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.

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.