Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The inner ear is a reverse piano
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DogmaHunter" data-source="post: 72797225" data-attributes="member: 346237"><p>Phylogenetic trees are build from comparative genetics.</p><p>You can also build them from comparative anatomy (for which fossils<em> can</em> be used).</p><p>And they match. They even match geographic distribution of species.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They are the result of<em> comparing</em> organisms.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The difference being that living organisms actually reproduce, mutate and pass on their traits.</p><p></p><p>This is why we can determine who your relatives are from a set of random DNA samples.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Common ancestry of species is not an assertion. It's a genetic fact.</p><p>We understand how genetics works. We understand that we can compare genes and determine relationships between organisms. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's because we don't necessarily have access to those ancestors who are long dead.</p><p>That is not a problem in context of being able to determine common ancestry.</p><p></p><p>Let's zoom in on a lower level to make this clear.</p><p>Suppose a new born baby and his 2-year old brother become orphans. Their parents die in a plane crash in the open ocean and the bodies are never recovered. Let's say that literally all trace of them disappear for some reason.</p><p></p><p>By only having access to the DNA of both siblings, we can objectively determine that they share parents. Eventhough there is no trace of the parents anywhere.</p><p>We don't need to know<em> who</em> they were<em> exactly</em>. We don't need their bones or their DNA. Access to the siblings is more then enough to infer the existance of their common ancestor.</p><p></p><p>The very same applies at higher levels. We don't need access to ancestral species to be able to infer common ancestors of 2 or more extant species. We just need access to the extant species.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This has absolutely no relevancy to the quote you are responding to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Comparative anatomy is not just a bunch of blanket assertions.</p><p>And you keep going on about fossils. Fossils are nice, but there is MUCH better evidence, especially for nested hierarchies... It's called<em> genetics</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are welcome to try.</p><p>Choose a productline, any productline.</p><p>And demonstrate how they map to a nested hierarchy.</p><p></p><p>I guarantee that you can't do it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]230963[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree#/media/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg" target="_blank">Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DogmaHunter, post: 72797225, member: 346237"] Phylogenetic trees are build from comparative genetics. You can also build them from comparative anatomy (for which fossils[I] can[/I] be used). And they match. They even match geographic distribution of species. They are the result of[I] comparing[/I] organisms. The difference being that living organisms actually reproduce, mutate and pass on their traits. This is why we can determine who your relatives are from a set of random DNA samples. Common ancestry of species is not an assertion. It's a genetic fact. We understand how genetics works. We understand that we can compare genes and determine relationships between organisms. That's because we don't necessarily have access to those ancestors who are long dead. That is not a problem in context of being able to determine common ancestry. Let's zoom in on a lower level to make this clear. Suppose a new born baby and his 2-year old brother become orphans. Their parents die in a plane crash in the open ocean and the bodies are never recovered. Let's say that literally all trace of them disappear for some reason. By only having access to the DNA of both siblings, we can objectively determine that they share parents. Eventhough there is no trace of the parents anywhere. We don't need to know[I] who[/I] they were[I] exactly[/I]. We don't need their bones or their DNA. Access to the siblings is more then enough to infer the existance of their common ancestor. The very same applies at higher levels. We don't need access to ancestral species to be able to infer common ancestors of 2 or more extant species. We just need access to the extant species. This has absolutely no relevancy to the quote you are responding to. Comparative anatomy is not just a bunch of blanket assertions. And you keep going on about fossils. Fossils are nice, but there is MUCH better evidence, especially for nested hierarchies... It's called[I] genetics[/I]. You are welcome to try. Choose a productline, any productline. And demonstrate how they map to a nested hierarchy. I guarantee that you can't do it. [ATTACH=full]230963[/ATTACH] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree#/media/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg"]Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The inner ear is a reverse piano
Top
Bottom