• 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.

usfan

Well-Known Member
First, it is the speed of light *in a vacuum* that is constant. This has been extensively tested in a variety of ways, including ways that test the speed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Second, we do NOT assume the rate of expansion is constant. In fact, we *know* that it has not been. We found out a couple of decades ago that the rate is, in fact, increasing (the expansion is accelerating). Previously, before the dominance of dark energy, the rate was slowing.

But, the fact of the matter is that these changes in expansion rate are due to the action of gravity and when we plug into the equations for gravity, we get a match with our observations.
Then we agree. There are too many unknowns and variables, EVEN WITH WHAT WE DO UNDERSTAND, to assume uniform constancy in all rates, decays, light speed, expansion, and other factors, known and unknown, to contrive some arbitrary 'date', based solely on conjecture. Add to that, the MAJOR problems noted earlier, snd ancient earth dates are looking more and more like flat earth theories, and geocentrism.

'Billions of years!', is a religious belief, not supported by any hard science. Don't agree? Then show the facts on how these dates are arrived at. Show the compelling science by which theses dates are contrived.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
[
@Wild Fox @ImmortalFlame @Polymath257 @Dan From Smithville @YoursTrue @usfan Thanks for the friendly conversations. There was some unfriendliness in some of my posts and I’m sorry for that. @Jose Fly I still appreciate the help you gave me earlier.

Until a few days ago I was on a crusade against some popular ways of using the words “science” and “evidence,” but I’ve decided to give that up.
At least you are reasonable. It is good to question what we all believe in and we all learn from listening to different views. We all learn from each other. Well at least most of us do.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Then we agree. There are too many unknowns and variables, EVEN WITH WHAT WE DO UNDERSTAND, to assume uniform constancy in all rates, decays, light speed, expansion, and other factors, known and unknown, to contrive some arbitrary 'date', based solely on conjecture.

Except that all of those issues have been addressed.

Add to that, the MAJOR problems noted earlier, snd ancient earth dates are looking more and more like flat earth theories, and geocentrism.

'Billions of years!', is a religious belief, not supported by any hard science. Don't agree? Then show the facts on how these dates are arrived at. Show the compelling science by which theses dates are contrived.

The decay rates are constant. The amounts of initial isotopes can be determined. That is enough to get ages for the Earth. The oldest minerals we have are over 4.3 billion years.

We know the decay rates have been constant because we have tried a wide variety of conditions and *none* have affected decay rates for the isotopes used in dating. One example known is where very high pressures can affect a nucleus that uses electron capture as its decay mode. But even then, the amount of the change was about 1%.

For the age of the universe, the fact that the observations for the CMBR fit the models is good enough to justify the ages quoted. The Lambda-CDM model fits *all* the data we have at this point to several decimal places of accuracy. This data was collected from COBE and WMAP.

And the ages are not just 'billions of years'. The ages are 4.54+-.05 billion years for the Earth and 13.799+-.021 billion for the universe.

Notice the size of those uncertainties. And yes, these are hard science.

Now, to really criticize the Lambda-CDM model, you need to *at least* understand general relativity. Do you?
 
Last edited:

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Summarize this alleged 'evidence!' I've thoroughly examined, reviewed, and critiqued every argument and study presented, as well as journalistic fluff pieces and partisan editorials from True Believers. 'All this evidence!', is a bluff.. it is not there, and pretending you have provided 'mountains of evidence!', is a 4 B tactic..

Bluff
Belittle
Bleat
Belief

Some of your cronies add 'Bullying!' to the list, but i can only conclude, 'Boring!', as the actual content.

Show me. Post your evidence, arguments, and facts, if you believe they will destroy me.. your comrades will love you for it.

