quote:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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:
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 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:
And lastly, you should present a list of 3000 experiments and observations just to substantiate your point. After all that, I will respond
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.
™ Version 4.2