Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

He's been told that repeatedly. Nevertheless, he postures as the only person interested in honest discussion and with an utter lack of insight, calls others religious zealots and indoctrinees.

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

Nor will he. He is here to ask for evidence so that he can reject it unexamined. That's the creationist shuffle - feign interest in evidence as if it is what you use to decide what is true when in fact one is a faith-based thinker, and pretend that the reason that nobody can convince you is because they have no argument.

Have you presented any claims and supporting arguments against science yet?

None. He was asked to make his argument against science if he could. He didn't even answer.

 

[Salvador]

..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.

May I please propose macro-evolution is the culmination of micro-evolution happening over the course of many generations.

Please let us agree macro-evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

 

[metis]

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.

Amen!

 

[metis]

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..

Oh, is that your version of the "turn the other cheek" that Jesus taught?

BTW, you decry ad hominems that you think are aimed at you but seem to ignore the simply fact that you use them a lot. It's one of the reasons why I really prefer to ignore your posts the vast majority of the time. And what did Jesus say about the "speck in your neighbor's eye"?

Jesus said we should "love one another as I have loved you", but I hate to say this but I really don't see much of that being reflected in your posts. Instead, I see a lot of condescending sarcasm and arrogant grandstanding.

Here, maybe this can help you:
Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, is that your version of the "turn the other cheek" that Jesus taught?

BTW, you decry ad hominems that you think are aimed at you but seem to ignore the simply fact that you use them a lot. It's one of the reasons why I really prefer to ignore your posts the vast majority of the time. And what did Jesus say about the "speck in your neighbor's eye"?

Jesus said we should "love one another as I have loved you", but I hate to say this but I really don't see much of that being reflected in your posts. Instead, I see a lot of condescending sarcasm and arrogant grandstanding.

Here, maybe this can help you:
Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

I dont often give posts referencing religious texts a frubal, and i dont believe i have ever given one a winner. But I really think you deserve a winner for that.

 

[metis]

I dont often give posts referencing religious texts a frubal, and i dont believe i have ever given one a winner. But I really think you deserve a winner for that.

Thank you for that, and enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

[Neutral Name]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

I believe in the spiritual and the scientific. I believe that science will, eventually, find the spiritual. Without the spiritual, there could be no physical existence. Where does matter come from? The "big bang theory" has been negated for this reason. Religious people cannot begin to consider the possibility that the earth is older than a few thousand years. Yet, science and logic prove this. The fact that the sun is the perfect distance from earth is quite the coincidence. So is the moon's distance from the earth as well as dna and other amazing coincidences which would not seem to be able to be accidentally created. Science explains that all things are created of atoms and/or particles. Religion does not seem to consider this fact but it has been proven. Science does not know what has created particles and atoms. So, to me, science and the spiritual go hand in hand and the greatest logic is to consider both when pondering anything.

 

[usfan]

Ok, ignoring the dogpiles of ad hom and deflection, what about the topic? Anymore evidences for common descent?

We have seen,
1. Phylogenetic tree
2. Chromosomal fusion
3. Macro = Micro, accumulated

..presented as evidence of common descent. I have offered a rebuttal, and the readers can decide if there is any merit to the arguments.

But Shirley, there is more? Even if these arguments were air tight, which does not seem to be a rational conclusion, are these the whole basis for belief in common descent?

And please.. bashing or denigrating me, personally is not an argument, nor evidence for your beliefs. I'll exchange some banter with the hecklers, but still prefer to get back on topic. Deal?

 

[Salvador]

Ok, ignoring the dogpiles of ad hom and deflection, what about the topic? Anymore evidences for common descent?

We have seen,
1. Phylogenetic tree
2. Chromosomal fusion
3. Macro = Micro, accumulated

..presented as evidence of common descent. I have offered a rebuttal, and the readers can decide if there is any merit to the arguments.

But Shirley, there is more? Even if these arguments were air tight, which does not seem to be a rational conclusion, are these the whole basis for belief in common descent?

And please.. bashing or denigrating me, personally is not an argument, nor evidence for your beliefs. I'll exchange some banter with the hecklers, but still prefer to get back on topic. Deal?

Good morning, usafan, please let us no forget about endogenous retroviruses, ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595

Please watch youtube video titled irrefutable evidence for evolution

Also, please watch youtube video (III) endogenous retroviruses: the three layers of ERV evidence of common ancestry

 

[usfan]

May I please propose macro-evolution is the culmination of micro-evolution happening over the course of many generations.

Of course that is the suggestion.. but it is flawed, as i said earlier. We can not correlate a visible, observable, repeatable natural phenomenon (micro, adaptation, horizontal variability), to a speculative, conjectured, imagined belief. It is a false equivalency.

I expanded on that earlier:

This was too long, for a nested reply.
Since 'cumulative change!' is perhaps the biggest argument FOR common descent, i will repeat my rebuttal here.

Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but believed as proven fact.

The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science.

The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major verticle changes in the genetic structure.

It is fairly thorough, and long, but it addresses the "cumulative change' argument. Unless you have evidence, that changes WITHIN a phylogenetic structure CAN and DO, accumulate, and overcome the observable reality that they don't, all you have is speculation. Asserting 'cumulative change!', has no scientific evidence. It is a belief.

 

[usfan]

Religious people cannot begin to consider the possibility that the earth is older than a few thousand years.

I don't see this at all. Most 'religious people', whoever they are, believe exactly in ancient dating of the earth and universe. And dating methods are not really the topic, but they relate, some.

Universal Common Descent. That is the topic, or belief we are examining. Is it valid? Does it have scientific evidence, or is it a religious belief? That is the 'debate', here.

Some want to change the discussion to a homoerotic obsession of me, personally, but they are just arousing themselves, and aren't really interested in the debate.

Religious beliefs, texts, or teachings aren't really useful here. We already know people believe a great many things. This thread is about evidence, for this one belief. Is it scientifically valid, or a Great Delusion?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We can not correlate a visible, observable, repeatable natural phenomenon (micro, adaptation, horizontal variability), to a speculative, conjectured, imagined belief. It is a false equivalency.

Until you successfully rebut the claim that there is no known barrier to what creationists call macroevolution by demonstrating one - and your appeal to gravity was the false equivalency, as if the idea that because gravity will return an object to the ground, genetics prevent creatures from evolving into nested hierarchies of clades..

This creationist argument is as flawed as the one that would be made if saying that Pluto orbits the sun contradicted biblical scripture. In the time since Pluto was first discovered, it has completed about a third of a solar orbit. We would be hearing that micro-orbiting, or traversing part of an orbit, cannot ever accrue into a full orbit due too some imagined barrier.We would be hearing that nobody has ever seen this so-called complete orbit (macro-orbiting), and that it is just faith and speculation that such a thing could occur.

And we would be rejecting that argument as well for the same reason. Show me this barrier. Better yet, show me an alternative explanation for the biology on earth. Show me an intelligent designer and a mechanism for creation. Show me an act of creation. Or present your best evidence for any of this.

Universal Common Descent. That is the topic, or belief we are examining. Is it valid? Does it have scientific evidence, or is it a religious belief? That is the 'debate', here.

Creationism is the religious belief. Universal common descent is science supported by evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see this at all. Most 'religious people', whoever they are, believe exactly in ancient dating of the earth and universe. And dating methods are not really the topic, but they relate, some.

Universal Common Descent. That is the topic, or belief we are examining. Is it valid? Does it have scientific evidence, or is it a religious belief? That is the 'debate', here.

Some want to change the discussion to a homoerotic obsession of me, personally, but they are just arousing themselves, and aren't really interested in the debate.

Religious beliefs, texts, or teachings aren't really useful here. We already know people believe a great many things. This thread is about evidence, for this one belief. Is it scientifically valid, or a Great Delusion?

Of course it has scientific evidence. It has mountains of it. But since you deny evidence that tells us one of two things, either you are lying when you deny it or you do not understand the concept.

It really will not take you too long to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence. Because humans can be emotional and deny the obvious there is a clear definition of the concept. I can find multiple sources that will tell you this but the clearest I have found is at Wikipedia. This is something that one learns if one trains in the sciences:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

So for an observation to be scientific evidence you need only to ask two questions:

First is the concept being supported a scientific theory or hypothesis. That means that one must be able to name a reasonable test that could possibly refute it. The theory of evolution does meet this criterion.

