Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Polymath257]

Everyone has always lived in a time where the status quo elite 'knew!' the Absolute Truth about the universe. Modern man is no different. He's found a few clues, and dogmatically declares his opinion as 'settled science!'

Simply false. When I was young, the question of the age of the universe was *much* more up in the air. It was often given as 'somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years'. The error bars on the data and calculations were that broad.

Now, because of the data about the CMBR we have very precise data and thereby very precise results. Would you care to debate the specifics of the CMBR and how it relates to our understanding?

 

[Jose Fly]

No. Not when you just blindly 'believe!' in some High Priest's pontifications, and don't even see what the study is about.

I've read the entire paper multiple times. You?

All they had was data from someone else

Yep, they used existing sequence data. Do you see that as a problem? If so, why?

ugged into a computer model OF THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION

They ran the sequences through multiple statistical models.

"In this article, we deploy a diversity of previously described and newly developed tests that can be used to assess the CA of primate species or primate families."​

to deliver the desired results

That's a very serious accusation. Do you have some evidence to back it up?

And what were those 'results'?

The authors describe the results as....

"Every test of species SA that we applied to the primates suggested that this model does a very poor job of explaining actual biological data as compared to CA (Table 3). Many of these datasets reject species SA strongly: the probability of obtaining a test statistic more extreme than the one observed under the species SA model being incredibly small, often approaching or greatly exceeding the probability of picking the correct atom at random among the estimated 10 ^80 atoms in the known universe."​

Statistical probability of the similarity of some cherry picked amino acids, as they compare to certain monkeys and humans.

No, the results were not about the statistical probability of similarity of amino acids. The results (as summarized above) are about which is the best explanation for the data, common ancestry or separate ancestry.

1. There were NO peer reviews offered.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you complaining that you weren't given access to the pre-publication peer review process?

2. You believe this 'proves evolution!'

No. The "proof of evolution" is that we see it happening all the time.

3. You COMPLETELY IGNORED my 'peer review', or rebuttal, and just reasserted the conclusion of the study!

Wrong. As I noted then and again today, your assertion that the authors of the study "assumed common ancestry" is 100% completely wrong.

4. Your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem. If you believe this proves your beliefs, then I'm happy that you are so easily satisfied. But don't pretend scientific objectivity, when you are an ideologue.

For someone who complains about personal attacks, you sure are quick to engage in them yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wish this thread would go back to the way it was yesterday. No heckling. No fascist bullies making up lies and ad hominem. No false claims of wanting to discuss science and not doing it. Ever.

People were discussing issues of science and having some nice conversations. Now, we are back to the original intent of this thread as a mechanism to attack people over politics, religion and their understanding of science.

Maybe if we do not feed the troll, it will slither back to its underground lair for 40 more years of...I guess some would call it study.

 

[usfan]

This information is way, way out of date

The 'big bang!' Is way out of date..

You are too eager in looking for a 'gotcha!' phrase, and it leads you to straw men..

I was very clear, using common terms. Your rebuttal did not address my points, nor did you offer evidence for a counterpoint. So we have 2 dismissable assertions, nothing more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Knock yourself out.. but it seems that your only rebuttal is to demean me, personally. You offered no facts. No alternate reasoning, just personal attacks and belittling..

The 4 B's are strong in this one..

Now now, no lying about others. Bring up your claims one at a time. Don't use a dishonest Gish Gallop, We can discuss them and I will support my claims. Something that you can't seem to do with your science denial.

By the way, why are you still running away from my challenge? No one can take your demands for scientific evidence when it is obvious that you do not understand the concept.

 

[Polymath257]

The 'big bang!' Is way out of date..

Um, no it isn't.

You are too eager in looking for a 'gotcha!' phrase, and it leads you to straw men..

I was very clear, using common terms. Your rebuttal did not address my points, nor did you offer evidence for a counterpoint. So we have 2 dismissable assertions, nothing more.

You only dismiss because you don't like the conclusions. But you have not addressed the science behind those claims. You have not addressed the use of general relativity to model the universe as a whole, the agreement between theory and observation as it deals with the CMBR, the fact that you misrepresented the assumptions made in the BB theory, and the claim that there are 'other theories' out there.

