Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 144 (145123)
09-27-2004 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Robert Byers
09-27-2004 4:23 PM


No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry.
Not so. We have the same kind of evidence linking humans and apes as the kind that links father and child in paternity tests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 144 (146183)
09-30-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 4:53 PM


Second it is not verified that DNA is saying it is related to ancestry as opposed to similarity.
So, you don't believe that DNA tests can substantiate paternity? You think that it's just coincidence that a son has his father's DNA, or you think that's due to the fact that they live in the same house?
DNA is still a new thing and you guys shouldn't be grasping at it for survival.
We've known that DNA is the molecule of inheritance for almost a hundred years. Of course, it's been the molecule of inheritance for billions of years. I wouldn't exactly call it "a new thing."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:53 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:41 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 113 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 107 of 144 (146184)
09-30-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Robert Byers
09-30-2004 4:57 PM


We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.
There is no claim in the Theory of Evolution that we do not exist, or that the natural world does not exist.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-30-2004 04:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:57 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 144 (147588)
10-05-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Robert Byers
10-05-2004 3:41 PM


What I would say is that DNA is in its infancy and drawing conclusions from DNA trails is not warranted.
So you said. But you ignored that we've known that DNA is the molecule of heredity for 100 years. That's not "infancy".
Furthermore you've ignored the fact that molecular phylogenetics is based entirely on the same principles as DNA paternity testing, which has been used over and over again as evidence in court.
If it's good enough for the courtroom, there's no way you can say that its in it's "infancy". You don't get to say that the conclusions aren't "warranted" simply because you don't like them.
The technology is not "in it's infancy." It's a well-developed science and the focus of billions in research dollars and corporate research. You can buy a DNA sequencing machine via mail-order. It fits on your desktop. We're way beyond infancy here, except for the infancy of your arguments.
I'm just speculating also that similarity of form would produce similarity if DNA and is not the evidence of actual heritage.
This is disproved by the existence of animals like the Tazmanian wolf, who are very similar in form to placental wolves, but whose DNA is radically different.
Furthermore, the regions of DNA that we use to substantiate phylogeny are regions that have nothing to do with form.
Also TOE etc to grasp DNA to save it from a new aggresion against it shows the paucity of confidence in the old justifications for it.
Not in the least. The existence of new evidence doesn't mean the old evidence wasn't sufficient. Of course, no evidence could be sufficient for you.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 03:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:41 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 144 (148473)
10-08-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Robert Byers
10-08-2004 4:27 PM


When I say infancy I mean in abny practical way.
And when I say that you are wrong about that, I mean that DNA research has been under practical use for almost 20 years. DNA phylogenetics is now a process run by first-year graduate students using mail-order desktop kits. There's no way that it can be said to be in it's "infancy".
anyways a century to me is infancy.
So, you don't drive in automobiles, because the technology of the internal combustion gasoline engine is in it's infancy? You never board airplanes because the technology is in its infancy? You've never used a cell phone because the technology is in its infancy?
You're not sitting at a computer, right now, using the internet, because these technologies are in their infancy? Oh, wait, you are.
You must be a liar, then.
I've offered this as a example of how DNA fails.
By failing to detect a relationship between two species that are not related? And you think that a true negative constitutes a refutation of the test? Sounds like its working just fine to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:27 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024