Oof..from an intelligent design website?

(August 19, 2016 at 9:40 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Is the implication that we would not share common ancestry with primates?  I think that is what I am reading.  Our resident biologist TheRocketSurgeon could probably inject some wisdom on the matter.  I haven't seen him around lately.

I think that's the implication. But you would not use a paternity test to see if you were related to a primate because that is not what its for.

Yeah...inherited viral DNA insertions are kind of a smoking gun, no paternity test required.

(August 19, 2016 at 9:40 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Is the implication that we would not share common ancestry with primates?  I think that is what I am reading.  Our resident biologist TheRocketSurgeon could probably inject some wisdom on the matter.  I haven't seen him around lately.

RS had a dispute with staff and is no longer here (I think a couple of months now). Many on this blog do question shared common ancestry to one extent or another (hence the name). But I don't think the implication is that common ancestry with primates is false, as much as questioning tests, that should give similar results, if the theory is correct.

Sorry, posted in the wrong thread.

(August 19, 2016 at 9:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yeah...inherited viral DNA insertions are kind of a smoking gun, no paternity test required.

ERVs for the win
also, DNA viruses.

(August 19, 2016 at 9:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yeah...inherited viral DNA insertions are kind of a smoking gun, no paternity test required.

There are questions there as well, but that is another topic.

(August 19, 2016 at 9:48 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(August 19, 2016 at 9:40 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Is the implication that we would not share common ancestry with primates?  I think that is what I am reading.  Our resident biologist TheRocketSurgeon could probably inject some wisdom on the matter.  I haven't seen him around lately.

I think that's the implication. But you would not use a paternity test to see if you were related to a primate because that is not what its for.

The answer to your question was here.  If we use a camera to try and record some noises in the woods...we shouldn't be surprised to find that the -camera- seems to be telling us that there are no noises in the woods.

In paternity tests, they only isolate certain markers in human genome. For research uses, they use the full genome. These isolated markers are used for next of kin confirmation and are genes specific to humans. It is obvious why they can't be used for philogenetics purposes.

Its like trying to use carbon 14 to measure the age of the earth.

(August 19, 2016 at 9:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Quote:Paternity tests do not use the same DNA sequences that phylogenetics use. The DNA sequence(s) that demonstrate paternity wouldn’t show any relationship to chimps.

A paternity test would not show paternity with a chimp, because a chimp is not paternally related to you, and that's sort of the point: what use would a paternity test even have if things that were not the father could still get positive results? If a chimp could get one, then so could any given human.

See, the trouble is that the question is malformed: while paternity tests do look only at specific sequences, the reason for this is that they're looking for completely different things, in this case duplicate sequences within the parent's DNA and the child's, while the full genome sequencing that shows a relationship between humans and primates look at the overall sequence for similarities. The basis for the former is that since DNA is derived from equal material from the two parents, a given child should have specific identical sequences with either parent. The basis for the latter is that overall similarity between two given complete genomes shows an ancestral relationship between the two species, since every observation we have bears this out.

So yes, a paternity test would not establish a relationship to chimps, which is trivial, because your parent was not a chimp. Using this as evidence against evolution, though- and I know it's not you doing this, Roadrunner- would be roughly akin to saying that fridges don't work because you can't cook a turkey dinner in one. It's asking the tool to do something it's completely unfit to do.