So, yes, I did address your points. You ignored what I wrote. \

In fact, it appears that *you* locked into one phrase and ignored everything else.

Oh, and you still haven't explained the alternation in magnetization in the spreading sea floor if the magnetic field of the Earth doesn't flip.

 

[usfan]

I wish this thread would go back to the way it was yesterday. No heckling. No fascist bullies making up lies and ad hominem. No false claims of wanting to discuss science and not doing it. Ever.

People were discussing issues of science and having some nice conversations. Now, we are back to the original intent of this thread as a mechanism to attack people over politics, religion and their understanding of science.

Maybe if we do not feed the troll, it will slither back to its underground lair for 40 more years of...I guess some would call it study.

Ah.. you liked it better when i had you on ignore, and you could heckle me freely, with no return fire..

..kind of wimpy and pathetic, wouldn't you say?

Present some science, if you dare.
I'll examine it.
You can then rebut my reply, in a factual, rational manner.

But, that's not your style, is it? You like to mock, heckle, and pretend to be all 'sciency!', when you wouldn't know real science if it bit you on the butt..

 

[usfan]

the way, why are you still running away from my challenge? No one can take your demands for scientific evidence when it is obvious that you do not understand the concept.

Start your own thread if you want to debate the fine points of your definitions of 'evidence!'

Here, you can just present what you've got (if any), and it stands on its own.

..but, ridicule, mocking, ad hom, and personal attacks are not 'evidence!'.. except maybe for progressive indoctrinees..

Why keep badgering me to play your silly definition nazi game? If you had any evidence or arguments, you'd present it. Since you don't, personal attacks will have to do..

 

[usfan]

Um, no it isn't.

That was your 'rebuttal to my post..



So distorting my points, and attacking a straw man, is preferable to addressing my actual points..

Like i said, your eagerness to destroy me fogs your reasoning, and makes you reach for projected 'gotcha!' phrases.. like many of the True Believers here..

 

[Polymath257]

Why keep badgering me to play your silly definition nazi game? If you had any evidence or arguments, you'd present it. Since you don't, personal attacks will have to do..

OK, you have made the claim that dates obtained by radioactive dating are unreliable because the rates may have changed in the past.

Give *any* example of *any* physically reasonable condition that affects *any* nuclear decay rate more than 2%.

It would be even better if you could give *any* physically reasonable condition that affects *any* of the nuclear decay rates *used in dating methods* by more than .5%.

If you cannot do so, then the constancy of the rates can be considered a reasonable assumption, right?

 

[usfan]

You only dismiss because you don't like the conclusions. But you have not addressed the science behind those claims. You have not addressed the use of general relativity to model the universe as a whole, the agreement between theory and observation

AFAIK, no arguments or evidence has been presented. How have i dismissed anything, other than unbased assertions?

 

[Polymath257]

That was your 'rebuttal to my post..



So distorting my points, and attacking a straw man, is preferable to addressing my actual points..

How did I either distort your point or create a strawman? You made the claim that there are other theories than the BB. I pointed out that the only real contender was excluded over 40 years ago.

OK, so if you can present an alternative to the BB theory that matches the observations of the CMBR, I am more than willing to hear it.

Like i said, your eagerness to destroy me fogs your reasoning, and makes you reach for projected 'gotcha!' phrases.. like many of the True Believers here..

I am not attempting to 'destroy you'. I am hoping to point out your mistakes and educate you about what we have learned.

 

[usfan]

OK, you have made the claim that dates obtained by radioactive dating are unreliable because the rates may have changed in the past.

No, i said there are too many assumptions. I then listed a few. If you wish to refute my reasoning, you will need evidence to demonstrate why and how these extrapolations should be believed.

I get it that people believe strongly in ancient dating times. I just do not see compelling evidence for those conclusions. Too many assumptions, that should not be taken, to dogmatically declare, '3.8 billion years!'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Start your own thread if you want to debate the fine points of your definitions of 'evidence!'

Here, you can just present what you've got (if any), and it stands on its own.

..but, ridicule, mocking, ad hom, and personal attacks are not 'evidence!'.. except maybe for progressive indoctrinees..

Why keep badgering me to play your silly definition nazi game? If you had any evidence or arguments, you'd present it. Since you don't, personal attacks will have to do..

