DNA Analysis proves evolution

Quranexplorer wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: It is a reasonable aproximation that the length of the day on Earth is 24 hours. Each day is slightly different, taking a day as noon to noon. The rotation of the Earth is not 100% stable. It is reasonable to expect that the rainfall in Sheffield, where I am, is going to be higher than the rainfall in Mecca this year. There may have been years where this was not true. But it's a fair bet.The rate of mutation is not fixed to the same degree as the rotation of the Earth but the rate is knowable to a higher degree than the variability of weather in Sheffield. Despite this I can confidently predict the overall climate for Sheffield within a reasonable range. There will be exceptions. The world is complex. Unlucky, deal with it. Both the approximations you mentioned above, the length of the day and the rainfall, become reasonable because 1) you have evidence that both these happen 2) you have real measurement data for both which you can refer and say this is how things have happened in the past and this is how things may play out in future--still it's only a prediction and nobody can be sure about it. Now in what way do you think the rate of mutation causing species change as assumed under TE becomes a reasonable assumption in comparison to your 2 examples above?

We can measure the rate of mutation per generation. This is easiest to do in a species which reproduces quickly like a bacteria but the data we have for humans is large rather than long and this can also be used.

The thing with the rate of mutation and the impact of it on the theory of evolution is that it is nearly unimportant just how quickly a species throws out new mutations in terms of the pressure of the environment causing the selection of the most suited to survive.

In normal conditions, all mutations are bad. The lion in Africa is already optimised to be the best lion. It's when conditions change that mutations can become advantagous. The lion in India has become silent and does not roar as a result of the hunting of man who has killed the niosiest and least shy lions. This process has happened at the rate determined by the rate of selection for this quietness and the rate of mutation amongst other factors. The rate of mutation may well be capable of doing it a lot faster than it has happened but the process took longer due to lots of events mostly involving human reasons.

For a better, more direct, more simple and obvious time referance the fossil record is the best guide as to the history of the natural world.

Apologies for the delay. Got tied up with other important matters..

Ron Webb wrote: My endorsement of the theory of evolution is based on the same "clear proof" that any court of law would accept to confirm my parentage. DNA establishes both beyond any reasonable doubt.

DNA evidence is not considered conclusive even beyond the first level of blood relations to establish human genetic lineage, and the accuracy diminishes with each level upwards. So how can something which cannot conclusively establish lineage within the species itself be a �clear proof� for the assumption of species changes through evolution?

And by the way your TMRCA doesn�t qualify as independent evidence as the model runs based on the assumptions under the very Theory of Evolution.

Ron Webb wrote: One would not normally expect direct observational evidence of evolution any more than one would expect direct observational evidence of my parentage.

If a theory by its very nature is incapable of being established through evidence, then it does not mean that everyone should accept it as fact.

Ron Webb wrote: Contemporary species are distinct, just as you and I are distinct individuals; but that doesn't imply any "barrier". Nobody is suggesting that contemporary species evolve into one another, any more than you or I might evolve into one another. No "barrier" is necessary or even logically meaningful.

I have no problems with theoretical concepts. All I am saying is these theoretical concepts are not substantiated by any evidence. Obviously there is a barrier separating each species in the contemporary world that they remain distinct always�now to suggest that time has the power to break such barriers doesn�t make sense unless you have some compelling evidence to substantiate such a claim�this is where evolution as a theory fails miserably.

Ron Webb wrote: There is a very obvious barrier preventing an aircraft flying to other planets -- millions of miles of vacuum. What is the barrier preventing the ancient eohippus gradually evolving through various stages (identified fairly arbitrarily as different "species" but in reality making a smooth transition) into the modern horse?

TE as a theory can say there is no barrier--but the problem is you see a barrier in contemporary species and there is no credible evidence that the barrier was broken any time in the past.

