If Darwin or the FBI had less than 15% of the data for a case

[metis]

• excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jose Fly]

And his next step is to put you on ignore. When I demonstrated that he had no clue when it came to the subject of evidence he threatened to do so to me. Since he has not responded to my recent corrections that it appears that he followed through with his threat.

At this rate he will be mumbling to himself in the corner by the end of the month.

I've always been baffled by people who join discussion groups and then proceed to put groups of people on ignore. Kinda makes you wonder why they joined in the first place.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let’s.



Correct, that is direct evidence which is the strongest evidence.

‘Through inference we draw conclusions.’ This is the best you’ve done so far giving an accurate description.



In the examples(plural) that you gave, you failed to mention the false equivalence brought up here.
Comparing is done by ‘observation,’ not inference. Same sequences are ‘observed,’ not inferred. There is no requirement here for an inference.



99.9% explicit, observed proof has no requirement for an inference.

Per Cambridge meaning of infer:
to form an opinion or guess that something is true because of the information that you have. This goes decent with your most accurate description of ‘through inference we draw conclusions.’



The result was made by observation of the DNA as well as replication of the DNA to produce the explicit proof. Correct, not the event itself.



Primarily, intent. If someone is recorded telling someone they’ll kill them and a few days later that person is killed. Yes, there can be an inference made that the recorded person likely did it. Inferences are made during the process, not as a result. No jury or judge says, ‘We or I infer that the person is guilty or innocent.’ ‘We or I infer that the person is the father of the child.’



I object to your false equivalence. Never stated that inference had no meaning or validity of events unobservable and unrepeatable.

Now that you agree that comparative genomics is indeed a valid method of reaching reliable conclusions.....

Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don’t have genes for viral coat proteins and can’t cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via “copy-n-paste” (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacteria, flies).

If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host’s genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.

About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

Evolution of Alu family repeats since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. - PubMed - NCBI

So again, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. One can say that this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.

 

[Set Free]

I've always been baffled by people who join discussion groups and then proceed to put groups of people on ignore. Kinda makes you wonder why they joined in the first place.

Off topic, but when people put an overemphasis on labeling others they attempt to divert from anything useful. Said user kept putting an emphasis on religion, creationism, god, the Bible, Christianity and invoking them into all of their responses to me, and attempting to label me when I never even mentioned any of those. When that occurs repetitively, it’s time to move on. Not to mention the guilt trips, proselyting rather than debating/discussing.

Maybe it’s baffling to you, I am not you and you are not me. I have no interest in that rubbish.

 

[Set Free]

Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don’t have genes for viral coat proteins and can’t cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via “copy-n-paste” (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacteria, flies).

Interesting topic, @Sayak and I were talking about things of this nature earlier. Would be nice to get back to this.

Yes, TE’s are in abundance in all organisms’ genomes.

If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host’s genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor.

‘If’ is a weak word. I do not disagree that a lot genetic material is passed down hereditarily. However, this conflicts with NeoDarwinism. There are many who think NeoDarwinism, the standard/modern evolutionary synthesis needs a rethink, one major reason is the passing down of hereditary information. Most of what you said suggests cellular genomes being dynamic rather than cellular genomes being static/determined.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.

Yes, identity by descent. What you stated completely ignores ‘recombination.’

Also, a strong false equivalence again. This shows relatedness through ‘maternal’ and ‘paternal’ lines only. Not the inferred common ancestry of chimps.

About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

Humans have done a splendid job artificially altering DNA and genetics as is, it is near impossible to conclude where a lot came from. For instance, I mentioned the SV40 virus from the polio vaccine earlier that inserted virus’s, genetic alteration, and diseases from monkey’s into humans. This is nearly the same as saying that since certain diseases are unique only to primates /humans that they all share a common ancestry. Laughable.

So again, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. One can say that this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.

Very false equivalence here. For starters, I have no disagreement that all of biological life is related/connected, all similar in varying degrees. Comparative genetics are evidence for this. My 6 year old daughter intuitively feels connected to nature, living organisms without the need for genetic comparison.

We can both explicitly conclude that from evidence that all biological life is related, connected, all similar in varying degrees, and all evolve.

You can infer from that, that since all biological life are related/connected, similar in varying degrees they ‘must’ all have common ancestry and came from one another. I neither agree nor disagree with this, but respect the inference.

 

[Set Free]

Back to the discussion. What comparison have you made with hard science discipline to come to the conclusion that evolutionary biology is lacking in scientific rigor?

We can compare and observe available genetics all that we like, as rigorously and as strictly disciplined as we would like.

Evolution theory is laced with anecdotal evidence, hypothesis that cannot be observed and tested, or replicated. In a strict scientific sense, much of it would be rendered unscientific. Most of it naturally lacks the capability. Anyone is free to make inferences based on the evidence. Some inferences are very strong, many inferences are wild speculation. Many accept, many do not accept. There is no need to accept or not accept.

I can explicitly conclude that all biological life share genetic similarities, are related/connected, and evolve by comparative genetics. Anything beyond that is guessing, believing, assuming, speculating.

 

[sayak83]

We can compare and observe available genetics all that we like, as rigorously and as strictly disciplined as we would like.

Evolution theory is laced with anecdotal evidence, hypothesis that cannot be observed and tested, or replicated. In a strict scientific sense, much of it would be rendered unscientific. Most of it naturally lacks the capability. Anyone is free to make inferences based on the evidence. Some inferences are very strong, many inferences are wild speculation. Many accept, many do not accept. There is no need to accept or not accept.

