RE: The code that is DNA
December 26, 2019 at 11:14 am
(This post was last modified: December 26, 2019 at 12:07 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(December 26, 2019 at 11:03 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Wonderful, so what do we know - based solely on direct observation which can be empirically tested for accuracy?
We know that each organism reproduces sexually, which is to say, that it gets it's genetic material from it's parents, and that each parent got it's genetic material from their parents, and so forth. We know that two of our samples have a stronger genetic relationship than the third, all three have a stronger genetic relationship to each other than to us, and that all four possess some genetic relationship.
What we have, is a basic phylogeny comprised solely of those facts which can be directly observed.
Is there any reason to reject those basic and demonstrable facts of biology? If not, then we'll keep plugging along.
You seem to know a lot of things that I doubt you would actually be able to know, if I handed you three strands of mysterious genetic material and whatever lab instruments you needed to analyze them. Not to mention, even if I concede to your entire scenario and all its assumptions, you're creating more of a pedigree than a phylogeny. As a simple demonstration, heredity still occurs if species are immutable; even in your unreferenced quotation, phylogeny requires an evolutionary history, not heredity by itself.
No, I'm not genetically identical to my parents.
