Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 488 of 1385 (850622)
04-11-2019 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:00 AM


Re: quote mining -- misrepresentation
1. It says, "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor." Notice the words "all life". There is only one way ALL LIFE on earth can share a common ancestor - it's if ALL life on earth descended from ONE common ancestor.
And that is what the current evidence shows, whether that original ancestor derived from horizontal gene sharing single cell life or not.
But that is still not from the section that gives the definition of evolution. Conflating them is quote mining, a form of lying.
2. Besides being ridiculously simplistic, the comparison to one's grandparents is just plain dumb, as descent from one's grandparents involves simply two generations within one species - which is vastly different to what is described a few sentences earlier: "large scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."
Actually it is describing simply the same process. When the parent population begins to divide into two daughter populations the process is the same, offspring from parents and grandparents.
3. The sentence, "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandparent." also represents a classical example of Darwinist propaganda: The idea is mislead the reader into thinking that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor is just as sure and factual as a family descending from grandparents. It's the ol', "since microevolution is true, macroevolution is true" fallacy. But you can't fool all the people all the time.
Since macroevolution (as defined and used by scientists) has been observed, it is a fact that it occurs.
Further all life falls into a pattern of nested hierarchies (clades) and the end result is a common ancestor population for all life.
quote:
Tree of Life

That is what the evidence shows. This is an observation of the evidence, and it shows how the theory of evolution explains the evidence in a concise and easy to understand way.
Other concepts, like "Progressive Creation" do not explain the pattern of nested hierarchies, nor the placement of fossils within the spatial-temporal matrix.
Does "Progressive Creation" have any practical use? or is it just a desperate shell game to hide evidence from believers.
This is how it works:
Since macroevolution = microevolution + time, ...
Indeed, but I would say "macroevolution = microevolution over multiple generations" rather than time.
... (L)UCA = ToE + time.
This does not follow -- it is a non-sequitur conclusion, and it's rather backwards.
(L)UCA + many multiple generations of life = the natural history of life on the planet, and it is explained by ToE.
Further, the pattern of nested hierarchies and the location of fossil evidence within the spatial-temporal matrix match what the theory predicts for the pattern of life.
Other concepts, like "Progressive Creation" do not predict the pattern of nested hierarchies, nor the placement of fossils within the spatial-temporal matrix.
Does "Progressive Creation" have any practical use? or is it just a desperate shell game to hide evidence from believers.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:00 AM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 489 of 1385 (850623)
04-11-2019 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:22 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
That's nice of you to say, but I actually wouldn't take much notice of what I said before because, for example, there are several genera of cats within the cat "kind".
So you agree that your use of genera was mistaken, good.
Well, not yet. But when I receive my honourary doctorates in evolutionary biology I will be.
Ah, now this is a good example of why I will receive three honouray doctorates in evoltuionary biology and you will receive exactly none.
And again, honorary degrees are not issued in specific fields. Strange obsession here.
Referring to observed evolution as "empirical evolution" doesn't avoid the science in any way and it will create a clear distinction between factual evolution and theoretical evolution. The term "microevolution" is rather vague as there is no defined point where MICROevolution ends and MACROevolution begins.
Except that microevolution is what occurs within each generation of a breeding population, while macroevolution is the accumulation of changes over multiple generations.
Curiously, biologists have no difficulty in distinguishing one from the other, and have no need for this distinction. Since the process of evolution is observed in the fossil record as well as in life today it is empirically observed evolution. Theoretical evolution is the theory of evolution (hint - theory → theoretical). Again scientists have no trouble with this.
Furthermore, when speaking of "evolution", it is sometimes unclear what is being referred to - is it empirical evolution or theoretical evolution, or both? But if "empirical evolution" is used (as I have defined it), it's meaning is clear and unambiguous.
Another shell game with the words. Typical creationist ploy. When you get a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed biological science journal that uses this minor distinction let me know.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:22 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:43 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 497 of 1385 (850768)
04-14-2019 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:37 AM


