Watch and consider IV

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that over 100,000 generations and nothing indicates such morphological change!

The middle analogy is not even analogous so I am going to skip right over that.

As for your last point you are insisting that I need to prove a negative when the alleged positive (which is the claim) has not been substantiated (hence Mayr's reference to the actual unresolvable gap that requires a historical narrative).

What are you talking about? Man has not been on the Earth for 100,000 generations. And please, don't tell me that you were making the error of comparing man, a creature that reproduces sexually, with E. coli, a creature that reproduces by fission. That would be a HUGE error.

 

[pshun2404]

What are you talking about? Man has not been on the Earth for 100,000 generations. And please, don't tell me that you were making the error of comparing man, a creature that reproduces sexually, with E. coli, a creature that reproduces by fission. That would be a HUGE error.

I was speaking hypothetically as in the case if Australo was really an actual ancestor....for man to have an average reproduction cycle (a new generation) of about every 15 years 80,000 generations would equal about 1.2 million years. If we include Australo 3 millions years is not a strain to imagine 100,000 generations is it?

 

[pshun2404]

I'm not conceding anything. You misunderstand me. What I mean by potential integration sites, is that we observe that retroviruses insert themselves in any of millions of different locations when the organism becomes infected. The idea that they just happened to insert themselves in orthologous locations in humans and chimps 200,000 times is utterly absurd.

As for the real ERVs, which all so labelled are not, retrotransposons move them around (possibly to where the genome can use them most productively).

 

[pshun2404]

Which is demonstrably false.
We share plenty of markers with other animals. And the distribution of those markers is exactly as expected in context of an evolutionary past.

No familial markers...no ape like daddys or mommys...!!! Some of our "who's the daddy" familial markers are the same markers for who's the monkey's daddy (which will always be a monkey) and the who's the daddy markers fro a bear (which will always be a bear not a whale or vice versa)...but it is not about this or that marker its about them all (and even this is limited because we use to only use 12 and actually many unrelated people could still have had them though occurrence was rare) and I use to run these tests many times so I am not "ignorant of the science" (not that you said that but I have got that response). Now a common quick analysis uses 16 markers and a more complete one (more exact) many more...at these levels there is no mistake only interpretation...no ape daddy indications at this level...

 

[46AND2]

No familial markers...no ape like daddys or mommys...!!! Some of our "who's the daddy" familial markers are the same markers for who's the monkey's daddy (which will always be a monkey) and the who's the daddy markers fro a bear (which will always be a bear not a whale or vice versa)...but it is not about this or that marker its about them all (and even this is limited because we use to only use 12 and actually many unrelated people could still have had them though occurrence was rare) and I use to run these tests many times so I am not "ignorant of the science" (not that you said that but I have got that response). Now a common quick analysis uses 16 markers and a more complete one (more exact) many more...at these levels there is no mistake only interpretation...no ape daddy indications at this level...

Hypothetically, if apes and humans share a common lineage, is it not reasonable to conclude that there may be markers in our DNA which could verify that?

 

[pshun2404]

Interesting h

Hypothetically, if apes and humans share a common lineage, is it not reasonable to conclude that there may be markers in our DNA which could verify that?

Interesting how you posted the answer and then re-asked the question!?! Plus the key word, though very small, carries a huge percentage of unknown possibilities (IF). Re-read the answer...now let me make it clearer for you...

Using the standard Police approach of matching 15 markers (this being only with other humans) with a 97.5% positive match, this means that out of 8.5 MILLION possible male donors there are 221,000 plus possible sources. Taking into account the female source this number is halved or less but still, though 100,000 out of 8.5 million is actually highly unlikely, it is also highly plausible to be mistaken, depending on how one "interprets" the data.

A good defense attorney KNOWS this and that is why this test alone only INDICATES parental lineage but does not really prove it, and therefore additional evidential factors must coincide. Thus a different INTERPRETATION, or alternate possibility is NOT wrong or incorrect just different and yet equally POSSIBLE. (my CAPS are for emphasis not emotion).

So factually, when we do human/chimp comparison of these same 15 markers (which we both have because we are similar in form and function as an organism)...

we actually DO get exactly what we would expect (though contrary to the hypothesis based conclusion)...and that is evidence we are NOT related in a lineal sense...

