DNA Analysis proves evolution

For those that are still in doubt:
Here comes another good article:

Evolution

Airmano

Let me try to pick this from where it was left:

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

It should not be rocket science that with your ancestors growing in a geometric progression, the accuracy of establishing a precise genetic match at an individual level comes down as there are more contributors who could have passed a specific genetic material to you. And the hilarious part is that within a few thousand years you end up with more ancestors than you have sections of the DNA, meaning you have ancestors who have passed you some genetic material and who have not.

If that doesn�t help, here is the scientific sense from experts in the field of genetics itself why Genetic Ancestry Testing is nothing more than Genetic Astrology

You need to read those specific cases in detail, the genetic evidence here is nothing but based on a probabilistic and statistical genetic testing model based on the hypothesis that all the circumstantial evidences presented are correct and the individuals tested are genetically related. So the genetic testing does not have any meaning as independent evidence as clearly stated in the link above.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

TMRCA is not a law of science.

"A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements." (just google for this definition)

There are no experimental observations for TMRCA, but only a theory.

There is not even a universal statement to qualify TMRCA as a law.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

Of course it becomes tedious when you are asked to present something you clearly don�t have. The bottom line is apart from not having the experimental or observational evidence to support a theory, Theory of Evolution clearly fails to present any sort of credible evidence to support the kind of claims that it makes.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

As I have made it clear, I have no problems with theoretical claims. All I am saying is you have no evidence to support the claim that two distinct species as we see today are just separated by millions of years of evolution. The fossil evidence is clearly not there and as I mentioned above the DNA analysis cannot provide accurate information even about an individual�s ancestry beyond the first level.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

No problems with theoretical concepts. The problem starts when people start projecting these as facts with no credible evidence.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method." (Just google for this definition)

Now to make it more clear here is the meaning for �empirical�:

empirical
ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪm-/
adjective
1.     based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Now please present some evidence that meets the above criteria.

As you admit, there is clearly no observational or experimental evidence for TE. Moreover, the fossil evidence is clearly not there and as I mentioned above the DNA analysis cannot provide accurate information even about an individual�s ancestry beyond the first level.

So what is the evidence that you are talking about?

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

I don�t know how many times I have to repeat that Gravity clearly had the empirical evidence through Galileo�s experiment and the support of Newton�s laws of motion which again anybody can subject to experimental observation and see its effectiveness for themselves.

But no such thing for TE.

Ron Webb wrote: Seriously? Darwin made no observations of nature? You really ought to read his book "On the Origin of Species", which begins as follows: [COLOR="#006666"]"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."

Darwin�s observations are no way comparable to the theoretical concepts that he has presented in his Theory of Evolution. He or for the matter no one could have made some observations to the tune of things hypothesized in TE simply because TE assumes such changes happen in millions of years.

Ron Webb wrote: Yeah, never happened. Oh wait...

That sounds great! Out of roughly 8.7Million species in existence today, you got 24 transitional fossils (that is a great 0.0003%!), and that too not even one of those 24 presents a complete link showing the transition from one species to another.

We have no evolutionary evidence ?

How come that renowned scientists have now drawn a first draft of the tree of life

Strange: Airmano

Airmano, do you really understand the difference between a theoretical model and scientific evidence?

How can a theoretical model based on the theory can be the scientific evidence for that very theory?