Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Phylogenetic analysis -- no separate "kinds"
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 7:16AM #11
57
Posts: 22,797

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:59PM, Midutch wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 3:08PM, 57 wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:10PM, lucaspa wrote:


DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997.  Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants:  macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use.  Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age:  testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.


Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed.


"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along:  Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."

Everyone look at that quote carefully.  A deduction of creationism is that at least some groups (kinds) must be "statistically independent observations".  That is the "barrier" between kinds.  A barrier that prevents one kind from becoming another kind thru "descent with modification" is going to give you a "statistically independent observation" from every other DNA sequence of that gene or sets of genes. 

OTOH, if evolution happened (the "goo to you"), then all taxas will be "interrelated through their historical connections". 

The results from analyzing large sets of DNA sequences (and not just between polar and brown bears, but between humans, corn, rats, salamanders, alfalfa, E. coli, etc) show that ALL taxa are "interrelated by historical connections".  Creationism falsified, evolution supported.


Do you have an actual example of descent with modification?


Backed up by science?  You know, testable? repeatable? predictable?


As if "creationists" could even recognize real science.


2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE is a hard habit to break.


BTW, descent merely means offspring. Modification merely means that the offspring are different from the parents. How, in heavens name, could you NOT see descent with modification.




Oh wow...miduch presents another of his NON-answers.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 8:15AM #12
rsielin
Posts: 4,308

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:15AM, 57 wrote:

Do you really think that's what I'm talking about?  Seriously? 


Come on my evo friend. Molecules to man...testable, repeatable and predictable.


Been tested. Been repeated. Been predicted. The science peer reviewed literature if repleat with empirical evidence. Where have you been? Morton's Demon got a good hold of you, eh? www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/fe...


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 12:26AM #13
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,239

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:15AM, 57 wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:38PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 3:08PM, 57 wrote:


Do you have an actual example of descent with modification?


Backed up by science?  You know, testable? repeatable? predictable?





Look in the mirror. You and everyone else are actual examples of descent with modification.


That's how God made it.




Do you really think that's what I'm talking about?  Seriously? 


Come on my evo friend. Molecules to man...testable, repeatable and predictable.





No, I don't think that's what you're talking about, but my point is valid. If it works on the micro level, it works on the macro level.


 

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 11:53AM #14
d_p_m
Posts: 9,836

Apr 28, 2012 -- 3:08PM, 57 wrote:


Do you have an actual example of descent with modification?


Backed up by science?  You know, testable? repeatable? predictable?




Of course. There's a tonne of literature on antibiotic resistance, you  know, testable, repeatable, predictable, descent with modification. Check out real biology textbooks, or the peer reviewed literature.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr


“Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews


“The science, the art, the jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the modern world have grown out of Greece and Rome—not by favour of, but in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early Christianity, to which science, art, and any serious occupation with the things of this world were alike despicable.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook