|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is a Religious Issue | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6505 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: DNA testing cannot particularly accurately estimate when you were born..so I guess you do not believe that you are related to your parents and the fact that your DNA is more similar to theirs than anyone else is just a spurious coincidence? Schrafinator's question is valid. One can directly observe the changes in populations of their DNA as it is transmitted from parent to offspring..even among newly forming or formed species. So heredity via DNA, random generation of mutants, and the spread and selection of those mutations are a known fact not an assumption. Phylogenetics can in many cases very accurately establish the relatedeness of different species even if the timing of the speciation events are not accurate. This has a lot of reasons of which you clearly seem to be unfamiliar which also suggests your take on the state of the field of molecular evolution is a bit too smug.
quote: We have thousands of experiments and observations that demonstrate the passing of genetic information from parent to offspring, from original population to new population and from one species to a new species. The assumption is that this method of information transfer (which applies in various forms to all life on Earth observed thus far) existed in the past. What evidence do you have that their was an intervention by an author? Why do you make this assumption? What is your evidence for this intervention that would lead us to assume that genetics was suspended at some point or multiple points in time? How would you falsify this hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6505 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:Oh really? You do know that not everyone agrees with the standards of DNA testing i.e. how large a population you must sample before excluding the posibility of a false positive? Look up Virginia forensics with google to find out how even DNA forensices can be in error. So does this invalidate the method and mean that you are not related to your parents genetically? Do you know what causes forensics and phylogenetics to be in error? If not you should probably learn some molecular evolution and genetics before continuing in this thread.
quote: Ok, this is a silly argument. Then please prove that 20 generations ago, your ancestors were human. You do not have genetic evidence, you may not know where they came from and there may be no record of their existence. Since you seem to state that genetics is suspended at whim, you cannot deduce that you have human ancestors even in the recent past....as before, what evidence do you have that genetics was not the mode of transmission in the past and what evidence do you have for its suspension as a mode of inheritance given that it is demonstrably used by every living organism on earth.
quote: Until someone gets nuclear DNA from both, the question cannot be answered 2. Did Neanderthals interbreed with the ancestors of people today? Until nuclear DNA is obtained, the question cannot be answered. In addition, only about 5 neandertal sequences have been obtained compared to several thousand humans so there is simply not enough data to say one way or the other. 3. Is there virtually 100% concensus to questions 1 and 2 in the scientific community, as one would expect virtually 100% concensus in the legal community for a paternity test? What difference does this make? The work on the first neandertal mtDNA sequence was published in 1997..if they don't have all the answers for you yet you think we should just accept your wild imagination as the preferable alternative? 4. Did modern humans evolve from multiple regions, or from one regional tribe? This should be easy to answer since ancestry can, according to you guys, be traced with the same precision as in paternity tests. Nope, we did not say with the same precision...only with the same methods and the same underlying assumptions. You are alsot misrepresenting the multiregional hypothesis...it is not mutually exclusive with the out of Africa hypothesis...though the majority of studies point to an origin in Africa with a great deal of subsequent migration back and forth from different regions. 5. If a shared genetic mutation is assumed to have descended from an original source, why could not the same mutation have occurred in multiple sources and thus created an appearance of common ancestry when that was not the case? This is hardly a parsimonious conclusion. One can follow mutations for thousands of generations in bacteria and hundreds in multicellular organisms and while parallel mutations can occur, they are usually those that confer a benefit not a defect. Besides, you would have to assume millions of identical mutations occurred in mulitple lineages and that they corresponded with morphology, the fossil record etc etc just by chance. this would also fly in the face of all experiments that show the generation and spread of mutations in populations in real time including paternity testing and disease mutation mapping. 6. How do we know the rate of mutations have remained constant, and if we do not, what does that say about the accuracy of your models? The rates may or may not have been constant...it affects the accuracy of the models in that it is easier to get a precise measurement on more recent events and a less precise measurement on those that happened long ago...and? 7. Since we know from quantum physics that physical things are essentially energy patterns which at their root are information, not their physicality, and that this information forming the root of physical existence underlies all chemistry which in itself underlies all biology, then within the claim to observe evidence for mutations being able to add to these energy patterns and create new patterns (species), where does the information come from? In other words, if information is what really exists, then does not the potential for new information patterns have to already exist prior to that potential being actualized via a mechanical (natural) process? Where does the information, the potential for design, come from? Mutation and natural selection and drift..or do you mean abiogenesis?
quote: I expect you to show absolutely no disagreement among IDists in their interpretations of ID and its basic components and to show that all religions are identical or else there is no ID and no god/gods/pink unicorns....what kind of logic is this?You truly do not understand science at all do you? Of course there is disagreement in the scientific community at every level. Sciene tries to find the best possible explanation for natural phenomenon and test it and tries to falsify it. Hyptheses are modified, refined, or dumped based on the constant questioning of the underlying assumptions and the accumulation of new data. Thus, there are disagreements in the scientific community on what causes AIDS, and how prions work etc all issues accepted as settled by uninformed people such as yourself. It is not the dogmatic bullshit of religion where no change to fit reality is allowed. Science is the search for the best approximation of the truth and religion/ID is the attempt to hide from it and deny it. quote: Crashfrog linked you to 44,000 pubmed references..these link to scientific studies and the data contained therein (so that you dont have to take the word of the scientists, you can redo the analyses yourself). You have 40 hours to read all of them and come back and explain why they are wrong and why your ex nihilo intelligence is a better explanation for all of their observations and how you would falsify your hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6505 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:Why would you assume that special creation would have any constraints? What reason would there be for a genetic mechanism of heredity (or any mechanism of heredity) if every birth is a result of special creation? If you cannot provide a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of special creation, how can you then put constraints on what it would produce genetically? I would only have an expectation that identical twins share very similar DNA under a model of identity by descent...I have no expectation of "special creation". quote:Why absurd? 100 years ago people had no idea what the mechanism of heredity was. The fact that children come from their mothers is not ultimate proof of identity by descent..if it were so easy, why are there genetic paternity tests? And what is more absurd? Claiming that the observation that all species transmit their genes from one generation to the next must have been suspended at some time, multiple times, or every time by an unobservable, untestable supernatural intelligence or actually basing the conclusion of identity by descent on the evidence?
quote: If you had an even passing familiarity with molecular biology you would know why this assertion is supported. And if you want to go into silly arguements, how about yours that without any recourse to supporting evidence or "proving" your assertions you claim that at some or many distinct points in time, heredity was suspended...you have links to 44,000 papers that contradict your musings...where is your data? Where is your testable and falsifiable hypothesis of "special creation"? Still waiting.
quote:Some have said that Kid Rock has talent..and? If you actually read the debates on the neandertal studies it has more to do with statistical arguments and contaminatin problems unique to the field of ancient DNA and not about common descent. Also, even the Out of Africa camp does not argue that humans and neandertals are not related..only that neandertals were not a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens. quote: I admit no such thing. I will accept that you are completely ignorant of the relevant studies which you claim do not exist. Your gaps in knowledge are not equivalent to a gap in the science. You may wish to claim that we as scientists do not know what we are talking about, but until you actually show that you have based this on extensive study of the data (much less even an awareness of it) then I will assume that you are just another run of the mill religious zealot that is afraid that he will stop believing in god/gods/pink unicorns or whatever flavor of mythology you cling to because your faith cannot withstand science or reality. This message has been edited by Admin, 06-03-2005 07:31 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024