• 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.

tas8831

Well-Known Member
How? You assert a vague reference to 'fossils!', but show no evidence that the drawings, phylogenetic trees, and speculations have any scientific basis.

Here is the scientific basis:

"As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line."

"The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy..."

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

There, you were referring to a mtGenome PHYLOGENETIC TREE.

You know that, right?

And you enthusiastically and with great certainty exclaimed that those results were correct. You even presented the "chart" they used:

F1.medium.gif








Please explain why THAT phylogenetic tree is just a dandy, but all others can be summarily dismissed by creationists?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Personal belittling, name calling, false accusations, cherry picked 'gotcha!' phrases, straw men, well poisoning, and ad hominem is not evidence for common descent.
None of those things are present:

You have yet to explain, or provide a rationale, or give examples regarding this 'requirement' for "new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome " in order for 'macroevolution' (which you also have not defined) to have occurred.

Why are "new genes" required for macroevolution (as you define it)? And what is your evidence for this?

What are "structural changes in the genome" required? I have provided evidence that major structural differences in genome architecture can produce creatures with strikingly similar morphology that are interfertile - where is your evidence that such changes would be required?

New traits are a given, but that is easy - unless you have a unique definition for 'trait' as well?

I see a lot of your buzzwords/phrases, but no science.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
And simple questions:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.
5. Define "evidence"
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Gosh, I'm just not seeing any "Personal belittling, name calling, false accusations, cherry picked 'gotcha!' phrases, straw men, well poisoning, and ad hominem" here, and none of it is offered as "evidence for common descent." You ignore or dismiss such evidence as being "too long".
"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes​



Did you not write this? HERE is the context:

This was presented earlier, and i touched on it, but since the 'looks like!' morphology is one of the main arguments for common descent, it deserves another look.

1. It is primarily circular reasoning. Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself.
2. "Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes. Certain haplogroups, like canidae, mentioned earler, HAVE the evidence of descendancy. But to extrapolate that to all living things is flawed. It is not the case. There is NO GENETIC EVIDENCE of descendancy in cross genetic architectures. There is real genetic evidence of descendancy within canidae, felidae, equus, etc, but nothing to suggest any of them came from, or are becoming, something else. The 'high genetic walls,' that the hecklers love to ridicule, PREVENT any departure from the parent architecture. That is repeatable, observable, scientific FACT.​

You wrote that, so it is not a false accusation. No belittling or anything else - well, expect of course what you do to yourself by claiming decades of study and to "know the material".


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

Not out of context, not a gotcha, etc. Just YOUR words, on a subject YOU claim to know all about, writing completely error-filled nonsense.

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."
"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."
Same thing - YOU writing on a subject YOU pretend to know all about. No strawman, no ad hominem, no cherry picking - heck, pretty much every one of your 'science' posts have errors in them, so no cherry picking is necessary.
That you are wrong is YOUR problem, and my pointing out your error is just that. If you feel belittled, stop the pretense and stop writing about things you do not actually understand as well as you think you do. Dunning and Kruger wrote some papers about this.
That post was a gem for other reasons, too:


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.​

Amazing....
"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."
See above.
Yup. 4 decades of study and we have the great lingo expert.
Truth hurts sometimes.

But what is the manly conservative to do? Whine line a millennial snowflake, or buck up like the macho science expert man he pretends to be on the internet, face the facts, admit your many errors, and move on?

I guess we have our answer.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Please explain why THAT phylogenetic tree is just a dandy, but all others can be summarily dismissed by creationists?
That is a genetically evidenced descendancy chart, with clear evidence of mtDNA progression.

The 'Tree of life!', that asserts 'molecule to man!', is imagined, with no evidence.

Those who equate them use a false equivalency to deceive themselves.

So you see no difference between an evidenced genetic study on mtDNA in canids, and the leap to 'universal common descent!' ?

..and you ridicule me?
:facepalm:
..and you expect me to take you seriously?

No, you've got your propaganda memes, caricatures, cherry picked 'gotcha!' quotes, and every fallacy in the book. I do not expect a rational, scientific based post from you.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Phylogenetic-relationships-of-selected-primates-based-on-mitochondrial-DNA-genome.png

That study used mtDNA, too. It shows "the ancestry line".

"And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed."
If you want to present this as an argument, and ditch the ad hom & ridicule, i would examine this claim.

But your pages of heckling and ridicule make me dismiss you as a heckler.

I think you are afraid to submit rational, scientific arguments, and can ONLY rely on allusion, innuendo, and heckling, so i won't examine your empty boasts of 'evidence!' You're afraid i will expose your boasts as bluffs, and don't want a rebuttal from me, at all. Fine. I am glad to ignore your hostile, demeaning rants..
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Nothing can create itself except organic organisms. That's basic science.
Living things reproduce through recognized biological processes. They do not create in the sense of taking inorganic material and transforming it directly into new living things or reproduce new living things out of nothing.

At some point there is no evidence of life on earth in the geological record. Where did that first life come from? The basic science answer right now is "We do not know".
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
Living things reproduce through recognized biological processes. They do not create in the sense of taking inorganic material and transforming it directly into new living things or reproduce new living things out of nothing.

At some point there is no evidence of life on earth in the geological record. Where did that first life come from? The basic science answer right now is "We do not know".

What I meant was that currently and for millions of years organisms have created other organisms. I don't know what started the process but my personal belief is God.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
Where and how life arose is the study of abiogenesis. So far there is no indication of any natural hurdle that would prevent life from arising on its own, and some, but clearly not all, questions of that process have been answered.

But again that is a different field than evolution. I take it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution.

I believe in science and evolution. Strange huh? I was raised by a biologist but I came to know God. So, I have an entirely different viewpoint than many people.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
Right, and as I explained already the measured total energy of the universe is as closely as can be determined zero. That includes all versions of energy including energy in the form of mass. A universe from nothing does not violate that law.

Seriously you should invest an hour and watch Krauss's video.

I started to watch Lawrence Krauss Why the universe probably is "flat" after searching Youtube for "Lawrence Krauss energy mass zero" but then I happened to think why do things feel like they have weight when I pick them up if their mass is zero? What am I not understanding here?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe in science and evolution. Strange huh? I was raised by a biologist but I came to know God. So, I have an entirely different viewpoint than many people.
That is fine,countless Christians accept reality and still believe in God. The fact that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not refute Christianity. But you need to support you claims with evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I started to watch Lawrence Krauss Why the universe probably is "flat" after searching Youtube for "Lawrence Krauss energy mass zero" but then I happened to think why do things feel like they have weight when I pick them up if their mass is zero? What am I not understanding here?
What makes you think their mass is zero? The video did not imply that in any way.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
That is fine,countless Christians accept reality and still believe in God. The fact that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not refute Christianity. But you need to support you claims with evidence.

I have personal evidence constantly. Come follow me around and you will see evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top