Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol. And I "know nothing"! Funny stuff!

You have demonstrated time after time how you know nothing about the science of evolution and science in general. Good grief.

 

[usfan]

I know it is hard to deal with evidence, with a topic that is allegedly scientific, but is an illusion. So far there has been little presented, as actual evidence. Mostly i see fallacies, deflections, ad hom, moral outrage.. anything but presenting actual science, as the basis for your beliefs.

A couple have, and i thank and applaud you for doing so.

I will not go through every post and expose the hysterical deflections and insulting indignation, from many who have no arguments or evidence..

"You are really stupid!", is not an argument, nor evidence for universal common descent, much as you would like it to be. It is, however, a favorite tactic for irrational, hysterical religious fanatics, if the sacred cows of their cherished beliefs are questioned.

So continued ad hom and outrage, in a scientific thread, only exposes you as a True Believer, not a rational, scientifically minded person.

I've replied to any actual evidence presented, and my points have been ignored and dismissed. That is your right, in a public discussion. You can also berate me, personally, accuse me falsely, and disrupt the discussion. Your call.

Thanks for the discussion. Any other evidence for common descent? Want to look at the building blocks for your worldview?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No ad hom or false accusations needed, in a scientific rebuttal.

Please stop evoking the ad hominem fallacy until you actually know how to use it.

..only if you arbitrarily define 'species!' But if you go by genetic architecture. follow the mtdna flags, and let haplogroups define speciation, there is no evidence of new 'species!', traits, and unique genomic architectures. It is circular reasoning, by definition, and uses the ambiguity of terminology to fool the uninformed.

Then please define exactly what constitutes a new species.

Easy. Look at the traits of a chimp. Now look at the traits of a human. There are huge genetic differences. Their genes are different. Their bones, muscles, skin, hair, eyes, and just about everything is completely different, non-interchangeable, and unique to that species/haplotype.

So you can't actually provide any evidence whatsoever that there is more than one "type" of DNA?

Also, you are aware that the difference between humans and chimps on a genetic level is 1.2%, right? So all you're really doing is saying that a small amount of genetic change (keeping in mind that there is ONLY ONE TYPE of DNA that is shared by all living things) can lead to a large amount of diversity. You're not arguing against evolution.

I would say it likely conflicts with the indoctrination, but not the actual facts.

Scientifically, there is no evidence that the chimp's 24 chromosomes, & their thousands of genes, could or did fuse to form the human chromosome, with their thousands of genes in each one. There is too much variety, & the leap between the 2 is too great, genetically, to have happened naturally. We can't even do it in a lab.. Unless you can come up with a mechanism that can affect these kinds of changes, the leap is too great, & the concept is absurd. it is a belief, with no basis in science.

You have not presented evidence of what you have claimed.

I will ask again:
Please demonstrate your claim that there are different TYPES of DNA, rather than only a single TYPE of DNA that is re-arranged in different organisms.

 

[ChristineM]

Christine You are arguing with a psycholgy of a fantasy there is a reality outside reality guiding reality. Like a very advanced computer thats personal and thats all.
Whats the problem? eliminate the bible from the equasion its not the problem its merely used to justify the problem not is the problem.

Why does the problem exist? Do not use the bible at all.

Actually i am having fun, but shhhh, dont tell anyone

 

[Salvador]

As promised, i will examine this evidence FOR common descent.

You posted supporting information, and sourced it. This was a very good reply to this thread, and is the kind of 'debate', i proposed in the OP.

I'll post a reply, from another recent thread, regarding this issue:

Can you fuse 2 pair of chromosomes from a human and produce an ape, with completely different genes, chromosomal makeup, and architecture? No. If they were the same, genetically, there might be some credence for a chromosome fusion theory. Merely counting chromosome pairs does not make an ape into a man, or vice versa.
A sable antelope has 23 chromosome pairs.. did it come from the ape, too?
A potato has 24 pairs. Did man descend from a potato?

And, btw, i was indignantly condemned for suggesting what you have presented here.

The problem with counting chromosomes, and theorizing 'fusion!', or 'splits!', is the organization and genes located in those splits. Assuming 'splits and fusions!' as the mechanism for evolving a distinctively new haplotype requires more compelling evidence than assertion, and ignores the huge hurdles therein. It reveals a faulty view of genetics.. i call it the 'Lego Block' view.

