UyiIredia:


No. They shifted their aim from paternity claims within a species to phylogenies across species. They are cut off different clothes. I can see the logic in sequencing DNA to determine paternity but there is NIL evidence supporting DNA sequencing to build evolutionary phylogenies.

This is intellectual dishonesty. How do we use DNA to determine paternity? It is simply by looking at the genetic information contained in the DNA of the individuals concerned. We're simply measuring how similar this information is between both individuals. DNA information happens to be very precise. It is a sequential arrangement of bases which make up the DNA molecule. This information is copied from parent to offspring. The more identical the information is between two individuals, the more closely related they are. For instance, let's say A and B have a 99.9999999% dna match, and A and D have a 99.9999% match, therefore A and B are more closely related than A and D. In phylogeny, we simply go further—A and R then have a 99.9% match and so on. Does this mean A and R are unrelated simply because we have moved further? Of course not. A and R are only less related than A and B, but related nonetheless.

What you're saying is that A and R are unrelated just by virtue of the gap between them. In other words, you're only related to your father but not related to your great-great grandfather. DNA sequencing operates under a single principle, irrespective of the degree of divergence between organisms.

Another analogy, if seun asks you and I to write independently on the subject "humanity". And then when we turn out our respective essays, it is found out that both our first three paragraphs are exactly alike word for word, can it not then be established that we copied from each other or from a single source? Would it be logical to say we didn't copy from a single source at all because the remaining one or two paragraphs aren't exactly alike?

Human genes infused in fruit flies have produced the same effect as fruit fly genes. Do we and fruit flies belong to a single species? Why are our genes alike then?

UyiIredia:


There is no hard evidence for.evolutionary claims. All claims of hard evidence are simply bogus.

A classic case of living in denial. The evidence from DNA alone shows that evolution is a fact. A hard, fvcking fact just like gravity, electromagnetism, et al. Accept it or deny it, it doesn't change the fact.

Psalm 150:6. Let everything that breath praise The Lord!

UyiIredia:


This is just crap. Species no matter how much they change remain the same. Dogs are still dogs and cats are still cats. In light of this manifest fact it is foolish to insist on common Descent.

I hate it when people make ignorant claims against experimental evidence. Speciation has been observed in the lab.

You can't come to a public forum and expect to spew nonsense without getting called out.

Muafrika2:
It's a veiled insult to dehumanize Africans so that they can continue to take advantage of us.

Evolutionists believe that only Africans evolved from monkeys. The non Africans apparently evolved from other humans. There are white skinned monkeys, why don't white people evolve from them?

There may have been a little differentiation within species as a result of environment, nuclear or other forms of accidents. But evolution is more of a shaky theory than science. In fact, it's a philosophy.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

What evolutionary biology textbook did you read that gave you these nonsensical ideas? I find it very hard to believe that you have even read one book on this subject. Everything you said here is nonsense, and has not been claimed by ANY evolutionary biologist working in the field today, nor in any peer reviewed research journal, or by any modern professor evolutionary biology.

1. NO HUMAN EVOLVED FROM A MONKEY. EVER. Monkeys and humans are related via divergence from a common ancestor. This means that going back millions of years, you will find an animal that was neither "monkey" or "human", but possessed precursor traits that, with enough time and genetic alteration, would lead to different lineages including the monkey, the human, the chimpanzee, etc. Picture a tree stem with multiple branches extending from it. The root from which all the branches extend, represents the common ancestor.

2. ALL HUMANS AROSE FROM THE SAME COMMON ANCESTRAL SPECIES. I seriously have no idea where you heard that only Africans evolved (again, from this common ancestor, NOT monkeys). That's simply false. The first modern humans ALL originated in Africa - some remained, and some migrated into Asia & Europe, gradually evolving their own homogenous traits due to genetic isolation & new selective environments.

3. The only thing shaky here is your education on this topic, and I'm being serious. You seem to be thoroughly ignorant regarding evolutionary science, what it claims, how it works, what the evidence behind it is, etc. Please go and read more on this if you are truly interested in having any idea what you are talking about.

