There is no such thing as "ancestor of the gaps". What there is, is the genetic facts of common ancestry.
Yes there definitely is. Whenever somethings cannot be adequately demonstrated the default position is it happened in our common ancestor.
Please give a specific example to illustrate this, because I'm not sure what you mean.
In any case, it seems you're doing your outmost best to ignore the fact that we can determine common ancestry based on DNA.
Obviously, there are unknowns. Obviously, there are unanswered questions.
That's why research continues.
But we're talking details here. None of the unanswered questions, changes anything about the stuff that we
do know.
We don't need to have access to your parents to determine that you and your siblings share the same parents. All we need for determining that you share ancestors, is a sample of both your DNA.
Exactly, and this makes MY case.
For heaven's sake... No. No, it really doesn't.
I am MY totally human parent’s offspring. Y-Chromosomal studies done on the DNA of 230,000 year old Sapiens from Spain (35,000 years before OMO), who were socially and sexually interactive and able to produce fertile offspring, we still find a totally human Y-Chromosome
Did you expect a homo sapiens to yield non-human DNA????
(no quasi-ape or apeish-human...just HUMAN)
Human DNA = ape DNA.
Chimpanzee DNA = Ape DNA.
Gorilla DNA = ape DNA.
All of the above DNA = Mammal / Tetrapod / Vertabrate / Eukaryote DNA
And the way we determine parental sources (and I have been used to do these tests many times) is by the comparison of specific markers and having a sample of the DNA of both parents is best (but not required to identify one or the other).
Exactly. You look for matches in markers.
ERV's can be used as markers. They occur through insertion in a random spot in the DNA of a host. This host then passes that on to off spring. The children of the host all will have that marker.
Why is it, do you think, that we share more ERV's with primates then any other animal?
Why is it, do you think, that if we map out shared ERV's, we get a hierarchical tree?
Why is it, do you think, that this tree matches trees that are mapped out
independendly based on other lines of evidence? Other genetic markers, complete genes, comparative anatomy - even the tracing of a single bone, geographic distribution of species, etc?
Why is it, that from whatever angle we approach this comparision of organisms, it always converges on that exact same hierarchical pattern that looks exactly like a family tree?
So show me the quasi-ape source genome for comparison and then we can know...until then it is merely hypothesis driven interpretation.
No, I cannot show you a homo sapiens with non-homo sapiens DNA.
Why are you asking me to support evolution, by requesting the kind of data that would disprove it, instead?
Obviously it is not possible to come up with the remains of a specific creature that lived millions of years ago. The part you don't seem to be getting is that we don't need to find that in order to determine the biological relationship between two creatures.
No! We do not need it to establish relatedness in terms of similarity of form or function but we would require it to establish the veracity of lineal claims.
You JUST said yourself that having the DNA of the ancestors helps,
but isn't required!
If you have 10 anonymous DNA samples, 2 of which are siblings, it's pretty trivial in general to point them out. As you said: you look for markers. Because markers are inherited. It's how DNA works.
So...
We know how DNA mutates.
We know how DNA is passed on.
We know how to "read" it.
From there, you have everything you need to know to map out relationship levels of a population without having access to ancestral DNA.
Because all mammals have a face, hair, and feeds their young from their own bodies does not mean one came from the other OR that there was a creature they both came from (those are totally assumptive in nature).
There collective DNA, says otherwise.
Nope. Common ancestry of living things, definitely is a genetic fact. You also don't seem to be realising that common ancestry of life is one of the facts that evolution theory explains.
First and again, it was totally believed to be true BEFORE the evidence was interpreted and thus what we have is a case of confirmation bias (which is not an intentional act...it is always quite subconscious).
So the entire scientific community hasn't noticed that (but you did, somehow)? That's your argument?
Anyhow, off course you are wrong. The data doesn't lie, nore is there much to "interpret". Creatures either share traits / markers etc or they don't.
Evolution predicts one very specific pattern of distribution of such shared markers.
And the real world matches that prediction.
Next, I totally understand it and no genetics does not prove common ancestry.
So, patternity tests don't work? That's not what you said 2 paragraphes back.
It only PROVES similarity in form or function between different organisms.
It proves blood ties.
Evolution theory explains the mechanism by which the divergence of life into all the variety we see, happened. That this divergence took place one way or another, is not really debateable any longer.
That is your opinion I know but I disagree.
Not an opinion.
I say YES it must continue to be debatable because NO it only offers a viable "explanation" but one that has NOT been proven (just already accepted to be true before the evidence comes in...and that IMO is not good science).
No, the facts of genetics weren't accepted as true before anyone even knew what DNA was.
The discovery of DNA had the potential of completely undermining or even falsifying evolution theory. Instead, biologists were overwhelmed by how everything fits like pieces of a puzzle.
Before this discovery, it wasn't known, only hypothesized, how traits were being passed on to off-spring and how they were altered. Obviously, they were being passed on and altered, but the mechanism was a mystery.
Genetics, provided that mechanism.
As an example, in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr revealed to us that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
That's evolutionary history and it doesn't change anything about the facts of genetics and comparative anatomy.
Geneticists determine that we share ancestors with crockodiles, rabbits, etc.
Paleontologists and whatnot, try to find those ancestors and attempt to reconstruct the past.
Different fields, different studies.
But make no mistake, whatever the paleontologists finds in the ground, it has the potential of disrupting the theory! If they would find a fossil of a mammal with feathers for example, that would be a huge problem!
But they don't find crockoducks. Instead, they only find things that make sense in context of common descent.