The second is "Does this observation support the theory or hypothesis" . If you have any doubts you should ask how an observation supports evolution.


Meanwhile I do not know of any scientific evidence for creationism at all. All of the creationists that I know of tend to be afraid to put their money where there mouth is. They will not form their beliefs in the form of a testable hypothesis. They have been refuted far too often to do that any longer.

It is highly likely that I will have to refer to this post multiple times in this thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course that is the suggestion.. but it is flawed, as i said earlier. We can not correlate a visible, observable, repeatable natural phenomenon (micro, adaptation, horizontal variability), to a speculative, conjectured, imagined belief. It is a false equivalency.

Except that it's based on what is clearly observed in DNA and fossil record. We observe change, and this change provides an observable explanation of what we observe in DNA and the fossil record. This isn't any more complicated than understanding that the observations of how gravity works in our immediate environment can be extrapolated to provide testable predictions of how gravity works on the Universal scale.

It is fairly thorough, and long, but it addresses the "cumulative change' argument. Unless you have evidence, that changes WITHIN a phylogenetic structure CAN and DO, accumulate, and overcome the observable reality that they don't, all you have is speculation. Asserting 'cumulative change!', has no scientific evidence. It is a belief.

Please demonstrate how it is observed that changes in phylogenetic structure do not accumulate because, yet again, this is utterly contrary to everything that we currently understand about genetics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know it is hard to deal with evidence, with a topic that is allegedly scientific, but is an illusion.

It is assertions like this, that demand YOU present YOUR arguments and evidence.

So far there has been little presented, as actual evidence.

Of course you have not presented evidence. That would break down the dishonesty this thread is based on.

Mostly i see fallacies, deflections, ad hom, moral outrage.. anything but presenting actual science, as the basis for your beliefs.

I agree. All of that appears to be the bulk of your posts. Fallacies, personal opinions and a complete lack of any evidence supporting your cause. Your statement appears to be projection, but that is up to you.

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..

Translation. I cannot address the points raised by many, so I will avoid them at all costs.

"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.

Has anyone actually posted that?

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

This is not a scientific thread. It is a thread where you make claims and then demand that everyone else provide evidence. There is no science here, except for the few that have attempted to treat you better than you treat everyone else.

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.

Really? Where?

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

What does a person's worldview have to do with this? You have not established that either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He's been told that repeatedly. Nevertheless, he postures as the only person interested in honest discussion and with an utter lack of insight, calls others religious zealots and indoctrinees.



Nor will he. He is here to ask for evidence so that he can reject it unexamined. That's the creationist shuffle - feign interest in evidence as if it is what you use to decide what is true when in fact one is a faith-based thinker, and pretend that the reason that nobody can convince you is because they have no argument.



None. He was asked to make his argument against science if he could. He didn't even answer.

That is all I have seen too. He is doing his best to avoid that so that he can pretend the burden of proof for his claims is with others and not himself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

..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.

False equivalence. You are claiming the discussion is about common descent and arguing against it using claims regarding phylogenesis. Two species can be related and chromosome fusions would be evidence about that relationship. That humans and chimpanzees are still species of ape does not change the facts of what chromosome fusion tells us about the relationship.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

That should probably be his tagline.

 

[night912]

Oh, is that your version of the "turn the other cheek" that Jesus taught?

No, it's his example of an anology showing common decent and the theory of evolution. The common ancestor = the OP
Others' replies = selective pressures
Results: some going off topic becoming new and different topic(s), = new species, some sharing similarities while others remain

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok, ignoring the dogpiles of ad hom and deflection, what about the topic? Anymore evidences for common descent?

I would be willing to go over some of the main lines of evidence supporting universal common ancestry with you, but my preference is to do so in the one-on-one forum rather than in this thread. That way we can have a focused discussion without unnecessary distractions.

If that's agreeable, we can start tomorrow. And fyi, I expect it to take at least a week or so to cover all the material.