SO...IF the only evidence here says "We are not related" (which it does), we would get exactly what we really find...good science now must reshape the previously held hypothesis or toss it out but it cannot be said to be "confirmed" or "established" based on this...as this evidence disputes the hypothesis.

Similarity? Yes! Lineage? No! Now try to not jump to somewhere else in the program (though from experience I know your mind already has) and resolve just this one point.

The answer is it does not demonstrate the plausibility of the hypothesis it refutes it...now begin your deprogramming here, by stating out loud three to seven times (even better if you say it and write it down as you say it) "the parental markers refute a lineal relationship"...and then we can address any other area you choose to discuss.

 

[pshun2404]

So how do we get a the 99.9% accuracy reading for who the parents are (which still leaves a .1% error margin)? We need the DNA from both potential parents (this REQUIRES the closest ancestral hosts) and the offspring, to ALL be analyzed more fully...

We must look at whole strands as they are, not selected sections (sometimes "aligned" or disturbed to give appearance of a match via ID'd programs contrived to do this, like demonstrated in post #52).

Just line them up side by side and look at what is REALLY THERE as it actually is in NATURAL reality.

Now the peanut gallery yells "But if we are talking 8,000 to 80,000 generations ago you cannot say this did not happen!" Well correct you cannot say it did not happen, but also you CANNOT say it DID. Is it possible? Yes! Is it plausible? Not likely!

 

[46AND2]

Interesting h


Interesting how you posted the answer and then re-asked the question!?! Plus the key word, though very small, carries a huge percentage of unknown possibilities (IF). Re-read the answer...now let me make it clearer for you...

Using the standard Police approach of matching 15 markers (this being only with other humans) with a 97.5% positive match, this means that out of 8.5 MILLION possible male donors there are 221,000 plus possible sources. Taking into account the female source this number is halved or less but still, though 100,000 out of 8.5 million is actually highly unlikely, it is also highly plausible to be mistaken, depending on how one "interprets" the data.

A good defense attorney KNOWS this and that is why this test alone only INDICATES parental lineage but does not really prove it, and therefore additional evidential factors must coincide. Thus a different INTERPRETATION, or alternate possibility is NOT wrong or incorrect just different and yet equally POSSIBLE. (my CAPS are for emphasis not emotion).

So factually, when we do human/chimp comparison of these same 15 markers (which we both have because we are similar in form and function as an organism)...

we actually DO get exactly what we would expect (though contrary to the hypothesis based conclusion)...and that is evidence we are NOT related in a lineal sense...

SO...IF the only evidence here says "We are not related" (which it does), we would get exactly what we really find...good science now must reshape the previously held hypothesis or toss it out but it cannot be said to be "confirmed" or "established" based on this...as this evidence disputes the hypothesis.

Similarity? Yes! Lineage? No! Now try to not jump to somewhere else in the program (though from experience I know your mind already has) and resolve just this one point.

The answer is it does not demonstrate the plausibility of the hypothesis it refutes it...now begin your deprogramming here, by stating out loud three to seven times (even better if you say it and write it down as you say it) "the parental markers refute a lineal relationship"...and then we can address any other area you choose to discuss.

You didn't answer my question. Of course we cannot use PATERNITY tests (or maternal) to establish a link between humans and chimps. That is not what I asked.

I asked if it was reasonable to conclude that if humans and chimps are related by lineage, it may be possible to find markers which could verify this?

You do realize there are other tests we can perform, using different markers, which can show relationships not limited to the paternal line (or maternal), yes?

 

[46AND2]

The answer is it does not demonstrate the plausibility of the hypothesis it refutes it...now begin your deprogramming here, by stating out loud three to seven times (even better if you say it and write it down as you say it) "the parental markers refute a lineal relationship"...and then we can address any other area you choose to discuss.

This statement is just wrong because the resolution of Ychromosomal or mitochondrial DNA testing are not sufficient. We cannot establish relationships using these methods that far back, with these tests.

 

[Astrophile]

I was speaking hypothetically as in the case if Australo was really an actual ancestor....for man to have an average reproduction cycle (a new generation) of about every 15 years 80,000 generations would equal about 1.2 million years. If we include Australo 3 millions years is not a strain to imagine 100,000 generations is it?

