Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Darkstorn]

The fact is that all living things share DNA, and the amount shared across species "just so happens" to fit perfectly with predictions based on common ancestry.

Makes me wonder why he would think his God wouldn't be able to do this kind of a thing. It's obviously not random at all but it seems that in his understanding he's reduced it to either God(who definitely didn't do it like that apparently, maybe due to power limitations or something) or total randomness. Common misconception.

But the fact that it's not random at all just makes it even more impressive. I just wish some of these Christians would at least elevate their deity to be able to do mundane stuff like that. Instead of fitting tightly into a neat tiny box inside their heads.

Because the way they tend to reduce it, it looks a bit like this:

The universe: Impressive.

God: Can't do ****.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A few more gems from the peanut gallery.

I still wonder if i don't really outnumber you guys... i think you are in over your collective heads, and try to skate by on ad hom, righteous indignation, and bluff..













This one wins a prize for wittiness!


Brilliant! . I gave you a 'like' for that. It was a refreshing respite from the barrages of humorless bile that is usually thrown at me.

What are you complaining about? Those were all conclusions drawn from your own posts. Instead ot repeated demonstrating ignorance why don't you try to learn? Complaining about having your errors made public does not help you. Having your errors exposed is no ad hom.

Please learn how to use the terms that you abuse actually mean. You have been corrected time after time in regards to ad hom.

But then it appears all that you have are false accusations. Since you cannot support your views you simply cry "ad hom" and run away.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the thread is going to the dogs, and, since many posters are being dogmatic, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae..

What does man's best friend have to say about universal common descent?

I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about dogs, & their genetic base.

Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics:

1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. the origin of the huge morphological diversity that led Darwin to his speculation remains largely unknown
2. All of the current variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old
3. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about.selection acts upon existing variability
4. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent, according to the time frame in the UCD model. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population
5. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.

The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various phenotypes.

The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae, but the time frame is incompatible with the UCD model.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:

From the link:
"Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green."

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is indicate descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. There is no evidence for those speculations.

Canidae shows diversity and adaptability. There is no evidence they shared ancestry with felids, equids, or any other haplogroup. We can follow the MICRO variations within canidae, but there is NOTHING to suggest they were once of a different genetic structure, or varied to or from a MACRO change. Canids have always been canids, and always produce canids, though with reduced variability, as we reach the ends of the branches in their haplotree.

And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed. But leaping to 'common descent!', based on the diversity within canidae is unwarranted, unscientific, and unbelievable..

Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc. The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together. Canidae, for the most part, consists of the single haplogroup of genetic commonality and evidenced descendancy. Genetics has replaced and updated the old morphological taxonomic classifications, which were one limited to 'looks like!' correlation. Now, we have hard science, not just speculation.

Oh my! There is no evidence in that article about how dogs are related to cats and horses since that article is about dog evolution since the split with wolves. This demonstrates a complete ignorance of clades, even though there were some nice cladograms in the article.

When you shout "no evidence" you only demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what is and what is not evidence.

 

[gnostic]

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.

This amounts to nothing more than superstitions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since the thread is going to the dogs, and, since many posters are being dogmatic, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae..

A personal opinion of your own that does not reflect the facts and I do not agree with.

What does man's best friend have to say about universal common descent?

I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about dogs, & their genetic base.

Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics:

This entire post is a poorly written summary (mainly it appears to be an attempt to summarize the abstract of the paper) of a single study published 13 years ago that supports the theory of common descent, while the poster of the summary presents a trivial understanding of the findings, false conclusions and contradictory claims.

1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. the origin of the huge morphological diversity that led Darwin to his speculation remains largely unknown

So we still do not have all the information, therefore any unscientific belief is correct by default? No.

2. All of the current variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old

A confirmation of the recent history of dog breeding, but that fact says NOTHING against common descent.

3. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about.selection acts upon existing variability

All selection acts on existing variability. This is not a revelation that scientists and other posters on here have overlooked. How could selection act on variability that does not exist? That is just ridiculous. This in no way means that the existing variability had to always exist in the genome and it can be as recent as the latest generation.

The false suggestion here is equating evolution over time with variability and implying that the variability has to be pre-existing. Evolution happens over thousands and millions of years. Variability is constantly changing with each generation.

4. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent, according to the time frame in the UCD model. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population

This is the false equivalence of "potential" with "variability". Potential and variability are not the same. The study IS NOT claiming that the variability always existed in the ancestral species.

5. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.

So this is where the set up is taking us. Falsely equating the fact that many recent breeds are the result of breeding conducted over the last 200 years to a claim that earlier evolution did not happen.

The paper does not claim or support that all variability in dogs occurred over the last 200 years. It confirms the history of dog breeding and that many recent breeds were derived over the last 200 years. Any conclusion that variability prior to the last 200 years did not exist and change under selection is the worst sort of biased, myopic claim and does not reflect a careful review of the paper in question.

The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various phenotypes.

The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae, but the time frame is incompatible with the UCD model.

So the data indicates common descent, but YOU are claiming that common descent is refuted due to questions about unrelated aspects of dog evolution. This would be a straw man argument. How surprising.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:

From the link:
"Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green."

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is indicate descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. There is no evidence for those speculations.

So the argument against common descent is supported by the data reported, but YOU are denying it on false premises regarding issues unrelated to common descent.

Canidae shows diversity and adaptability. There is no evidence they shared ancestry with felids, equids, or any other haplogroup. We can follow the MICRO variations within canidae, but there is NOTHING to suggest they were once of a different genetic structure, or varied to or from a MACRO change. Canids have always been canids, and always produce canids, though with reduced variability, as we reach the ends of the branches in their haplotree.

The ultimate straw man argument. The study is a study of the origin of the modern dog and not a study of dogs relationship to other mammals, so there would be no evidence shown for relationships with cats and horses. Is anyone surprised how this has been twisted to demonstrate something that is not there? I am not. I also note that there are unstated and very plastic definitions of both micro-evolution and macro-evolution being used here.

And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed. But leaping to 'common descent!', based on the diversity within canidae is unwarranted, unscientific, and unbelievable..

Sure it has evidence to support it. Did you expect otherwise? It shows the descent of modern dogs from a common ancestor. What is unwarranted, unscientific, and unbelievable is your use of this study to show common descent and deny it at the same time.

Relationships and descent from a common ancestor shared by dogs and other mammals is not part of this study and your conclusion using it against common descent is based on facts not in evidence, and is mere supposition based on YOUR own bias, dogma and ignorance.

Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc. The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together. Canidae, for the most part, consists of the single haplogroup of genetic commonality and evidenced descendancy. Genetics has replaced and updated the old morphological taxonomic classifications, which were one limited to 'looks like!' correlation. Now, we have hard science, not just speculation.

A haplotype is a set of alleles that are passed entire from one parent and are on the same loci of one of a pair of homologous chromosomes. A haplogroup is a group of related haplotypes. A number of haplogroups have been identified in canines and not identified by a single haplogroup as claimed here. The study and other studies confirm that all modern dogs evolved from a shared common ancestor and that many recent breeds were derived in the last 200 years.

For the most part, genetics and molecular biology have confirmed the bulk of taxonomy based on morphology. Usfans claim to the contrary is in defiance of the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

..hmm..

..still not much to address, regarding evidence. I'll trade a few barbs, since that is the Real Interest, here, but i sound like a broken record:

Show me the evidence.

I expected arguments of vestigiality, homology, fossils, quotes from Really Smart People, references to scientific studies, and the like. But i think the realization is sinking in for the True Believers.. there just isn't much out there, to justify a belief in common descent. Logical and evidentiary based arguments give way to Deflections. I should list a few, since they are so popular!

But to summarize to now, i have seen these arguments presented in this debate:

1. Phylogenetic tree
2. E.coli
3. Micro accumulations = macro
4. Genes are all the same, and interchangeable
5. DNA!
6. Embrionic Development

There may be more.. and of course the resident hecklers occasionally include a rational argument in their barrages of ad hom, but i have set the ground rules for my involvement.

So you confirm that you have read and understood that people have presented you evidence, you have not spent any time reviewing that evidence and discussing and debating it on here outside of a few mentions in posts like this.

My summary replies:
1. Circular reasoning, based on 'looks like!' morphology. Just because someone can draw a tree, showing similarities in living things, and imply a progression of evolution, does not mean it happened.

