Sound like the only measurement that will satisfy you is DNA analysis.
It's a lot better than your subjective measurement of morphology.
If that is true, then since the vast majority of creatures that are known only from the fossil record are sans DNA, then you think we are impotent at making judgments about how they fit in a tree of life. I think you are being silly by demanding data that in many cases, no longer exists.
You take the data you can get. And the good news is, not only do we have all of today's organisms, but we even have a great number of extinct and very old organisms, like dinosaurs.
Yorzhik said:
Until you have the DNA comparison, you've got nothing.
Yup, then you think we have to allow that trilobites and pterodactyls and brontosaurus might all literally be first cousins.
Just because we don't have DNA from everything doesn't mean we should ignore the DNA data we have available like you propose. Do you think that isn't something you propose? Then tell us how many differences there are between the hearts represented in the pictures.
And for any person not demanding an unreasonable level of proof, morphology can be used to suggest paths of development.
The problem is you correctly identify that these morphological comparisons as mere suggestions, which are as sure as wild speculations. But then this was a statement wherein you trying to tell us morphology is real evidence for evolution!
The “idea” you disparage with that label is one of the core ideas accepted by the vast majority of those in the scientific community that have taken the time to look into it. It is no different than me labeling all religions as repositories of lies designed to salve the moral cowardice of people afraid of death. I haven’t disparaged Christians, only that opiate-dealing organization they go to on Sundays.
You are equating an organization with an idea. That makes no sense. Could you come up with a better example? You could even use Walt Brown.
I agree with you, but now you are on Stripe’s black list.
That's OK. At least Stripe and I will get on with that discussion in an honest way.
What do you mean by “non-selectable” in the context you use it? Are you using the term “selectable” as meaning something natural selection can act on?
Yes.
So with that cleared up, here's the statement so you can have another go at it: "Demonstrate non-selectable nucleotide changes spreading in a population; and at the same time avoiding mutational load; to the point where a complex organ required for survival is created."
Agreed. Most are neutral. Of those that are not neutral, most are deleterious. Occasionally one is beneficial. Like brown fur giving way to white.
Great, we took a step forward. Now for the next step, you do understand that most nucleotide changes
that are the initial changes of a new vital organ are not selectable either?
So what you are asking for is novelty – introducing something not already found in the parent genome. How perfectly does your DNA duplicate that of your parents?
So are you going to claim that changes from one generation to the next are on the phylum level?
I am basing my statement on the claim that only a few percent of the DNA is encoding. Like someone said, at the DNA level, most of us are much closer to being bananas than our outward appearance would suggest.
Awww c'mon now, don't start dissing "looks" or you'll end up contradicting yourself.
Seriously, though, what makes you think we only use a small portion of our DNA? I'd put our usage at over 50%. Would you put it at under 50%?
I haven’t figured out what “it” is that you think geology data will help us to believe.
"it" is the data that you provide. If you provide the data, one would hope you believe it.
