quote:
I find it interesting that someone such as yourself, who seems to be so familiar with the relevant research regarding Evolution that he feels comfortable rejecting all of it, wouldn't have brought any of this up already.
Shraf, I did not bring up all of the evidence for evolution on this thread because the thread topic does not call for it, imo, something AdminNosy ought to have noticed.
You admit that the science of DNA testing between different species and paternity suits contains a wide divergence in accuracy for determining issues such as when a species evolved and so forth. Since that was common knowledge, I did not take your diverting the topic with a question on DNA testing for paternity suits very seriously and still do not, and moreover, am somewhat offended at the suggestion made elsewhere but also insinuated by you, that the question is proper and my lack of attention to it is not.
quote:
Please explain why we cannot use DNA testing to determine relatedness between all organisms.
Asked and answered. You admitted that DNA testing is still in development and cannot be relied on to demonstrate degrees of relatedness, when species evolved from other species, etc,....
quote:
So no, the field is far too young to have all the information you are demanding.
Your insistence in repeating an inappropiate question for the discussion, and then when told the answer, to still insist on repeating it begs the question of the soundness in the approach to the evidence.
Moreover, I have also given you another explanation, namely that genetic relatedness does not necessarily equate with evolution. You assume because the genes involved are similar stuff, that this means they must have evolved, but that is an assumption. What if, for sake of argument, they are merely similar because of another commonality, such as sameness in author, or sameness in methods of creation, but that these methods include more than universal common descent from a single source?
You insist that this is not possible, and yet refuse claims of it being possible as a priori unscientific, and so you by definition do not give it a fair scientific hearing.
For me, I believe it is better to say what you do not know than to insist that a guess or conjecture is true, and rely on overstatements to try to convince everyone that it is.
The Africa example is simply an example, nothing else, but one where geneticists are on record being cautious of how their new data does not agree with current archeological data. It is a side point.
As far as your other questions, they've been asked and answered fully. If the technology is not there, it is not there yet, period.
I would also like to hear what alternative methods of creating life from the building blocks of chemistry are envisioned. In other words, you assume that genetic similarities can be traced back so we can go from IDing one's father all the way back along the tree to the first organism or whatever you want to call it.
Well then, let's consider alternative explanations. For example, what if there was multiple descent, or special creations of kinds, or an ID scenario. Presumably the make-up of DNA is partially determined by the fundamental properties of the chemistry of ingredients on this planet, right?
So why would we not see genetic similarities if there were special creation, multiple descent, and ID, especially if DNA is agent God or whoever set uo to tranfer traits.
It would seem you are arguing that:
In any of these alternate scenarios, that there would be DNA and then something entirely different, but that doesn't make sense.
And, arguing that none of these scenarios for interpreting the data is acceptable a priori.
Either way, those seem to me to be ideological, not logical.
Let me put it this way. If God were to use special creation to create identical twins, for sake of argument, would not the DNA be the same essentially?
So arguing that DNA similarities or any similarities must necessarily mean common descent is merely an assumption. You can argue it is valid assumption, but that's still what it is.
Another bit of evidence since AdminNosey seems to want to throw the thread wide open, imo, is that it sure appears the rate of extinction outpaces the rate of new species evolving. I've never seen an adequate answer to that. I have long said and thought, that if evolution, being so unlikely by "natural" means(as defined by classical physics) is true, it is indeed powerful evidence for their being a Creator.
™ Version 4.2