University of California at Berkeley has an entire web page dedicated to clearing common misconceptions about evolution, as well as a wealth of easy to understand materials explaining the science in depth. I suggest checking this out as a starting point.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php

McSterling:
This is intellectual dishonesty. How do we use DNA to determine paternity? It is simply by looking at the genetic information contained in the DNA of the individuals concerned. We're simply measuring how similar this information is between both individuals. DNA information happens to be very precise. It is a sequential arrangement of bases which make up the DNA molecule. This information is copied from parent to offspring. The more identical the information is between two individuals, the more closely related they are. For instance, let's say A and B have a 99.9999999% dna match, and A and D have a 99.9999% match, therefore A and B are more closely related than A and D. In phylogeny, we simply go further—A and R then have a 99.9% match and so on. Does this mean A and R are unrelated simply because we have moved further? Of course not. A and R are only less related than A and B, but related nonetheless.

What you're saying is that A and R are unrelated just by virtue of the gap between them. In other words, you're only related to your father but not related to your great-great grandfather. DNA sequencing operates under a single principle, irrespective of the degree of divergence between organisms.

Another analogy, if seun asks you and I to write independently on the subject "humanity". And then when we turn out our respective essays, it is found out that both our first three paragraphs are exactly alike word for word, can it not then be established that we copied from each other or from a single source? Would it be logical to say we didn't copy from a single source at all because the remaining one or two paragraphs aren't exactly alike?

Human genes infused in fruit flies have produced the same effect as fruit fly genes. Do we and fruit flies belong to a single species? Why are our genes alike then?

"Because the intelligent designer intentionally created some of our genes to be similar to fruit fly genes! that doesn't mean we are related! don't question the designer's methods!"

This is the best answer you can expect, just a heads up.

cloudgoddess:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong...

1. NO HUMAN EVOLVED FROM A MONKEY. EVER. Monkeys and humans are related via divergence from a common ancestor. This means that going back millions of years, you will find an animal that was neither "monkey" or "human", but possessed precursor traits that, with enough time and genetic alteration, would lead to different lineages including the monkey, the human, the chimpanzee, etc. Picture a tree stem with multiple branches extending from it. The root from which all the branches extend, represents the common ancestor...

Soo, it's not a monkey. But a monkeys relative? That's a relief. Sigh.

So what made that African animal you described above change that did not affect its relatives outside Africa

You are still evolving into a white woman, note how the colour and shape of the nose is changing... hope you are enjoying it,

cloudgoddess:

"Because the intelligent designer intentionally created some of our genes to be similar to fruit fly genes! that doesn't mean we are related! don't question the designer's methods!"

This is the best answer you can expect, just a heads up.

And they have not a shred of evidence for this. We should ditch evolution and adopt a mere assumption of theirs instead. Pathetic.

CoolUsername:


I hate it when people make ignorant claims against experimental evidence. Speciation has been observed in the lab.

You can't come to a public forum and expect to spew nonsense without getting called out.

You are the one spewing nonsense, making claims of speciation where there is none. In your link for example changes happen but the fruit flies still remain so. Compare this to the speciation that change apes into humans.

McSterling:
A classic case of living in denial. The evidence from DNA alone shows that evolution is a fact. A hard, fvcking fact just like gravity, electromagnetism, et al. Accept it or deny it, it doesn't change the fact.

Unsurprising from one living in ignorance DNA is just that and doesn't prove any phylogeny which is already assumed beforehand. It's not like it's DNA sequencing that was first used to establish phylogeny.

McSterling:
This is intellectual dishonesty. How do we use DNA to determine paternity? It is simply by looking at the genetic information contained in the DNA of the individuals concerned. We're simply measuring how similar this information is between both individuals. DNA information happens to be very precise. It is a sequential arrangement of bases which make up the DNA molecule. This information is copied from parent to offspring. The more identical the information is between two individuals, the more closely related they are. For instance, let's say A and B have a 99.9999999% dna match, and A and D have a 99.9999% match, therefore A and B are more closely related than A and D. In phylogeny, we simply go further—A and R then have a 99.9% match and so on. Does this mean A and R are unrelated simply because we have moved further? Of course not. A and R are only less related than A and B, but related nonetheless.