Progressive Creation is religious fantasy of no value
RAZD writes:
"Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability
So what?
That means it is useless as a theory.
It has no practical application
You expect a religous (non-scientific) theory to have a practical, scientific application?
If you want it to be considered in relation to science theory, yes. If you want it to be considered an ad hoc religious concocted fantasy pretending to be worth discussing, then no ... I would expect it to be full of nonsense, like:
I've actually covered this before: I believe "God's finger" in evident every time a species from one genus appears to "evolve" into a species of a different genus (something that has never been observed, despite thousands of years of selective breeding by human beings, using every technique under the sun, trying to change the morphology of various animals and plants).
Thanks for admitting that it is useless ad hoc religious concocted fantasy.
This also means it is invalid to use in a science thread, because it is just a (latest in a long line) form of "god-did-it" argument of absolutely no scientific value. This is a science thread, and that means no "god-did-it" fantasies allowed.
But buck-up, it's not completely useless ... it can always serve as a bad example of creationist thinking.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:37 AM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 511 of 1385 (850836)
04-15-2019 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.
Please provide this evidence, so we can show you this is a false claim, and just another tired god-of-the-gaps religious claim not suited for a science thread.
You may want to (if you are engaged in honest debate) peruse An Index to Creationist Claims with the listing of pratts regarding gaps first.
Also be aware that the theory of evolution explains the development of life from beginning until today, with predictions for the future. This includes explaining gaps in the fossil evidence.
So put up your evidence and we'll see whether it is of more interest than all the ant frass in antarctica.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 520 of 1385 (851091)
04-19-2019 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 516 by Dredge
04-19-2019 3:43 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
Try telling that to Douglas Futuyma, who says "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution.
Sounds a lot like what I said. Perhaps you are looking too hard for a single concise definition, when there are a bunch of variations on a theme definitions. The trouble is I see no conflict between the variations saying essentially the same thing, because ...
You evolutionists can't even agree on what a "theory" is!
... a (scientific) theory is an explanation of the known evidence, piecing it all together so that you can make predictions to gain more knowledge of the subject, and test the validity of the theory. Curiously you can explain the same thing several different ways, as should be self-evident from the variety of responses to your posts explaining the same things in a variety of ways.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:43 AM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 521 of 1385 (851092)
04-19-2019 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Dredge
04-19-2019 2:09 AM


does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus
1. If you see a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus, that is a supernatural event.
If you are saying that a species from one genus evolves into an existing species from another existing genus, then you don't have a clue to what evolution says or what the evidence shows.
If you are saying that a species from one genus evolves into an new species from another existing genus, then you don't have a clue to what evolution says or what the evidence shows.
If you are saying that a species from one genus evolves into an new species that is placed in a new genus (becoming the "type" species for that genus), and think that is supernatural, then you don't understand how species and genera are named and classified in Linnaean taxonomy. This is what the Pelycodus evolution shows in Message 303, evidence that you just ignored with an ignorant comment in Message 342:
Hey thanks - that's very interesting. The supernatural creation of a different genus (Notharctus from Pelycodus) is actually clearly documented in the fossil record - God is great!
Such classifications are basically arbitrary names used to identify the evidence. What is clearly documented is that the nomenclature was changed because the species was seen as sufficiently different from the original Pelycodus ralstoni species to warrant a new genus name. There is nothing supernatural about human made name tags. Other examples of such naming changes are common in virtually all branches of the tree of life. For example walking stick insects in this pdf (download):
http://www.nature.com/...421/n6920/extref/nature01313-s1.pdf
Many different genera and species related by evolution from a common ancestor. That's just a small branch on the tree of life.
It's like a family tree, if you don't have names (first and last) it is difficult to discuss the relationships between the generations. Taxonomy is just a naming convention for clarity of discussion.
"Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." Nothing supernatural to be seen here, move along ...
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : more