I can explicitly conclude that all biological life share genetic similarities, are related/connected, and evolve by comparative genetics. Anything beyond that is guessing, believing, assuming, speculating.

If we can explicitly conclude that all biological life is related and evolve based on evidence from comparative genetics, what else is left to speculate about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can compare and observe available genetics all that we like, as rigorously and as strictly disciplined as we would like.

Evolution theory is laced with anecdotal evidence, hypothesis that cannot be observed and tested, or replicated. In a strict scientific sense, much of it would be rendered unscientific. Most of it naturally lacks the capability. Anyone is free to make inferences based on the evidence. Some inferences are very strong, many inferences are wild speculation. Many accept, many do not accept. There is no need to accept or not accept.

I can explicitly conclude that all biological life share genetic similarities, are related/connected, and evolve by comparative genetics. Anything beyond that is guessing, believing, assuming, speculating.

You do not appear to understand how testing is done in the sciences. Hypotheses that are untestable are worthless in the world of science. Can you be specific? What hypotheses do you think are not testable? I may be able to help you to understand.

By the way, wild unsubstantiated claims are worthless in a debate. You made a claim. Now it is up to you to support your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Off topic, but when people put an overemphasis on labeling others they attempt to divert from anything useful. Said user kept putting an emphasis on religion, creationism, god, the Bible, Christianity and invoking them into all of their responses to me, and attempting to label me when I never even mentioned any of those. When that occurs repetitively, it’s time to move on. Not to mention the guilt trips, proselyting rather than debating/discussing.

Maybe it’s baffling to you, I am not you and you are not me. I have no interest in that rubbish.

No, he simply showed you to be wrong and identified the source of your inability to understand. You are not convincing anyone with this nonsense.

 

[Sapiens]

We can compare and observe available genetics all that we like, as rigorously and as strictly disciplined as we would like.

Evolution theory is laced with anecdotal evidence, hypothesis that cannot be observed and tested, or replicated. In a strict scientific sense, much of it would be rendered unscientific. Most of it naturally lacks the capability. Anyone is free to make inferences based on the evidence. Some inferences are very strong, many inferences are wild speculation. Many accept, many do not accept. There is no need to accept or not accept.

I can explicitly conclude that all biological life share genetic similarities, are related/connected, and evolve by comparative genetics. Anything beyond that is guessing, believing, assuming, speculating.

But ... when all the data including anatomical, osteological, biochemical, immunological and genetic tell exactly the same tale, then it is time stop playing games by calling it, "anecdotal evidence, hypothesis that cannot be observed and tested, or replicated," because that is obviously not the case and going on the way you do merely serves to show how little you understand about those fields and the issues.

 

[Jose Fly]

I‘If’ is a weak word.

????????

It's the first stage in a prediction stemming from a hypothesis....."If X is true, then we should see Y".

What an odd thing for you to focus on.

I do not disagree that a lot genetic material is passed down hereditarily. However, this conflicts with NeoDarwinism. There are many who think NeoDarwinism, the standard/modern evolutionary synthesis needs a rethink, one major reason is the passing down of hereditary information. Most of what you said suggests cellular genomes being dynamic rather than cellular genomes being static/determined.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you actually suggesting that viral inserts into germline cells are not passed down to offspring?

Yes, identity by descent. What you stated completely ignores ‘recombination.’

Again, that makes no sense whatsoever. How exactly do you think recombination affects this data?

Also, a strong false equivalence again. This shows relatedness through ‘maternal’ and ‘paternal’ lines only. Not the inferred common ancestry of chimps.

Yes it does. You simply saying "Nuh uh" doesn't change reality.

Humans have done a splendid job artificially altering DNA and genetics as is, it is near impossible to conclude where a lot came from. For instance, I mentioned the SV40 virus from the polio vaccine earlier that inserted virus’s, genetic alteration, and diseases from monkey’s into humans. This is nearly the same as saying that since certain diseases are unique only to primates /humans that they all share a common ancestry. Laughable.

Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. Are you actually arguing that the transposable elements in question are the result of vaccinations? If not, then you're going to have to explain.

Very false equivalence here. For starters, I have no disagreement that all of biological life is related/connected, all similar in varying degrees. Comparative genetics are evidence for this.

Please explain how comparative genomics provides evidence for common ancestry. I'm curious to see how your explanation lines up with your rather bizarre responses above.

 

[ajarntham]

The answer is rather simple. You do not know if Charles did or didn’t. You place faith in the testimonies of humans who present Charles as not to have done that, have a natural tendency to lie, destroy, act, deceive, manipulate.

I know that if I were in a state of bias, I’d defend Charles and present him as never doing such a thing. I’d call everyone who disagrees or who have testified otherwise as liars. I would only see the cupcakes and rainbows presented for Charles as a saint.

No, it has nothing at all to do with faith in testimonies or rainbows or cupcakes or sainthood. Nobody "testified" that Darwin didn't do this, because nobody in his lifetime accused him of doing this. I can state this as a fact, because if it had happened, or even if he had been accused of it, it would have become notorious. Everybody would know Darwin as the man who ordered or was accused of ordering Australians to be brought back and stuffed, as everybody knows Lizzie Borden as the woman who was accused of killing her mother and father and everybody knows Jeffrey Dahmer as the man who killed and ate his lovers.

Suppose you read somebody claim that in 1995 Harvey Weinstein ate a baby at a board meeting. Would you believe it? Not if you are at all rational, and not because you are placing faith in the testimonies of humans who present Harvey as not doing that, or because you could only see the cupcakes and rainbows presented for Harvey as a saint, but because everybody would know about it if it had happened.