DNA Analysis proves evolution

Ron Webb wrote: No, it's the opposite problem. It's not that you cannot get a match at distances of hundreds of generations. The problem is that you almost cannot fail to get a match, because practically everybody is related to everybody.For instance, DNA analysis might suggest that an individual may be a direct descendent of the Queen of Sheba; but then, the same test would also give high confidence that he or she is related to Sheba's sister and mother and second cousin twice removed, not to mention their servants and their hair stylists -- all of which is probably true, but so what?

It is simple logic that at an ancestry population that exceeds your DNA components you cannot have a one to one match using a DNA component simply because there could be some who could have passed a specific DNA component to you and some who have not.

An empirical test that suggests all the alternatives as true is as good (or say bad) as an empirical test that cannot give any true result--which is exactly the case with DNA analysis when used to test TE.

And that is precisely the reason the DNA evidence you claim for TE is at best still a guesstimate.

Ron Webb wrote: But it has been substantiated by countless observations. In every case where it is possible to directly observe a famiy relationship, the DNA predictions align nicely with actual observations. What you're saying is that because we can't directly observe populations over millions of years, therefore this otherwise well-substantiated theory no longer applies. I'm sorry, but I think you need to make that case. Why wouldn't it apply?Science does this all the time. Spectral analysis is a well-established methodology for determining chemical constituents of substances. We have countless observations here on earth confirming the technique. We also use the technique to find the chemical constituents of stars millions of light-years away, although we have no "direct observational evidence" to corroborate it at that distance, i.e. nobody has actually dipped a test tube in the stellar atmosphere and brought it back to a lab. But nobody seriously doubts the reliability of spectral analysis of stars.

The reason I am saying TE has never been proved is because there is not a single empirical evidence that has tested the entire scope of TE which in very simple terms theorizes the millions of different species that are in existence today as a result of some basic life form(s) (and don't ask where this basic life form(s) came from!) undergoing the process of evolution. All the evidences that you claim are simple extrapolations of a partial observation without any scientific base for such extrapolation. It is possible to establish an empirical evidence for a family relationship within a species to a limited length using DNA, but this fails at increased lengths within the species itself and there is no scientific base to extrapolate this DNA relations to support a species change.

Contrary to the DNA analysis for TE, we can clearly see that spectral analysis as an empirical method is able to test the full scope of what is to be tested--it can determine the chemical constituents fully and there is no need for further guesstimates or extrapolations to match its results with what is observed. It is this ability of spectral analysis to produce consistent true test results for the entire scope of its test subject that gives people confidence on this method.

But DNA analysis at first place have not tested the entire scope of TE even in one case, and as an empirical method cannot even produce consistent test results even within a species, which only forms a partial scope of what TE covers.

Ron Webb wrote: You're conflating individual instances, which are random, with the overall rate of mutation, which is fairly constant. This is known as the fallacy of composition.

Still that's a guesstimate. I really don't understand your concept of a variable at an individual level that necessarily remains random, how on earth that can become a non guesstimate when combined at a population level?

The fallacy of composition talks about the fallacy in assuming something true at a whole level to be true for each part. Here you have no idea what you assume at the whole level is true in first place, and the whole is only a guesstimate derived by combining a number of individual guesstimates.

Ron Webb wrote: Why not? No serious nuclear physicist doubts the existence of quarks or neutrinos, none of which have been directly observed. No geologist questions that the earth has an iron core, although that has never been directly observed. And I could go on.===P.S.:

So are you saying people have just accepted these as facts without any empirical evidence, as you suggest to do with TE?

As I have mentioned before, I think each theory should stand on its own merits. If people seriously doubts the empirical evidences for a theory then it should be open for discussions rather than just trying to jump to conclusions saying some thing has been "proved" when it is not proved scientifically.

Ron Webb wrote: In other words, if you start by assuming your conclusion, then you don't have to prove anything. mileys/smiley36.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="LOL" />

Science can never disprove an ultimate creator. In spite of that you start by assuming there is no creator. There itself one makes a choice and goes against the "reason as the only way of guidance" argument.

Even if one chooses reason as the only way of guidance, he acknowledges the fact that there is no guarantee that his reason will guide him to the truth simply because the best of human minds have still been unsuccessful in reasoning out the universe, let alone the concept of a creator--and there is no reason to believe man will achieve this "perfect knowledge on everything" at some point in time. That is perfectly the reason why a "only reason" based proponent remains in a constant state of doubt.

