• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
No, I'd prefer a rational, scientific based discussion, and call for that constantly. Ironic that you blame me for the hecklers.. :rolleyes:
And that's precisely what I offered....an opportunity for us to go to a private thread and have a rational, scientifically-based, one-on-one discussion with no hecklers or other distractions. Instead you chose to stay in a chaotic, noisy environment rife with hecklers.

That speaks for itself.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Within this word salad, the take home message I got is that foxes and skunks are not mammals.
..that explains a lot.. not much point for me to reply to you, then, with your reading comprehension issues.. ;)
Then he goes on to obsess on what he misrepresents instead of the core of the thread. I am not sure which I find more amusing. That he does it or that he seems to think no one notices.
ROFL!!

I'm amused by your projection.. the obsession, attacks, and hateful rhetoric is all yours. I try to deflect the deadly seriousness of the tones, here, with whimsy and silly puns. But it just seems to enrage you more.. :shrug:
He devotes most of his posts here making personal attacks and obsessing
LOL!! No, i reply to the posts.. not all of them, because i can't take them seriously. But i do notice that you'd rather rail at me, rather than touch scientific evidence for your beliefs.. :shrug:
He's the boy who cried "ad hominem."
Attack Attack!! ROFL!!
I wondered if he did not just set this up to play out as it has, so that he can throw his hands up claiming a post full of personal attacks avoiding the premise of the thread.
Yes, i am so intimidated by your collective juvenile antics.. i weep into my pillow for hours, every night.. :rolleyes:

I'm doing it by MY rules. Which are quite free-form.
whatever works for you. I like the scientific method, myself.. :shrug:

But i suppose censorship, shouting down the opposition, and antifa style heckling IS more effective..
Looking around this and other similar websites, I'd say this is what the end of the debate should look like.....one creationist to 30 "evolutionists". :)

30 to one is nothing. Besides, neither truth nor science is a democratic process. Many coast along on their Indoctrination, and never ask questions, or question authority. I bring another perspective, free from institutional propaganda. Do with it what you will.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Attack Attack!! ROFL!!

Ad hominem != Attack.

And

Attack != Ad hominem.

You should use this lil' guide.


whatever works for you. I like the scientific method, myself.. :shrug:

How can you like something you don't understand? Oh right, right. I did post a link to wikipedia explaining what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

But i suppose censorship, shouting down the opposition, and antifa style heckling IS more effective..


30 to one is nothing.

Yeah. It's especially nothing if you're trying to make the point that we're shouting down the opposition... Because it kind of makes it look like we're the opposition and you're shouting at all of us.

You literally hand waved every valid post with invalid ranting and crying. And then cried some more. And more. And more. And more.

It's really sad. It was funny for the first couple of pages, but it's been just you repeating the same old thing like a parrot: You're the one being persecuted and attacked.

I bring another perspective, free from institutional propaganda. Do with it what you will.

FREE FROM INSTITUTIONAL PROPAGANDA?!?!?!?!! I'm so glad i wasn't eating cereal when i read that. That's some wacky tobaccy you smoking.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
The Big Problem.. the Central Flaw of the theory of common descent, is the false equivalency. 'Macro', is not 'micro'. Horizontal variability within the genetic parameters is observable, repeatable, and has been going on for millennia. Vertical changes in the genomic architecture is speculated, believed, and assumed. It has NOT been observed, cannot be repeated (not for lack of trying!), and is a belief.. a quasi religious belief, masquerading in a lab coat.

Show me. Provide any evidence that living things can add traits, increase complexity, go from cold to warm blooded, evolve an eye, sprout wings, feathers, scales, or any such imagination that has never been observed.. only believed, with typical religious fervor..

Common descent is a religious belief, indoctrinated for an ideological agenda..
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
The Big Problem.. the Central Flaw of the theory of common descent, is the false equivalency. 'Macro', is not 'micro'.

No, that's the central flaw of your argument. Nothing more. You're trying to separate something into two things because you dislike part of the thing.

Macro and micro are a creationist strawman.

The only reason we ever even bother arguing this claim normally, is because it's not going to change and might as well be dealt with. So the real solution to your problem:

Macro and micro evolution are really the same thing, but we're letting you guys pretend it's a separate thing so you can even begin to argue about it. Otherwise you'd just get stuck on that part for eternity.

I.E There's evolution happening on small and large scale. But for some reason some people think there's an arbitrary limit that prevents it from going to the larger, more "immediately observable" scale, which they have termed "macro evolution."

Common descent is a religious belief, indoctrinated for an ideological agenda..

You're a bad rhetorician. And the way you write would indicate that you know that you're using rhetoric here. Well, i'm here as opposition to your claims, and to me it looks like bad rhetoric.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
'Macro', is not 'micro'.
There is not one shred of evidence according to geneticists that "micro-" somehow miraculously stops before hitting "macro-". If you think there is, then maybe post that info with the geneticist's name who claim as such with a link to him or them. I've asked this over others many times over and never got a single piece of this supposed evidence. Logically, incremental changes add up over centuries, and there's simply no evidence of some sort of "wall" that separates them.

So, instead of throwing this back to me or others, please show us the evidence that you have first.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
and there's simply no evidence of some sort of "wall" that separates them.

So, instead of throwing this back to me or others, please show us the evidence that you have first.

Well, you know, assuming creation would be a 9th level spell, i guess that makes an invisible wall that separates the two "halves"(it's more of a smooth scale) of evolution merely a cantrip in comparison.

So, magic.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am very familiar with the studies on e.coli. i have read the published studies, not just journalistic 'explanations!' that tell what 'it really means!'

So, you understand that it provides exactly what you asked for?

Remember?
You asked for an example of the evolution of a brand new trait, that was not present in the common ancester and which was present in off spring.

The e-colli experiment provides exactly that: brand new metabolic pathways allowing metabolising citrate. The ancestors couldn't do this. The peers couldn't do this. The mutations responsible for opening up that pathway were identified, and even narrowed down with a small margin of error in which generations it took place.

Sounds exactly like what you asked for.

All it shows is the ability for e.coli to ADAPT to a wide range of environmental variables

Yet, only 1 population out of twelve evolved this trait.
Which, just to remind you, is a trait resultant of identified mutations, not present in peers or ancestors.

Yes, it's an adaption. An adaption that happened through random mutation followed by natural selection.
The evolution of a brand new ability in a population that previously had no such ability.

This is the example you asked for and you got it.
Why doesn't this count for you?

They did not change in their basic architecture. They are still bacteria.. E.COLI bacteria.

If they would have evolved into non-e-coli bacteria, ironically enough evolution would have been falsified.

This is the equivalent of thinking that evolution means that cats can evolve into dogs.
If cats would evolve into dogs, evolution as currently understood would be FALSE.


They did not become insects, sprout wings, grow legs, or 'evolve!' into anything

Not how evolution works.


It is a huge leap of faith, and willful, science denying dogmatism, to pretend that e.coli, adapting to digest citrates, 'proves universal common descent!'

It is an example that YOU asked for, in which you implied that it doesn't happen: "it" being the evolution of brand new traits, which were not present in ancestors. The ancestors of this population couldn't digest citrate. The 11 other genetically isolated populations couldn't either.

It's a brand new trait that evolved through random mutation followed by natural selection.

When I mentioned this study (I was the one that brought it up, remember?) I was responding to YOUR request of getting an example of a new trait evolving which wasn't present in ancestors.

That's exactly what this is.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
..that explains a lot.. not much point for me to reply to you, then, with your reading comprehension issues.. ;)

ROFL!!

I'm amused by your projection.. the obsession, attacks, and hateful rhetoric is all yours. I try to deflect the deadly seriousness of the tones, here, with whimsy and silly puns. But it just seems to enrage you more.. :shrug:

LOL!! No, i reply to the posts.. not all of them, because i can't take them seriously. But i do notice that you'd rather rail at me, rather than touch scientific evidence for your beliefs.. :shrug:

Attack Attack!! ROFL!!

Yes, i am so intimidated by your collective juvenile antics.. i weep into my pillow for hours, every night.. :rolleyes:

whatever works for you. I like the scientific method, myself.. :shrug:

But i suppose censorship, shouting down the opposition, and antifa style heckling IS more effective..


30 to one is nothing. Besides, neither truth nor science is a democratic process. Many coast along on their Indoctrination, and never ask questions, or question authority. I bring another perspective, free from institutional propaganda. Do with it what you will.


It's kind of funny reading this pissing contest, while I just read a post of yours, just a few posts before this one, where you said the following:

I ignore the hecklers, and those who cannot show a modicum of civility.

:rolleyes:
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
If all that is being said is that organisms vary within their genetic parameters, then there is no debate. E coli is unique, in that it has a wide range of adaptability, but there is NO EVIDENCE that it came from (or is going to), some simpler (or complex) genetic structure.

Here i address the e coli study that has been alluded to. Quotes from the study are italicized.

Contribution of Horizontal Gene Transfer to the Evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature.

Pathetically, i understand this.. being a bit of a science geek, & having followed with great interest this subject for decades. I take issue with the use of the terminology, 'evolution', as it seems to use circular reasoning.. using the premise (and terminology) to prove itself. If by 'genomic evolution' you merely mean minor changes in generations, or micro evolution, that is plainly obvious. But to correlate it with macro is still a false equivalence.

Now, the study is claiming 'beneficial' mutations, among 'several lines of evidence'. I am a bit confused about the statement above, which seems to conflict with the findings of the study:

Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains.[5][19][20] Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame,only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.

So there is a question about the results.. were 'almost all mutations beneficial'? Or were there 'only 10-20 beneficial mutations?

That is a fine point, & may be due more to the writer, than the experiment itself.

Ok lets go to the findings, & see what conclusions they compel.
* Change in fitness.
All populations showed a pattern of rapid increase in relative fitness during early generations, with this increase decelerating over time
* defects in genome repair
Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains
* increase in cell size, & morphological change
All twelve of the experimental populations show an increase in cell size concurrent with a decline in maximum population density, and in many of the populations, a more rounded cell shape
* Polymorphism & phylogenetic comparison
Two distinct variants, S and L, were identified in the population designated Ara-2 at 18,000 generations based on their formation of small and large colonies, respectively.[25] Clones of the S and L types could co-exist stably in co-culture with each other, indicating they occupied distinct niches in the population
* Citrate usage
The inability to grow aerobically on citrate, referred to as a Cit− phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species, and one that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. While Cit+ strains of E. coli have been isolated from environmental and agricultural samples, in every such case, the trait was found to be due to the presence of a plasmid containing a foreign citrate transporter.[32] A single, spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli was reported by Hall in 1982.[33] This mutant had been isolated during prolonged selection for growth on another novel substance in a growth broth that also contained citrate. Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene

There is a bit more in this study, & lots of commentary about the findings. But the primary evidence being presented is the ability of e.coli 'to grow aerobically on citrate', when oxygen is present.

Now, let us examine the claims that this is evidence for macro evolution, which predicts a structural change in the genome.

Has there been a 'structural change' in the dna? No. This is still a strain of e.coli. It is not another, more advanced bacteria, but one of the simplest, most basic ones there is, & even over thousands of generations, it is still e.coli, with a few mutations & variations, perhaps, but genetically, morphologically, & phylogenetically, unchanged. It is just a slightly different genotype, and almost an exact phenotype.

Here are some other facts about this study.
  • E.coli is an asexual organism, able to reproduce by itself.
  • The study began in 1988, & by 2016 has increased to 66,000 generations.
  • E.coli has been found to be extremely adaptive, with ability to survive & adapt to many different conditions.
  • There are many criticisms of this study's conclusions, among peer reviewed scientists. Extrapolations not warranted by the data are made, and it has been sensationalized for marketing or hype.
  • This study provides no evidence for any structural changes in the genome.
I like this study. I am intrigued by the findings about e.coli, & its amazing adaptability to its environment. It is similar to the shark, in its longevity & ability to live in whatever environmental variables come its way.

But, for those who think this study provide evidence for the ToE, you are greatly mistaken. It does not. It merely illustrates the adaptability of e.coli.

The claim of 'new speciation' is only an arbitrary definition, not anything compelled by any changes in the morphology or genetic structure of the organism. To claim this is 'real evolution!' is absurd. It is obviously just adaptation, & only demonstrates the viability & adaptability of this particular organism. Some organisms do NOT have this capability, but die under unfriendly conditions. So this phenomenon does not apply universally, as would be expected if this were a mechanism for macro evolution, but is unique to e.coli.

Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event" by pointing out that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation since in their 2008 paper they said "that becoming Cit+ was only a first step on the road to possible speciation", and thus did not propose that the Cit+ mutants were a different species, but that speciation might be an eventual consequence of the trait's evolution

So the claim of 'new speciation!' is not even claimed by Lenski, the one doing the study, even though hordes of eager Believers cling to it as 'scientific proof!' of common descent.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Show me. Provide any evidence that living things can add traits

E. Colli experiment.

Ancestral population can't digest citrate.
Split into 12 genetically isolated populations.
Run experiment for X-amount of generations.
Population explosion in 1 of the populations.
Reason: the population in question evolved the NEW TRAIT of being able to digest citrate.
Mutations that made it possible have been identified and narrowed down with a small margin of error to the very generations in which it occured.


Will you acknowledge this?


, increase complexity,
Define "complexity". How is it measured? Which unit is it expressed in?

go from cold to warm blooded, evolve an eye, sprout wings, feathers, scales, or any such imagination that has never been observed.. only believed, with typical religious fervor..

Again with the unreasonable demand to reproduce evolutionary processes that took millions of years to unfold.... :rolleyes:


None of that is necessary off course.
Just like one doesn't need to be able to reproduce a volcano eruption to know that one occured.

Common descent is a religious belief, indoctrinated for an ideological agenda..

Good luck using that in court next time a DNA test shows that some child is your biological child, eventhough they can't reproduce the event of you having sex with the child's mother or even just prove you had sex with her (assuming it was behind closed doors with no camera's recording it)

:rolleyes:
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
*SNIP*Large amount of text amounting to a semantic argument*SNIP*

That is a fine point, & may be due more to the writer, than the experiment itself.

Yet you presented this fine point as evidence for your claims... Why? Unless you somehow think you can falsify evolution with semantics.

*SNIP*Once more a large amount of text amounting to a semantic argument*SNIP*

Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event" by pointing out that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation since in their 2008 paper they said "that becoming Cit+ was only a first step on the road to possible speciation", and thus did not propose that the Cit+ mutants were a different species, but that speciation might be an eventual consequence of the trait's evolution

So the claim of 'new speciation!' is not even claimed by Lenski, the one doing the study, even though hordes of eager Believers cling to it as 'scientific proof!' of common descent.

Aha, so you ARE trying to disprove evolution using semantics! Funny.

So in your mind, "first step to possible speciation" is the same as "definitely no speciation"???

I.E It's still evidence for common descent. No one said it's the ONLY evidence for common descent. :D
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
The only evidence of change is micro.. horizontal changes within the haplotree of an organism. Certain equids became reproductively isolated, and narrowed into limited variables in their respective haplogroups. They share the mtDNA marker that indicates descent. They are the tips of the branches of the haplotree. Some dead ended, and those traits are no longer around.

The same with man. The various races and geographically isolated haplogroups all descended from the same human ancestor. The variability that was in the earliest ancestors was spread about as humans migrated throughout the world. They became isolated with certain morphological features, but not to the point of reproductive isolation. Canidae is similar. Lots of diversity, but few instances of reproductive isolation. They are related, because you can trace the mtDNA marker in them.

Within humans, canidae, and equidae, there is ample evidence of ancestry AND diversity, but NO evidence that they came from another organism, or are becoming something else, with a different genetic structure. The canid line has remained canids, and only produces more canids, with less diversity from the narrowing gene pool to draw from.

The genes from apes are completely different, and have little crossover ability for humans. Pigs are used more in genetic research for humans, because they are more similar, and can fool the host more often.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If all that is being said is that organisms vary within their genetic parameters, then there is no debate. E coli is unique, in that it has a wide range of adaptability, but there is NO EVIDENCE that it came from (or is going to), some simpler (or complex) genetic structure.

Here i address the e coli study that has been alluded to. Quotes from the study are italicized.

Contribution of Horizontal Gene Transfer to the Evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature.

Pathetically, i understand this.. being a bit of a science geek, & having followed with great interest this subject for decades. I take issue with the use of the terminology, 'evolution', as it seems to use circular reasoning.. using the premise (and terminology) to prove itself. If by 'genomic evolution' you merely mean minor changes in generations, or micro evolution, that is plainly obvious. But to correlate it with macro is still a false equivalence.

Now, the study is claiming 'beneficial' mutations, among 'several lines of evidence'. I am a bit confused about the statement above, which seems to conflict with the findings of the study:

Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains.[5][19][20] Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame,only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.

So there is a question about the results.. were 'almost all mutations beneficial'? Or were there 'only 10-20 beneficial mutations?

That is a fine point, & may be due more to the writer, than the experiment itself.

Ok lets go to the findings, & see what conclusions they compel.
* Change in fitness.
All populations showed a pattern of rapid increase in relative fitness during early generations, with this increase decelerating over time
* defects in genome repair
Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains
* increase in cell size, & morphological change
All twelve of the experimental populations show an increase in cell size concurrent with a decline in maximum population density, and in many of the populations, a more rounded cell shape
* Polymorphism & phylogenetic comparison
Two distinct variants, S and L, were identified in the population designated Ara-2 at 18,000 generations based on their formation of small and large colonies, respectively.[25] Clones of the S and L types could co-exist stably in co-culture with each other, indicating they occupied distinct niches in the population
* Citrate usage
The inability to grow aerobically on citrate, referred to as a Cit− phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species, and one that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. While Cit+ strains of E. coli have been isolated from environmental and agricultural samples, in every such case, the trait was found to be due to the presence of a plasmid containing a foreign citrate transporter.[32] A single, spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli was reported by Hall in 1982.[33] This mutant had been isolated during prolonged selection for growth on another novel substance in a growth broth that also contained citrate. Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene

There is a bit more in this study, & lots of commentary about the findings. But the primary evidence being presented is the ability of e.coli 'to grow aerobically on citrate', when oxygen is present.

Now, let us examine the claims that this is evidence for macro evolution, which predicts a structural change in the genome.

Has there been a 'structural change' in the dna? No. This is still a strain of e.coli. It is not another, more advanced bacteria, but one of the simplest, most basic ones there is, & even over thousands of generations, it is still e.coli, with a few mutations & variations, perhaps, but genetically, morphologically, & phylogenetically, unchanged. It is just a slightly different genotype, and almost an exact phenotype.

Here are some other facts about this study.
  • E.coli is an asexual organism, able to reproduce by itself.
  • The study began in 1988, & by 2016 has increased to 66,000 generations.
  • E.coli has been found to be extremely adaptive, with ability to survive & adapt to many different conditions.
  • There are many criticisms of this study's conclusions, among peer reviewed scientists. Extrapolations not warranted by the data are made, and it has been sensationalized for marketing or hype.
  • This study provides no evidence for any structural changes in the genome.
I like this study. I am intrigued by the findings about e.coli, & its amazing adaptability to its environment. It is similar to the shark, in its longevity & ability to live in whatever environmental variables come its way.

But, for those who think this study provide evidence for the ToE, you are greatly mistaken. It does not. It merely illustrates the adaptability of e.coli.

The claim of 'new speciation' is only an arbitrary definition, not anything compelled by any changes in the morphology or genetic structure of the organism. To claim this is 'real evolution!' is absurd. It is obviously just adaptation, & only demonstrates the viability & adaptability of this particular organism. Some organisms do NOT have this capability, but die under unfriendly conditions. So this phenomenon does not apply universally, as would be expected if this were a mechanism for macro evolution, but is unique to e.coli.

Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event" by pointing out that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation since in their 2008 paper they said "that becoming Cit+ was only a first step on the road to possible speciation", and thus did not propose that the Cit+ mutants were a different species, but that speciation might be an eventual consequence of the trait's evolution

So the claim of 'new speciation!' is not even claimed by Lenski, the one doing the study, even though hordes of eager Believers cling to it as 'scientific proof!' of common descent.

None of this counters the point that:
- you asked for an example of a new trait evolving in a population that was not present in the ancestors
- e colli experiment provide exactly that: a new trait evolving in a population which was not present in the ancestors.

The very mutations that made it happen, as well as the very generations in which the mutations occured, have even been identified by the researchers.

This was a genuine evolution of a new trait in an existing population, where such trait wasn't present in any of the ancestral populations.

It really is this simple.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
The same with man. The various races and geographically isolated haplogroups all descended from the same human ancestor. The variability that was in the earliest ancestors was spread about as humans migrated throughout the world. They became isolated with certain morphological features, but not to the point of reproductive isolation. Canidae is similar. Lots of diversity, but few instances of reproductive isolation. They are related, because you can trace the mtDNA marker in them.

Yeah but if you use that method to trace ancestry, then you'll also unwittingly trace ancestry to other apes, and mammals, and eventually, dogs even. Every other Eukaryote. Which shoots your own argument down.

Because that argument is clearly AGAINST there being an invisible wall that separates the "micro" from the "macro".

Within humans, canidae, and equidae, there is ample evidence of ancestry AND diversity, but NO evidence that they came from another organism, or are becoming something else, with a different genetic structure.

Actually the evidence you just cited is also evidence of ALL those organisms you just mentioned being related.

The canid line has remained canids, and only produces more canids, with less diversity from the narrowing gene pool to draw from.

The canid "line" is a stealth admission that there's also an "ape line" and that we're a part of it. So no matter which way you're arguing, you're at least arguing for the view of humans being apes. That's some progress.

The genes from apes are completely different, and have little crossover ability for humans. Pigs are used more in genetic research for humans, because they are more similar, and can fool the host more often.

This is a plain lie. No, it is not an ad hominem to observe you lying. You're just lying there, nothing more.

You're trying to pick and choose from DNA evidence. It's not working, as i have just caught you.

Apes are a thing just like canids. There are several different bodyforms and types of canids, and there are several different bodyforms and types of apes. When we decided to use the taxonomic system, and use terms like "canids" like you're using there, then you're also unwittingly using ALL the other taxonomic classifications OR you're picking and choosing. So if there's a canid "line" then there's an "ape" line and we've been placed on it by the same type of people who placed dogs into "canids."

It's taxonomy. You can disagree with it, but i see you trying to use it to prove your point so, tough luck i suppose.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The only evidence of change is micro

Is it, really?


upload_2019-7-9_23-25-5.png


Here's a funny looking cross section of an elephant's foot:

upload_2019-7-9_23-26-47.png


Does it remind you of something?

The evidence of common ancestry and evolution literally thinkering with anatomy to produce the various forms of life we observe today, is literally everywhere we look.

Be it in comparative genomics or comparative anatomy.
It's all there. Nested hierarchies in everything. Again, be it genetics, bodily anatomy or even just the tracing of a SINGLE bone.

It's all just variations of the same thing.
Exactly as we expect if all life is the result of evolution from common ancestors.

The same with man. The various races and geographically isolated haplogroups all descended from the same human ancestor. The variability that was in the earliest ancestors was spread about as humans migrated throughout the world.

This is actually false.
The most genetic variation is found in the mother population, in africa, where homo sapiens initially evolved.

The fact is that there is LESS genetic variation between me, a west european, and a random chinese person then there is between a black african and his neighbour.

This is because the migration out of africa was only a small group - most never left and stayed in africa.
This means that the group that migrated, constituted a genetic bottleneck.

To illustrate, consider all letters of the alphabet in a given circle. Then remove 3 letters and move them to another circle - that's the migration group. The available variation in that group is significantly less then the variation left behind.


They became isolated with certain morphological features, but not to the point of reproductive isolation. Canidae is similar. Lots of diversity, but few instances of reproductive isolation. They are related, because you can trace the mtDNA marker in them.

Ever heared of ring species? Fascinating things. You might want to look it up.

Within humans, canidae, and equidae, there is ample evidence of ancestry AND diversity, but NO evidence that they came from another organism, or are becoming something else, with a different genetic structure.

Not with a different genetic structure, no.

The canid line has remained canids, and only produces more canids

Yep.
Homo sapiens produce more homo sapiens (or subspecies thereof).
Primates produce more primates (or subspecies thereof).
Mammals produce more mammals (or subspecies thereof).
Tetrapods produce more tetrapods (or subspecies thereof).
Vertebrates produce more vertebrates (or subspecies thereof).