Interestingly, according to the timeline below, the individual species of Australopithecus appear to have lasted for a maximum of about 900,000 years, or about 60,000 generations for a generation time of 15 years. This casts doubt on your assertion that there has been no morphological change for 100,000 generations.

 

[pshun2404]

You are t

You didn't answer my question. Of course we cannot use PATERNITY tests (or maternal) to establish a link between humans and chimps. That is not what I asked.

I asked if it was reasonable to conclude that if humans and chimps are related by lineage, it may be possible to find markers which could verify this?

You do realize there are other tests we can perform, using different markers, which can show relationships not limited to the paternal line (or maternal), yes?

You are the one that brought up paternity tests as an example...and so why would jump to some other area. If there was an ancient paternal link with some earlier ape or apelike creature such markers should show up in this area far back. IF you say "Well we cannot it was too long ago" this is admission it is purely conjectural. That you cannot demonstrate it and are asking we accept it on that basis.

IF it were true that humans and chimps are related by LINEAGE, THEN we should see many FAMILIAL markers (but we do not)...because some of these genes are shared between different organisms does not mean they are actually identical, nor even that they serve the same purpose.

Sequentially similar genes in the embryonic stem cells of humans vs chimps, though found in the same order, combine and function in very different ways (Maria C. N. Marchetto, “Differential L1 Regulation in Pluripotent Stem cells in humans and apes”, Nature, Vol. 503, Issue 7477, 2013). Now the same thing is being found to be true in the areas once thought to be “junk” or mere non-functional leftovers from ancient ancestors. Actually this area is not full of "leftovers" but are quite active and play an important role in the life of each and every creature. But again, sequentially similar areas function very differently and demonstrate different purpose in different creatures.

 

[pshun2404]

Take for example the HAR 1 gene. This same gene is found in almost all mammals. The difference between chimps and any other mammal, except humans, boils down to only 1 or 2 base pairs (which they attribute to mutation, but what they cannot show is that it was once something other which later became this, thus mutation as used in this sense is what is called a "weasel word".

The truth is that the human HAR1 demonstrates a difference with Chimps CAR1 of 18 base pairs (and this is an alleged "shared gene" showing relationship yet in truth it is very different in form and function. YET...because the Chimps have a CAR 1 and Humans have a HAR 1 they count this as an indicator or relationship when doing their tallying.

 

[pshun2404]

Interestingly, according to the timeline below, the individual species of Australopithecus appear to have lasted for a maximum of about 900,000 years, or about 60,000 generations for a generation time of 15 years. This casts doubt on your assertion that there has been no morphological change for 100,000 generations.
View attachment 200786

Not at all! There is not one iota of evidence or proof that Australopithecus ever became Homo. If you make that claim I am glad to consider your evidence. And do not try the "prove a negative" default as I never claimed there is evidence they did not, just that there is no evidence they did.

Since there is no evidence they did why should anyone believe this?

 

[pshun2404]

Now we hear the term “relationship” being repeated over and over, but when we see what we see (similarities in genetic materials, arrangement, and purpose) the question is “What does this really mean?” All it ACTUALLY is, is similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of.

If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted preconceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....

Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...

Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long

Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.

The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.

Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!

Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric to imply lineal relationship in some remote UNKNOWN common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

pshun, when you make technical claims you need to include links to a reliable source. If people want to they can wave off your claims as given.

 

[46AND2]

You are t



You are the one that brought up paternity tests as an example...and so why would jump to some other area. If there was an ancient paternal link with some earlier ape or apelike creature such markers should show up in this area far back. IF you say "Well we cannot it was too long ago" this is admission it is purely conjectural. That you cannot demonstrate it and are asking we accept it on that basis.

IF it were true that humans and chimps are related by LINEAGE, THEN we should see many FAMILIAL markers (but we do not)...because some of these genes are shared between different organisms does not mean they are actually identical, nor even that they serve the same purpose.