What you're saying is that A and R are unrelated just by virtue of the gap between them. In other words, you're only related to your father but not related to your great-great grandfather. DNA sequencing operates under a single principle, irrespective of the degree of divergence between organisms.

Another analogy, if seun asks you and I to write independently on the subject "humanity". And then when we turn out our respective essays, it is found out that both our first three paragraphs are exactly alike word for word, can it not then be established that we copied from each other or from a single source? Would it be logical to say we didn't copy from a single source at all because the remaining one or two paragraphs aren't exactly alike?

Human genes infused in fruit flies have produced the same effect as fruit fly genes. Do we and fruit flies belong to a single species? Why are our genes alike then?

You know what, I'm gonna mention a couple of facts. These facts are unassailable and stand against your precious theory. Here they are:

1) Species always reproduce after their like. Always. Dogs beget dogs and flies beget flies. They can never reproduce in such a way you get reptiles from fishes because they always reproduce after their like. This is what recorded history and daily observations show.

2) Random mutations usually degrade a genome and does not add meaningful new genetic information to it. Therefore you have nothing which could build new tissues and organs to evolve new lifeforms from previous ones. There are DNA error correction procedures that militate against random mutations precisely because of their harmful nature.

3) There is a limit to how much species change. And this limit ensures that species remain the same while varying within given parameters. That's why you can have great changes with designer dogs but you know that they are still dogs and not some new form of species. Species vary but it is VERY WRONG a la evolutionists to assume you can get humans from apes or vary dinosaurs into birds. Species always vary within limits. That's what we observe.

UyiIredia:


You know what, I'm gonna mention a couple of facts. These facts are unassailable and stand against your precious theory. Here they are:

1) Species always reproduce after their like. Always. Dogs beget dogs and flies beget flies. They can never reproduce in such a way you get reptiles from fishes because they always reproduce after their like. This is what recorded history and daily observations show.

2) Random mutations usually degrade a genome and does not add meaningful new genetic information to it. Therefore you have nothing which could build new tissues and organs to evolve new lifeforms from previous ones. There are DNA error correction procedures that militate against random mutations precisely because of their harmful nature.

3) There is a limit to how much species change. And this limit ensures that species remain the same while varying within given parameters. That's why you can have great changes with designer dogs but you know that they are still dogs and not some new form of species. Species vary but it is VERY WRONG a la evolutionists to assume you can get humans from apes or vary dinosaurs into birds. Species always vary within limits. That's what we observe.

I see how you've tacitly avoided the points I raised. Of course we all know organisms of a species beget organisms of same species. Nobody's arguing that. What we're actually arguing is that organisms who are not of the same species, organisms that are obviously very divergent, share same genes. As an example, I presented humans and fruit flies. We infuse human genes into fruit flies and we have the same results as the fruit fly genes. Why is this? Simple, we share same genes found in our DNA. These genes were copied from the common ancestor of humans and fruit flies, just like your genes were copied from your parents, and theirs from their parents and so on. You cannot accept just a part of DNA history. You gotta accept the full picture or reject everything. Phylogeny is the full picture. You cannot accept DNA information when it confirms kinship between you and a sibling and reject it when it confirms kinship between you and chimps or fruit flies.

Get your facts right. First off, know that inheritable mutations which have effects on evolution are germ line mutations. These mutations have a varied range of effects. Sometimes they cause no phenotypic changes, other times small phenotypic changes and at yet other times big phenotypic changes. DNA contains control genes. Control genes control the structure or morphology of organisms. When mutations occur in control genes, they lead to significant changes in organism morphology. This is what happens when fruit flies grow legs on their heads in place of antennas. Control genes called hox genes found in both fruit flies and humans, undergo mutation in fruit flies and the effect is legs on heads instead of antennas.