A waving of the hands dismissal of taxonomy and morphology with no support fused with the false claim of a circular argument that you do not demonstrate exists. All this amounts to is another assertion that you do not show support for.

2. E coli is, has been, and apparently will be, a bacteria. It has amazing adaptive qualities, but there is no evidence it evolved from some ancestral genomic architecture, or is evolving to something else. This is not macro evolution.

The "if man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" defense. Common descent is demonstrated in E. coli experiments and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. No claims were made that E. coli was evolving to something else, though this may be what did happen in part of the Lenski experiment.

3. The 'cumulative change!' assertion is a false equivalence. It is a speculative projection, that since we can observe variability among genetic haplogroups, organisms can also change structurally. This is a belief, with no scientific evidence. Since canids can vary so much in their morphology, perhaps they can change into another genotype. Time and wishful thinking is the only mechanism for this fantasy.

Cumulative variation that has become fixed in populations over time is the best explanation for the evidence and you have provided nothing to refute that, modify it or replace it. This explanation is based on the scientific method, sound practices and the application of logic. No one has suggested that species can willfully change their genotypes. The phenotypic variation seen in canines is the result of genetic variation within the population that was derived through natural processes and augmented by direct intervention of humans in the case of dogs.

5. Genes and DNA are not 'all the same!' The cellular composition is, but they are not cross haplogroup compatible. They are not lego blocks, that can be rearranged to create anything you want.

DNA and RNA are shared across all living things and it is the same molecules that are used by bacteria, viruses, plants, fungi and animals. Genes vary among groups and many are specific even down to the species level, but even genes can and do move horizontally between groups and this fact has been exploited by plant and animal breeders to move genes across phyla to create phenotypes that have value to people.

6. This is another argument of plausibility. If you squint your eyes, hold your tongue just right, and believe with all your heart, you can 'See!' common descent in an embryo! 'That looks like a fish!, therefore, evolution!' But it is not a fish. It is a developing embryo. Any 'looks like!' speculations are imagination excesses, not science. There are no gills, it has no tail, and the genetic blueprint for the organism is in place, and it is growing into the organism delineated by its genes.

I thought you were going to provide a scientific argument against the evidence. Not really, huh. This is your personal opinion and it can be addressed by the following dismissal of it.

If any scientific evidence is presented, without having to sift out paragraphs of hysteria and ad hom, i would be happy to examine it. What do you say? Are you confident in the evidentiary base of your beliefs? Or is that too dangerous a venture?

A false characterization of what has occurred on here. The evidence supports the conclusion of common descent. Even the evidence you provide supports that conclusion. You have said so yourself, while still claiming that it demonstrates no common descent. A paradox you seem unable to explain.

The evidence that people have presented is easy to find on here. Everyone else seems to have found it. You seem to have found it and enumerated those findings at the beginning of your post here. So concluding that you cannot find that evidence mixed in with a multitude of off topic posts that are mostly of your own construction is a false statement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my! There is no evidence in that article about how dogs are related to cats and horses since that article is about dog evolution since the split with wolves. This demonstrates a complete ignorance of clades, even though there were some nice cladograms in the article.

When you shout "no evidence" you only demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what is and what is not evidence.

It is a typical straw man argument, but one executed with greater effort than I usually see. Summarize a publication and then make assertions that the publication does not demonstrate claims that are outside of the scope of the study being publicized and that are not made in the paper.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

30 to one is nothing.

Dude. When thirty people at a party all tell you that you're too drunk to drive, a person able to evaluate evidence at least questions his ability to drive. You would just accuse them all of deflection, heckling you, being indoctrinated, being religious zealots, etc.. and pick up your keys to drive home.

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.

The theory is correct, and the scientific community is uninterested in religious objections.

But don't take it too hard that creationists are excluded from their debate. So are people like me who happen to agree with them. They don't care. My opinion doesn't count, just like yours. They're only listening to each other.

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

No. Creationism is a religious belief, meaning it can only be learned through indoctrination, since there is no supporting evidence.

Despite being told, you fail to understand that people skilled in critical thinking and educated in the sciences have no interest in trading a scientific theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture for an idea as useless, sterile, and unevidenced as creationism.

You'll need to take your shtick to Sunday school, where you'll find minds willing to believe your claims on faith. Not in the evidence and reason-based crowd. You'll need to make clear, compelling arguments here and support your claims.

