quote:
If God were to use special creation to create identical twins, for sake of argument, would not the DNA be the same essentially?
Well, I can play the same game if you guys insist. First, please answer my question before responding to the following comments.
Although I readily admitted that genetic evidence is stronger evidence than most, and greatly helps move theories of common descent into real science imo, nonetheless, once again, the comments of you, Shraf and others illustrate my point on this thread. Specifically, Shraf's use of DNA in paternity suits as conclusive evidence for determining evolutionary patterns in the same manner is a wild overstatement and indicative not of reasoned scientific analysis but more of religious enthusiasism of someone willing to stretch the facts to make converts.
To even be more specific, DNA testing in a court of law assumes that individual parentage can be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The threashold of accuracy Shraf invokes by the use of DNA testing for the immediate parent of an individual offspring is one of certain proof, specificity in a highly specific situation where error is not considered possible.
If phylogenetics can be shown to have recently even made one single error, in any way concerning descent and ancestry, then Shraf's threashold has not been met, and the point is proven demonstrably wrong.
The claim is if we can use DNA to determine whom a parent is, then why can we not use DNA to go further back. That would mean we should be able to use DNA to determine grandparents, and whether they are grandparents or great-grandparents, etc,...We can determine, for example, with paternity tests presumably with some certain accuracy if a man is the father or simply probably a relative of the father, correct?
So the specificity in paternity testing is quite precise.
You guys are thus invoking the same precision for going back from determing one's parents all the way back to the first cell.
Please prove that. Show someone, any individual, you have so tested, and show whom all of their ancestors were, as much as possible, and exactly which species their human ancestors evolved from, etc, etc,....and remember this has to be certain, not that humans probably evolved from this or that, but certain identification of specific species "parentage."
If you cannot, you are guilty of wild overstatement.
In preparing the list of human and non-human ancestry for one individual so tested, please answer the following questions, but keep in mind cutting and pasting a bunch of theorized phylogenies which others disagree with will not cut it. Just as in a court of law determining paternity, you have to specify an individual, dates of DNA analysis, etc,....so the threshold of using the same process in paternity suits, as Shraf alleges, can be used to essentially "prove" as would be the case in court, exact ancestry beyond the immediate parents. Keep in the mind the process is presented by you guys as just as accurate and precise.
But back to some questions:
1. Were Neanderthals capable of interbreeding with Cro-Magnon people or the ancestors of the individual detailed in your response to requests for DNA "proof" as in a court of law above?
2. Did Neanderthals interbreed with the ancestors of people today?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
Also, before I respond any further to your posts, you need to subsantiate your existing claims, specifically please post "thousands of experiments and observations" that you claimed to have in the above quote. 3000 examples should do.
I will look first for the opening question to be fully answered along with a DNA test of an individual used for paternity and thus using that to go all the way back in their human ancestry all the way back to the presumed common ancestor of all of life, with virtually no disagreement in the scientific community.
I will look for each question I asked to be answered and there, once again, to be virtually 100% agreement to the answers beyond all reasonable doubt.
And lastly, you should present a list of 3000 experiments and observations just to substantiate your point. After all that, I will respond.
You have 40 hours, according to AdminNosy, as far as time generally allotted for responses.
I'll be waiting.
™ Version 4.2