Here is a summary of the evidence presented, so far, for the theory of common descent, with my summary rebuttal.
1. Canidae study.
Canids remain canids, with a wide range of morphological (looks like) variability. But they are all descended from the same parent stock, as evidenced by the mtDNA, they are able to breed, and they share the same genomic architecture. There does seem to be some variations in chromosome numbers, but the basic genetic architecture.. the core haplogroup that they all came from.. is traceable and evidenced through genetic analysis. But there is NO EVIDENCE that they are 'evolving' to or from another phylogenetic structure. Their ancestors were canids. Their descendants are, and forever will be, canids. There is nothing evidentiary to suggest otherwise.
2. Phylogenetic Tree
This is a graphical illustration of the BELIEF in common descent. It does not provide any evidence FOR the belief, just illustrates it with plausibility and speculation. There is no evidence that evolutionary changes at the genomic level are even possible. That is conjecture and imagination, not observable, repeatable scientific methodology. It is circular reasoning. It is drawing an imagined 'tree', and using that imaginary design as proof of itself.
3. Vestigiality
The irrational, circular conclusion that unknown organs are 'vestigial', or remnants of a previous incarnation. I examined this argument in greater detail in post #402.
"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding
4. Time and Mutation
Greater detail in post #401.
"No structural changes in a genome have ever been observed, so time is suggested as a system of change. But time has no mechanism of change. It is a passive factor, that only supports degradation, as entropy returns all matter and energy to simpler forms."
"Mutations happen all the time. They are almost always deleterious, with negative consequences for the organism. A few are neutral, but there is no scientific way that structural changes in the genome can be explained by mutation."
5. E.coli study
This study has been presented several times. It is supposed to prove that traits are 'created' on the fly, by organisms adapting to changes in their environment. It is not a speciation event. That claim is refuted by the scientists who did the study. The study also denies any knowledge of a specific gene, either changing or created to digest citrates. That is merely hypothesized. I examined this study in specific detail back in post #250. There is nothing here. It is ASSERTED and ALLEGED by others, that this 'proves evolution!', but the ones doing the study make no such claim, and close examination reveals that the claim of 'proof of evolution!', is a deceptive lie. It is not evidence of common descent at all. No genes were identified as 'new!', no speciation took place. The organism in the study is still e.coli, with the same genetic architecture, drawing from the same gene pool.
from the study:
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.
So, there is NO EVIDENCE of 'new!' genes, just common adaptation. It is like the moths on trees.. dark ones get 'selected' to survive, and the traits that already exist are selected, either naturally or by human engineering. This is evidence of normal adaptation, or micro evolution, which is not disputed by anyone. But it does not evidence or support the LEAP to macro evolution, or a vertical change in the genetic structure.. adding genes, chromosomes, etc. No study has EVER OBSERVED any such genomic changes in the parent architecture. The BELIEF that organisms can add, subtract, create, or conjure up 'new!' genetic information is unsupported by scientific observation.
6. Statistical computer model calculating likelihood of monkey/human common ancestry.
I covered this in greater detail in post #1456.
"Everything is based on the ASSUMPTION of common descent. The cherry picked samples, the molecular structures, assumed to be related, then coming up with the 'odds', that this is what happened.
From the abstract:
..it becomes reasonable to ask the specific question of how strongly molecular sequence data support the inference that the human species shares CA with other primates.
..reasonable, indeed. It is even more reasonable to ask how any statistical or visual 'similarity!' can infer common descent..
That is the crux of this study. It is a computer model, using sampled proteins from chimps and humans, and comparing their structure. Descendancy is assumed, and a calculation is contrived to arrive at a number..
The significance of this number can only be described as 'a trivial consequence of similarity'."
All around these pathetic props of belief are pages and pages of heckling, ridicule, straw men, and deflections, that only underscore the IMPOTENCE of the evidence, facts, and reasoning behind this 19th century religious belief.
Heckle and ridicule if you want. It does not provide evidence for your beliefs, and is anti-science at its core.
