No it does not.
All you have is molecular patterns that you have a specific interpretation of.
Richard
Then what pattern should we see if common ancestry and evolution are true if it isnāt a nested hierarchy?
Stop repeating yourself. We have already had this conversation (more than once) I do not accept the extent of ancestry that you claim so would not even attempt to try and prove it.
Richard
Then try to disprove common ancestry and evolution. Show us what patterns we should see, and show us that these are not the patterns that we do see.
Otherwise, we are left with the impression that the patterns we see are exactly what we should see if common ancestry and evolution are true. If you think this is wrong, then demonstrate that it is wrong.
1 Like
It is not proven until disproven. It is not down to me (or anyone else) to prove what is an assertion and not proven.
Richard
Evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are claiming that what has been presented as evidence is really not evidence. So show us that. One of the pieces of evidence is the nested hierarchy.
Why is this prediction wrong, and why is the supporting evidence wrong?
1 Like
Not all of it.
The scope proven is relatively small.
Evolution has proven capable of developing and adapting. It has not proven capable of major changes. Your ancestral claims go beyond what has been proven. DNA is being claimed as a proof, but it has not been proven itself. I might just as well say that the Bible is true because it says so.
Richard
Yes, it has. This is proven by the nested hierarchy.
Thatās just word salad. DNA has not proven itself? What in the world does this mean?
2 Likes
So if you were accused in a paternity suit you couldnāt rely on DNA to prove your innocence? We use DNA to convict or exonerate accused people all the time, even decades-old cases. I guess you donāt think this is reliable?
That is not the same thing at all. Heredity within a species is a given. We are talking about proving a connection of different species just by similarities of DNA.
One does not prove the other.
Richard
No, we arenāt. We test for common ancestry by looking at the patterns of both similarities and differences. It is the PATTERNS that matter, not mere similarities.
For example:
This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry between humans and other primates, and it is based on the patterns of differences, not similarities.
3 Likes
There are people who believe the earth is flat? Yes. It is not just a radical organization or made up by those seeking to ridicule others.
Scientific American article.
CNN report.
Live Science article.
It just goes to show that people will believe what they choose regardless of the evidence. AND this is increasing rather than decreasing. The flat earthers are NOT a remnant from a previous era but an invention of modern times. To be sure, in the past people who knew the earth was round (since the 5th century BC at least) were the educated people and most simply didnāt ask or care about the matter. But with the more universal education of people in modern times, what we see is that people are just that more capable of arguing in support of the most bizarre ideas inventing conspiracies to explain away any contrary evidence.
For this reason and others, the psychology of conspiracy theorists has become the hot new topic of psychology.
2 Likes
Yes, broad-scale geography, topology of the earth, paleontology, etc. arenāt too relevant when one spends 16 hours a day doing subsistence farming.
1 Like
Scientists have proved that chimps are capable of understanding pictograms even basic language, but the ability to articulate is beyond them. Is articulation in the DNA? Is cognisance? Is morality? Some female chimps have been shown to prostitute themselves to gain status and privileges. Is that immorality or just common sense?
Fossils cannot trace intellectual progression, only the probable size of the brain from the skull shape. WHich comes first, the intellect or the size of skull to accomodate it?
Do you know how big the 2% is in terms of quantity rather than percentage?
It is all so simple for you. No need to worry about details and mechanics. Time will sort that out!
Is naivety a prerequisite for Evolutionary study?
Richard
Every indication is that the difference in cognitive abilities between humans and chimps is due to the differences in our genomes.
That isnāt known. What we do know is that we share a common ancestor.
We can use fingerprint and DNA evidence to show that a suspect was at the scene of crime. If we donāt have a video recording of the suspect at the crime scene it doesnāt make this other evidence go away. Not having clear evidence of the exact progress of human intelligence in no way makes the evidence of common ancestry go away.
Yes, we know the quantities. Thatās how the percentages were calculated.
We have enough details to conclude that humans and other primates share a common ancestor.
1 Like
Although I rarely find anything worth of value in Richard Dawkinsā views on society and religion, his discussions on science are usually pretty good.
A good analogy for the arguments we often hear leveled against evolution. āThereās gaps, so ignore all of the evidence!!!ā. That just isnāt a sane way of approaching reality.
5 Likes
That is just a mantra.
IOW that is your guess. And you are not looking for anything else
And therefore doesnāt matter? Is it of any interest at all?
That is not the same sort of comparisons as you are claiming. You are starting from a known fact, that individual DNA is unique. Therefore you can use the differences or similarities in relation to that fact.
With your Ancestral connections you are starting from the precept that the connections are thereā¦ and finding them. it is not the same. (But I know that you cannot see that)
IOW your analogy or simile is not there. it is flawed.
Why can you not see that you are using your data to prove a theory, rather than assessing data and forming a theory? You apply an algorithm. You have already decided what the result will be! And surprise, surprise, you find it!
This is not science it is philosophy and process. And you do not seem to be able to think beyond empirical data.
Richard
We have the evidence. I keep showing you the evidence and you ignore it. You didnāt even comment on the pattern of differences between the human and chimp genomes.
My guess? Itās the basis of neurobiology and developmental biology. Species are different because their genomes are different. These are basic facts.
It is of immense interest. However, not knowing every tiny detail does not make the evidence we do have go away.
That is completely false. Did you even read the article linked above?
For substitution mutations, we observe that transitions happen more often than transversions. This is seen both when comparing the genomes of two humans and direct measurement of mutations that happen in real time. Here is the pattern of substitution mutations as observed in multiple studies that compare the genomes of parents and their offspring (de novo) and the differences between human genomes across the population (All SNPās).
The same data for the human population is presented in the article linked at the beginning of this post.
Now we create a hypothesis. If humans and other primates share a common ancestor this means that we share a common ancestral genome. If we evolved from that common ancestor then the differences between our genomes should show that same pattern, where transitions outnumber transversions. In other words, we should see the fingerprint of common ancestry and mutations.
This is a testable hypothesis, not an assumption. We are TESTING our idea. When we compare the human genome to the genomes of other primates we are not assuming that transitions will outnumber transversions. We are measuring the differences. This is an observation. Someone who accepts common ancestry is not going to get a different result than someone who rejects common ancestry.
So what do we see?
The fingerprints match. The same pattern produced by observed mutations is the exact pattern we see when comparing genomes between primates. They donāt match because we assume they match. The match because that is what reality is.
Darwin already assessed the data and formed a theory. This has been happening continually since then.
You also donāt seem to understand what a scientific hypothesis is. How do you think we test hypotheses in science?
We have determined what the results should be if the hypothesis is true. This is called ādoing scienceā. This is the most basic feature of the scientific method. You are accusing me of doing science.
2 Likes
I know what a hypothesis is. Evolution is not portrayed as a working hypothesis.
Richard
Theories are the overall model. From that theory we can devise specific hypotheses for what we should see in specific situations if the theory is true. This is how all theories in science work.
For example, the theory of relativity states that mass should warp spacetime. A specific hypothesis is that we should see stars shift their position in the sky near the Sun when they can be viewed during a solar eclipse.