Think you can do an evidentiary based debate? Or can you just deflect with heckling and poo flinging with the peanut gallery?
Why give you any evidence. You do not care and ignore or demean it without understanding. You have not fairly reviewed the studies. Given a study about genetic change in E.coli. and you say how does that show common descent and ignore its meaning. Yet the studies show the multiple ways of active genetic change which is how organisms change. You grasp its significance that in a short period of time there is significant change. No a human did not pop out of the test tube. That expectation shows a true lack of understanding. And that is just one example. You provide no evidence for your belief and their is a reason.
No one is here to destroy you. What kind of wording is that. The 4 B's are cute but meaningless.
So lets start with the simple evidence of the fossil record over time with the geologic supportive evidence. There is a clear progression over time from less complex to more complex. Clear support for common descent. If you disagree however give the evidence that you have against it.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I repeat the call for evidence:

1. Pick one point
2. Defend it with quotes, references, or argument.
3. Leave it to skeptical scrutiny from others.
4. Ditch ad hom and other fallacies.

Use layman terms, if possible, but some here can follow more industry specific terminology. Make it as simple or complex as you need, to support your point.

0*aKwez5_OGgpjqO6R.jpg
I want to make a point about the value of models and theories. The value that I see in theories and models is in how they facilitate research and the development of technologies. For that purpose, a model or theory does not need to be an actual physical description, or actual history. For example, the flow of particles in electrical circuits is from the negative terminals of sources to the positive ones, but for many purposes we can imagine the current going the other way.

It looks to me like evolution theories, including imaginary trees of life going back to one imaginary ancestor, have beneficial uses, and should be part of what is taught in school as much as conventional current flow. I have seen people taking them literally and trying to use them to validate their opposition to some religious beliefs, and that might be happening sometimes in public education, but I don’t see that as a reason to campaign against teaching them in public schools, or to promote teaching other views in opposition to them.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I want to make a point about the value of models and theories. The value that I see in theories and models is in how they facilitate research and the development of technologies. For that purpose, a model or theory does not need to be an actual physical description, or actual history. For example, the flow of particles in electrical circuits is from the negative terminals of sources to the positive ones, but for many purposes we can imagine the current going the other way.

It looks to me like evolution theories, including imaginary trees of life going back to one imaginary ancestor, have beneficial uses, and should be part of what is taught in school as much as conventional current flow. I have seen people taking them literally and trying to use them to validate their opposition to some religious beliefs, and that might be happening sometimes in public education, but I don’t see that as a reason to campaign against teaching them in public schools, or to promote teaching other views in opposition to them.
Ok, then why teach evolution? And please do not think by my saying that I mean they should teach any form of religion in public schools, and I mean any.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I've not run away from the bullies here, trying to intimidate me with bluff and ridicule. I get bored with the juvenile antics, but such are internet forums..

You won't (or can't) post any science, facts, or arguments, but just heckle with definition nazi deflections.

What is there to run from? Cowardly bullies, full of themselves, and emboldened by their numbers? :shrug:

No, science, facts, and reason are more than adequate to expose the lies, fallacies, and bullying tactics from these religious fanatics.

Anytime you think you are man enough (or smart enough) to debate the science, I'll do it.

But i won't hold my breath, because i don't think you are either.. :shrug:


You run away all of the time. And no one is bullying you. You make obviously false claims and are corrected. That is not bullying.

And you are still running away from a discussion on what is and what is not evidence. I guess when all of the facts are on the side of the opposition running away is the only tactic that seems to work.

And please, you know next to nothing of the sciences. That is why you have to run away when you are shown to be wrong. Here is a helpful hint. If you try to learn people will help you and they will not "bully" you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok, then why teach evolution? And please do not think by my saying that I mean they should teach any form of religion in public schools, and I mean any.

Because evolution appears to be the way that life got here. The concept is supported by mountains of scientific evidence and there is no scientific evidence to the contrary or supporting alternative ideas.

Sadly most creationists not only do not understand the concept of scientific evidence, they are afraid to learn what it is. Our OP is a classic case of this and yet he used that term in the title to this thread. That is quite ironic to say the least.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then we agree. There are too many unknowns and variables, EVEN WITH WHAT WE DO UNDERSTAND, to assume uniform constancy in all rates, decays, light speed, expansion, and other factors, known and unknown, to contrive some arbitrary 'date', based solely on conjecture. Add to that, the MAJOR problems noted earlier, snd ancient earth dates are looking more and more like flat earth theories, and geocentrism.

