The code that is DNA

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'll concede that such a test is possible if you refer me to a paper on it. Until then I'll agree that it is commonly known how tomatoes reproduce (sexual reproduction), not that such information can be extracted from its genetic material.

[LadyForCamus]

Good god. What do you think evolution is?

Change.

Lol, okay, troll.

[Mister Agenda]

So unless he thinks change does not occur, he thinks evolution happens. Hurrah, agreement!

[John 6IX Breezy]

So unless he thinks change does not occur, he thinks evolution happens. Hurrah, agreement!

Pretty much. But of course, not all change is the same; therefore not all change is equally probable. If you think a bird can change into an iPhone on account evolution happening, it is an ecological fallacy, and we're bound to disagree.

[LadyForCamus]

What do we know so far?  We know that we have two genetically similar samples.  We know that we have a third dissimilar sample.  We know that all three share some characteristics, and we know that organisms get their genetic material from their parents.  Your own genetic material becomes yet another point of reference.  

Do you wish to contend that our tomatoes or green beans do not get their genetic material in the same manner..and is there any test that we might be able to devise to see whether or not this assertion is true or false, if so?

I know now that all three share some characteristic, and one is only partially different.

Again, if you don't tell me what test you're using to determine the origin of the genetic material, we can't proceed. Did the martial originate in a lab? Did it originate through the recombination of sexual reproduction? Did it originate through division/duplication as in bacteria? Did it originate through novel mutations? Did it originate through some process of abiogenesis?

Knowing where my genetic material comes from is as uninformative as knowing where I buy my clothes when guessing where you buy yours.

Remove the assumption of knowing anything beyond what the genetic material tells us, and we can proceed.

Wow, troll be trollin’ hard right now. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm on vacation; plus I enjoy teaching others.

[LadyForCamus]

Thanks. I needed a good laugh this morning.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

1 : the evolutionary history of a kind of organism. 2 : the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism.

Is there any reason to reject those basic and demonstrable facts of biology? If not, then we'll keep plugging along.

Are you genetically identical to your parents? Can you think of any test we might devise to ascertain whether or not that potential state of affairs is true, and if true, to what extant?

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm much more comfortable with a field loop and spectrometer, that's for sure.

A pedigree -is- a phylogeny.

1.
the record of descent of an animal, showing it to be purebred.
2.
the recorded ancestry, especially upper-class ancestry, of a person or family.

Is there any other reason to reject basic observable facts of biology, or can we fully move on to the issue of whether or not you are genetically identical to your parents. Unless you are, in fact, genetically identical to your parents, then an evolutionary change has occurred.