Macroevolution:

[bhsmte]

I believe in micro evolution , but not macro .

Not surprising.

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

Not surprising.

Can you show me evidence of change of kinds ?

 

[bhsmte]

Can you show me evidence of change of kinds ?

What is a "kind"?

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

What is a "kind"?

You should know what it is , it's written in your holy book by Darvin.

 

[bhsmte]

You should know what it is , it's written in your holy book by Darvin.

Define it for me.

 

[Speedwell]

Can you show me evidence of change of kinds ?

What's a "kind?" There is no scriptural evidence whatever that the use of the term in Genesis was meant to establish some kind of immutable divine taxonomy which evolution could not traverse, and there is no scientific evidence whatever that any such barrier to evolution exists.

 

[pitabread]

What application?

Pretty sure we've already had this discussion before...

Anyway as one example, here is a case where using phylogenomic approaches to comparative genomics helped identify functional regions of the human genome: Phylogenetic shadowing of primate sequences to find functional regions of the human genome. - PubMed - NCBI

More here along a similar approach: Of mice and men: phylogenetic footprinting aids the discovery of regulatory elements

The majority of your chart is littered with numbers as opposed to actual names which appear on the right.

How to read a phylogenetic tree | epidemic

For reference, that particular tree was taken from the following paper: A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

What's a "kind?" There is no scriptural evidence whatever that the use of the term in Genesis was meant to establish some kind of immutable divine taxonomy which evolution could not traverse, and there is no scientific evidence whatever that any such barrier to evolution exists.

Genesis 6:20-22 , Genesis 1:11
You should read your Bible more

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution cannot be observed. Fortunately metamorphosis can be, and it's still a complete mystery.

 

[Non sequitur]

A change has taken place with doctors. They no longer answer such questions for legal reasons. In their office visits they only concern themselves with the immediate medical issue. All other questions are simply ignored.

Doctors have access to health knowledge that the common people don't have. They withhold this knowledge, or reveal it in bits and pieces scattered throughout their literature in an incomprehensible way, so the people remain ignorant of how to attain true health. That said I understand their frustration that the knowledge they do reveal is ignored by most.

#notalldoctors

 

[pitabread]

Can you show me evidence of change of kinds ?

"Kinds", insofar as it relates to biology, is not a thing.

 

[Speedwell]

Genesis 6:20-22 , Genesis 1:11
You should read your Bible more

I do. That's why I'm sure that "kinds" as a barrier to evolution is an unbiblical fraud.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

#notalldoctors

Too few to matter.

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

I do. That's why I'm sure that "kinds" as a barrier to evolution is an unbiblical fraud.

If tree could produce after thier kinds animals , they God would not need to create animals next day simple as that .

 

[lesliedellow]

Genesis 6:20-22 , Genesis 1:11
You should read your Bible more

You haven't seen fit to respond to bhstme's request in post #65. I wonder why.

 

[Non sequitur]

Where can i purchase my doggo-cat then?

Nephilim-Mart

 

[dmmesdale]

Pretty sure we've already had this discussion before...

Anyway as one example, here is a case where using phylogenomic approaches to comparative genomics helped identify functional regions of the human genome: Phylogenetic shadowing of primate sequences to find functional regions of the human genome. - PubMed - NCBI

More here along a similar approach: Of mice and men: phylogenetic footprinting aids the discovery of regulatory elements



How to read a phylogenetic tree | epidemic

For reference, that particular tree was taken from the following paper: A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals

You punted to a bunch of technical papers that really does not explain anything, nor have you. The fact remains, the majority of the so-called creatures on your chart are identified by numbers and not names or even descriptions. It is evidence free speculation based on a 19th-century assumption. Not anywhere near a positive case for your faith.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

#notalldoctors

Pretend that Garrigan is a doctor and Idi Amin is a patient wanting health advice.

But You Did Not Persuade Me

 

[lesliedellow]

You punted to a bunch of technical papers that really does not explain anything, nor have you. The fact remains, the majority of the so-called creatures on your chart are identified by numbers and not names or even descriptions. It is evidence free speculation based on a 19th-century assumption. Not anywhere near a positive case for your faith.

No, it is based upon twenty first century genetics, and it is very much evidence based.

More wilful ignorance masquerading as argument.

 

[pitabread]

You punted to a bunch of technical papers that really does not explain anything, nor have you.

In a nutshell, the incorporation of phylogenetic data in comparing genomes allows researchers to make more informed comparisons of genomes and better identify functional regions. In effect, they are applying the data related to estimated neutral divergence of species based on time to better distinguish regions that show evidence of conservation or accelerated divergence.

Yes, it tends to get a bit technical. Science can be like that. The solution is to spend some time learning about the subject and to gain some understanding.

The fact remains, the majority of the so-called creatures on your chart are identified by numbers and not names or even descriptions.

I literally gave you a link which even explains how to read a phylogenetic tree (i.e. what those numbers mean).

Here it is again: How to read a phylogenetic tree | epidemic

And I referenced a the originating source of that tree since it also explains precisely what those numbers are (in the context of that particular tree):

Substitutions per 100 bp are given for each branch, and branches with ≥ 10 substitutions are colored red, while blue indicates < 10 substitutions.

A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals