Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Bear Wild]

Exactly. They describe 2 different concepts..
Micro: horizontal changes WITHIN an organism. Man made breeding & natural selection are observable and repeatable as scientifically verifiable processes.
Macro: the extrapolation that the variability observed in micro accumulate and can change an organism's genomic architecture. It is not observed, cannot be demonstrated as a possibility, and is believed, by faith.

Show me one. You merely assert this without evidence.

How? You assert a vague reference to 'fossils!', but show no evidence that the drawings, phylogenetic trees, and speculations have any scientific basis. They are props for a religious theory.

.again, you assert with no corroboration. This is an argument of plausibility. Because you can construct a plausible scenario, with a chart showing imagined progressions, does not make it real. The times and alleged chronologies don't even support the theory, so 'millions of years!' is tossed in to mask the problems in ambiguity.

? Really? Embryology does all that? This is vague, unsourced, and has the look and feel of obfuscating with techno babble. I see no point, no reference, no study, just assertions with some innuendo to some secret 'knowledge!' that proves common descent.

If you are presenting this as evidence, do it. Make the argument, source the data, and allow me to examine it. Vague allusions to some gene, and 'embryology!', does not constitute an argument nor evidence.

Then do it. Present ONE aspect that supports this theory, not just assertions of 'all this evidence!', that cannot be specified .

Too bad. You have devolved again into ad hom.

Instead of worrying about my understanding, why not demonstrate yours? Show me the evidence, not just fallacies. Poisoning the well and trying to discredit me is a desperate attempt to mask the impotence of your own arguments.

Right. Then refute my pathetic ignorance with facts and evidence, instead of going on and on about how stupid i am..


This is just ad hominem deflection, and does not support your argument for common descent.

Evidence. That is the challenge here. Not me. Not your beliefs and assertions. ..Scientific Evidence that supports your belief in common descent.

Otherwise, you have blind faith, not science.

For all your rhetoric you provide no evidence for you claim. The reason is simple, you make broad sweeping comparisons and claim impossibility ignoring everything in between. You ignore fossil evidence with no explanation of your own unless you really have one. If you do I will listen. I gave a point of reference for you to discuss but you ignored it so here is a specific article.

If you are not all talk and preaching then respond to
1. The study :

FOXP2 variation in great ape populations offers insight into the evolution of communication skills.
site for the full study is below
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16844-x

2. Explain how fossil evidence proves common descent cannot exist if you are so certain. If you are so certain then this should be easy for you.

I will be happy to continue with my understanding but as you asked one thing at a time and you should not have any problems with the second response on your side unless you are afraid of the validity of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have never pretended or suggested that..

I'm here for rational discussion, about SCIENCE. I am very familiar with the topic, and have vaid insights and perspective.

Other than bickering with the hecklers, every now and then, i keep it on a scientific, rational vein.

If some here do not know WHY they believe in common descent, i can't help that. I can expose fallavies, and address science, but thos is just a discussion forum. To think i come here to 'learn!', about science is pretty absurd.

What is your evidence against common descent? Your scientific evidence that shows it cannot happen. Since you are the main heckler maybe you can actually provide something more than pure rhetoric when other have given real evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I don't think many people know the difference between the allegories, the histories and anything God might have actually given as knowledge to people.

Other than Genesis about the creation and the flood, the only other book that involved god “doing anything” with NATURE, are in the book of Job, particularly from chapters 38 to 41.

And both books are wrong on so many levels. And nothing in these passages offered any real explanation, because they explain nothing other than “God did it”.

“God did it” isn’t explanation of WHAT is nature or HOW it work. Both the WHAT and HOW questions and explanation are very important in understanding nature and Natural Science.

And Natural Science (which can be broadly divided into Physical Science and Life Science) test these explanations (eg theories, hypotheses, models) through observation and experimentation, which are both evidences.

For someone like @usfan, @BilliardsBall, @Thief, @dad and other creationists, they are completely comfortable with only believing “God did it” all, and ignoring scientific evidences that are contrary to their belief in the Bible.

They have repeatedly and willingly even lie about everything, to defend their religion, defend Jesus and God, not only by twisting what science says or don’t say, but also twisting what the Bible says or don’t say.

In any case, “God did it”, is a irrational argument, based on superstition.

 

[Thief]

For someone like @usfan, @BilliardsBall, @Thief and other creationists,

no wonder you misunderstand me

That God is the Creator doesn't mean my method of saying so is like other creationists

God did it

science displays ...how

and where science has yet to uncover His technique
does not lean to …...no god

 

[usfan]

There is a lot of disinformation, bluff, and/or ignorance regarding mtDNA, and most of genetics. I can expand upon the significance and the definitions later, but will just make a few points, for now, as my time is limited.

1. There is a "marker' in mtDNA that shows descendancy. It is passed down from mother to daughter, and is scientific evidence of actual descendancy.. not something speculated or drawn in a graphic.
2. This 'marker' reveals descendancy in the canid study i referenced earlier. The different branches of the KNOWN DESCENDANTS, are traced through the mtDNA .
3. Some equids, felids, and other haplogroups can trace their own descendancy through this same mtDNA marker.
4. Hominids do NOT have a common marker. Each distinct genotype among hominids has their own, distinct, unique mtDNA marker, and it does not crossover, as would be expected, if there was descendancy. Human beings can trace their mtDNA , which shows complete ancestral connections among every race and people group, debunking earlier theories of regional, separate evolution.
5. There is NO EVIDENCE that apes, chimps, or any other hominid shared ancestry. That is conjectured, as part of the theory of common descent. The mtDNA only reveals humans as related to each other, with no connection to other hominids.
6. There is only a 'looks like!', morphological speculation, from similarities in a few physical traits, but there is NOTHING in the genes to indicate common ancestry. 'Apes and humans both have thumbs! Therefore. evolution!' But as far as hard evidence? Nothing. There is only imagination, 'looks like!' plausibility, and speculation, to link humans and apes.
7. The ape-like reasoning ability and civility of some humans might imply descendancy, but there is no genetic evidence for it.

 

[usfan]

Other than Genesis about the creation and the flood, the only other book that involved god “doing anything” with NATURE, are in the book of Job, particularly from chapters 38 to 41.

And both books are wrong on so many levels. And nothing in these passages offered any real explanation, because they explain nothing other than “God did it”.

This thread is about the science of common descent. Religious texts, and other theories or beliefs are not really relevant. That would be a comparative religion thread. Perhaps a thread examining all the 'theories' of origins, over the millennia, would be interesting. But this one is just for common descent... the latest among the pop culture beliefs in origins..

 

[Neutral Name]

Other than Genesis about the creation and the flood, the only other book that involved god “doing anything” with NATURE, are in the book of Job, particularly from chapters 38 to 41.

And both books are wrong on so many levels. And nothing in these passages offered any real explanation, because they explain nothing other than “God did it”.

“God did it” isn’t explanation of WHAT is nature or HOW it work. Both the WHAT and HOW questions and explanation are very important in understanding nature and Natural Science.

And Natural Science (which can be broadly divided into Physical Science and Life Science) test these explanations (eg theories, hypotheses, models) through observation and experimentation, which are both evidences.

For someone like @usfan, @BilliardsBall, @Thief, @dad and other creationists, they are completely comfortable with only believing “God did it” all, and ignoring scientific evidences that are contrary to their belief in the Bible.

They have repeatedly and willingly even lie about everything, to defend their religion, defend Jesus and God, not only by twisting what science says or don’t say, but also twisting what the Bible says or don’t say.

In any case, “God did it”, is a irrational argument, based on superstition.

I do believe that God did not create everything. However, where did existence come from? I attribute existence to God. Space, time, matter, etc. did not create itself.

 

[usfan]

For someone like @usfan, @BilliardsBall, @Thief, @dad and other creationists, they are completely comfortable with only believing “God did it” all, and ignoring scientific evidences that are contrary to their belief in the Bible.

Nice deflection, but this is about scientific evidence. Got any?

'God did it!', or 'Evolution did it!' are both assertions of belief. This thread is about science.. specifically, the scientific evidence for common descent.

Distracting with caricatures of other's beliefs does not provide evidence for your own.

So, who is ignoring the scientific evidence? It seems to me that the rabid evolutionists here do that.. page after page of assertions, deflections, straw men caricatures, poisoning the well, and the most favorite fallacy: ad hominem. But very little has been posted regarding evidence for this belief about human origins.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do believe that God did not create everything. However, where did existence come from? I attribute existence to God. Space, time, matter, etc. did not create itself.

It's not necessary for those things to "create themselves", per se. For example, they could always have existed in some form, so no creation is inherently required in that situation.

It's always worth noting that what we know about the Universe always leaves room for doubt and questioning - at the moment, we consider the big bang to be the "beginning" of our Universe, but for all intents and purposes this distinction is kind of meaningless because at the planck time (the further possible period in the past we able to investigate or postulate on by any measure), the laws of physics (including time) break down and cease to be a thing, so if we're going to talk about "before" the big bang (if such a thing is possible), then we're talking about a period or event which is completely unrestrained by any physical laws as we understand them.

Of course, you needn't rule out the possibility of a God, but to conclude it based purely on believing that the Universe cannot "create itself" is based on assumptions that are difficult - if not impossible - to really justify. For all we know, it is either quite possible for it to do so, or even inevitable for it to do so, or even unnecessary for it to do so. The key is not to rule our possibilities in order to substitute an answer just because it's preferable to you, or you find it hard to imagine anything else.

A better approach is "I believe God is responsible, but I am uncertain as to whether the Universe can or did create itself or has always existed in some form".

 

[shunyadragon]

This thread is about the science of common descent. Religious texts, and other theories or beliefs are not really relevant. That would be a comparative religion thread. Perhaps a thread examining all the 'theories' of origins, over the millennia, would be interesting. But this one is just for common descent... the latest among the pop culture beliefs in origins..

' . . . but your hostile anti-science dishonest rant is based on your fundamentalist religious agenda. This has been true ever since you started posting here.

You as a matter of fact do not accept any of the science cite. There is no basis for any dialogue.

 

[tas8831]

Why can you not just reply to my post? Why this run around?

There is a lot of disinformation, bluff, and/or ignorance regarding mtDNA, and most of genetics.

All from you.

I can expand upon the significance and the definitions later, but will just make a few points, for now, as my time is limited.

1. There is a "marker' in mtDNA that shows descendancy. It is passed down from mother to daughter, and is scientific evidence of actual descendancy.. not something speculated or drawn in a graphic.

What IS this 'marker' you speak of?


Please define it and explain it. Because the Canid paper used the entire mtGenome - i.e., the SEQUENCE of the entire genome (expect for a couple of parts they omitted).

Did you not read it?

2. This 'marker' reveals descendancy in the canid study i referenced earlier. The different branches of the KNOWN DESCENDANTS, are traced through the mtDNA .

How were the descendants "known" prior to the mtDNA analysis?

3. Some equids, felids, and other haplogroups can trace their own descendancy through this same mtDNA marker.

What do you mean "haplogroup"? Surely you cannot mean "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."? That is premised on your flawed definition of haplotype, for a haplotype is NOT a specific clade, but it is a group of alleles inherited from a single parent.

\And again - this mtDNA "marker" you refer to is the entire mtGenome sequence. As indicated in the paper you enjoy:

" We sequenced the complete mitochondrial DNA genome in 14 dogs, six wolves, and three coyotes."​

Pardon this "wall of text", but it is all from your Canid paper, and it shows that these "markers" you keep referring to are nowhere to be seen:

Previous studies have shown that domestic dog mtDNA sequences cluster in four main clades when compared with wolves, indicating different origination events (Vilà et al. 1997; Savolainen et al. 2002). In order to select samples of dogs representing several mtDNA lineages for the analysis, we sequenced the mitochondrial control region I for 88 dogs from 53 breeds. Among those individuals we selected 14 dogs, which included six from clade I (the clade that encompasses about 71% of today’s dogs; Savolainen et al. 2002) and two or three from each one of the clades II, III, and IV (Vilà et al. 1997). Because we wished to characterize mutations that occurred on dog lineages since the emergence of each clade, the dogs in this study were selected to be representative of the full genetic diversity observed in each clade (Supplemental Fig. S1). Complete mtDNA sequences, excluding the tandem repeat located inside the control region (Hoelzel et al. 1994), were obtained through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification and sequencing. The complete mitochondrial sequence was also obtained for six wolves from throughout the world trying to represent as much of the previously described wolf diversity (Vilà et al. 1999) as possible: Spain, Russia, Saudi Arabia (two individuals), North America, and Sweden. Three coyotes (Canis latrans) from Nebraska and Colorado (two individuals), USA, were also sequenced and used as outgroups.

To construct a gene tree from the 23 complete mtDNA sequences, we first excluded the control region because of the high incidence of homoplasy (Ingman et al. 2000), resulting in a sequence length of 15,547–15,549 base pairs (bp). The average uncorrected pairwise sequence divergence between wolves and dogs was 0.47% (SE = 0.02), whereas average sequence divergence between coyotes and dogs plus wolves was 4.28% (SE = 0.11). A gene tree constructed with these sequences shows that all four clades of dogs are very well supported with bootstrap support values of 100% and Bayesian posterior probabilities of 1.00 (Fig. 1).​

and:

In order to assign nucleotide changes at each gene to specific branches and investigate their biochemical properties, we compared the maximum-likelihood reconstructed ancestral sequences at each node with those at neighboring nodes.​

These "markers"? Let me be generous here - THEY (if we are to consider snps 'markers') WERE ASSIGNED AFTER THE PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES!!!

ANALYSES which relied on patterns of shared mutations - the same methods used in assessing Primate phylogeny - which you arbitrarily dismiss.

Did you ever even read that paper?

I mean, besides the 'chart' showing the 'genetically evidenced descendency line'....



And you want to be taken seriously?

4. Hominids do NOT have a common marker. Each distinct genotype among hominids has their own, distinct, unique mtDNA marker [which is what?], and it does not crossover, as would be expected, if there was descendancy.

What does that even mean?

WHAT 'marker' are you talking about?

You DO know, right, that the entire genomes of humans and chimps have been compared? NOT just some 'mtDNA markers'?

Human beings can trace their mtDNA , which shows complete ancestral connections among every race and people group, debunking earlier theories of regional, separate evolution.

Human beings can trace their mtDNA 'markers' all the way back to the earliest Primates.

4 decades of study should have revealed this.

5. There is NO EVIDENCE that apes, chimps, or any other hominid shared ancestry.

Yes, of course there is - a LOT of it. I and others have posted a bunch of it in this very thread - you ignoring or not understanding it does not mean that it does not exist. And this includes the very same sort of mtDNA data that you wholeheartedly accept for the Canids.

Why your arbitrary inconsistency?

No need to address any more - it is just heckling and dodging.

You have still not addressed this:

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?

And he wants to be taken seriously??

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice deflection, but this is about scientific evidence. Got any?

There are volumes of scientific journals and associated research and evidence, which you reject of the basis on your religious agenda. You designate yourself as 'Biblical Christian,' and that is enough to establish the basis of you agenda and not science.

 

[tas8831]

Exactly. They describe 2 different concepts..
Micro: horizontal changes WITHIN an organism. Man made breeding & natural selection are observable and repeatable as scientifically verifiable processes.
Macro: the extrapolation that the variability observed in micro accumulate and can change an organism's genomic architecture.

You have yet to explain or provide evidence that an "organism's genomic architecture" is a requirement for speciation. Thus, this 'requirement' can be ignored as a fantasy.