The idea there, is that all genes are the same, and just interchange like lego blocks, arranged differently to create each distinct species.

But that is not the case. Each species has unique and specific genes, that comprise their DNA. To theorize 'split & fusion!' in dna, it would have to be shown that the genes were the same. They are not. There are similarities in genes, and splicing can occur to fool the host with a similar gene, such as the iridescent cats. But unless the genes were the same, in the claimed 'split & fusion!', there is only conjecture, not evidence. The fact that human genes are different, along the telomere, shows this as a very unlikely possibility. How or why did they all change into human genes, if it was just an ape chromosome? How did you get two SIMULTANEOUS 'splits and fusions!', that could interbreed, to form the new species?

We cannot even FORCE 'splits and fusion!', in carefully controlled lab environments, to create new species.. how did this allegedly happen in nature?

The conjecture and assumptions needed to arrive at this conclusion are highly speculative, with no evidentiary support. It is desperation, not science, that concludes common descent from 'splits and fusions!'

Scientists have successfully fused the 16 chromosomes of yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae to create new strains that hold almost the entire genome on just two.

Led by researchers at NYU School of Medicine, the study team fused together chromosomes in stages until the 6,000 genes in a species of one-celled fungus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, were contained in two massive chromosomes instead of in the naturally occurring 16 in each cell nucleus.

Karyotype engineering by chromosome fusion leads to reproductive isolation in yeast

Published: 01 August 2018

Karyotype engineering by chromosome fusion leads to reproductive isolation in yeast

• Jingchuan Luo,
• Xiaoji Sun,
• Brendan P. Cormack &
• Jef D. Boeke

Naturevolume 560, pages392–396 (2018)

"Human beings can live and some may even reproduce when they have dicentric chromosomes - two fused chromosomes with two central hubs called centromeres.

Usually each chromosome has just one centromere, which drives chromosome inheritance.

....people with dicentric chromosomes can continue to function in a way that does not threaten their overall health.

Her team, led by Kaitlin Stimpson, a Genetics and Genomics graduate student, found that using a mutant telomere protein (TRF2) to remove the protective ends of the chromosomes (the telomeres) freed the chromosomes to combine in an end-to-end fashion.

What Sullivan and her team didn't expect is that the universe of free chromosomes would combine in the lab in the same way they combine in humans - certain chromosomes are more prone to fusing together - 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22 - creating what are known as Robertsonian fusions.

For example, in experiments, a chromosome 13 would attach to a chromosome 14, to make a 13-14 Robertsonian combination, which also occurs naturally in 1 in 1000 humans.

"This is the first time that dicentric human chromosomes have been engineered in human cells - experimentally induced in the laboratory using a theoretically unbiased approach," Sullivan said. "And, excitingly, this is the first time they have been shown to occur as non-randomly as they do in humans."

Most surprising of all, the lab-made dicentrics remained stable even after many rounds of chromosomal replication and division. "We have shown that these stable dicentric chromosomes remained stable for 150 divisions, many with two functional centromeres," Sullivan said. "The reviewers of our paper made us run many more experiments to show that the chromosomes stayed functionally dicentric, and for how long. I was surprised, too, because I thought in most dicentrics, we would see inactivation of one centromere, like we see in patients. But 50% of the time, that is not what happened."


Beth Sullivan, Ph.D., an assistant professor of molecular genetics and microbiology and an Investigator in the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy at Duke University Medical Center, has studied dicentric chromosomes closely and for the first time has found a way to create specific dicentric chromosomes in human cell lines."

Dicentric chromosomes: unique models to study centromere function and inactivation

Chromosome Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jan 29.

PMC
US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

Published in final edited form as:
Chromosome Res. 2012 Jul; 20(5): 595–605.
doi: 10.1007/s10577-012-9302-3
PMCID: PMC3557915
NIHMSID: NIHMS433827
PMID: 22801777
Dicentric chromosomes: unique models to study centromere function and inactivation
Kaitlin M. Stimpson, Justyne E. Matheny, and Beth A. Sullivan

A dicentric chromosome is an abnormal chromosome with two centromeres. It is formed through the fusion of two chromosome segments, each with a centromere, resulting in the loss of acentric fragments (lacking a centromere) and the formation of dicentric fragments. The formation of dicentric chromosomes has been attributed to genetic processes, such as Robertsonian translocation.

Nussbaum, Robert; McInnes, Roderick; Willard, Huntington; Hamosh, Ada (2007). Thompson & Thompson Genetics in Medicine. Philadelphia(PA): Saunders. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-4160-3080-5.

,,,and paracentric inversion.

Hartwell, Leland; Hood, Leeroy; Goldberg, Michael; Reynolds, Ann; Lee, Silver (2011). Genetics From Genes to Genomes, 4e. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780073525266.

 

[usfan]

Scientists have successfully fused the 16 chromosomes of yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae to create new strains that hold almost the entire genome on just two.

..not sure of your point.. good articles, and it shows the amazing ability of man to delve deeply into the mystery of life.

But the fused yeast chromosomes were still yeast, with the same genes attached to the telomeres. A distinct, new genetic structure was not created, just a variation of the parent stock.

IOW, 'chromosomal fusion', is not evidence of common descent. It happens, and can be done in a lab, but it does not create new traits, or generate a different haogroup. The resultant fusion is of the same haplogroup, genetically.

'New strains', are just horizontal variability.. micro evolution.. and are not evidence of verticle changes in the genome.

No matter how many generations we have tested, from bacteria to other genetic groups, no unique haplogroups have ever been observed or forced. The descendants can only draw from the parent stock. There is nothing to 'create' new genes, traits, or variability. Unless a trait is in the parent, it cannot come up as an option.

 

[usfan]

Please demonstrate your claim that there are different TYPES of DNA, rather than only a single TYPE of DNA that is re-arranged in different organisms.

That is not my claim, but a distortion..

..progressive indoctrinees and reading comprehension..


Or, were you just attacking a straw man?

 

[Darkstorn]

Or, were you just attacking a straw man?

To me it looked like attacking a clueless *insert word of your choosing*.

Case in point:

But the fused yeast chromosomes were still yeast, with the same genes attached to the telomeres. A distinct, new genetic structure was not created, just a variation of the parent stock.

Hilarious.

Oh and i think i need to point out that this is one of the most dishonest threads i've ever seen. Fake interest in "discussion" then hand wave everything away with a bunch of arguments from incredulity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is not my claim, but a distortion..

Post 94:
"The idea there, is that all genes are the same, and just interchange like lego blocks, arranged differently to create each distinct species.

But that is not the case. Each species has unique and specific genes, that comprise their DNA. To theorize 'split & fusion!' in dna, it would have to be shown that the genes were the same. They are not. There are similarities in genes, and splicing can occur to fool the host with a similar gene, such as the iridescent cats. But unless the genes were the same, in the claimed 'split & fusion!', there is only conjecture, not evidence."

Post 97:
"All DNA is not the same. The genes are different, the architecture is different, & they do not interchange."

..progressive indoctrinees and reading comprehension..

By the way, for reference, THIS is what an ad hominem REALLY looks like.

Also, don't try to talk down to me. I'm smarter than you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But the fused yeast chromosomes were still yeast, with the same genes attached to the telomeres. A distinct, new genetic structure was not created, just a variation of the parent stock.

So you're not aware of how that's literally how evolution works? Variation on previous genetic material?

When you talk about producing a "distinct, new genetic structure", what exactly are you imagining?

 

[usfan]

To me it looked like attacking a clueless *insert word of your choosing*

ah, ad hom, not just straw men.. i guess either work as well..

this is one of the most dishonest threads i've ever seen. Fake interest in "discussion" then hand wave everything away with a bunch of arguments from incredulity

See what you want. I have responded to any actual arguments or evidence presented.. i have no real rebuttal for fallacies, except to expose them, from time to time.

But crafting caricatures to ridicule is a favorite tactic of progressive indoctrinees..

No evidence? Just personal ad hom and dismissal? You're not interested in a debate about common descent?

 

[Darkstorn]

ah, ad hom, not just straw men.. i guess either work as well..

