Not for Common Descent, there isn’t. That’s based on deduction, and little else.
It is almost like you have not been on this forum for years and been provided with evidence that makes that statement a blatant lie.
Like this:
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:
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 CONCLUDE 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]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Nothing about "similarity" in those studies, since they rely on patterns of unique shared mutations. That similar studies often refer to similarity is not an indication that this was what was relied on - the very act of preparing sequence data for analysis yields such numbers. Not that creationists understand this.
You really can’t use genetic similarities as supportive evidence either. Otherwise, we’re more closely related to some plants, than some animals.
This is 100% wrong. Do you not remember the thrashing you took when you made that same absurd claim some months ago? Or is honesty not required when one is propping up their 'faith'?
As is the usual case, it looks like many you just ignored
the refutation of those....blatant falsehoods?
==========================
And, of course, that
@Hockeycowboy thinks mere 'genetic similarity' is what is used in inferring phylogeny, well.... never mind...
I actually wasted the time to check out
@Hockeycowboy's claim (or rather his confidence in a HuffPo article).
The link for the honeybees did not take me to a NatGeo article, but I searched and found this:
Insights into social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera
"Comparison of the 2,404 single-copy orthologues present in exactly one copy in each of the insects and in human revealed that the mean sequence identity between honeybee and human is considerably higher than that of fly and human (47.5% versus 44.5%, with t-test significance of 10−11, see Fig. 6 and Supplementary Fig. 6) and also higher than between mosquito and human (46.6%). "
One will note the number of genes compared - 2404 (out of an estimated 10,000 in the honey bee). This means that of the ~20,000 genes humans have, there are 2404 that have orthologues in the honeybee, that is, genes that we share with honeybees via common ancestry. When these orthologues were sequenced and compared, they were ~44% (not 44% - that was flies) identical. But 2404/10,000 is but 24% (and 2404 out of 20,000 is 12%) of the honey bee genes have a match with humans, so already the numbers indicate something other than what they are often portrayed. Also, I bolded what I did intentionally - they specifically looked at orthologues that are present in only 1 copy. Why does that matter, well, many genes are present in more than one copy, sometimes, a lot of copies. They looked only at orthologues that were present in a single copy. They had their reasons for doing that, which I am not concerned about, but it would appear that this may be the source for the 44% claim.
For bananas, the 50% similarity link went to the Mirror, where there was just a list of crazy 'facts', some of which appear not to be facts. I was unable to find any actual scientific publications on this (I did not search very hard, I must admit) - lots of internet 'factoids' of course. I did find out some relevant
actual facts however -
bananas apparently have more genes that humans (~36,000, but with a much smaller overall amount of DNA than us, only about 400 million bps), which shouldn't be a huge surprise, given that one of the common mechanisms for speciation in plants is genome duplication (any plant people out there, feel free to correct me). Since bananas have ~3x the number of genes as honey bees, the relevant issue here is orthologues.
I came across a blog post by a knowledgeable fellow that already did the leg work -
Seems that, in real life, only 17% of genes are shared between bananas and humans.
Now, there were more orthologues, which, given the restrictions in the honey bee paper does not really surprise me, but the sequence identity was not indicated. It comes down to whether one compares numbers of genes, or actual sequence identity, but neither of those appear to rescue the claims.
So, it looks like
@Hockeycowboy is refuted before he even gets started....
===============
But sure - keep making those claims to rescue your failing faith... How sad....
And the Tree of Life? It’s a messed-up, tangled bush.
It is almost like you literally know nothing about the things you pontificate on.... Even when your errors have been corrected a dozen times.... Such is the creationists' state.