It is not observed, cannot be demonstrated as a possibility, and is believed, by faith.

And you just sunk your ark, superstar.

 

[tas8831]

Not sure how to categorize the following:

5. There is NO EVIDENCE that apes, chimps, or any other hominid shared ancestry. That is conjectured, as part of the theory of common descent. The mtDNA only reveals humans as related to each other, with no connection to other hominids.
6. There is only a 'looks like!', morphological speculation, from similarities in a few physical traits, but there is NOTHING in the genes to indicate common ancestry. 'Apes and humans both have thumbs! Therefore. evolution!' But as far as hard evidence? Nothing. There is only imagination, 'looks like!' plausibility, and speculation, to link humans and apes.
7. The ape-like reasoning ability and civility of some humans might imply descendancy, but there is no genetic evidence for it.

One could say "ignorance." One could call it "desperation"...

But given that I presented, in this thread:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

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.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can hereby ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


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. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



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]. "
​

It sort of looks like a ...?

I mean, he can say he rejects it (for no reason), but he did not. He said that there is 'no genetic evidence.'

Yet that was presented to him directly, and he REPLIED to it (by saying it was "This is obfuscation with volume." and avoided it).

Yeah, I wonder how to categorize this...

 

[shunyadragon]

This thread is about the science of common descent. Religious texts, and other theories or beliefs are not really relevant. That would be a comparative religion thread. Perhaps a thread examining all the 'theories' of origins, over the millennia, would be interesting. But this one is just for common descent... the latest among the pop culture beliefs in origins..

If you have 'carefully read and critiqued any and all studies and references given, why other with the thread? You have already read the material and reject the science. You can easily do your own research and read the volumes of research on the subject, but nonetheless reject all this too.

Still not answered . . . Why bother with the thread if you have rejected the literature on the science of abiogenesis and evolution?

Looks more like an intensive 'Hand waving exercise.'

. . . and you are a layman as far as the science of abiogenesis and evolution goes.

 

[Thief]

well gosh and gee willickers……..

I thought any length of dna is of such great length and complexity...…

only God can do it

 

[BilliardsBall]

Other than Genesis about the creation and the flood, the only other book that involved god “doing anything” with NATURE, are in the book of Job, particularly from chapters 38 to 41.

And both books are wrong on so many levels. And nothing in these passages offered any real explanation, because they explain nothing other than “God did it”.

“God did it” isn’t explanation of WHAT is nature or HOW it work. Both the WHAT and HOW questions and explanation are very important in understanding nature and Natural Science.

And Natural Science (which can be broadly divided into Physical Science and Life Science) test these explanations (eg theories, hypotheses, models) through observation and experimentation, which are both evidences.

For someone like @usfan, @BilliardsBall, @Thief, @dad and other creationists, they are completely comfortable with only believing “God did it” all, and ignoring scientific evidences that are contrary to their belief in the Bible.

They have repeatedly and willingly even lie about everything, to defend their religion, defend Jesus and God, not only by twisting what science says or don’t say, but also twisting what the Bible says or don’t say.

In any case, “God did it”, is a irrational argument, based on superstition.

I don't mind you accusing me of lying or irrationality, but you have no evidence to accuse the apostles and Bible authors, up now in glory, of the same. In fact, you've testified regarding your own background, that you used to be a true believer--just one without adequate love and knowledge, and have turned to have IMHO a heart of the most extraordinary bitterness.

 

[tas8831]

well gosh and gee willickers……..

I thought any length of dna is of such great length and complexity...…

only God can do it

Well, you thought wrong.

 

[Thief]

Well, you thought wrong.

no really...…
the probability of a chemistry of such complexity
and that chemistry having the 'will' to replicate

shows intent
and skill

 

[tas8831]

no really...…

Yes, really.

the probability of a chemistry of such complexity
and that chemistry having the 'will' to replicate

shows intent
and skill

There is nothing about "will" to it.

But since you mention probability, show your work.