Ahem:

..progressive indoctrinees and reading comprehension..

I'm sure you've heard of the "tale" of "pot calling the kettle black?"

See what you want. I have responded to any actual arguments or evidence presented.. i have no real rebuttal for fallacies, except to expose them, from time to time.

But crafting caricatures to ridicule is a favorite tactic of progressive indoctrinees..

No evidence? Just personal ad hom and dismissal? You're not interested in a debate about common descent?

I'm interested. Just not with you. You're dishonest. To think of it, i guess my point is KIND of an ad hominem on technical grounds: It's that your discussion is dishonest. Because YOU are dishonest.

I.E i'm here for humor, not discussion.

 

[Darkstorn]

When you talk about producing a "distinct, new genetic structure", what exactly are you imagining?

Matter replicators? Like Star Trek: You take one thing, and poof you have a dog now.

 

[usfan]

I.E i'm here for humor, not discussion.

I can see that! This was hilarious!

..but some want to discuss evidence for common descent.. could you direct the ridicule and indignation to another thread?

 

[Darkstorn]

I can see that! This was hilarious!

..but some want to discuss evidence for common descent.. could you direct the ridicule and indignation to another thread?

*Grabs popcorn*

No. Your posts deserve nothing but ridicule for what you have done.

And in case it wasn't clear, i'm here for my own entertainment.

 

[usfan]

Also, don't try to talk down to me. I'm smarter than you.

You can believe and assert whatever you like. This is not a playground competition. Its a simple examination of evidence, for a widely held, and widely indoctrinated, belief.

I return facts and reason, and some return quips, if they are thrown my way. Toss all the ad hom grenades you want.. I'll pull the pins, and toss them back..

 

[Darkstorn]

This is not a playground competition.

But if it were, you'd be picked last.

I return facts and reason, and some return quips, if they are thrown my way. Toss all the ad hom grenades you want.. I'll pull the pins, and toss them back..

Weird. I seem to distinctly remember you calling DNA evidence "belief."

I don't think you operate on "facts" OR "reason."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can believe and assert whatever you like. This is not a playground competition. Its a simple examination of evidence, for a widely held, and widely indoctrinated, belief.

It's very telling that you say this, and yet haven't actually examined any evidence presented to you.

I return facts and reason, and some return quips, if they are thrown my way. Toss all the ad hom grenades you want.. I'll pull the pins, and toss them back..

It might help if you learned what an ad hominem was, first. Just a suggestion.

And while you're at it, try answering the challenges to what you present, because I've literally not read a single true word from you in this entire thread. I mean it. Practically every claim you have made is either a demonstrable lie or manipulation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know it is hard to deal with evidence, with a topic that is allegedly scientific, but is an illusion. So far there has been little presented, as actual evidence. Mostly i see fallacies, deflections, ad hom, moral outrage.. anything but presenting actual science, as the basis for your beliefs.

A couple have, and i thank and applaud you for doing so.

I will not go through every post and expose the hysterical deflections and insulting indignation, from many who have no arguments or evidence..

"You are really stupid!", is not an argument, nor evidence for universal common descent, much as you would like it to be. It is, however, a favorite tactic for irrational, hysterical religious fanatics, if the sacred cows of their cherished beliefs are questioned.

So continued ad hom and outrage, in a scientific thread, only exposes you as a True Believer, not a rational, scientifically minded person.

I've replied to any actual evidence presented, and my points have been ignored and dismissed. That is your right, in a public discussion. You can also berate me, personally, accuse me falsely, and disrupt the discussion. Your call.

Thanks for the discussion. Any other evidence for common descent? Want to look at the building blocks for your worldview?

Have you presented any claims and supporting arguments against science yet? How are you going to address the evidence that supports common descent?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can believe and assert whatever you like. This is not a playground competition. Its a simple examination of evidence, for a widely held, and widely indoctrinated, belief.

I return facts and reason, and some return quips, if they are thrown my way. Toss all the ad hom grenades you want.. I'll pull the pins, and toss them back..

Please present the evidence, your assertions and your arguments. I would love to read them.

I do not think promoting logical fallacies is going to be a good way to encourage discussion. I think the best way would be for you to present your arguments.