'Billions of years!', is a religious belief, not supported by any hard science. Don't agree? Then show the facts on how these dates are arrived at. Show the compelling science by which theses dates are contrived.
This is a false claim again. And I did offer to have a discussion with you on this topic. Now you many not understand radiometric dating and how it is very reliable, as long as one knows what one is doing and is honest. Your claims of "assumptions" is one that you need to support. If you cannot support it then it only looks as if you are making false statements about your fellow man again (AKA lying).
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
He seems to take the Trump approach. Keep saying something is true over and over again while ignoring what everyone else is saying. I want to believe that that does not work but Trump has shown that if people what to believe enough they will ignore what is said and go with the image they have. For me Trump is like a Saturday night live skit but every day and I think he is actually serious about what he says. Buy Greenland? Really?
That is pretty much how I see it. Just make up claims, pretend you are under attack, attack everyone, distort like mad. Rinse and repeat, repeat, repeat.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I have stated that I don't know how God did it. But 'it,' I mean the universe including the planet Earth.
I do not know how God did it either. I do know what we have learned using science. Either can be discussed, but science can be discussed with anyone due to it basis in evidence, principles and logical structure.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
@Wild Fox @ImmortalFlame @Polymath257 @Dan From Smithville @YoursTrue @usfan Thanks for the friendly conversations. There was some unfriendliness in some of my posts and I’m sorry for that. @Jose Fly I still appreciate the help you gave me earlier.

Until a few days ago I was on a crusade against some popular ways of using the words “science” and “evidence,” but I’ve decided to give that up.
Thanks for posting that tree of life article. I have gotten several articles from the group that I need to set down and read through a couple of times, but they all look very interesting and useful to the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Common descent is a useless term since it applies to both evolution and creation. For example, my father and myself have a common descent. This example does not conflict with either theory. It is only when PC plays word games, to stack the deck, does this become defined to the advantage of one side.

Before Evolution there was Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of the first replicators and cells before the theory of evolution applies. In this case, common descent stems from simple molecules such as water. All life, that we have proof has existed, has a common abiogenesis ancestry in water. The other simple molecules are subject to particular theories, but water is common to them all; reduction or oxidation environments.

Water, itself derives from nuclear fusion of hydrogen and the formation of oxygen. The oxygen nucleus is extremely stable making it the third most common atom of the universe, behind only hydrogen and helium. These two atoms; 1 and 3, merge as conditions cooled to form water. We also have common descent from stars and from fusion. Water is something the first generation of stars could have formed.

This first generation of stars formed from the laws of physics acting upon the material and energy of the Big Bang, in science, or from God brooding over the deep, in Creation. Inherent within the original matter were principles that still apply today. Do these principles define the matter or dies the matter define the principles? Or are they merged so each defines the other?

Where did this material manufacturing event and connected dynamic principles in time and space derive? How did the universe form from nothing? This is where both Science and Creation, lack hard science evidence. Both are religions at this starting point. The common descent of both is faith. The original common descent begins in the mind and heart of man. Religion calls this starting point God forming Adam; the first man designed think and have faith in such things. Inhernet within the human mind are the dynamics to think such things.

To do this right, you need to start at the very beginning, and not a cherry picked point to stack the deck on your favor. That is called political science and fake news.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Common descent is a useless term since it applies to both evolution and creation. For example, my father and myself have a common descent. This example does not conflict with either theory. It is only when PC plays word games, to stack the deck, does this become defined to the advantage of one side.
When used in the context of biological science, "common descent" refers specifically to the theory of common genetic ancestry: i.e that all living forms are descended from a common ancestor through evolution. If you prefer, you could use the more specific "universal common ancestry", but "common descent" or "common ancestry" are just useful shorthands.