The eohippus to horse evolution is completely arbitrary with many errors. First, there is no way one can say for sure that different species represents links in a continuous chain of evolution�these are simply independent animals. Second, even the proposed chain leaves many contradictions like the proposed links appearing as contemporaries or even the upstream link appearing in more recent fossils compared to the downstream link.

Ron Webb wrote: We have plenty of evidence of stellar evolution. However, no one has continuously observed the entire process of the formation of a star from a giant cloud of gas to a supernova and beyond. Certainly no one has created a star in a laboratory. And the vast, vast majority of stars in the universe (like the vast majority of ancient species) will never be available to us for direct observation.Nonetheless: yes, I would say that the general theory of stellar evolution is universally and unanimously accepted. Nobody insists on direct observation (as you define it).

I think each theory should stand on its own merits. If stellar evolution has got evidence and that can stand critical analysis, then maybe it can stand the test of time. But that doesn�t mean that one should accept evolution as a fact with no evidence.

Ron Webb wrote: The theory of gravity, or more precisely the law of universal gravitation, is much much more than just apples falling to the earth. Really, do you think that Newton's reputation is based on such trivial observations?Prior to Newton, it was assumed that gravity was a force that drew objects downward toward the earth. Newton's great insight was to realize that gravitation is a universal force that exists between any two objects. And there was no direct observational evidence for that beyond our own planet until we started flying spacecraft past other celestial bodies. Nonetheless, nobody seriously doubted that gravitation was indeed universal.

I don�t understand what you mean by there was no observational evidence behind the theory of gravitation. It was Newton�s great insight that the force that caused an apple to fall down and the force that kept the moon in its orbit was the same. Thus the thought process behind the theory of gravitation itself was triggered as a natural outcome of an effort to explain some observed phenomena in the nature and then he could develop his thought process in to more concrete form through his laws which again could be tried and tested over and over again to make his theory in to a credible one. Even so, a theory of such stature was not spared from a critical analysis that Einstein came up with a serious modification to that theory.

But when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, it did not come as a natural outcome to explain some observed phenomena in the nature; rather it just came out as a theory wherein even Darwin was ready to acknowledge the fact that finding such large quantities of transitional fossils will be one of the biggest tasks to substantiate his theory�which unfortunately has never happened.

So basically in TE we have a theory that came in as a speculation, without any definite observed natural phenomena to explain, with the optimism that it can garner some evidence in its support in future�but that optimism has not come true so far.

Ron Webb wrote: I'm always open to a critical analysis of any scientific theory, if you had any evidence to support an alternate theory. But you'll have to do better than rejecting the scientific consensus just because the evidence doesn't meet your totally unrealistic and anti-scientific standard of "direct observation".

My rejection of the theory of evolution is based on the absence of any evidence to substantiate its claims:
1.     No large numbers of transitional fossils as expected
2.     No observational evidence
3.     No experimental evidence
4.     No laws to support the theory
5.     DNA evidence cannot establish genetic lineage with certainty even within a species itself beyond the first level of blood relations.
6.     TMRCA does not provide an independent proof as the model is based on the assumptions under the very theory of evolution

As I already mentioned, if a theory by its very nature is incapable of being established through evidence, then it does not mean that everyone should accept it as fact. But it�s absolutely your choice to consider a theory with no proof as fact with a reason that you don�t see (or maybe want to see) anything more reasonable to believe.

Quranexplorer wrote: Apologies for the delay. Got tied up with other important matters..

Yeah, and then I lost track of this discussion.  (Thanks to airmano for bumping it.)  I rely on the Active Topics feature to show me unread responses, but either I don't understand it or it doesn't always work reliably.

DNA evidence is not considered conclusive even beyond the first level of blood relations to establish human genetic lineage, and the accuracy diminishes with each level upwards.

