fellow? One need only read his own links or his previous couple of posts to spot the contradictions, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, etc...
Makes it easy!
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Evidence please.
Otherwise, that is just a - what was your new slogan? - ah yes - bald faced claim.

False.


What is your evidence that these are increasing in number, as opposed to our being able to detect them more readily?

And as an aside - what do you think of your deity for 'cursing' us all with this terminal extinction-level 'illness' of mutation?
Dude?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So precious.... Those keyword-search pontifications do not go so well for you, champ...
When will you learn?

So precious...

I especially like the cherry-picked quotes - weird how keen the creationist can be with that skill - searching out quotes or snippets that might appear to support their cause, even as they gloss over and ignore quotes like this:


These tests can identify related individuals who share a common maternal or paternal ancestor, and even where in the world people with your genetic signature live today. A common misconception about genetic ancestry testing, Bolnick said, is that it can reveal information about an individual's ancestry.
....
One problem with this approach, scientists say, is that because such tests analyze less than 1 percent of a person's genome, they will miss most of a person's relatives....​


Your entire premise on this issue is akin to the claims of creationists when it comes to radiometric dating, and how they will point out the "errors" one gets when one tries to use Carbon dating for something 10 millions years old, then proclaim all such dating is in error.

A couple errors in your argument, off the top of my head:

1. Ancestry DNA tests are searching WITHIN a single species, phylogenetic analyses are looking at relationships between species. Look at the difference this way - you have a big jar full of marbles of different sizes and colors. You want to find all of the marbles of a particular size, so you make a sieve, dump all of the marbles through it, and now you have all of the marbles of one size, and all of the marbles of other sizes. All of the same-sized marbles are of several different colors, so you sort out all of the blue ones. That is like what these ancestry tests do - they sort out the blue ones from the other colors, but they cannot identify one specific blue marble.
Separating marbles by size is like what is done with phylogeny analyses. You are making a fallacious extrapolation.
2. You conflate these ancestry tests inability to identify a specific lineage or a specific ancestor with an analytical system that has never had such a goal.
Phylogenetic analyses are not looking for specific ancestors, they are looking for groupings.
3. Erroneous implications by you cannot negate tested methodologies:


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:


Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "


Yeah, so, under pressure from a couple of my siblings, I did one of these ancestry DNA deals, along with my kids and wife. Darned if these "scams" did not 'predict' that my kids were in fact my kids with a high degree of confidence! Based only on a relatively small sample of genomic DNA... Seems to contradict one of the local non-scientist YEC's claims...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, so, under pressure from a couple of my siblings, I did one of these ancestry DNA deals, along with my kids and wife. Darned if these "scams" did not 'predict' that my kids were in fact my kids with a high degree of confidence! Based only on a relatively small sample of genomic DNA... Seems to contradict one of the local non-scientist YEC's claims...

I'm sure, since you gave both DNA. Strawman to the extreme..... and completely tries to avoid and misdirect from my claim....

Now if you had the DNA of the claimed "missing" common ancestor to compare it to..... So claims of past relations millions of years ago....

Did that DNA tell you that you were related to someone just 4,000 years ago? Well did it? and do you believe it actually could?

If you do your deluding yourself.....

A test like that would show you were NOT related to a monkey.....

It's only when they snip genomes apart, take out what doesn't fit, realign things so they do, that similarity is claimed. Not on an actual DNA test, but just in aligned code after they cut it all up and made it fit. An actual DNA test as each stands as it is would show you are anything but related....
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm sure, since you gave both DNA. Strawman to the extreme..... and completely tries to avoid and misdirect from my claim....

Right... Because we don't have DNA from chimps and gorillas and humans to compare. Gotcha...
Now if you had the DNA of the claimed "missing" common ancestor to compare it to..... So claims of past relations millions of years ago....

So you've undermined your (non)argument just one sentence later - likely because you are clueless as to how DNA analyses are done.

This DNA ancestry company did not have DNA from mine and my child's "ancestor", just them and me. The company also picked my kids as predicted siblings. But we did not submit my parents' DNA. Nor theirs. Nor theirs'. Nor theirs'.. See - my kids' DNA was sufficiently uniquely similar that thee company's algorithm picked them as siblings without even needing mine or my wife's. Do you understand this?

Pity that you are so ignorant of how these things work that you not only undermine your own anti-evolution drooling, but you also refute your own anti-DNA ancestry claims.

It is hard to find a better - what is it that the Soviets called people they could use to their advantage?

Did that DNA tell you that you were related to someone just 4,000 years ago? Well did it? and do you believe it actually could?

No - we did not ask it to. Nor do we ask the analyses done to discern 'cousinship' relationships between, say, humans and chimps.

You have been pontificating on these issues for years - are you really admitting that you have literally no idea what molecular phylogenetics analyses even look for?