Provide any evidence that living things can add traits

It's already been done. As usual, when evidence is presented, you ran.

And somehow, you don't know how you appear to others, even after they tell you and explain why. This is one of the least desirable aspects of religious thought - the willingness to ignore evidence and believe wrong ideas instead. We know that creationism is an incorrect idea because it is sterile, just like astrology, another faith-based belief system.

Correct ideas work. That's what lets us know they're correct. If I tell you that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, the deciding factor of whether that is correct or not will be whether this idea can be used to get me to the pier. If walking 5 blocks south and three blocks west works as hoped to get me to the pier, then the idea is correct. If I end up anywhere else, it was wrong. If this isn't how you decide what is true about the world, then your thoughts will be of no value. The rational skeptic is not interested in what you believe, but what you know and can demonstrate. You have no evidence or demonstration for creationism, so, your beliefs are for you, not me.

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

That's a rhetorical question, I hope. I think it's been pretty well established what his agenda, methods, and values are. You have no chance of penetrating his faith-based confirmation bias. Learning, as you know, is a cooperative effort that requires a certain psychological demeanor. You can't teach a man what he has a stake in not understanding and therefore will not cooperate with you. Hasn't he already told the thread that he intends to contradict whatever is presented to him, which is an exaggeration given how much he ignores.

i just don't buy the 'amoeba to man' theory of common descent.

Of course you don't. Man comes from dust and woman from a rib, right? That you can buy, however.

. The scientific evidence is just not there.

Yes, it is there, but you don't do evidence. You just posture as if you do, a typical feature of the creationist two-step. Besides, you're a faith-based thinker. What'[s all this clamoring for evidence?

I argue as a skeptic

No you don't. You argue as a religious zealot. You've already announced to the thread that your mind is closed when you revealed a little too much of your agenda by promising to contradict whatever was presented. That's the very definition of closed-mindedness.

No matter what i say, it is automatically, categorically, and Absolutely, 'Wrong!!'

You love you some hyperbole, don't you? You've said some correct things. You called evolution adaptation.

i think you are in over your collective heads, and try to skate by on ad hom, righteous indignation, and bluff

Dude. You're argument is road kill now, and you've demonstrated that you are unteachable. You still don't know what ad hom means

You remind me of the Black Knight from Monty Python, except even more clueless, since all the knight was claiming after having all four limbs removed by a sword was a tie. You're claiming victory.

 

[tas8831]

Ah, another arbiter of what is and is not science SPEAKETH.
OOOOH - DO TELL!

Is that right?

Provide an example that fits your 'description'/'prescription' for SCIENCE.

Can't wait for you to post... nothing!

And he never did...

 

[tas8831]

I have a lot of catching up to do, but suffice it to say that I will have to explain this to the latest pseudogenius creationist at some point....

Since the thread is going to the dogs, and, since many posters are being dogmatic, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae..

What does man's best friend have to say about universal common descent?

I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about dogs, & their genetic base.

Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics:

1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. the origin of the huge morphological diversity that led Darwin to his speculation remains largely unknown
2. All of the current variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old
3. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about.selection acts upon existing variability
4. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent, according to the time frame in the UCD model. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population
5. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.

The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various phenotypes.

The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae, but the time frame is incompatible with the UCD model.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:

From the link:
"Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green."

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is indicate descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. There is no evidence for those speculations.

Canidae shows diversity and adaptability. There is no evidence they shared ancestry with felids, equids, or any other haplogroup. We can follow the MICRO variations within canidae, but there is NOTHING to suggest they were once of a different genetic structure, or varied to or from a MACRO change. Canids have always been canids, and always produce canids, though with reduced variability, as we reach the ends of the branches in their haplotree.

And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed. But leaping to 'common descent!', based on the diversity within canidae is unwarranted, unscientific, and unbelievable..

Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc. The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together. Canidae, for the most part, consists of the single haplogroup of genetic commonality and evidenced descendancy. Genetics has replaced and updated the old morphological taxonomic classifications, which were one limited to 'looks like!' correlation. Now, we have hard science, not just speculation.

So precious that the anti-science religious zealot cannot grasp their own lack of insight.
Dunning and Kruger have written several papers on this phenomenon.

 

[tas8831]

He spends most of his time writing posts that have nothing to do with his premise for this thread and he seems to like repeating that phrase about "homerotic" attention.

He talks about how he expects to be put the through the wringer personally, as if to mention it offhand with the intention of trivializing such attention so he can get to the core of the thread. 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.

It also feeds the creationists' martyr complex - 'I must soldier on through the horrible, horrible denigrations and deceptions, all for Your Glory!... And mine, of course!'.
If I were a psychologist, I would have a field day with these folks.

 

[tas8831]

He's the boy who cried "ad hominem."

It has now lost all effect. Sad. Now when a real one comes, no one will believe him.

I don;t know about you, but in my experience, most (nearly all) creationists do not actually understand what 'ad hominem' means.
Skimming through this thread, I do not see ANYONE actually making arguments out of pointing out the latest goober's untoward characteristics. Making observations is not making ad hominems.

 

[tas8831]

For the science pretender, 2nd installment:

The tested methodology, part 2:


Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.


==========================
In this experiment, the investigators generated a known phylogeny of virus and applied the most common molecular phylogenetics techniques, again, for testing the accuracy and reliability of the methods. The results of this set of experiments also demonstrated the reliability of the techniques.,

I am not at all surprised to see phony-'expert' creationists be wholly unfamiliar with these papers and techniques. That is what happens when one relies on other phony 'experts' for their information.

 

[usfan]

For the science pretender, 2nd installment:
The tested methodology, part 2:
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==========================
In this experiment, the investigators generated a known phylogeny of virus and applied the most common molecular phylogenetics techniques, again, for testing the accuracy and reliability of the methods. The results of this set of experiments also demonstrated the reliability of the techniques.,
I am not at all surprised to see phony-'expert' creationists be wholly unfamiliar with these papers and techniques. That is what happens when one relies on other phony 'experts' for their information.

Nice cut and paste. ..and continued reliance on snark and insult, belittling me, personally, and ignoring my points entirely.

I've already addressed this techno babble bluff. This is more of the same, ASSERTING that since a previously unknown trait came up.. digesting citrates in e.coli.. this 'proves common descent!' But it does not. It doesn't even prove that 'new!' genes were formed for this adptation
I quoted the study, pointing out important distinctions in what was actually, factually discovered, and the speculative mumbo jumbo that bedazzles the gullible.

But as is typical in forum 'debates' on this subject, religious deflections, indignation, and personal quips replace actual scientific debate.

This article said nothing different than i already addressed. I doubt you knew that, just posted it to bluff, as techno babble. It provides no point, just re-asserts the false assumption that an ASSUMED 'acquired trait', (which is not established) was 'created!' by evolution.

From your article:
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies.

What this is saying, is that we use the 'looks like!' ASSUMPTION to guess descendancy. Any actual science behind it is "hampered by the lack of known phylogenies."

So, they took a set of bacteria that showed no ability to digest citrates, and put 'pressure' on it to adapt. It did, so, 'proof of evolution!'

But there are too many assumptions, and alternative possibilities, to categorically declare, 'evolution!' as the Cause.

1. The specific gene, that enabled this trait was not identified. Was it already there?
2. Like in other living things, traits can be hidden deep in the dna, and is only 'selected' if it is used and needed for adaptation.
3. Bacteria and viruses show a unique ability to adapt, with a wide range of conditions. That is not universal with all other organisms.

..were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors

Yes, you can infer a lot of things, if you are hell bent on proving some hare brained 'theory!' But the only thing really 'proved!' here is desperation. Adaptation of e.coli is not proof, or evidence, or even inference, of common descent.

If your whole belief in evolution is based on the fuzzy conclusions of an 'experiment!' designed to prove horizontal gene transfer, rife with assumptions and speculation, that is fine. People can believe whatever they want. But to pretend this is 'settled science!', and 'proves evolution!' is absurd, and does violence to the scientific method. This is religious propaganda, masquerading as 'science!'

The techno babble fools the gullible, and fuels the illusion that 'we're really smart, 'cause we know big words!' But when you sift through the bluff, there is nothing there.