Whereas for a true believer, he's out of the state of doubt from the very moment he submits to the will of Allah. And once he approaches the Quran with true submission to Allah, any trace of doubt he may have regarding the ultimate creator also gets cleared. Now for him it's only a matter of how he can get closer to Allah each day, and that is by way of living a righteous life in this world. And as Allah asks in the beautiful Surah Ar-Rahman (55:60) "Is the reward of goodness aught save goodness?". So a true believer has nothing to loose, except the so called pleasures of this world, which if one understands truly, can only increase the turbulence in one's life as he gets more and more immersed in it.

Even a simple risk assessment should help one make the right choice--would you deny a creator without any clear proof just because your pride doesn't allow you to accept a creator whose wisdom exceeds yours, in spite of the terrible consequences one will have to face for such willful misconduct, OR would you prefer to submit to the will of an ultimate creator whose words are there to guide you, and all what you have to do is to live a righteous life with a promise of a reward that far exceeds your righteous deeds?

So ultimately it boils down to the choice each one makes about his life and time is of the essence for this whole thing. Choose wisely and time will tell who is a better believer.

Quranexplorer wrote: It is simple logic that at an ancestry population that exceeds your DNA components you cannot have a one to one match using a DNA component simply because there could be some who could have passed a specific DNA component to you and some who have not.

Agreed, but we're not trying to do a one-to-one match.  We're matching populations.  Yes, there could have been a particular individual's DNA introduced at some point in the genetic history of another individual, which has left no genetic markers.  But that doesn't matter.  We're analysing the markers that are there; and those markers show common ancestry with chimps etc.

An empirical test that suggests all the alternatives as true is as good (or say bad) as an empirical test that cannot give any true result--which is exactly the case with DNA analysis when used to test TE.

If you're trying to pinpoint a specific individual ancestor, yes.  If you're simply asking how long ago two living persons shared a common ancestor, then the test works the same whether it's one generation ago or a thousand.  The fact that the answer is always true in the latter case simply means that all humans share common ancestors if you go back far enough -- no surprise there.  The surprise is that going back hundreds of thousands of generations, we discover that we also share common ancestry with other apes.

The reason I am saying TE has never been proved is because there is not a single empirical evidence that has tested the entire scope of TE which in very simple terms theorizes the millions of different species that are in existence today as a result of some basic life form(s) (and don't ask where this basic life form(s) came from!) undergoing the process of evolution.

The entire scope??  You mean you won't be convinced until we've DNA-sequenced every single species on earth?  That could take a while...

Contrary to the DNA analysis for TE, we can clearly see that spectral analysis as an empirical method is able to test the full scope of what is to be tested--it can determine the chemical constituents fully and there is no need for further guesstimates or extrapolations to match its results with what is observed. It is this ability of spectral analysis to produce consistent true test results for the entire scope of its test subject that gives people confidence on this method.

We are not able to confirm that spectral analysis works over millions of light-years distance, any more than we are able to confirm that DNA analysis works over millions of generations of time.  But of course there is no reason to suppose that it wouldn't, in either case.  If you want to argue that the extrapolation is unreliable, you need to come up with a theory to explain why it might be unreliable.

And you can't argue that it is unreliable because we can't distinguish individuals at a distance of millions of generations.  That's like saying spectral analysis is unreliable if we can't distinguish individual molecules at great distances.  We're not trying to do that.

Still that's a guesstimate. I really don't understand your concept of a variable at an individual level that necessarily remains random, how on earth that can become a non guesstimate when combined at a population level?

We can't precisely know the kinetic energy of a single molecule in a cloud of gas (if only because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).  However, we can measure very precisely the average kinetic energy of the entire cloud.  We call that the "temperature" of the gas.

So are you saying people have just accepted these as facts without any empirical evidence, as you suggest to do with TE?

I'm saying no one has ever directly observed a neutrino, or the earth's core.  We have plenty of empirical evidence of other kinds.

Science can never disprove an ultimate creator. In spite of that you start by assuming there is no creator. There itself one makes a choice and goes against the "reason as the only way of guidance" argument.

I am assuming no Creator, unless/until someone can provide evidence of His existence.  In the same way that I assume the non-existence of Russell's Celestial Teapot, the Tooth Fairy, and Big Foot.  Without applying Occam's Razor to such unsubstantiated claims, the world would very quickly become overcrowded with all sorts of bizarre imaginary entities which could neither be proven nor disproven.