I guess this is why you attack ancestry DNA companies - because you are clueless as to what they are looking for.

If you do your deluding yourself.....

A test like that would show you were NOT related to a monkey.....

Why would an ancestry DNA company even have chimp DNA? Do you ever stop and actually think about the things you write?

Of course, it is easy to do analyses WITH chimp and human DNA - there are several repositories that have terabytes of DNA sequence data if you are interested. There is free software that will help you align and analyze DNA, if you are interested.
But you're not.



I think you have been deluding yourself for some time regarding how much big-boy science you actually comprehend.
It's only when they snip genomes apart, take out what doesn't fit, realign things so they do, that similarity is claimed. Not on an actual DNA test, but just in aligned code after they cut it all up and made it fit. An actual DNA test as each stands as it is would show you are anything but related....

Thanks for very clearly stating that you have a child's grasp of how DNA analyses work. Yet again, your desperate keyword searches coupled with your clear ignorance of these issues has failed you - and only acted to make you look more foolish than usual.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So you all claim...... but yet real scientists admit that hereditary tests to trace ancestry is a scam, that all it can really tell you is where that genome type exists today.

Evidence please.
Otherwise, that is just a - what was your new slogan? - ah yes - bald faced claim.
This is because any mutation or change to the genome makes tracing it backwards impossible before the mutation occurred. Without an original unmutated genome, it’s all guesswork and fantasy....
False.
We aren’t doing great. We have more inherent genetic diseases year by year....

Human genetic disease

“With the increasing ability to control infectious and nutritional diseases in developed countries, there has come the realization that genetic diseases are a major cause of disability, death, and human tragedy. Rare, indeed, is the family that is entirely free of any known genetic disorder. ”

“About 1 out of 150 live newborns has a detectable chromosomal abnormality. Yet even this high incidence represents only a small fraction of chromosome mutations since the vast majority are lethal and result in prenatal death or stillbirth. Indeed, 50 percent of all first-trimester miscarriagesand 20 percent of all second-trimester miscarriages are estimated to involve a chromosomally abnormal fetus.”

What is your evidence that these are increasing in number, as opposed to our being able to detect them more readily?

And as an aside - what do you think of your deity for 'cursing' us all with this terminal extinction-level 'illness' of mutation?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Hey genius, please explain how it is possible to link 2 people's DNA without a sample of each. :doh:
Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?

How do you link then when there exists no comparison DNA to compare? Assumption and want-it-to-be-so?

But then you don’t remove 1/3 of those peoples DNA, snip it and rearrange it when you compare them, now do you....

Remove 1/3 of the DNA, snip it apart and rearrange it and you could claim anybody was related to anybody.... wouldn’t matter if they were or not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?

By comparing the DNA of the extant descendants, Zweistein.
If both your parents die in a plane crash and any and all DNA evidence gets lost for some reason, geneticists will still very much be able to determine that you and your brother/sister are siblings, just by comparing your DNA.

In fact, you can give them hundreds, thousands of random anonymous samples and they'll have no problem picking out yours and the DNA of your siblings and conclude that those are the samples of siblings. Or cousins. Or more distant cousins.

In fact, they'll be able to give you a relatively accurate estimate about how many generations ago you share an ancestor.

This is literally what the Genographic Project (google it) is all about, by the way.

How do you link then when there exists no comparison DNA to compare? Assumption and want-it-to-be-so?

No. You compare the DNA of extant organisms and work your way back from there.

But then you don’t remove 1/3 of those peoples DNA, snip it and rearrange it when you compare them, now do you....

Remove 1/3 of the DNA, snip it apart and rearrange it and you could claim anybody was related to anybody.... wouldn’t matter if they were or not.


LOL!!!!

Yeah, the guys over at the Genographic Project and alike are just making stuff up. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?

Why are you so enamored with the identification of a specific ancestor?

If we take some of your DNA and some DNA from a far-removed living cousin of yours, it would be relatively easy to conclude that you were related and that at some point in the past, you shared a 'common ancestor' - please explain why it would matter if we could not identify that specific ancestor.

Would our inability to identify your great-great-great-great-grandpops by name mean that you and your cousin really are not related?

Apparently so, because that is the only 'logic' one can draw from your consistent haranguing about a specific common ancestor.

How do you link then when there exists no comparison DNA to compare? Assumption and want-it-to-be-so?
See above.

I know it will come as a shock,. but there really are people that do these sorts of things for a living and actually understand how it all works.

Your lack of understanding of something is really not evidence that the thing does not work.
But then you don’t remove 1/3 of those peoples DNA, snip it and rearrange it when you compare them, now do you....

Remove 1/3 of the DNA, snip it apart and rearrange it and you could claim anybody was related to anybody.... wouldn’t matter if they were or not.
If only that was how it all worked...