Before Evolution there was Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of the first replicators and cells before the theory of evolution applies. In this case, common descent stems from simple molecules such as water. All life, that we have proof has existed, has a common abiogenesis ancestry in water. The other simple molecules are subject to particular theories, but water is common to them all; reduction or oxidation environments.
Except water is not a common ancestor because water is not a naturally self-replicating organism. Common ancestry refers to common ancestry through reproduction.

Where did this material manufacturing event and connected dynamic principles in time and space derive? How did the universe form from nothing?
This is a loaded question. We are unsure if the Universe formed from nothing or not. We are not even currently sure if "nothing" is a meaningful concept.

This is where both Science and Creation, lack hard science evidence. Both are religions at this starting point.
Except science makes no presumptions about this point beyond what we are capable of investigating. Religion simply makes assertions and then assumes they are true.

To do this right, you need to start at the very beginning, and not a cherry picked point to stack the deck on your favor. That is called political science and fake news.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that any science that doesn't fully investigate and explain every aspect of its field all the way back to the origin of time are "political science"? Is the theory of gravity "fake news" because we cannot yet explain the origin of mass? Is germ theory "political" because we have yet to pinpoint the origin of the first germ?

You don't need to know or understand the origin of a phenomenon in order to observe and test how that phenomenon operates. In other words, not knowing the origin of life or the Universe doesn't detract from the knowledge and observations we have made regarding how life changes over time.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I want to make a point about the value of models and theories. The value that I see in theories and models is in how they facilitate research and the development of technologies. For that purpose, a model or theory does not need to be an actual physical description, or actual history. For example, the flow of particles in electrical circuits is from the negative terminals of sources to the positive ones, but for many purposes we can imagine the current going the other way.

It looks to me like evolution theories, including imaginary trees of life going back to one imaginary ancestor, have beneficial uses, and should be part of what is taught in school as much as conventional current flow. I have seen people taking them literally and trying to use them to validate their opposition to some religious beliefs, and that might be happening sometimes in public education, but I don’t see that as a reason to campaign against teaching them in public schools, or to promote teaching other views in opposition to them.
I would have to agree with you about models. Can't say about theories right now.
Common descent is a useless term since it applies to both evolution and creation. For example, my father and myself have a common descent. This example does not conflict with either theory. It is only when PC plays word games, to stack the deck, does this become defined to the advantage of one side.

Before Evolution there was Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of the first replicators and cells before the theory of evolution applies. In this case, common descent stems from simple molecules such as water. All life, that we have proof has existed, has a common abiogenesis ancestry in water. The other simple molecules are subject to particular theories, but water is common to them all; reduction or oxidation environments.

Water, itself derives from nuclear fusion of hydrogen and the formation of oxygen. The oxygen nucleus is extremely stable making it the third most common atom of the universe, behind only hydrogen and helium. These two atoms; 1 and 3, merge as conditions cooled to form water. We also have common descent from stars and from fusion. Water is something the first generation of stars could have formed.

This first generation of stars formed from the laws of physics acting upon the material and energy of the Big Bang, in science, or from God brooding over the deep, in Creation. Inherent within the original matter were principles that still apply today. Do these principles define the matter or dies the matter define the principles? Or are they merged so each defines the other?

Where did this material manufacturing event and connected dynamic principles in time and space derive? How did the universe form from nothing? This is where both Science and Creation, lack hard science evidence. Both are religions at this starting point. The common descent of both is faith. The original common descent begins in the mind and heart of man. Religion calls this starting point God forming Adam; the first man designed think and have faith in such things. Inhernet within the human mind are the dynamics to think such things.

