[_ Old Earth _] Assuming science can't show genetic descent through DNA...

[Jayls5]

By implication, are you saying that paternity tests and DNA comparison tests for ancestral origin are inapplicable?

Fairly simple question.

 

[BobRyan]

Don't know who this question is to -- but just for clarification...

do you mean to ask for "paternity" across species (Darwinism) ??? OR within a species (real life)

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Don't know who this question is to -- but just for clarification...

do you mean to ask for "paternity" across species (Darwinism) ??? OR within a species (real life)

Bob

Both. Why is one fundamentally different than the other? You can see the genetic parts passed down. It's the exact same concept with more variation across species. I guess I'm asking you: at what point does ancestral genetic testing become "invalid" by your standards? What qualifications?

You must either admit the test doesn't apply at all, or explain at what point it wouldn't apply (and why this would be the case).

 

[BobRyan]

In the case of Paternity -- there is genetic test for a biological father WITHIN a species.

There is NO positive results for a biological father occuring in nature ACROSS species. Much worse for Darwinists since they propose the pure fiction that BOTH father and mother are "species-A" but child is "species-B".

Indeed that is not even possible given the variation in genes that exist across species being much wider than the genetic variation inside a species for a given child between father and cousin.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

In the case of Paternity -- there is genetic test for a biological father WITHIN a species.

There is NO positive results for a biological father occuring in nature ACROSS species. Much worse for Darwinists since they propose the pure fiction that BOTH father and mother are "species-A" but child is "species-B".

Indeed that is not even possible given the variation in genes that exist across species being much wider than the genetic variation inside a species for a given child between father and cousin.

Bob

Bob, this isn't just about paternity tests. Obviously you aren't going to take a paternity test for different species. That's ridiculous. The paternity test was mentioned to show another method we do accept as genetic testing to show biological origin, even if it's only on a small scale.

Reread the original post, and you will notice I was also talking about genetic tests for ancestral origin, which are widely regarded as acceptable. Perhaps you will address that instead of only talking about paternity tests?

 

[BobRyan]

So then you want to equivocate between paternity tests WITHIN a species and "stories about similar genetic structur" across species?

So for example - we observe that humans have 46 chromosomes as does the Hare and that apes have 48 chromosomes as does Tobbacco and then start telling stories about it? (Not sure if this is really where you are going with this).

But in case you are -- remember that John M. on this area of the board already pointed us to this very informative eye-witness video of Darwinists making similar arguments.

Evols relating bananas to Dogs!
AND claiming there is no difference between breeding dogs (micro-variation within a species) and reptiles breeding birds (macro-evolution) -- given enough application of "billions" and imaginary fossil sequences of course.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk


Bob

 

[Barbarian]

So then you want to equivocate between paternity tests WITHIN a species and "stories about similar genetic structur" across species?

So for example - we observe that humans have 46 chromosomes as does the Hare and that apes have 48 chromosomes as does Tobbacco and then start telling stories about it? (Not sure if this is really where you are going with this).

That involves a rather instructive set of events that points up the reason why scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution. Humans and chimps seem to be very closely related, and yet humans have one pair less. How could this be? Geneticists hypothesized that there must have been a chromosome fusion, in which two became one in humans.

Just a hypothesis, until someone did a chromosome spread on apes. And there it was. Two of the chimp chromosomes were virtually identical to one specific human chromosome. Even more conclusive, researchers found remnants of centromeres and telomeres just where they would have to be, if there was a chromosome fusion.

You see, Bob, the number of chromosomes is less significant than what is on them. And now you realize that your "evidence against evolution" is actually support for the theory.

 

[lordkalvan]

So then you want to equivocate between paternity tests WITHIN a species and "stories about similar genetic structur" across species?

So for example - we observe that humans have 46 chromosomes as does the Hare and that apes have 48 chromosomes as does Tobbacco and then start telling stories about it? (Not sure if this is really where you are going with this).

That involves a rather instructive set of events that points up the reason why scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution. Humans and chimps seem to be very closely related, and yet humans have one pair less. How could this be? Geneticists hypothesized that there must have been a chromosome fusion, in which two became one in humans.

Just a hypothesis, until someone did a chromosome spread on apes. And there it was. Two of the chimp chromosomes were virtually identical to one specific human chromosome. Even more conclusive, researchers found remnants of centromeres and telomeres just where they would have to be, if there was a chromosome fusion.

You see, Bob, the number of chromosomes is less significant than what is on them. And now you realize that your "evidence against evolution" is actually support for the theory.

And on a more basic, in-your-face level, chimpanzees and humans both have thirty-two teeth, share exactly the same skeletal bones, have no known chemical differences between their brains, have identical (in terms of parts) immune systems, digestive systems, lymph systems and nervous systems, and even share brain lobes. Descent from a shared ancestor seems to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the available evidence.