Evidence For And Against Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

Since there are no real facts other than conjecture about figuring 'how it happened,' I'd like to see anything that can be verified? I know what the theory is. Please present one verifiable piece of evidence of the branches starting and developing (just one, not a whole lot, I don't want to tax you). I realize that many, many think and believe the theory of evolution is true, however, if you could provide one verifiable piece of evidence ascertaining the theory of evolution, preferably from the start of the development of life on this planet, it would be helpful.

Why would someone give you something further to read when the very thing we are talking about is how you don't read scientific information provided to you?

Perhaps you think there are "no real facts" because you refuse to read any information about it.
That how it seems to me.
You can't learn anything if you don't try.


Evolution is a fact of life. It happens. The theory of evolution explains that fact.

The "start of development of life on the planet" doesn't address evolution, as you well know. It addressed abiogenesis. Evolution occurs once life is already here.

 

[Astrophile]

hmmm, interesting. So, according to wikipedia article you quoted, slavery operated in the earliest civilizations such as Sumer, dating back to 3500 BC. Accordingly, just taking it point by point, my first question to you is: do you believe the dating of the earliest civilizations having slavery such as that in Mesopotamia goes back to 3500 BC? That's my first question. I mean that's what they say about the earliest civilizations that existed. 3500 BC. Thanks for answering, Astrophile. This is a pretty weighty question, and so I'd like to go over this. thanks.

Yes, I accept the dating of the earliest slave-owing civilizations. In particular, Sumer - Wikipedia gives a detailed account of the chronology of the Sumerian civilization. I don't know where they obtain this information, whether from documents or from C-14 dating, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy.

Again, I don't understand what these questions have to do with the evidence for and against biological evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is dust evidence of creation?

I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.​

IS dust evidence of creation? What do you think? (P.S. why wouldn't it be? let me guess -- because it's there??)

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would someone give you something further to read when the very thing we are talking about is how you don't read scientific information provided to you?

Perhaps you think there are "no real facts" because you refuse to read any information about it.
That how it seems to me.
You can't learn anything if you don't try.


Evolution is a fact of life. It happens. The theory of evolution explains that fact.

The "start of development of life on the planet" doesn't address evolution, as you well know. It addressed abiogenesis. Evolution occurs once life is already here.

See? All I get is assertions on your part, no evidence. OK, have a good night. Bye for now...

 

[Subduction Zone]

IS dust evidence of creation? What do you think? (P.S. why wouldn't it be? let me guess -- because it's there??)

It is not evidence because creationists tend to be too afraid. To have evidence a creationist first needs a testable hypothesis. Creationists appear to be too afraid to put their ideas to the test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See? All I get is assertions on your part, no evidence. OK, have a good night. Bye for now...

Once again, you do not appear to understand what is and what is not evidence. Why are you afraid to discuss the concept?

 

[SkepticThinker]

See? All I get is assertions on your part, no evidence. OK, have a good night. Bye for now...

I've given you evidence. You didn't read it, and deflected to some other point.
Someone here just gave you evidence. You didn't read it, and deflected to some other point.

Do you see a pattern here?

Are you afraid to learn? And if so, why?

 

[tas8831]

IS dust evidence of creation? What do you think? (P.S. why wouldn't it be? let me guess -- because it's there??)

It is now at least the third time you have just omitted this form your replies - I'm beginning to think that your boasts of having studied all of this to be.... bogus?


I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is now at least the third time you have just omitted this form your replies - I'm beginning to think that your boasts of having studied all of this to be.... bogus?


I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.

I recently heard the "dust is evidence of creation" argument on a YouTube video that I was watching. The argument comes from "Dr." Grady McMurtry. I use the scare quotes because his doctorate came from an uncredited private school. Does that remind you of any other creationist. He argues that there should be no dust in the universe if it is billions of years old due to gravity. I guess that he forgets that not only is the universe really big, but stars blow up quite often. If you like I could link the video where he made that claim. Or I could link the video where I saw the claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

This doesn't come anywhere near addressing and answering the question.

Could you please read it over again and try to answer it. I think it illustrates a good point.

OK, here is my answer: (for all involved) We are descendants of males and females. So when did predecessors to humans, according to the theory of evolution, first become male and female? Do you know? Perhaps you know and can help me out here, or, at least give me a good link to the answer. OK?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, here is my answer: (for all involved) We are descendants of males and females. So when did predecessors to humans, according to the theory of evolution, first become male and female? Do you know? Perhaps you know and can help me out here, or, at least give me a good link to the answer. OK?

Do you understand what it means when you move the goalposts? You are essentially admitting that evolution occurred after sex developed. That means you are admitting that you are an ape.

I just want to know before I go on. It appears that you have admitted defeat as far as evolution goes, at least in the fossil record.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is now at least the third time you have just omitted this form your replies - I'm beginning to think that your boasts of having studied all of this to be.... bogus?


I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.

You asked a question about dust and I ask you to think about why it wouldn't be a result of creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is now at least the third time you have just omitted this form your replies - I'm beginning to think that your boasts of having studied all of this to be.... bogus?


I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.

Thank you for the details above. Insofar as similar dna in humans and chimps, here is what is said, and I do not contest the following statistics:
According to one source of information, human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same ... "Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't." Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH
So -- does that mean I think humans came about from an unknown common ancestor of chimps and bonobos as a result of evolution? No. (I used to.)

 

[tas8831]

I recently heard the "dust is evidence of creation" argument on a YouTube video that I was watching. The argument comes from "Dr." Grady McMurtry. I use the scare quotes because his doctorate came from an uncredited private school. Does that remind you of any other creationist. He argues that there should be no dust in the universe if it is billions of years old due to gravity. I guess that he forgets that not only is the universe really big, but stars blow up quite often. If you like I could link the video where he made that claim. Or I could link the video where I saw the claim.