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:09 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 1:55 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 549 of 1385 (851248)
04-21-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Faith
04-21-2019 12:16 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory: debunks kinds
So let me see if I can be clearer:
What I would expect you to have trouble with is an idea that proves the ToE is false and completely contradicts the notion of time periods in Geology.
Curiously, ideas are spectacularly inadequate at disproving scientific theories.
What you need (and are lacking) are facts or conclusions based on objective empirical evidence.
Preordaining that trilobites are one kind, for instance, ignores the facts and objective empirical evidence.
A "practical use for Universal Common Ancestor" is that it shows that "kinds" are completely inadequate in explaining the full diversity of life, and that people shouldn't waste their (and other people's) time on making them up. Time better spent learning actual science.
Such fun.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 04-21-2019 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 589 of 1385 (851548)
04-28-2019 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by Dredge
04-28-2019 1:55 AM


does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
RAZD writes:
Such classifications are basically arbitrary names used to identify the evidence. What is clearly documented is that the nomenclature was changed because the species was seen as sufficiently different from the original Pelycodus ralstoni species to warrant a new genus name
I realize that - like I said, a species from one genus evolved into a species of another genus.
It would be more accurate to say "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied.
Hey, that's a very impressive graphic - but you forgot to mention that it's all based on the ASSUMPTION of common ancestry - all those branches are inferred from a BELIEF, not fact.
Nope.
It's inferred from the evidence showing common ancestry. You can access the abstract HERE, but the article is behind a pay-wall.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 1:55 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 4:02 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 597 of 1385 (851556)
04-28-2019 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by edge
04-28-2019 10:31 AM


Scientific theory and "proof" vs validation/s
(Dredge): 1. You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. This could mean you observed it happening ... but somehow I doubt that's the case.
Actually, I say that it is the best explanation for the evidence. ...
A scientific theory is built on existing evidence to explain that evidence, and then predict possible new evidence. This is tested by finding new evidence that either validates or invalidates (disproves) the theory. Theories can be "proven" false but not true (see Karl Popper, Falsifiability)
quote:
... My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements.
””Karl Popper, Popper 1959. p 19
When a theory passes such testing it is said to be validated rather than "proven" and the theory is a valid explanation of all the evidence known, including the original evidence and the new evidence from the testing.
... You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. ...
We know that all the evidence known to date is consistent with the theory of evolution explanation for the various intermediate stages of development of the mammal ear from the reptile ear, and that the theory of evolution provides the best known available explanation for this evidence. The evidence is not only consistent with the theory, it is consistent within the restrictions of the temporal/spacial matrix on the theory of evolution -- that it must occur in close proximity in both time and space between ancestral populations and descendant populations.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by edge, posted 04-28-2019 10:31 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 777 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 5:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 649 of 1385 (851763)
05-01-2019 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Progressive Creation - no predictive ability - take 2
Take 2 - you did not respond to first reply ...
RAZD writes:
Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.
The theory of evolution does explain gaps in the fossil record by predicting proximity to ancestral and descendant populations ” the temporal/spatial matrix ” such that populations can evolve by steps from one to the other. This is based on observations of existing data and what that data shows for the evolutionary paths. This means there are scientifically explicable gaps in the fossil record, ones with testable restrictions/requirements.
This is also tested and validated whenever “missing links” are found: do they have intermediate traits that show it falls on that step by step path? If yes, then the new fossil is a transitional stage/fossil and the prediction is validated.
This was tested and validated with the search for (and discovery of) Tiktaalik: they went to a location and geologic age of rock deposits meeting the temporal/special matrix for a “missing link” (intermediate or transitional fossil) and there it was.
There are currently no “scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record” that do not meet this temporal/special proximity requirement/prediction.
If PC previously predicted this was a case of a “scientifically inexplicable gap in the fossil record” it failed this test. Evolution 1, PC O.
Again, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, PC makes no predictions regarding times and locations for new fossil finds, no predictions of testable scientific value. It is pseudoscience and religious ad hoc wishful imagination. To be a theory of scientific value it needs to be falsifiable ” it needs a prediction that if happens it falsifies the theory.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 786 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 6:01 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 652 of 1385 (851766)
05-01-2019 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 651 by Faith
05-01-2019 5:11 PM