Sequentially similar genes in the embryonic stem cells of humans vs chimps, though found in the same order, combine and function in very different ways (Maria C. N. Marchetto, “Differential L1 Regulation in Pluripotent Stem cells in humans and apes”, Nature, Vol. 503, Issue 7477, 2013). Now the same thing is being found to be true in the areas once thought to be “junk” or mere non-functional leftovers from ancient ancestors. Actually this area is not full of "leftovers" but are quite active and play an important role in the life of each and every creature. But again, sequentially similar areas function very differently and demonstrate different purpose in different creatures.

Why can't you just answer the question?

 

[46AND2]

You are the one that brought up paternity tests as an example...and so why would jump to some other area. If there was an ancient paternal link with some earlier ape or apelike creature such markers should show up in this area far back. IF you say "Well we cannot it was too long ago" this is admission it is purely conjectural. That you cannot demonstrate it and are asking we accept it on that basis.

IF it were true that humans and chimps are related by LINEAGE, THEN we should see many FAMILIAL markers (but we do not)...because some of these genes are shared between different organisms does not mean they are actually identical, nor even that they serve the same purpose.

Sequentially similar genes in the embryonic stem cells of humans vs chimps, though found in the same order, combine and function in very different ways (Maria C. N. Marchetto, “Differential L1 Regulation in Pluripotent Stem cells in humans and apes”, Nature, Vol. 503, Issue 7477, 2013). Now the same thing is being found to be true in the areas once thought to be “junk” or mere non-functional leftovers from ancient ancestors. Actually this area is not full of "leftovers" but are quite active and play an important role in the life of each and every creature. But again, sequentially similar areas function very differently and demonstrate different purpose in different creatures.

And I was asking what the difference is, between paternity tests, and other markers you don't accept. I was hardly arguing for paternity tests, because I know their limitations, and WHY.

Perhaps you should actually learn why it is limited before accusing scientists of being purely conjectural.....If they were purely conjectural, why would they put a limit on how far back it can test. Seriously, think about that.

Would they not extend the "limit" back far enough to prove human-chimp relationship?

Of course they would. But to concede that its limitations do not allow to test for human-chimp it can mean one of two things:

1. They have actual empirical reasons to place such a limit, or
2. They are lying, didn't like what they saw, so proliferated the lie.

Should you believe option two, well: 3. you have a long road to trek, or 4. Confirmation bias may be stronger than even you thought.

And if #2 is the case, wouldn't it be MUCH EASIER to purely conjecture that YDNA tests are not so limited: to prove human-chimp relationship?

 

[46AND2]

Now we hear the term “relationship” being repeated over and over, but when we see what we see (similarities in genetic materials, arrangement, and purpose) the question is “What does this really mean?” All it ACTUALLY is, is similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of.

If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted preconceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....

Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...

Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long

Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.

The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.

Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!

Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric to imply lineal relationship in some remote UNKNOWN common ancestor.

Similarities. "What does it actually mean?" you ask. What you fail to grasp is that scientists don't JUST look at similarities, they look at patterns of similarity, which can only be shared through inheritance. Because the scientists aren't stupid enough to think that similarities alone explain anything. You really think your philosophy is novel? Taught to you by a professor who was just...enlightened? The idea that similarities alone mean anything is so trivially untrue, it's ridiculous to think scientists would make the mistake.

 

[pshun2404]

This statement is just wrong because the resolution of Ychromosomal or mitochondrial DNA testing are not sufficient. We cannot establish relationships using these methods that far back, with these tests.

You are right about the inability to actually determine such things so far back...but to demonstrate it to be true one would have to have access to that information...all else is hypothesis based "interpretation" (Starting with the "belief" the evidence we do have is interpreted to support that belief)...when we have no direct evidence and no demonstrable answer we jump to the ancestor of the gaps default.

So you are right about the inability to actually determine such things so far back...but based on what we actually have we can say there is no familial evidence.

 

[pshun2404]

Why can't you just answer the question?

Either you cannot read or your programming is so fixed you are unable to reason any position or argument outside the box...I answered your question in three posts and YOU simply do not want to reason or consider the argument or logic (which you will now think "there is none" because it does not agree with the position you have been educated to believe...which I get...been there, done that, got a whole bunch of T-shirts). I never said you have ti agree but you were answered...the answer IS...IF that were true we should be able to see reasonably indicative FAMILIAL markers (which we do not)