You'll have to show me where you're getting your information.  There have been plenty of prominent examples of DNA establishing ancestry beyond the first level.  The discovery of Richard III's body was confirmed mainly by DNA matches to two living relatives 18 and 20 generations distant, and according to the researchers, "Even at it�s most conservative, the probability of Skeleton 1 being Richard III is 99.999%."  The remains of the family of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia were similarly identified, with DNA providing "virtually irrefutable evidence" from relatives as many as four of five generations apart.

And by the way your TMRCA doesn�t qualify as independent evidence as the model runs based on the assumptions under the very Theory of Evolution.

TMRCA ("time to most recent ancestor") is not evidence of anything.  You asked for a "universal law which links 2 different DNAs as a function of the assumptions made under the theory of evolution."  So I gave you one.  Yes, it's based on the theory -- just like you wanted.

Ron Webb wrote: One would not normally expect direct observational evidence of evolution any more than one would expect direct observational evidence of my parentage. If a theory by its very nature is incapable of being established through evidence, then it does not mean that everyone should accept it as fact.

There is abundant evidence, but you were asking for "direct observational evidence".  It's your distinction, not mine, so I wish you would pay attention to it.  It's getting kinda tedious the way you jump back and forth between the two.

I have no problems with theoretical concepts. All I am saying is these theoretical concepts are not substantiated by any evidence. Obviously there is a barrier separating each species in the contemporary world that they remain distinct always�now to suggest that time has the power to break such barriers doesn�t make sense unless you have some compelling evidence to substantiate such a claim�this is where evolution as a theory fails miserably.

You claim that contemporary species "remain distinct", and of course they will in future because they cannot interbreed.  But have they always remained distinct, even in the distant past?  Or were they once a single species that diverged over time?  It's a different question, not dependent on interbreeding.

The problem is that you're talking about two different definitions of "species".  The defining characteristic distinguishing contemporary species (the "barrier", if you will) is that they are incapable of interbreeding; but the question of interbreeding doesn't even make sense when considering two species separated by millions of years.

The eohippus to horse evolution is completely arbitrary with many errors. First, there is no way one can say for sure that different species represents links in a continuous chain of evolution�these are simply independent animals. Second, even the proposed chain leaves many contradictions like the proposed links appearing as contemporaries or even the upstream link appearing in more recent fossils compared to the downstream link.

There is no reason to suppose that the "links" have to disappear when the divergent species appear.  They could continue to exist, and even evolve, for millions of years.

I think each theory should stand on its own merits. If stellar evolution has got evidence and that can stand critical analysis, then maybe it can stand the test of time. But that doesn�t mean that one should accept evolution as a fact with no evidence.

Again, if you're going to distinguish "direct observational evidence" from evidence in general, then please do so consistently.  No one has continuously observed the entire process of stellar evolution, just as no one has continuously observed biological evolution over millions of years.  My point was that your demand for "direct observational evidence", as opposed to just plain old evidence, is unreasonable and not required in many other scientific disciplines.

I don�t understand what you mean by there was no observational evidence behind the theory of gravitation. It was Newton�s great insight that the force that caused an apple to fall down and the force that kept the moon in its orbit was the same.

But he had no way of directly observing this force, except as it applied to the single special case of objects being mysteriously drawn toward a point at the center of the earth.  He couldn't weigh the earth, or test the moon's gravitational field, or see what would happen to its orbit if the earth suddenly disappeared.  It was hundreds of years before we could do any sort of extraterrestrial experimentation; but the theory of gravity was  already well accepted.

But when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, it did not come as a natural outcome to explain some observed phenomena in the nature; rather it just came out as a theory ...

Seriously?  Darwin made no observations of nature?  You really ought to read his book "On the Origin of Species", which begins as follows: "When on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species�that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers."

...wherein even Darwin was ready to acknowledge the fact that finding such large quantities of transitional fossils will be one of the biggest tasks to substantiate his theory�which unfortunately has never happened.

Yeah, never happened.  Oh wait...

This is true that DNA test is done for identify the parental relationship with the particular person because without it identification of relation is not possible.