To do this right, you need to start at the very beginning, and not a cherry picked point to stack the deck on your favor. That is called political science and fake news.
You make some very good points. Common descent from Adam and Eve has it that God made Adam from the soil. And Eve from Adam's rib. I believe God can do this. And that He did it. But! from what I have seen and am learning about the theory of evolution now shows me there is no agreement about common descent in terms of who or what emerged what.
For instance, we're talking about the possibility of one cell with life popping up somehow from elements in water which seems incredible to me (and I mean unbelievable for real) unless there was a guiding hand promoting life. As clear and profound as that is to me now, I don't expect everyone to believe or understand that God gives life, and He did not need chance evolution to perform that. Again -- to jump presumably from water defined as non-living, to an emergence of life, so to speak, in a one-celled organism, which then over presumably billions of years developed into animals after passing through other formed states, doesn't make sense to me any more.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Again -- to jump presumably from water defined as non-living, to an emergence of life, so to speak, in a one-celled organism, which then over presumably billions of years developed into animals after passing through other formed states, doesn't make sense to me any more.
Why not?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Your arrogance and pretended knowledge does not provide evidence for your cherished beliefs.

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene. Males don't have it, but all women do. It is passed down from mother to daughter in ANY descended line. It is the same 'marker' in every human being.. african, scandinavian, chinese, native american, eskimo, islander, european, indian, mongolian, aborigine. Every human being can trace their actual descendancy to this singular 'mother' of all humanity.
-usfan, beta regressive indoctrinee and fascist jihadist, after 40 years of debate and study on evolution, 60 pages after he was first asked to explain what this 'marker' in mtDNA that he kept referring to was.

And from a link that this would-be Einstein provided himself in support of his claim:

"So each of us inherits our mtDNA from our own mother, who inherited her mtDNA intact from her mother, and so on back through the generations – hence mtDNA’s popular name, ‘the Eve gene’. "​

Thats right - 40 years of 'debate', and this wizard did not know that there is no such 'flag' or 'marker' called the "Eve gene", yet presented it as a 'fact'...

And this beta wants to accuse OTHERS of arrogance and 'pretend knowledge'.

Jesus must be puking in his tomb, seeing how his followers behave...
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Ah, yes.. the Master Heckler, or at least Baiter, is visible now, in all his mocking glory. ..of course, there is no way i can compete with the sheer volume of insults, straw men, vicious personal attacks, and pseudo science pretense, but i see you, now, and will return some appropriate responses.. now and then, anyway.

You've repeatedly declined many offers for civil, rational debate, in favor of the barrage of ridicule and straw men.

Your devotion to your religious beliefs is very impressive. You defend them, and attack your perceived enemies with passion that any jihadist would envy.

Perhaps I'll sift through some of the lies and false accusations you constantly level at me, and pick out a few of your absurd caricatures you pretend are 'gotcha!' remarks, that you pound like a propaganda drum, to poison the well.

I'd have to include 'Bullying', in the 4 B's, with you, as that seems to be a tactic that works for you.. has it always worked before? Attack with jihadist zeal, ridicule, distort, mock, and accuse, until you think you've bullied your evil enemies into submission? :facepalm:

Nobody can compete with the sheer volume and passion with which you attack and defend your beliefs. Too bad you cannot channel that passion into something positive, or to a quest for knowledge or scientific inquiry.

You believe these personal attacks and barrages of belittling show how clever you are, and your indignation reflects knowledge. It does not. They are pathetic displays from a pseudo science pretender, who hasn't a clue about Reality, and the quest for scientific knowledge.

You're a propagandist and religious jihadist, nothing more. You can't (or won't) debate or discuss the actual science behind this topic, because you know I'd mop the floor with you. So you heckle and mock, like the tiny little man you are.

If you had any balls at all you'd take me up on my challenge for a reasoned, factual debate on common ancestry. But you don't. You hide behind volume and mocking, and believe it makes you look all 'sciency!' But all i see is a heckler and propagandist who couldn't debate science if his life depended upon it.

You don't know the difference between 'peer review', citations, references, and bibliography, and think Darwin 'peer reviewed' the statistic model study we examined a while back. :rolleyes: Your chutzpah is only exceeded by your ignorance, and your religious devotion, to this pathetic, unscientific belief called Evolution.

