Repeating yourself after you've been rebutted isn't an argument, guy,
you said: they observe the sequences have a tree-like structure, such that two organisms which share a common ancestor have sequences that appear to have diverged from a common ancestor. you changed it to: I said the DNA sequences were found experimentally to be consistent with a common ancestor. Let me try to make it simple enough to be understood by someone who seems to have difficulties with basic English grammar and punctuation.
Let's consider two organisms, say humans and spider monkeys. We think those organisms have a common ancestor. That common ancestor came long after the common ancestor of humans and fish.
If we compare the DNA of humans and spider monkeys, we see that, while there are some differences between them, there are much bigger differences between both of them and fish. If we look at other organisms, we find that spider monkey and humans share similarities that are not found in any other groups of animals (except apes and monkeys). Observing those similarities and differences don't require any assumptions. We could find them completely blind - not knowing what organism is what.
If you want a proof, I'll post 10 DNA sequences with no information about which organism is which. We'll then ask one of biologists on FR - there are several - to construct a tree. I will then identify the organisms. I guarantee the DNA sequences, with no assumptions whatsoever, and no other information, will allow the biologist reconstruct the evolutionary tree.
OK, but where's your time machine to go back 200 million years ago to make sure your tree is correct in all cases? Where's the "control group" ?
I.e. what if some of the 'true' transitional forms have not been discovered yet? How can you tell?
I think the problem many of the people attacking evolution have, is that we cannot go back in a time machine and double-check the hypotheses empirically.
"And," they think, "since we don't have the mathematical formalism that say, special or general relativity has, and since there have been many surprises along the way, why are the evo's so dang cocksure of things?"
This, coupled with the behaviour of scientists in revising a model, while keeping the essential elements, makes a layperson feel like they are trying to "nail jello to a tree."
I'm willing to bet that a little more patience by the scientists in explaining the underpinnings and processes by which they reach there conclusions, will do a lot more than just "pointing to links" and saying "So THERE!"--because to the layperson, it seems just as much like argument from authority as quoting from the Bible.
Cheers! (PS Thanks to snarks when bored for bringing that useful word 'empirical' into the discussion.)
we really care professor, forgive me for drawing you out, thats so i could take time to be more helpful now..you know logic
:
the 29+arguments error in 4.1-2 is hidden assumption (p & p&q>r & p>r .: r, invalid if 3rd premiss false). stated simply p='only heredity is observed to copy full proteins', q='only observed mechanisms can copy full proteins', r=common descent..
they assume q that design can't copy full proteins needed, but evidence is !q that it can..human design has copied many long proteins which evos regard as sufficient proof human design will someday copy the whole cell
SINCE design can copy full proteins needed (even if not observed to yet), common descent dnf (doesnt follow)..admit please
:
your error, by contrast, was affirming the consequent (q & p>q .: p, invalid). p = common descent, q = 'a reconstructible tree of sim/diff dna exists'..can convert to hidden assumption (q & p>q & !p>!q .: p, invalid if 3rd premiss false)..
you said p>q: the DNA sequences were found experimentally to be consistent with a common ancestor.
you said q: I guarantee the DNA sequences, with no assumptions.., will allow the biologist reconstruct the evolutionary tree. (sic)
you didn't say !p>!q which would be: if not all have common descent, the tree cannot exist
!p>!q is false because: if not all have common descent, design can produce a similar tree, proven above
THUS common descent dnf..say maybe you missed 306 earlier??
:
your other post was beautiful science, incisive, compellingly put, & yes fun, except this invalid assumption vision thing..please lets answer why you think design is not a valid mechanism
:
..i have 2 mechanisms for copying comments: cut&paste or retype..comment mutations can either arise by edit after cut&paste, or transcript error/edit during retype
if i copy and mutate comments many times, you can lay out a tree of sim/diff comments based on fewer/more mutations..it proves 00 about which means i used at any unobserved time even if all the time you observed me i used cut&paste..
in a nutshell you say the tree is evolutionary like all evolutionary trees (circular argument, p>p .: p, invalid, details left as exercise to reader)..in re ff: 2 pet 3