How would you describe the process being emphasized in steps 7 and 8 of the crime analysis?
Background Discussion Page
Main Steps of Investigation
ZOOM IN ON STEPS 7 and 8
IMPORTANT NOTE ON NEWEST TECHNIQUES:
“Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), shown above, is an older DNA-profiling technique. It has largely been replaced by PCR amplification of repetitive DNA segments that vary in length among individuals.”
It has some oversimplifications and leaves some things out, but it’s generally OK.
Here is an animation of another process used in analyzing genetic differences in a crime lab context:
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/dl/free/0072835125/126997/animation40.html
What point are you trying to make with all these screenshots about forensic science? Specifically?
I would describe it as matching or looking for identity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with nested hierarchy. One could estimate closeness of relationship rather than identity by looking at similarity of profiles, but this still has nothing to do with nested hierarchy.
I’m not sure what you mean here by “evidence schematics”. Most of what you show here are cartoon images of gel electrophoresis.
From the diagram we have thousands of genes that are unique to each of the species. Is there an explanation for this beyond inheritance or guidance?
First, you must understand that those genes are not actually unique to the species. You don’t actually know the taxonomic distribution of any of those genes except at a very coarse level. The supposed human-specific genes at the left could be specific to apes, or primates, or perhaps all mammals except mice.
Second, suppose they’re primate genes. All that means is that a new gene arose in the common ancestor of all primates.
Inheritance isn’t an explanation for new genes. But there are simple explanations, almost always gene duplication or recruitment of non-coding sequences. If you want to attribute those mutations to guidance, feel free, but you won’t find any evidence for it.
If we can find one or particularly illustrative images from genetic analysis in criminal cases, we can show even the lamest denialist that the same logic that proves common descent can be used to prove someone is a murderer.
In fact, I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say we can prove common descent with greater confidence than we can prove someone is a murderer.
Your thoughts?
While I think a decent argument can be made that a family of suspects (a literal family, for example) can have their genetics fit into a “nested hierarchy” of one type or another,
i’ve never been a big fan of the narrative that is spun around nested hierarchies.
But the methods employed for using genetic markers to indicate a unique individual is still part of an overall group is not that far off from what we do in several sub-disciplines of Evolution.
Forget the “nested” … but go with the court-proven methods of seeking “truth”.
The species in that diagram are separated by between 90 and 435 million years of divergence. What makes you think that it has a resolution anywhere close to the species level?
I agree with you. This is what needs to be examined.
I think large numbers of de novo genes is evidence for guidance or special creation. The counter you mentioned is duplication or pseudo genes. This does not account for genes that have very different sequences than those found in their hypothesized ancestors.
But then you’re changing the subject. I’m suspecting that you have only the vaguest idea of what you’re talking about. Perhaps leave this question to others.
Bill, what you think is not relevant. I never mentioned pseudogenes, and that’s evidence that you don’t actually read. Genes are not found in hypothesized ancestors, since hypothetical species can’t have their genes sequenced, and that’s evidence that you can’t actually write. Enough with the word salad.
Yes you said non coding regions, sorry.
Genes are not found in hypothesized ancestors, since hypothetical species can’t have their genes sequenced,
How are you going to support your hypothesis that these come from duplication or non coding sequences?
It’s useless to talk to you, since you continually ask about things that you have already been told many times. You support the hypothesis by examining related species. For the various genes unique to humans, there are commonly homologous non-coding sequences in chimps, for example.
Incidentally, no, it can’t.
So are all these sequences close? How close? Are they on the same chromosome? Do the non-coding sequences have introns?
Oooooppppssss … you lost me at special creation …
But if you attach that thought to a really firm affirmation of Evolution in general … I would accept that as progress.
