DNA Analysis proves evolution

Quranexplorer wrote: 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?

It never is.

The evidence that the theory is right is that it makes profound predictions that are correct. That these predictions can be tested and can be failed. The more that it is expected that the prediction will fail but does not the more profound and strong the theory.

example;

In 1687 (thanks google) Newton, the most profound scientist ever, published Principia Mathematica. It was almost unreadable but did have the relationship between force mass and acceleration in it. That is the basis of physics.

From it it is possable to predict the fall of an object. This was so shockingly radical that people made livings going around and doing shows where they would have lead balls rolling down slopes above a drop and use maths to predict the point that they would land on on the floor. People were not used to the very idea that the world was predictable in this way.

Obviusly the artillery officers of the day were impressed by this and made use of it. The guys doing the stage shows soon found that they made a lot more money advising on other stuff and the consultant engineer was born.

Airmano,

So do you have some empirical evidence to suggest it is anything more than a theoretical model?

Tim the plumber wrote: [COLOR="#000099"]DNA does prove evolution. By understanding the way DNA transmitts information to the next generation you can understand the ancestry of the person/animal/plant/fungus whatever. That you cannot say precisley which particular individuals were an ancester at 100 generations back does not change the fact that you can be certain that it was him or somebody closely related to him. Thus King Richard of York's body was identified with a very high level of certainty, not quite 100% but very close. The destinctive hunch back, huge frame, battle damage and location providing the rest of the evidence.

DNA does not prove evolution. Let me explain you:

There are 2 aspects here: 1) The accuracy of DNA predictions and 2) Testing of DNA based evolution predictions.

1) The accuracy of DNA predictions: What you do in a DNA analysis is you make a prediction on one's ancestry by matching the genetic components and you see that the prediction matches almost 100% with the fact if you are testing two individuals in a first level connection in the chain. But the accuracy comes down with each level upwards and at some point you see that you end up with more ancestors than you have sections of the DNA which means the only way you can make a prediction is by way of a guesstimate.

Tim the plumber wrote: For species where the difference you are looking for is greater it is much easier to do this. Thus it is understood how many (ish) generations there have been between dolphins and killer whales being one interbreeding population. The reson this proves evolution, and here I use prove in the sense that it proves well beyond the level of proof of a legal case but less than a maths proof, is that evolution was written before the mechanism was know. Evolutionary theory predicted that there would be a mechanism and that it would work in a way that resulted in results that evolutionary theory predicted. It does.

2) Testing of DNA based evolution predictions: You have already seen that DNA analysis itself is a guesstimate beyond the first level. Now what you do in a DNA based evolution prediction is you form a theoretical model based on ET adding more guesstimated variables including the mutation rate and then come to a super guesstimated figure which you call the TMRCA.

So ultimately what you have in a DNA based evolution prediction is all guesstimates upon guesstimates with absolutely no empirical evidence.

Now how can one with some minimum level of understanding even think in his wildest dreams that DNA proves evolution?

I am getting more and more convinced that it is really a matter of choice what people like to believe. Otherwise how can someone who relies on his reason as the only way to find truth come up with such made-up stories of �DNA Analysis Proves Evolution� when the facts and normal human reason clearly proves �DNA Analysis Does Not Prove Evolution"?


Edited by Quranexplorer - 03 October 2015 at 11:47am

Quranexplorer wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: [COLOR="#000099"]DNA does prove evolution. By understanding the way DNA transmitts information to the next generation you can understand the ancestry of the person/animal/plant/fungus whatever. That you cannot say precisley which particular individuals were an ancester at 100 generations back does not change the fact that you can be certain that it was him or somebody closely related to him. Thus King Richard of York's body was identified with a very high level of certainty, not quite 100% but very close. The destinctive hunch back, huge frame, battle damage and location providing the rest of the evidence. DNA does not prove evolution. Let me explain you: There are 2 aspects here: 1) The accuracy of DNA predictions and 2) Testing of DNA based evolution predictions. 1) The accuracy of DNA predictions: What you do in a DNA analysis is you make a prediction on one's ancestry by matching the genetic components and you see that the prediction matches almost 100% with the fact if you are testing two individuals in a first level connection in the chain. But the accuracy comes down with each level upwards and at some point you see that you end up with more ancestors than you have sections of the DNA which means the only way you can make a prediction is by way of a guesstimate. Tim the plumber wrote: For species where the difference you are looking for is greater it is much easier to do this. Thus it is understood how many (ish) generations there have been between dolphins and killer whales being one interbreeding population. The reson this proves evolution, and here I use prove in the sense that it proves well beyond the level of proof of a legal case but less than a maths proof, is that evolution was written before the mechanism was know. Evolutionary theory predicted that there would be a mechanism and that it would work in a way that resulted in results that evolutionary theory predicted. It does. 2) Testing of DNA based evolution predictions: You have already seen that DNA analysis itself is a guesstimate beyond the first level. Now what you do in a DNA based evolution prediction is you form a theoretical model based on ET adding more guesstimated variables including the mutation rate and then come to a super guesstimated figure which you call the TMRCA. So ultimately what you have in a DNA based evolution prediction is all guesstimates upon guesstimates with absolutely no empirical evidence. Now how can one with some minimum level of understanding even think in his wildest dreams that DNA proves evolution? I am getting more and more convinced that it is really a matter of choice what people like to believe. Otherwise how can someone who relies on his reason as the only way to find truth come up with such made-up stories of �DNA Analysis Proves Evolution� when the facts and normal human reason clearly proves �DNA Analysis Does Not Prove Evolution"?

No you are misunderstanding the way in which DNA shows which species have common ancestors.

In a protein the big molecule has a small active bit which does the work and a load of scaffolding which supports the working bit. This scaffoulding is arranged by the cell using the DNA to tell it how to do it just as is the active bit of the protein.

The active bit of the molecule is forced, generally, to not change because any mutation in it will cause it to not work. The rest, the "junk DNA", can have mutations and this will not, generally, effect the functioning of the cell and thus the survival of the creature.

If the way the DNA for an enzine which is in an oak tree is the same in it's active bit as in an apple tree but the scaffolding is slightly altered it is reasonable to see that they have a common ancestor. This one piece of evidence is not at all strong. It takes a few hundred before absolute certainty is reached. The DNA of these trees has millions of such similarities which are the result of them evolving from the same species of tree.

Why are you so hung up on evolution? It is surely geology and geography which show the age of the world. Astronomy shows the age of the universe. These are the sceinces which show that the Bible is wrong in it's story of creation. I take it the Koran is similar?