Anyway, i can't (and won't) compete with the volume, passion, and hostility with which you attack me, personally, and i perhaps should feel flattered by all the S & M attention, but it is mostly kind of sad, and pathetic, to see a grown man wallow in poo flinging ecstasy. But, that's what you like the most, so I'll leave you to it. I won't respond to every barrage of your vicious, hateful personal attacks, but I'll give you a nod now and then, since you seem to crave attention so much.
Oh, Dr. Eve gene, all those projection and jealousy laden paragraphs, when you could have directed your laser-like focus and scientific knowledge on addressing this:


A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
July 16, 2013

From the results and discussion:

We produced complete mt genome sequences from 32 primate individuals. From each individual, we obtained an average of 1508 tagged reads with an average length of 235 bp, yielding approximately 356 kb of sequence data corresponding to 21-fold coverage. All newly sequenced mt genomes had lengths typical for primates (16,280–16,936 bp; Table S1), but the GC-content varied largely among taxa (37.78–46.32%, Table S2, Figure S1). All newly generated mt genomes consisted of 22 tRNA genes, 2 rRNA genes, 13 protein-coding genes and the control region in the order typical for mammals. By combining the 32 newly generated data with 51 additional primate mt genomes, the dataset represents all 16 primate families, 57 of the 78 recognized genera and 78 of the 480 currently recognized species [31].​


They used 81 complete mitochondrial genomes from primates representing all 16 families. The descriptions of the genomic content represent all of the markers that one could hope for. "The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy..." The use of these markers allow for the tracing of the ancestry of all of the primate taxa used, as shown in this genetically evidenced descendency chart, and "You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA":
37162_9879ac238e088d8a54e27bcfb0f0fd88.png


Note that this includes humans, Neanderthals, etc. "And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed."



I do wonder if usfan still thinks that these trees are just "speculations" and are drawn up before doing the analyses. Like they did in his Canid paper.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The ignorance and absurdity that this reflects is too much, even for the Master Baiter. :facepalm:

There is no 'mtDNA discovery!', in that primate statistical study, as you claim.
Same as in your Canid statistical study.
That is a comparative analysis of building blocks.. amino acids and other sequenced parts from the respective genomes, inferring 'descent!' from similarity of construction and design, nothing more.

Amino acids are not mentioned - why did you lie about reading it? No need ot address the rest of your scaredy-cat dodging and pretense to understanding any of it.

You are out of your league, and a beta it seems to me. You do not understand science like a man, so you whine and cry and run away, then re-post the same infantile gibberish all over again.

"Eve gene" - that is some classic internet creationist stuff right there.
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Hilarious - Dr. Eve gene claimed this study was about amino acids and building blocks and was just statistical.

I call that standard creationism at its idiotic and pathetic worst.
Oh, Dr. Eve gene, all those projection and jealousy laden paragraphs, when you could have directed your laser-like focus and scientific knowledge on addressing this:


A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
July 16, 2013

From the results and discussion:

We produced complete mt genome sequences from 32 primate individuals. From each individual, we obtained an average of 1508 tagged reads with an average length of 235 bp, yielding approximately 356 kb of sequence data corresponding to 21-fold coverage. All newly sequenced mt genomes had lengths typical for primates (16,280–16,936 bp; Table S1), but the GC-content varied largely among taxa (37.78–46.32%, Table S2, Figure S1). All newly generated mt genomes consisted of 22 tRNA genes, 2 rRNA genes, 13 protein-coding genes and the control region in the order typical for mammals. By combining the 32 newly generated data with 51 additional primate mt genomes, the dataset represents all 16 primate families, 57 of the 78 recognized genera and 78 of the 480 currently recognized species [31].​


They used 81 complete mitochondrial genomes from primates representing all 16 families. The descriptions of the genomic content represent all of the markers that one could hope for. "The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy..." The use of these markers allow for the tracing of the ancestry of all of the primate taxa used, as shown in this genetically evidenced descendency chart, and "You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA":
37162_9879ac238e088d8a54e27bcfb0f0fd88.png


Note that this includes humans, Neanderthals, etc. "And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed."



I do wonder if usfan still thinks that these trees are just "speculations" and are drawn up before doing the analyses. Like they did in his Canid paper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top