Canines will not produce felines though.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here, perhaps?
I dunno, maybe something that resembles some kind of hierarchy? A nested hierarchy, to be specific?

The genes from apes are completely different
They aren't, off course.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
..btw, my arguments are not for any particular theory of origins.. scientifically, i am an origins agnostic.. i believe in God, as do most evolutionists, i just don't buy the 'amoeba to man' theory of common descent. The scientific evidence is just not there.. I don't know how we got here. :shrug:

I argue as a skeptic, and one with a scientific background, that can follow scientific methodology. So attacking YEC is a strawman, not relevant to the debate. COMMON DESCENT, not religious stories of origins, is the debate. Comparative religion should go elsewhere.

And, perhaps i have you outnumbered, even at 30 to one? ;) I'm presenting most of the studies, science, and reasoning.

A reminder:
One point. A link can support, but a link is not an argument nor a point.
No snark, ridicule, or ad hom (the hard part!)
Rational, civil, scientific based arguments.

I'll examine the evidence, and offer a reply.

Snarky, ad hom laced rants will be noted, then dismissed as the irrational ravings of religious fanatics. I might return fire, if one is witty.. ;)
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
scientifically, i am an origins agnostic.. i believe in God, as do most evolutionists, i just don't buy the 'amoeba to man' theory of common descent. The scientific evidence is just not there.. I don't know how we got here. :shrug:

Yes, this is how you're trying to frame it.

But really, your origin is goddidit and you're buying the man from dust "story."

You aren't an origin agnostic at all.

Not to mention evolution is not the "origins" but rather what's happening now. How life itself began would be an origin. And scientists do not make any definite claims of origin.

Only creationists do.

And no, not all creationists are YEC. But all YEC are creationists.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The only evidence of change is micro.. horizontal changes within the haplotree of an organism. Certain equids became reproductively isolated, and narrowed into limited variables in their respective haplogroups. They share the mtDNA marker that indicates descent. They are the tips of the branches of the haplotree. Some dead ended, and those traits are no longer around.

The same with man. The various races and geographically isolated haplogroups all descended from the same human ancestor. The variability that was in the earliest ancestors was spread about as humans migrated throughout the world. They became isolated with certain morphological features, but not to the point of reproductive isolation. Canidae is similar. Lots of diversity, but few instances of reproductive isolation. They are related, because you can trace the mtDNA marker in them.

Within humans, canidae, and equidae, there is ample evidence of ancestry AND diversity, but NO evidence that they came from another organism, or are becoming something else, with a different genetic structure. The canid line has remained canids, and only produces more canids, with less diversity from the narrowing gene pool to draw from.

The genes from apes are completely different, and have little crossover ability for humans. Pigs are used more in genetic research for humans, because they are more similar, and can fool the host more often.

This posts tells us once again that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Whenever a creationist tries to make the false claim of "NO evidence that they came from another organism," that tells us that they either do not understand what is and what is not scientific evidence or they are lying. Once again here is the definition of scientific evidence in a nutshell:

"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."

When you are presented evidence you should only be asking yourself two questions. First is the model that is in question a scientific hypothesis or theory. You may not realize this but yes, all of the models that have been presented to you have been falsifiable. Meaning that they are testable scientific theories or hypotheses. Second you only need to ask yourself if the observation is what the theory or hypothesis predicts. If it does so then like it or not it is by definition evidence for that theory or hypothesis. That is why the observation of nested hierarchies is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. The theory predicts that we would see these and we do.

Second your language tells us that you do not yet have a very firm grasp of the theory itself. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. Any species will only have offspring that are of the same "kind". Apes will always have apes, That is why you are still an ape. You share a common ancestor with other apes, that species was an ape and therefore you (and I and everyone else posting here) is an ape. You take that personally and yet you seem to have no problem acknowledging that you are part of even larger groups such as mammals or vertebrates.

Until you learn what evidence all we can do is to try to keep reminding you. By the way, there is a reason that scientists developed that concept of evidence. Not only does it make sense, but humans are quite often emotional rather than rational thinkers. They very often tend to deny evidence. That is why a definition where emotions cannot come to play is preferable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top