Evolution or not?

I think the figure for species that have gone extinct in the past Razz is somewhere around 98%. Of course that's an estimate based on found fossils. There probably is a whole lot of fossils we haven't found. The extinction of dinosaurs was about 65-66million ya. according to most estimates.

Something happened shortly after the k/t boundary extinction of

dinosaurs Razz. Modern aves appeared on the scene within a short timeframe. Most experts agree it was less than 10 million years. Do you think that is a long enough time for random evolution to have evolved 95% of all historical birds and if yes than why haven't any aves evolved since then?

Yes. 10 million is an awful lot of generations of birds. And we know already from breeding that species can change dramatically over just some hundreds years (dogs, pigeons, horses and so on).

As far as I know, the scientists can compare 2 different genomes and then roughly calcuate when the species had a common ancestor.

If the dinosaurs were already extinct Razz, then what did these modern aves evolve from?

Generational mitochondrial comparisons can give you any time frame you want Razz for an MRCA (most recent common ancestor)depending on the type of test used and what part of the genome you compare. That's due to the high variability rate of mutations along its entire length.

For instance one can calculate an MRCA for humans

in the millions of years or thousands of years. It all comes down to the assumptions one wants to makes.

Look it up? There must be thousands of books on early evolution of birds.

Yeah, saw it tv once.

Mini evolution and major evolution happened on Halley's Comet and migrated to Pluto.

Lol you think they don't know that? It's the evolutionary biologists themselves that discovered that different parts of the DNA evolves with different tempi (not very surprising really) so obviously they know it.

I dont get people that in this sort of debate will use stuff discoved by a group of scientists like some sort of "whoa they didnt think about that" kind of thing against them. Its probably old news and dealt with them 20 years ago, but surprising to you because you just recently found out about it.

Do you think they discover something and then just make dumb tests that don't take it into account?

I don't know how those tests work, but I could imagine they use several parts of the genome, maybe parts picked at random or parts where you know the change rate, plus off course test against known divergement ages to see if it works. For instance, you could compare Icelandic horses against Norwegian horses, and American horses against europeans horses and such and the test should get the correct time we know from history (1000 years and 500 years.) Dont know how they do it in practice, you can look it up.

Exactly my point Razz, you can get any time frame for an MRCA depending on the assumptions that you're looking for. Its a very subjective and assumptive process. Some of the tests that are used are controversial as to their accuracy. Just about any result can be obtained depending on your biases.

Thanks for the info. Optimissed. I'll try and figure out how

to get there.

Did you read what I just wrote? I just explained to you why the tests are not arbitrary. Then you respond that they are arbitrary lol.

Ill explain you again:

You have made a test. You want to know if it is a good test that gives the correct number, because no scientist is interested in a test that spits out random numbers.

You find something where you already know the result. For instance, we already know from the history books when people brought horses to iceland, and where the horses came from. So we know if we compare icelandic and norwegian horses, the test should say "1000 years".

Then you do the test, and if it says the correct numer, 1000 years are you happy then? No, not yet. We do the same thing with some other populations where we know the correct result again. Five or ten times, with different comparisons. We dont want to start using a test before we think it works,

When the test can do that and get the right result every time, then it isnt arbitrary and random anymore, which of course a test isnt if its any use.

I dont know how they devised the test, but I can tell you, that if your sources told you that scientists are happy with tests that give random results, then your sources are wrong. Thats how the social sciences work lol.

Ok Razz, but like I said before one can get any results that one wants.

Since @Elroch and his now mostly defunct wingmen have blocked so many folks from their evolution thread --

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/the-science-of-evolution-no-politics-or-religion?lc=1#last_comment

Here's a question for readers -- wasn't that an incredibly banal TED talk in post #518 ?

"Cooking made us human" ??

And Phreneology gets a second wind.

Yikes, that's scary thinking, even for Lord @Elroch.

No you cant. I just explained it to you twice.

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

Ok Razz, but like I said before one can get any results that one wants.

No you cant. I just explained it to you twice.

__________________________

At approximately 30 mutations on the human genome( one every hundred million nucleotides)per generation one

still can't get 5-7 million years for an MRCA with chimps. I'm using the liberal figures of evolutionists of a differential of 150,000,000 nucleotides between humans and chimps, which has been shown to be wrong and is many times more. At that rate you have 65,000,000 mutations in 5-7 million years which leaves us short by 85,000,000 mutations.

Even with that liberal figure you would have to more than double the amount of time for the time frame used by evolutionist for an MRCA, The evolutionists numbers just don't add up. Of course some of them are lengthening their time estimates now for a supposed MRCA between humans and chimps How convenient, just keep fudging the data until you get the result you're looking for. I used to do that in my chem. engineering classes. 😉

So what? Maybe the 5-7 million years is wrong. They will keep working, see if they can improve the test that seem the weakest so it gives the correct result. If it keeps saying 3 million or 9,5 million or whatever and it seems sound, they will consider looking more at the data set that gave the 5-7 million figure. That's how it works.

I found a random study that ended with 13 Billion  https://www.sciencenews.org/article/chimp-and-human-lineages-may-have-split-twice-long-ago-thought

And 7-9 million http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2012/08/generation-gaps-suggest-ancient-human-ape-split

IT'll be cleared up in time.

What you don't understand here Razz is that it's still an assumption no matter what time frame one comes up with.

Its a conclusion based on a hypothetical assumption that we came from some ape like creature. Its a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Its called circular reasoning in layman's terms. Its just a guess! 😕

The latest MSY( male specific y-chromosome) chimp/ human study(done by evolutionists) that was concluded last fall has shown that instead of chimps and humans being 98% alike( 2005 draft study found in Nature mag.) humans and chimps are only about 50% alike, at least on the Y-chromosome comparison. The rest of the chromosomes were found to be about 70% alike.

The entire structures on the Y-comparisons were radically different. Some of the gene sequence classes had no genes alike. The study has rocked the scientific community. Evolutionists are scrambling to come up with answers to rectify the chimp/human ancestor connection. Its the usual suspects like LGT(lateral gene transfer) or HGT( horizontal gene transfer), duplicate gene copies and modification, exon shuffling, retropositioning, genetic drift, etc.

More fudging to keep the ol' tale alive. 😉

No, its supporting evidence. If the MRCA said we diverged from chimpansees 100 years ago (and kept doing it after tweaking) and the fossil records said 7 million years, then there would be a serious problem lol.

Now its just a normal case of two (or more?) datasets converging over time, same thing happens in archeology when they get new dating methods (dendrocronology and carbon14 for instance.). 50%-100% difference doesnt seem bad to me with 2 very different methods and a difficult subject, its a long time ago this ancestor guy! Plus that the one method was only used like 10 years because the chimp genome first got sequenced in 2005.

2005 is hardly last fall dude. You are copy pasting from some creatinist webpage that was made in 2006 right?