Even if one chooses reason as the only way of guidance, he acknowledges the fact that there is no guarantee that his reason will guide him to the truth simply because the best of human minds have still been unsuccessful in reasoning out the universe, let alone the concept of a creator--and there is no reason to believe man will achieve this "perfect knowledge on everything" at some point in time. That is perfectly the reason why a "only reason" based proponent remains in a constant state of doubt.

There is also no guarantee that reason will guide you to the true God, or the true faith.  Unfortunately, reason is all we have.

Whereas for a true believer, he's out of the state of doubt from the very moment he submits to the will of Allah.

I suppose one could eliminate doubt by abandoning reason and adopting an arbitrary faith, but that is not the way to truth.  Anyway, why do you want to be "out of the state of doubt"?  Doubt is just another word for wonder.  Why would you want the world to be less wonderful than it is?

So a true believer has nothing to loose, except the so called pleasures of this world, which if one understands truly, can only increase the turbulence in one's life as he gets more and more immersed in it.

It seems to me that most of the turbulence in the modern world is caused by "true believers" of one kind or another.

Even a simple risk assessment should help one make the right choice--would you deny a creator without any clear proof just because your pride doesn't allow you to accept a creator whose wisdom exceeds yours, in spite of the terrible consequences one will have to face for such willful misconduct, OR would you prefer to submit to the will of an ultimate creator whose words are there to guide you, and all what you have to do is to live a righteous life with a promise of a reward that far exceeds your righteous deeds?

Gosh, why do theists keep harping on this "pride" thing?  If anything, it seems to me that it is the "true believers" who are motivated by pride.  I am content to admit that there are many things about the world that I just don't know.  I don't pretend to have any mystical insights or superior knowledge that I can't prove.  That would be false pride.

As for Pascal's Wager, it doesn't work for two reasons.  First is the obvious one: I can't choose to believe something that just doesn't make sense to me, and pretending to have a belief that I don't actually have is not going to fool an omniscient God for a moment.  If anything my hypocrisy might make Him even angrier.

Besides, how do we know that God even wants us to believe in Him?  It seems to me that if an omnipotent God truly wanted me to believe, He would have no difficulty convincing me of His existence.  On the contrary, He seems to keep a remarkably low profile.

Perhaps it's just the opposite.  Perhaps He is like a researcher running a psychology experiment.  It is important that the subjects of the experiment are not aware that their behaviour is being monitored and manipulated, because that awareness would distort the results.

Maybe God wants to see who will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, and not because of any imagined rewards or punishments in some afterlife.  Maybe He will be angry with you because you are pretending to know Him and trying to tell others about Him. Maybe you are ruining His experiment.

QE: The reason I am saying TE has never been proved is because there is not a single empirical evidence that has tested the entire scope of TE which in very simple terms theorizes the millions of different species that are in existence today as a result of some basic life form(s) (and don't ask where this basic life form(s) came from!) undergoing the process of evolution.

Because biogenesis is not within the scope for the theory of evolution.
It is like trying to invalidate Quantum Mechanics by saying it doesn't say anything about relativistic effects (and vice versa), or trying to "invalidate the Quran" by claiming it doesn't contain any information about Quarks and solar neutrinos.


Airmano


@Tim: For the quotes you have to put the keyword "[Quote]" (in squared brackets) in front of your citation and the same after your citation with a slash "/" in front of the word "Quote" .   


Edited by airmano - 19 October 2015 at 12:28am

airmano wrote: QE: The reason I am saying TE has never been proved is because there is not a single empirical evidence that has tested the entire scope of TE which in very simple terms theorizes the millions of different species that are in existence today as a result of some basic life form(s) (and don't ask where this basic life form(s) came from!) undergoing the process of evolution. Because biogenesis is not within the scope for the theory of evolution. It is like trying to invalidate Quantum Mechanics by saying it doesn't say anything about relativistic effects (and vice versa), or trying to "invalidate the Quran" by claiming it doesn't contain any information about Quarks and solar neutrinos. Airmano

Interestingly evolutionary theory is actually very useful in understanding the origins of life from more simple chemicals. Indeed the point at which you call something life or not life is very hard to pin down.

https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life?language=en

I found it a very good talk and very mind expanding. Good stuff. And only 5 chemicals! Imagine the possibilities on the early earth.


[Quote]@Tim: For the quotes you have to put the keyword "[Quote]" (in squared brackets) in front of your citation and the same after your citation with a slash "/" in front of the word "Quote" .   /[Quote]

Like that? Er, no... 


Edited by Tim the plumber - 20 October 2015 at 5:34am