Allow me to try an analogy, since the actual science is clearly out of your grasp -

You find a Census registry/book of sorts with the listing of everyone in your hometown in your attic.
I find what looks like parts of a similar book, but what I find went through a flood and was torn up a bit - many pages are missing, the 'book' itself is in several pieces with a few dozen pages here, and a few dozen there, and the page numbers have all been lost, etc..

We start looking through the bits we can put together, and start to notice something - several names seem to be common between your book and some of the pages I have. We take the pieces I have and begin to rearrange them, using your intact book as a reference. In the end, several of the pages are simply gone, but we are able to line up most of the pages I find to pages in your book. When we compare those matched pages, we discover that not every name in your book matches up precisely with the otherwise matched pages from my discovery, but by comparing the mismatches with other records, we conclude that the differences are due to people dying, births, etc.

When we are done, I say 'Cool - looks like we found different versions of your town's Census records, the one from your attic appears to be newer based on comparisons to other records. Nice work!'

You get an angry look on your face, and rage 'WHAT!!!???? You took your pieces and rearranged them, modeling them on my intact book! There is no way at all to know if the two are related at all - why, your bits of rearranged nonsense could be ANYTHING! You don't know! It could be a listing of people that play tiddly-winks for all we know!'

Puzzled, I walk you through the whole process again, reminding you of the names that were the same and in the same order, how entire pages were identical, how, even for some of the pages that were torn in half, we were able to line up names before and after the torn out part, etc.

Then you just call me an idiot and storm off, and a few weeks later, I learn that you are down on the corner yelling at passers-by about how I am just telling stories about the book I found, and that there is no way to tell if the two books have anything to do with each other.

I drive down to watch the spectacle. I chuckle as some teenagers call you "baldy" and throw half a sandwich at you...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Sure genius, as soon as you tell us how we postulate a “missing” common ancestor from “missing” DNA?
Others have done that for you. So now it's time for you to explain. This should be good.....

How do you link then when there exists no comparison DNA to compare? Assumption and want-it-to-be-so?
That's what you promised to explain to us. I'm really looking forward to your detailed explanation. You do have an explanation, right? This isn't just another of your ignorant, baseless claims, is it?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
By comparing the DNA of the extant descendants, Zweistein.
If both your parents die in a plane crash and any and all DNA evidence gets lost for some reason, geneticists will still very much be able to determine that you and your brother/sister are siblings, just by comparing your DNA.

In fact, you can give them hundreds, thousands of random anonymous samples and they'll have no problem picking out yours and the DNA of your siblings and conclude that those are the samples of siblings. Or cousins. Or more distant cousins.

In fact, they'll be able to give you a relatively accurate estimate about how many generations ago you share an ancestor.

This is literally what the Genographic Project (google it) is all about, by the way.



No. You compare the DNA of extant organisms and work your way back from there.
That’s just it. Since mutations are random, and affect things randomly, you can’t work backwards. At every single mutation point what was before is no longer able to be known.

And no, you can’t trace ancestors back. All tests can do is tell you where those that share similar DNA live “today”. They can’t tell you how long ago you share an ancestor without DNA from that ancestor.... All they can do is tell you that you share 14% similarities with this region, 18% with that one, etc.

You all are so full of misconceptions from their stories you don’t even know what reality is any longer....

Please take your PR nonsense elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
That’s just it. Since mutations are random, and affect things randomly, you can’t work backwards.

You seem to forget the part where the random mutation is then subsequently inherited by off spring. And their off spring. And their off spring. And........ so on.

This accumulation of mutations is exactly what allows "working backwards", Zweistein.
It's exactly what produces nested hierarchies.
It's exactly what forms family trees.
It's exactly what you keep ignoring and/or get wrong.

And no, you can’t trace ancestors back.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

It's like you have no idea AT ALL about how DNA works.
Do the test.
Gather DNA samples from you, your sibling, your distant cousin and 97 other random people.
Send them anonymously to a lab and ask how the samples are related.

It would cost you money, but you'll have black on white evidence that they really don't have a problem determining wich of these samples are related to what level.


All tests can do is tell you where those that share similar DNA live “today”.

If sample A and sample B are determined to being siblings, that doesn't tell you something about their shared ancestry???????
Or if they are cousins? Or distant cousins?


They can’t tell you how long ago you share an ancestor without DNA from that ancestor....

LOL!

How utterly wrong you are.


All they can do is tell you that you share 14% similarities with this region, 18% with that one, etc.

You all are so full of misconceptions from their stories you don’t even know what reality is any longer....

Please take your PR nonsense elsewhere.

Please take you DNA and send it to the Genographic Project.
It'll cost you 100 bucks but at least you'll learn something.

Money well spend imo.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0