Replies

We don't have to have it. If we have many RNA sequences, we can test to a high degree of probability whether those sequences derive by mutation from a common ancestor, and even, in some cases, deduce what the sequence of that common ancestor is.

I thought the process was random. How can you deduce randomness. After all, we know from the flagellum that it could have been a totally different creature with a totally different purpose before it was a flagellum.

This is just a rant, without any substance to back it up. You don't understand it, so you hate it.

I thought the fossil evidence was based on morphology minus all non bone parts. What if that assumption is wrong?. What if it disagrees with the genome tree (which it does in many cases)?

We don't need it, as long as we have lots of other organisms derived from the common ancestor. Let me put it in terms you might understand. If you, and all your first cousins have blue eyes, would it be possible for you to deduce the eye color of your grandfather, even if you have never seen him?

Again you are assuming common ancestor in your attempt to prove it. BTW, I thought the eyes are a recombination phenomena, not a mutation phenomena and also withing species, not between species. What was the eye color of the creature preceding the hominids (mystery creature) that the blue eyed grandfather derived from, assuming it had an eye? You are trying to randomly mutate yourself back to the first single cells with only information about currently living specimens.

Logically, there is no available information that gets one back to a first singularity. Logic has to be bypassed to get there.

How can you deduce randomness

Are you familiar with error-correcting software algorithms?

Here are five versions of a word, each with one random error in a letter.

ENCYCLOPEDLA
ENCYCLNPEDIA
ENCYCLOPEJIA
ENCYCNOPEDIA
ENCYCLIPEDIA

So what word is the common ancestor?

What if it disagrees with the genome tree (which it does in many cases)?

Can you cite an example?

I take it from your non-answer to my question you do agree that if you and all your siblings and first cousins have blue eyes, you can deduce your grandfather had blue eyes. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a picture of your grandfather to figure out his eye color. If you and your siblings and cousins are all white, I think it's fair to say he was white, too.And you may be familiar with genetic analysis of the royal families of Europe, which used the occurrence of hemophilia in descendants to deduce where the first mutation that caused the disease came from.

Logically, there is no available information that gets one back to a first singularity. Logic has to be bypassed to get there.

I'm trying to lead you, slowly, though that logic. But I can't lead you where you refuse to go.