DNA Analysis proves evolution

QE: I can help you with this definition from the net.

Thanks for showing that you know how to copy and paste from the WWW.

You should be able to answer the rest yourself.

No, in your paste section there is nothing about lions and dogs, your comment is nothing more than a red herring.
Now, to see whether you have any arguments beyond the ones copied from creationists pages, could you please try to answer the two other questions as well ?
(or at least admit that you don't know if you can't)



Airmano

Edited by airmano - 15 March 2015 at 12:31am

Quranexplorer wrote: At least you can observe an apple always falling down to the earth, but you never observe a chimpanzee becoming a human.

Chimpanzees did not become humans, any more than humans became chimps.  Perhaps you should understand the theory before you criticise it.

Newton�s law of gravitation gives an approximation of gravity for most situations, TE has no such laws to get support from.

If you want the specific laws that relate DNA comparisons to ancestral distance, you can find them on the Internet, but I warn you that they involve some extremely complex mathematics.  I'm certainly not qualified to discuss them, nor I suppose are you.

Gravity at least has Galileo�s experiments, but TE again has none.

There are many such experiments, but you dismiss them all as being within species.  One would not expect direct observation of evolution from one species to another, because that takes millions of years.

But as I said, we don't need direct observation of species evolution any more than we need to directly observe your grandfather to know that you are related to your cousins.  We have DNA evidence, which is regarded as conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt.

Where is the experimental evidence? There is only a speculation that 2% variation in DNA between humans and chimpanzees suggests a possibility of evolution. Experimental evidence will be when you try to mutate a chimpanzee to bridge this 2% gap and then succeed to turn it to a man.

It's not speculation.  DNA of chimpanzees and humans have been repeatedly compared in a variety of ways, and all estimates come up with about 2% difference.  And as I keep saying, common ancestry is measured by DNA difference.

On the other hand I would say if humans with 99.99% same DNA can be so different with so many races, a 200 times difference between humans and chimpanzees means an unbridgeable gap between 2 species.

Now that is mere speculation.

As I mentioned earlier, theory of gravity looks more plausible with some observational and experimental evidence. But ET lacks both and there are serious rebuttals to the theory of evolution(Evolution Impossible, Intelligent Design)

You complain about lack of experimental evidence, and yet you postulate Intelligent Design??

ET stands as one classic example for made up stuff. Normally an observation comes first, and then a theory to explain that with some experimental evidence. In the case of ET, the theory came first and then more and more theories to make the original theory look like a theory � no observation, no experimental evidence!

You should probably read Darwin's Origin of Species.  Darwin made decades of observation before formulating the theory.

What others say should not affect your case if you have a 100% perfect case.

No case is ever 100% perfect, but the fossil evidence is quite strong enough to make the case satisfactorily to any fair-minded individual.  What I was saying is that you will never accept the evidence because there will always be gaps, albeit smaller and smaller gaps.

Anyway, I'm not discussing fossil evidence here.  The case I am making is that the DNA evidence, on its own, tells us that all living things share a common ancestry.  We don't even need the fossils.

However small the DNA gap maybe, it proves nothing unless you have at least one experimental evidence to show that this gap shall be bridged to bring about a species change or at least one observational evidence showing the gradual change of one species to another.

And yet law courts accept DNA evidence as conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure what kind of experimental evidence you want.  Human DNA produces human beings; chimp DNA produces chimpanzees.  You want somebody to create an intermediate creature by blending the two genomes somehow?  It might be possible to do, but would it be ethical?  And what would it prove anyway?

Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe) (From: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html)

Maybe no advantages that are apparent to you, but they make perfect sense to me.  Music, art and religion all play roles in social bonding and group identification.  The ability to ponder the nature of the universe is fundamental to science, and is probably the ultimate survival advantage.

Hey Quranexplorer (or anyone),

I'm curious to know what you think of a study like this:

DNA study shows Celts are not a unique genetic group
By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News

A DNA study of Britons has shown that genetically there is not a unique Celtic group of people in the UK.

According to the data, those of Celtic ancestry in Scotland and Cornwall are more similar to the English than they are to other Celtic groups.

The study also describes distinct genetic differences across the UK, which reflect regional identities.

And it shows that the invading Anglo Saxons did not wipe out the Britons of 1,500 years ago, but mixed with them.
...

It's exactly the same kind of analysis that measures the genetic distance between us and other primates.  If it's valid for identifying tribal relationships, then why not species relationships?  Or if it's not valid, then why is it considered valid for immediate families and distant cousins?

BiggerJohn:

The way I see it is simple. Evolution is all about chance. Creationism is all about design. To some the evidence put forward at the start of this thread seems to prove evolution. To me it just proves there was one amazing artist behind it all.

Any idea on How and Why God does this ? Why there are so many flaws in the design ? Why don't we have a "natural resistance" against (genetic) diseases ?
Why does God keep on designing new and vicious diseases ?


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 19 March 2015 at 9:26am