110,000 year old DNA

[idav]

DNA evidence is pretty conclusive and really a testament to evolution being a fact.

The following DNA was found to obe 110,000 years old and accounted for genetic diversity found in Europeans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/s...ome-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?_r=0

Denying the genetic evidence for evolution is like trying to deny your cousin really being part of your family.

DNA evidence further suggests we are closely related to chimps and bonobos through nothing more than divergence via evolution.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

 

[Sunstone]

Extracting and analyzing DNA that ancient really pushes the limits of what can be done. Amazing.

 

[idav]

Extracting and analyzing DNA that ancient really pushes the limits of what can be done. Amazing.

Its amazing for sure. I have a sister in law was telling us that she was privy to seeing them crack 200,000 year old dna, I think in Sweden she was saying. She said the technology just keeps advancing. I was blown away. The coolest job that one, getting to dig up bones, specializing in human evolution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We came a long way since relying on dig sites alone for information.

 

[Sapiens]

Science Times (New York Times), Tuesday, 21 July 2015, Page D4, Column 1: Headline: 50-Million-Year-Old Sperm in Antarctica.

 

[idav]

Science Times (New York Times), Tuesday, 21 July 2015, Page D4, Column 1: Headline: 50-Million-Year-Old Sperm in Antarctica.

Would be extraordinary to get dna out of something that old.

There were no dna remains.

 

[Etritonakin]

I can't believe the e. V c. thing is still going on. It is just so pointless and inefficient

 

[Zosimus]

DNA evidence is pretty conclusive and really a testament to evolution being a fact.

The following DNA was found to obe 110,000 years old and accounted for genetic diversity found in Europeans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/s...ome-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?_r=0

Denying the genetic evidence for evolution is like trying to deny your cousin really being part of your family.

DNA evidence further suggests we are closely related to chimps and bonobos through nothing more than divergence via evolution.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Let me see whether I get the logic being used.

If chimps and humans are closely related, then their DNA will be quite similar.
Their DNA is quite similar.
Therefore, chimps and humans are closely related.

Isn't this the affirming the consequent logical fallacy?

 

[Zosimus]

Extracting and analyzing DNA that ancient really pushes the limits of what can be done. Amazing.

Whereas skeptics might simply doubt that the sample in question is really 110,000 years old.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let me see whether I get the logic being used.

If chimps and humans are closely related, then their DNA will be quite similar.
Their DNA is quite similar.
Therefore, chimps and humans are closely related.

Isn't this the affirming the consequent logical fallacy?

If it is put forward as definitive proof, yes. Therefore?

 

[Sapiens]

Let me see whether I get the logic being used.

If chimps and humans are closely related, then their DNA will be quite similar.
Their DNA is quite similar.
Therefore, chimps and humans are closely related.

Isn't this the affirming the consequent logical fallacy?

Only if viewed in a vacuum separate from all the reams of supporting evidence.

 

[idav]

Let me see whether I get the logic being used.

If chimps and humans are closely related, then their DNA will be quite similar.
Their DNA is quite similar.
Therefore, chimps and humans are closely related.

Isn't this the affirming the consequent logical fallacy?

Its finding genetic markers that match that validate humans chimps and bonobos stemming from the same ancestor at one point in time.

Similarly we don't just test your dna with your cousins and go " hey they are similar therefore they are cousins". No there is genetic match markers showing you came from the same ancestor as your cousin.

 

[idav]

Whereas skeptics might simply doubt that the sample in question is really 110,000 years old.

Thing is we keep finding evidence that humans and animals go much further back than the dawn of civilization where young earth creationists like to begin time and the whole of creation.

 

[idav]

I can't believe the e. V c. thing is still going on. It is just so pointless and inefficient

I don't know, it may be inefficient but we have a problem in the States.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html

 

[Laika]

DNA evidence is pretty conclusive and really a testament to evolution being a fact.

The following DNA was found to obe 110,000 years old and accounted for genetic diversity found in Europeans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/s...ome-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?_r=0

Denying the genetic evidence for evolution is like trying to deny your cousin really being part of your family.

DNA evidence further suggests we are closely related to chimps and bonobos through nothing more than divergence via evolution.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

I think this thread could use some appropriate background music.

 

[Zosimus]

If it is put forward as definitive proof, yes. Therefore?

Oh, right. I forgot.

It's only a theory.

 

[Zosimus]

Only if viewed in a vacuum separate from all the reams of supporting evidence.

Oh, right. One logical fallacy proves nothing, but a large number of logical fallacies prove Darwinism.

 

[Zosimus]

Its finding genetic markers that match that validate humans chimps and bonobos stemming from the same ancestor at one point in time.

Similarly we don't just test your dna with your cousins and go " hey they are similar therefore they are cousins". No there is genetic match markers showing you came from the same ancestor as your cousin.

Okay, so the logic pattern is:

If they are related, we will find genetic markers.
We find genetic markers.
Therefore, they are related.

A textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

 

[idav]

A textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

Nobody is assuming the streets are wet therefore it is raining. Unless you have any evidence that space aliens manipulated the dna, we should all be pretty well aware how dna works in reproduction. Thats why we use DNA to find rapists, and real babies daddies, because dna is very good evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

Nobody is assuming the streets are wet therefore it is raining. Unless you have any evidence that space aliens manipulated the dna, we should all be pretty well aware how dna works in reproduction. Thats why we use DNA to find rapists, and real babies daddies, because dna is very good evidence.

Well, Forensic DNA testing is not as reliable as you think it is.

Quoting:
Take the case of Kerry Robinson of Georgia. Robinson was implicated, in part, when two analysts concluded his genes may be present on the victim’s vaginal swabs. The jury convicted, and Robinson received a 20-year sentence.

Greg Hampikian, a biology and criminal justice professor at Boise State University and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, was a defense expert in the trial and felt sure the analysts had reached their conclusion because of unconscious bias: They knew a great deal about the case, including that the detectives believed Robinson was guilty. To test his suspicions, Hampikian and cognitive neuroscientist Itiel Dror of University College London sent the DNA data to 17 other analysts and asked them to interpret it without any information about the case. Only one agreed with the original analysts.

Despite these results, the Georgia appeals court declined to overturn the conviction, stating that “as long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted … we must uphold the jury’s verdict.”

Because DNA is more reliable than other forensics, scientists have shrugged off suggestions that it could fall victim to the vagaries of bias. But Dror noted that much DNA analysis involves interpretation. With interpretation comes subjectivity, and with subjectivity can come error.

“DNA results can be in the eye of the beholder,” Dror said.