DNA Analysis proves evolution

DNA analysis is routinely used in paternity lawsuits to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a man is or is not the father of a child.  It has proven its reliability over and over again, to the point where nobody questions it.

In exactly the same way, DNA analysis can prove that we are closely related to other family members, and can even give us a fairly accurate measure of the genetic distance, i.e. how many generations ago we shared the same ancestors.  We compare DNA samples and count the number of random differences, which correlates closely with genetic distance.

DNA analysis is equally useful in identifying clans/tribes, ethnic groups, races, etc.  The technology is extremely sophisticated, but the principle is very simple and intuitive, and the results correlate well with independent estimates of population divergence.  

So why would you not accept the same incontrovertible evidence that we share ancestry with other species?  We share about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, corresponding to a genetic distance of about 10 million years.  We share about 75% of our DNA with mice, 60% with fruit flies, and even about 25% with plants.  Each of these percentages corresponds with a genetic distance, showing common ancestry up to a billion years ago or more.

DNA analysis can tell us how closely we are related to any other living organism, whether immediate family members or vastly different species.  It's nice that we also have the fossil record to confirm it, but we don't really need it -- any more than you need your dead grandfather's bones to prove that you are related to your cousins.  All we need is the DNA evidence.  That is proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

@Abu Loren

Usually I don't react on your posts because I find them offensive and highly uneducated (your last one is no exception to this rule).
It's a bit like teaching Boltzmann Statistics to a Hyperagressive rat.

Facts aside (nobody seems to care about them anyway): In your last post you seem to recognize that genetic changes can (and do) happen over time.

Correct ?


Airmano


Edited by airmano - 05 March 2015 at 10:27am

Abu Loren wrote: Rubbish. What a plonker you are Ron Webb. < ="chrome://piccshare/content/piccshare-min.js" ="text/"> On the contrary DNA proves that we all originate from one pair because if you could imagine a pyramid structure then Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) will be at the top and the resulting generations flowing down, adding extra genetical material hence the difference in the DNA. With regard to other animals that is simply saying that we are all mammals and that we have all been created from similar materials. The three percent difference in chimpanzees tells us that groups of animals can be very similar but miles apart in actual blood relations. Keep reading your science books and making stoopid threads.

If your thinking that the similarity of human DNA implies that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, which is almost right ish, then the same reasoning also equally says that we are all descended from the same older primate. And the same much older original mammal.

Ron Webb wrote: You can imagine anything you want, but then you have to back it up with evidence.

By definition a theory is a set of ideas (assumptions) intended to explain something and at least to make the theory look plausible, it should be repeatedly tested by experiments and should be useful to make predictions about natural phenomena. Unfortunately, Darwin�s theory fails to do any of these and so as such the whole �evolution theory� just remains some assumptions and imaginations only.

Darwin had got the imagination, what is lacking is the evidence to prove that it is 100% right. Trying to support assumptions and imaginations with more assumptions does not turn them to facts.