simplistic explanation, simple invalidation.
I have as a matter of fact demonstrated a barrier in how breeds develop by "using up" genetic variation, which is most apparent in "purebreds." That is a natural outcome of selection processes whether domestic or "natural," which shows that any given species does have a natural end to how it can vary in any given direction. ...
This has been discussed before, and your explanation fails when we look at general cases and not just purebreds. This is because mutations occur in nature, but are weaned out to preserve purebreds. There is no natural process known that replicates this removal of mutations in natural selection.
In fact the opposite often happens where the mutation is selected by being beneficial to survival and reproduction. This has been demonstrated to you time and again, but you fail to simply read and accept the information ... what you often complain about from people not taking your position as having value.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by Faith, posted 05-01-2019 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 703 of 1385 (851907)
05-04-2019 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by Dredge
05-03-2019 4:02 AM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
... lamingtons, for example. You may not have heard of lamingtons - they’re native to Australia. A lamington a day keeps the doctor away.
Chocolate or cream filled or plain?
That what I meant (which should have been bleedin’ obvious).
So the evidence of Pelycodus shows "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied.
It may infer common ancestry via biological evolution . but common ancestry via genetic experiments performed by aliens is a much better explanation. However, there is no way of testing either hypothesis.
Except that the evidence shows an absence of outside tampering, while common ancestry in living species is observed and thus is a known process. Positing an invisible undetectable process is not needed to explain the evidence that matches the observed common ancestry process that is nown to occur.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 4:02 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 863 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2019 6:03 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 864 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2019 6:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 903 of 1385 (852345)
05-09-2019 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 807 by Faith
05-07-2019 1:02 PM


Genome is not cast in stone
But that is not really what I'm saying. My point is that the genome can only make the creature it belongs to, so THEREFORE to get something entirely different which the ToE says is possible, at least over millions of years, the genome itself has to change and that is ...
... exactly what actually happens. The genome evolves as the species evolves, it is not fixed and immutable as you seem to think.
It's that simple.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by Faith, posted 05-07-2019 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 904 of 1385 (852346)
05-09-2019 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 786 by Dredge
05-06-2019 6:01 PM


Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
1. Er, please be advised that one lucky find is hardly statistically significant.
... except that it confirms the prediction made by the Theory of Evolution.
2. Fossils indicate that some kind of "evolution" has occurred over billions of years, but fossils tell us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what caused that "evolution".
... except that each fossil currently valides the ToE when it fits into the temporal/spatial matrix and the explanation provided by the ToE for getting from one spcies to another via known mechanisms of evolution.
Means, motive and opportunity:
  • Means: known mechanisms of evolution observed and documented to cause changes in living species.
  • Motive: to survive and reproduce.
  • Opportunity: the evidence for evolution in the natural history of the earth has only been found where populations are in close proximity to ancestor and descendant populations, and showing intermediate characteristics between ancestor and descendant populations.
3. Tikaalik and "evolution" can be explained by my "aliens did it" theory.
Which is just another way of saying "god-did-it" while ignoring the weight of evidence that ccurrently onfirms that the ToE provides a complete explanation of the fossil record, including the constraints of the ToE. Neither aliens nor "progressive creation" provide as complete an explanation of all facets of the evidence.
Curious that aliens and gods only created evidence that completely mimics what the process of evolution would produce and only what the ToE predicts would occur.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 6:01 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 997 by Dredge, posted 05-13-2019 8:43 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 998 by Dredge, posted 05-13-2019 8:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 905 of 1385 (852349)
05-09-2019 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 862 by Tangle
05-08-2019 6:01 PM


Comparing Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalis and Pan troglodytes
Well we know he was an ape because we are too, but we also know that unlike, say, a chimp, he was also Homo. So he was human, though not of the same species as us. My guess is that his DNA is going to be pretty close but not exact. Because obviously if it was exact, he'd be H. sapiens, not H. habilis.
We already know of differences between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis as currently sequenced. We also have some evidence of Denisovian DNA and some of the other Homo species.
So we can compare the degree of differences with those of chimps and see what the evidence shows.
IIRC this was done a year ago or two ago. The result I remember was that a triangle representing the degrees of differences was formed with the three sides being:
  1. Homo sapiens to Homo neanderthalis
  2. Homo neanderthalis to Pan troglodytes
  3. Homo sapiens to Pan troglodytes
Where (1) showed lesser degree of differences than either (2) or (3) and that (2) and (3) were approximately of equal degree. This fits with ToE nested hierarchy predictions.
Perhaps someone can dig up the old posts on this (Moose?)
We can then introduce real numbers into this discussion with Faith and see how far she can take it.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 862 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2019 6:01 PM Tangle 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