Excellent, this is actually a discussion I'll like.
Now, Tsentralka, I'd still think it would be important for you to answer the other questions I posed, because they get to the root of the problem:
But in any case, let's do what Austra suggested and start with comparative genetics.
Now I put it to you that seeing two things that's are the same isn't incredibly surprising, even if the odds are against it. What would be truly surprising would be if we found to mistakes that are the same.
I'll give you an example: If two of my students would give in a test that's exactly the same, I should be surprised. But what would really surprise me is, if on question 3 they both wrote "Freudism and Taylorism" when it should be "Fordism". If that were to occur several times in the test, that should be reason enough for me to suspect that one of them copied off the other, that they are of the same origin. Agreed?
To make things easier, I'll only look at two lineages: Humans and other primates, even if that's a polyphyletic definition, but whatever...
There's a gene called the "GLUO disabled pseudogene". This gene usually produces the enzyme L-gulonolactone oxidase, responsible for producing vitamin C. In humans, however, this gene is disabled.
If it were disabled only in humans and enabled in other primates, that wouldn't tell us a lot. But what if I told you that this DOES occur in other primates? Now I could check out which ones they were and I could even make testable predictions, but I'll leave it at that, for the time being.
Also note that's just one possible orthologous gene I've explored in only one lineage, I could go further and dig out a few hundred, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. We first need to understand the underlying principle, correct?
There is one more thing we could talk about, but both have been said better than I ever could, so I'll leave the floor to Dr. Kenneth Miller and to the excellent Bonobo Bill.
If there are any questions, feel free...
Now, Tsentralka, I'd still think it would be important for you to answer the other questions I posed, because they get to the root of the problem:
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk//viewtopic.php?p=148375#p148375 said:Inferno[/url]"]And so on and so forth. At which point does common ancestry break down? And if it does, give criteria as to how we can identify it. If common ancestry is false, then animals which appear to be related must not be related to anything else on the "tree" of life. This, of course, completely leaves open the question how these unrelated "kinds" (for want of a better word) came to be. Were they magically created? Or were there multiple beginnings of life?
But in any case, let's do what Austra suggested and start with comparative genetics.
Now I put it to you that seeing two things that's are the same isn't incredibly surprising, even if the odds are against it. What would be truly surprising would be if we found to mistakes that are the same.
I'll give you an example: If two of my students would give in a test that's exactly the same, I should be surprised. But what would really surprise me is, if on question 3 they both wrote "Freudism and Taylorism" when it should be "Fordism". If that were to occur several times in the test, that should be reason enough for me to suspect that one of them copied off the other, that they are of the same origin. Agreed?
To make things easier, I'll only look at two lineages: Humans and other primates, even if that's a polyphyletic definition, but whatever...
There's a gene called the "GLUO disabled pseudogene". This gene usually produces the enzyme L-gulonolactone oxidase, responsible for producing vitamin C. In humans, however, this gene is disabled.
If it were disabled only in humans and enabled in other primates, that wouldn't tell us a lot. But what if I told you that this DOES occur in other primates? Now I could check out which ones they were and I could even make testable predictions, but I'll leave it at that, for the time being.
Also note that's just one possible orthologous gene I've explored in only one lineage, I could go further and dig out a few hundred, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. We first need to understand the underlying principle, correct?
There is one more thing we could talk about, but both have been said better than I ever could, so I'll leave the floor to Dr. Kenneth Miller and to the excellent Bonobo Bill.
If there are any questions, feel free...