From the e.coli study:
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

This is not that hard to grasp.. even for desperate True Believers. No gene was identified, so we assumed a 'cryptic transporter gene!' This is guess and extrapolation, not hard evidence of anything. Is this really the best 'evidence!', you have?

Points to ponder, from some of the studies quoted:

1. Selection acts upon existing variability
2. No specific genes were isolated. The 'cryptic transporter gene' is hypothesized.

And from this 'study' on the antics of True Believers:

1. Fist pumps, high fives, and middle school snark passes for 'scientific evidence!'
2. Techno babble, where the 'proof!' is assumed, passes for critical thinking.
3. Hordes of True Believers, dogpiling on rational, scientific based arguments and facts can be more effective, they believe, than rational, evidentiary based discussion.

Perhaps you need more than 30 - 1.. at least the 30 in your collective knowledge base lack evidence for your beliefs, and must resort to fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice cut and paste. ..and continued reliance on snark and insult, belittling me, personally, and ignoring my points entirely.

I've already addressed this techno babble bluff. This is more of the same, ASSERTING that since a previously unknown trait came up.. digesting citrates in e.coli.. this 'proves common descent!' But it does not. It doesn't even prove that 'new!' genes were formed for this adptation
I quoted the study, pointing out important distinctions in what was actually, factually discovered, and the speculative mumbo jumbo that bedazzles the gullible.

But as is typical in forum 'debates' on this subject, religious deflections, indignation, and personal quips replace actual scientific debate.

This article said nothing different than i already addressed. I doubt you knew that, just posted it to bluff, as techno babble. It provides no point, just re-asserts the false assumption that an ASSUMED 'acquired trait', (which is not established) was 'created!' by evolution.

From your article:
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies.

What this is saying, is that we use the 'looks like!' ASSUMPTION to guess descendancy. Any actual science behind it is "hampered by the lack of known phylogenies."

So, they took a set of bacteria that showed no ability to digest citrates, and put 'pressure' on it to adapt. It did, so, 'proof of evolution!'

But there are too many assumptions, and alternative possibilities, to categorically declare, 'evolution!' as the Cause.

1. The specific gene, that enabled this trait was not identified. Was it already there?
2. Like in other living things, traits can be hidden deep in the dna, and is only 'selected' if it is used and needed for adaptation.
3. Bacteria and viruses show a unique ability to adapt, with a wide range of conditions. That is not universal with all other organisms.

..were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors

Yes, you can infer a lot of things, if you are hell bent on proving some hare brained 'theory!' But the only thing really 'proved!' here is desperation. Adaptation of e.coli is not proof, or evidence, or even inference, of common descent.

If your whole belief in evolution is based on the fuzzy conclusions of an 'experiment!' designed to prove horizontal gene transfer, rife with assumptions and speculation, that is fine. People can believe whatever they want. But to pretend this is 'settled science!', and 'proves evolution!' is absurd, and does violence to the scientific method. This is religious propaganda, masquerading as 'science!'

The techno babble fools the gullible, and fuels the illusion that 'we're really smart, 'cause we know big words!' But when you sift through the bluff, there is nothing there.

From the e.coli study:
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

This is not that hard to grasp.. even for desperate True Believers. No gene was identified, so we assumed a 'cryptic transporter gene!' This is guess and extrapolation, not hard evidence of anything. Is this really the best 'evidence!', you have?

Points to ponder, from some of the studies quoted:

1. Selection acts upon existing variability
2. No specific genes were isolated. The 'cryptic transporter gene' is hypothesized.

And from this 'study' on the antics of True Believers:

1. Fist pumps, high fives, and middle school snark passes for 'scientific evidence!'
2. Techno babble, where the 'proof!' is assumed, passes for critical thinking.
3. Hordes of True Believers, dogpiling on rational, scientific based arguments and facts can be more effective, they believe, than rational, evidentiary based discussion.

Perhaps you need more than 30 - 1.. at least the 30 in your collective knowledge base lack evidence for your beliefs, and must resort to fallacies.

Did someone say that the long term E. coli experiment was "proof"? I don't think anyone did that. It is evidence. And once again your ranting and raving and spewing of ignorance only tells us that you still do not understand the concept of scientific evidence.


A quick reminder. There is no "proof" in the sciences. There is only evidence. When it comes to an observation if it supports a scientific theory or hypothesis it is evidence.

You may think that is a weakened version of evidence, but it is not. Consider the fact that there is no scientific evidence for any competing concept in regards to how life got to the state that we observe today.

 

[Cooky]

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.

Does the concept of "Information integration" have any relevance here? Have you heard of it?

Toward a theory of multilevel evolution: long-term information integration shapes the mutational landscape and enhances evolvability. - PubMed - NCBI

"multilevel evolution leads to long-term information integration. Through genome, network, and dynamical structuring, the occurrence and/or effect of random mutations becomes nonrandom, and facilitates rapid adaptation. This is what does happen in the in silico experiments. Is it also what did happen in biological evolution?

 

[tas8831]

3rd installment.

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "

-------------------------------------------------------
Here, the tested and demonstrably accurate methods are applied to the question of human phylogeny.
As these methods are tested, the results of this application of these methods can be accepted as valid.

 

[tas8831]

Last installment for the pretender.

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationist has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.

 

[tas8831]

..just a few of the objective, scientific based replies, from some of the True Believers.

All true. Whats the problem?

They overwhelm me, in this thread, and while i usually return a few quips, which is the norm for forum debates, i haven't here as much, because it detracts from the topic..

You asked for evidence. You got it. Then you pulled a standard creationist.

And, of course, because I'm a little uncomfortable with all this homoerotic attention.

I'm betting you are compensating here, as many right-wing religionists are prone to do.

Sure, I'll banter a bit, swap snippy remarks, and trade barbs, but once it starts getting hot & heavy, the obsession with me, personally, becomes awkward. I don't really swing that way.

Sure you don't.... Ted haggard said the same thing

Maybe i seem masochistic, for enduring the hate streams of ad hom and ridicule, but really, I'm just amused a bit, and fairly patient.

Spare us the phony martyrdom.

I am not really wanting to be the object of homoerotic fantasies.

I'm thinking... maybe you are... Lest you would not make such a big deal of it.

I had hoped for a scientific discussion about common descent..

No, not really.

It was a spoof, a pretense for you live out your martyrdom fantasies. It is pretty common creationist stuff, especially among those with no science background.

 

[tas8831]

Most of the problems with the belief in common descent are due to a faulty understanding of genetics. I mentioned that earlier, & gave a short clarification, but obviously more is needed.

We do not, even now understand all the nuances and hows and whys in genetics.. it is a new science, with clarifications happening all the time.

I think an understanding of some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change.

For example: equidae

We have evidence that the equid line has changed chromosome numbers. It is theorized that at some point, a chromosome pair detached at the centromere, & reattached at a telomere, presumably at the fertilized egg level. We have mtDNA to indicate actual descendancy, but the chromosome pairs are different. But, under further examination, the structure of the chromosome 'arms' are the same, just rearranged at the centromere/telomere level.

This is not absolutely proven fact, but is merely a theory for HOW the equid line changed at the chromosomal level. it does fit with the more empirical evidence of mtDNA descendancy, however, so it is a pretty good theory. But, we do not see the same thing with canids.. some, but not as much. Nor do we see it with hominids, especially humans. So a particular trait from one genotype does not mean it can be universally applied to ALL genotypes. Each genomic structure is different, with different rules governing their propagation.

Also, as i noted in the earlier post, the number of chromosomes is not an indicator of ancestry.

Here are some chromosome pairs numbers from wiki:
Fennec fox Animals Vulpes zerda 64
Horse Animals Equus ferus caballus 64
Spotted skunk Animals Spilogale x 64
Mule Animals 63 semi-infertile
Donkey Animals Equus africanus asinus 62

We have mtDNA evidence that asinus & caballus are related. But there is nothing to indicate any genetic relationship with the fox or skunk. So the mere number of chromosomes is not a significant indicator, but the GENETIC structure in it, is. Both the asinus & caballus are from the same root haplogroup.. they are descended from the same ancestor. Their genetic STRUCTURE is the same. the fox & skunk are not. They are a different genotype, from a different haplogroup.

So it is not the number of chromosomes, but their structure, that is the indicator of ancestry.

Does that help any?

Oh me, oh my - so much cut and paste! I cannot handle it all! Oh my, the vapors! This is just a debate tactic from 'true believers!' so I won't reply!

(was that a good enough homage?)