I appreciate the offer, but life is too short to watch yet another fake scientist creationist pretend that he has proven ancient middle eastern tall tales to be true...

 

[tas8831]

You asked a question about dust and I ask you to think about why it wouldn't be a result of creation.

Actually, I had originally posted it in response to YOU wondering whether or not Darwin's "guess" worked out or not:

Evidence For And Against Evolution

Yeah - you skipped that then (2019) and replied to a post I had made AFTER that.

Then in December 2019, in response to you writing:

"And then went on its way by the force of natural selection to màke plants and animals down the metaphorical road. It's all guesswork."

I posted it again:
Evidence For And Against Evolution

I even ended that post with:

"Feel free to provide evidence for magic creation of a man from dust 6-10,000 years ago."

And you never did.

Then, a few days later, I posted it a 3rd time in this thread for Leroy, who I caught plagiarizing.

Then I posted it 2 more times for Leroy, who - like you - bailed each time.

My guess is you bailed because despite your claims of "research", you had no idea what those scientific papers actually indicate, and the only way to maintain your frail façade of "knowledge" is to run away.

Regarding dust in space = Jesus, why did Jesus make dust and put it in space?

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, here is my answer: (for all involved) We are descendants of males and females. So when did predecessors to humans, according to the theory of evolution, first become male and female? Do you know? Perhaps you know and can help me out here, or, at least give me a good link to the answer. OK?

Please stop trying to deflect and answer the question instead please. it's incredibly frustrating to engage with someone in conversation who is constantly changing the subject to something else.

Do you think DNA can show that you are more closely related to your mother than say, your third cousin?
Or do you think that's bunk too?

In other words, do you think we can accurately trace our human familial ancestry back through time to determine that your great-grandfather, for instance, is related to you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please stop trying to deflect and answer the question instead please. it's incredibly frustrating to engage with someone in conversation who is constantly changing the subject to something else.

Do you think DNA can show that you are more closely related to your mother than say, your third cousin?
Or do you think that's bunk too?

In other words, do you think we can accurately trace our human familial ancestry back through time to determine that your great-grandfather, for instance, is related to you?

Accurately trace? I don't know. I believe that it is possible to determine family relationships or identity w/dna findings. And while you might think or believe it signifies evolution, I do not, in the sense you think of it. For instance, if a person's genetic makeup give them light skin, for instance, it does not invoke evolution as commonly thought of as evolution. Humans are still humans, bonobos, while similar in certain dna characteristics, are not human, they are bonobos.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Accurately trace? I don't know. I believe that it is possible to determine family relationships or identity w/dna findings. And while you might think or believe it signifies evolution, I do not, in the sense you think of it. For instance, if a person's genetic makeup give them light skin, for instance, it does not invoke evolution as commonly thought of as evolution. Humans are still humans, bonobos, while similar in certain dna characteristics, are not human, they are bonobos.

Okay, so you understand that we can trace family lineages through DNA. So you also understand that each of us shares more genetic information with our mother than say, our third cousin, though we do share genetic material with our third cousin, just less of it than we share with our mothers. We notice as well that we probably look a lot more like our mothers than we do our third cousins. Common ancestry is evident. If you send your DNA to a testing lab, your genetics can be traced back for several generations, up to about 1,000 years, apparently.

We can see this same degree of relatedness between all living creatures on this planet that indicates a common ancestry. Just like you and your first cousin share a common ancestor in your grandfather. This is how we know, for instance, that modern day chickens are descendants of dinosaurs; because they share specific heritable genetic material.
It's in the DNA. It's demonstrable. It's observable. In the same way we can demonstrate that you are related to your great-grandfather, we can demonstrate that humans share common ancestry with other apes, and to lesser degrees of relatedness, with other creatures on the planet. We are all related, to some degree. Just like you and your family members.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've discussed and examined this in full. There is no EVIDENCE of evolution.

Here's a prime example of how that is obvious hogwash.

Based on evolution theory, evolutionary history and the fossil record, evolutionary biologists and paleontologists hypothesize that land animals descend from sea-life and that these animals ventured on land some 400 million years ago. They predict, based on this hypothesis, that therefor, there must exist "transitional species" of around that age. They predict the anatomical features it would have had (a mixture of fish-like and tetrapod-like traits and living in or near shallow waters). No such species was known at that time.

They bring in geologists so that they may help them pinpoint locations for where to dig and look for such fossils.

They pinpoint exposed rock from that time period in Canada.
They assemble a team, go to said location and start digging.

Lo and behold, what do they dig up? Exactly what they predicted. A "fish-apod".
The right age. The right anatomical features. The right location. Exactly as predicted.
They name this species "Tiktaalik".



"No evidence" you say?

Then what do you call the enormous success that was the find of tiktaalik, by prediction?

(this is just one example out of MANY).


If evolution is ow so wrong, if evolution has no evidence...
How come they were able to find this creature?
How come they were able to so accurately predict what it would look like, where it would be found, what age it would be,...?

There are bones, there are artifacts, there is DNA. Etc. But there is no evidence of --

Lol.....
Lists the evidence and then claims there is no evidence.

Priceless.

evolution as if the soupy mass caused-made-evolved other things and moreso, such as some unknown common ancestor of humans and chimps, etc and etc. None whatsoever. DNA, and bones are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of DNA and bones.

DNA and bones prove that species share ancestry.
Common ancestry of species = a genetic fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Observable fact? As evidence of evolution? ?? In other words, huh?

Please just answer his question.

What would you consider to be evidence of evolution?
Evolution theory makes a ginormous amount of predictions, so if you actually understand the basics of the theory, you should have no problem listing some examples.