On the topic of a shared origin.

You do know where babies come from right ?

I come from my parents. Half of my genes from my father, half from my mother. It's more complicated than that but this is the simplified version.

My father's genes. Half from his father, half from his mother.
My mother's genes. Half from her father, half from her mother.

My cousins and I share one set of grandparents.
We have a shared origin.

If we go back many many generations, every person on this forum will have a great great great great ....grandparent in common.

We are all distantly related and this can be demonstrated genetically.

As an example of ancestry, every US president are distant cousins. President Obama and President Bush are 10th cousins, once removed, linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662. He is also cousins to Presidents Ford, Johnson, Truman and James Madison.

He's linked to all of them but these are the ones we can historically show a link of lineage to.

We can also show the percentage of DNA that we have in common with great apes, with monkeys, with fish, with apples or any plant life.

We can create phylogenetic trees from several different disciplines in science that will independently confirm the same connection.

Marsupials, as far as we can tell, originated in N. America..but they didn't ride to australia on the back of any continental shift. Just fun info. We're not actually sure how they got to OZ...but however they did it, it must have been pretty goddamned amazing for a bunch of rats with a skin problem.

Anyway, finding new species is one thing.,.and we do it all the time, but species are very nearly the bottom rung of a common lineage, so I;m not sure why you would think that had a modifying effect on notions of common descent?

At the end of the day, we're pretty sure that all life is related for the exact same reasons that we can point to a baby daddy on springer. Doubting common descent is necessarily claiming that paternity tests don't work. You ready to go out on that limb for Jesus, John?

(December 18, 2019 at 12:39 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Marsupials, as far as we can tell, originated in N. America..but they didn't ride to australia on the back of any continental shift. Just fun info. We're not actually sure how they got to OZ...but however they did it, it must have been pretty goddamned amazing for a bunch of rats with a skin problem.

Anyway, finding new species is one thing.,.and we do it all the time, but species are very nearly the bottom rung of a common lineage, so I;m not sure why you would think that had a modifying effect on notions of common descent?

At the end of the day, we're pretty sure that all life is related for the exact same reasons that we can point to a baby daddy on springer. Doubting common descent is necessarily claiming that paternity tests don't work. You ready to go out on that limb for Jesus, John?

Marsupials got to Oz on Finnegan’s Ark.

It was a precursor to Noah’s Ark but earlier.

And built by Finnegan.

Obviously.

(December 18, 2019 at 12:39 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: At the end of the day, we're pretty sure that all life is related for the exact same reasons that we can point to a baby daddy on springer. Doubting common descent is necessarily claiming that paternity tests don't work. You ready to go out on that limb for Jesus, John?

There's nothing particularly interesting about phylogenies. It's just a matching game with a lot of assumptions. You have spots and stripes, I have stripes and no spots, so we hypothesize a common ancestor with stripes. It's the same concept at the genetic level. The geneticist spreads out our genome, aligns it at their discretion, sees that you have sequence TTAG but I have sequence CCAG, and then hypothesize a common ancestor with sequence --AG.

I don't know anything about paternity tests; but we have access to a parent's DNA, that alone makes the comparison with phylogeny problematic. Or do you have access to the first living organism's DNA/RNA, so we can run a quick paternity test? If so I retract my position.

It wouldn't matter that we had access to the parents dna, or to the first human beings dna..unless shared dna strongly suggested™ a shared lineage. If that weren't true, then no amount of access to the dna of either party would be relevant to any paternity test. It is precisely because we have such access that we figured out that law of genetics - called "heredity".

I underestimated your willingness to be a dunce for christ. That was a spectacularly idiotic play on -were you there?-. If we're being honest, you and I both know that nothing in all of gods creation would make you retract your "position", lol.

My mistake, won't happen again. This one goes out to you and Yukon, I guess. I find it amazing that neither of you can allow your god to be bigger than the wizard you have in mind. That neither of you can fathom a diety or a universe so well beyond your ability to comprehend or appreciate that it managed to do all of this -exactly as we see all of this happening, no caveats-. The two of you are supposed to be the ones who do believe in gods.....but you just can't bring yourselves to do it.

WTF is that?

(December 17, 2019 at 9:26 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(December 17, 2019 at 9:15 am)Fierce Wrote: Never mistake an answer of I don't know with ignorance, because the one who claims to already know the answer on religious grounds has no validity of knowledge.

I think Feynman said something like "I prefer to say that I don't know, than to have answers that might be wrong."

Richard Feynman Wrote:You see, one thing is: I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knoing than to have answers which might be wrong

Quote:There's nothing particularly interesting about phylogenies. It's just a matching game with a lot of assumptions. You have spots and stripes, I have stripes and no spots, so we hypothesize a common ancestor with stripes. It's the same concept at the genetic level. The geneticist spreads out our genome, aligns it at their discretion, sees that you have sequence TTAG but I have sequence CCAG, and then hypothesize a common ancestor with sequence --AG.

Face palm
Creationist just love demeaning actual science and display their simplistic understanding of it.Assumption is the term they abuse most.

---

(December 18, 2019 at 1:31 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: It wouldn't matter that we had access to the parents dna, or to the first human beings dna..unless shared dna strongly suggested™ a shared lineage.  If that weren't true, then no amount of access to the dna of either party would be relevant to any paternity test.  It is precisely because we have such access that we figured out that law of genetics - called "heredity".

I underestimated your willingness to be a dunce for christ.  That was a spectacularly idiotic play on -were you there?-.  If we're being honest, you and I both know that nothing in all of gods creation would make you retract your "position", lol.

My mistake, won't happen again.  This one goes out to you and Yukon, I guess.  I find it amazing that neither of you can allow your god to be bigger than the wizard you have in mind.  That neither of you can fathom a diety or a universe so well beyond your ability to comprehend or appreciate that it managed to do all of this -exactly as we see all of this happening, no caveats-.  The two of you are supposed to be the ones who do believe in gods.....but you just can't bring yourselves to do it.

WTF is that?

True

Are we confusing 'assumptions' and 'testable hypotheses' again? Like we can't compare organisms that we KNOW are related because we bred them to learn how to use genomes to measure relatedness? I think a confirmed hypothesis is way more reliable than an assumption.

(December 17, 2019 at 1:46 am)SUNGULA Wrote:

Quote:Sungula said that Tour created a straw man so please explain.

I stand by my last statement

What is Tour’s straw man? You threw it out there so can you defend it?

Oh no, we're arguing about arguing.