Speciation occurs in geologic time, spanning millions upon millions of years. You do not expect to observe millions of years, do you? Human lifetime is actually an infinitesimal fraction compared to geologic time. Geologists estimate the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years, while human civilization is less than 10,000 years. If you only believe what you observe, then why do you believe history? You certainly weren't there when history unfolded but you believe it nonetheless. We use relics from the past in order to understand history. It's the same principle in science. In this case however, the relics are found in the fossil record and in our DNA— relics from biological history are right there in your body!

UyiIredia:


You are the one spewing nonsense, making claims of speciation where there is none. In your link for example changes happen but the fruit flies still remain so. Compare this to the speciation that change apes into humans.

Ha ha!

If you're conversant with the meaning of the term 'species', you'll know that for animals, the species line is drawn where two populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

This is why I say you should read a little about a subject before trying to argue for or against it. You are disappointingly inept in this subject that you argue so much against.

Read a book.

CoolUsername:


Ha ha!

If you're conversant with the meaning of the term 'species', you'll know that for animals, the species line is drawn where two populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

This is why I say you should read a little about a subject before trying to argue for or against it. You are disappointingly inept in this subject that you argue so much against.

Read a book.

Case closed.

Muafrika2:

Evolutionists believe that only Africans evolved from monkeys. The non Africans apparently evolved from other humans.

Source? BTW, monkeys have a pale integument in general.

orisa37:
Chimpanzees are not humans. Humans were made on the sixth day with first class feelings, thinking .and
reasoning.

Pray tell, which day?

Though they don't feel, think and reason like humans, they act, interact and move as unto the Will, Life and Word of God. Psalm 150:6 "Let everything that breaths praise The Lord. What breaths is Life according to the Will and Word of God.

Weah96:


Source?

First, the out of Africa theory lays the basis. All pre humans were African. These some or whatever they call anatomically "modern" humans developed out of them.

The oldest remains of "anatomically correct humans" are African...

The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains found in modern-day East Africa, which date to 195,000 (±5,000) years ago and include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones.[5][6][7] Source - Wiki

That means, in other words, Africans are the pre-evolved version of non africans. Don't forget that populations were not evolving en masse. It was a genetic attribute developing in a person, family, clan, that made those people a superior breed that rose and went to conquer the world. The rest remained, probably interbreeding with less evolved versions of themselves coz, remember all the lessor evolved humans are by science/archeology restricted within Africa.

Then, these "anatomically modern" humans were the only humans who had evolved the intellectual capacity to migrate out of Africa...


Why did it take so long to leave Africa?

The extensive arid environments of northern Africa and the Middle East were a major barrier blocking movement out of Africa . Before they could spread out of Africa, our ancestors needed to develop physical and mental capabilities that would enable them to survive in these harsh environments where food and fresh water were highly seasonal resources. - See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-first-migrations-out-of-africa#sthash.Hj67HHps.dpuf


Interpretation;

The mentally challenged ones remained.

Outside there, they further intermarried with neanderthal and evolved into caucassians, Asians, et cetera. Never mind that nobody explains the origins of neanderthal, leading to another confusion.


Humans Emerged Much Earlier Than Thought

As for Neanderthals, "We're pretty sure that Neanderthals are an exclusively Eurasian species; there is no evidence for them in Africa," he shared.

The species that gave rise to Neanderthals remains a mystery for now. This puzzlement about them, and other Middle Pleistocene humans, is referred to as "the muddle in the middle," Collard said.
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/first-humans-out-of-africa-were-small-scrappy-150721.htm


In other words;

We modern Africans are the Africans who never developed enough intellect to migrate out of Africa, Where our migratory brothers developed "modern" features like a sharp nose, straight hair and light skin. In fact, the few Africans with any such features are mixed with more intelligent life form that was back migrating into Africa.

BTW, monkeys have a pale integument in general.

Exactly. And my argument is, white people should look at the the very caucassian looking monkeys as their origins too.


Am telling you, the theory of evolution was cooked by mortals with hidden agendas just like the rest of the western Ideals.