No, that won't do. The fact is that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence, even though you used that term in your title. That once again makes this fact extremely germane to this thread. Facts are not ad hom, it may lead to "ridicule, mocking" but you can only blame yourself for that. And again no name calling. That is a personal attack that is against the rules here. If you cannot justify your claims it is name calling.

Meanwhile pick out any topic from your Gish Gallop and we can discuss it. But if you screw up on scientific evidence, and you almost certainly will, I will bring up the fact once again that you do not understand what is and what is not scientific evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

AFAIK, no arguments or evidence has been presented. How have i dismissed anything, other than unbased assertions?

Here's is an official summary of the WMAP data by NASA:

WMAP 9 Year Mission Results

If you follow the links on the left, you will find technical papers supporting the conclusions.

Here is a technical paper describing the cosmological parameters derived from that data:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5226.pdf

If you disagree that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, please show where this data and these analyses are incorrect.

 

[Polymath257]

No, i said there are too many assumptions. I then listed a few. If you wish to refute my reasoning, you will need evidence to demonstrate why and how these extrapolations should be believed.

And I gave those reasons. We have done extensive tests to change the rates of radioactive decay. Under any conditions that would be found on the Earth at any stage of its development, the prevailing conditions have *no* effect on the rates of radioactive decay.

Unless you can give *even one* example of a physically reasonable condition that would change the decay rates by over 1%, your objection can be discounted.

Do you agree to this?

I get it that people believe strongly in ancient dating times. I just do not see compelling evidence for those conclusions. Too many assumptions, that should not be taken, to dogmatically declare, '3.8 billion years!'

Well, then, back up your doubt. What, specifically, do you object to? We have answered how we know initial amounts. We have answered about decay rates. What other objections do you have?

 

[tas8831]

Personal attacks is all you have.

Can't do reason or science, so you resort to fallacies.

Let me know if you grow up and want to talk science and reason like a man.

Yeah!

Come on, sub, be a man!

Be a man like usfan, whose manliness is employed in calling anyone with a college degree a "jihadist" and "progressive indoctrinee" in order to avoid having to admit his many blunders, like that crazy boner about some stupid non-existent "eve gene"!

 

[tas8831]

You have a point in this? Or just heckling, as usual?

On the "Eve gene"??? That MAJOR blunder that you foolishly made? Oh, just heckling as you are well below my station in terms of understanding the issues you bring up.

Straw men, out of context 'gotcha!' phrases, well poisoning, and the gratuitous ad hom.

Projecting and fibbing again?

How, exactly are ANY of your laughable quotes out of context?

What "context" rescues this idiocy:

""Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes"​

Or your nonsense about a "flag" or "marker" in the mtDNA called the "Eve gene"???

Context on that made you look WORSE!!

LOL!

If you grow up a bit, we can debate the science like men, but if all you're going to do is fling poo with your hominid cronies, nothing useful will come of this..

Or is that the plan? Disrupt so no information, knowledge, or understanding can take place?

LOL!

What possible information or knowledge do you actually think YOU can impart to anyone on these subjects?

For crying out loud - how long did you think the "eve gene" was a thing?

Mr. Dunning, Mr. Kruger - meet Mr. Eve Gene.




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

Came across this paper using complete mitochondrial genomes and all of the markers contained therein to assess Primate evolution.

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 use of these markers allow for the tracing of the ancestry of all of the primate taxa used, as shown in this phylogenetic tree, and such trees are produced as the output of a rigorous analysis - the same sort employed in the Canid paper.

Note that this includes humans, Neanderthals, etc. This phylogenetic tree incorporates the tracing of mtDNA snps and other such markers. The shared ancestry of all Primates is thus proven.

The type of data used and the means of analysis employed have been BY YOU, so there is no denying the shared ancestry of human, chimps and other primates.


1 point.

1 source.

Explanation provided.

And you bail every time.

 

[tas8831]

The pseudoscience pretenders like to present themselves as experts in every scientific discipline, but can't seem to follow the basic concepts. So they muddy the issues with deflections.. the 4 B's, I've called it:

Bluff
Belittle
Bleat
Belief

But wait! There's more!

Bullying
Bloviating
Boring

triggered True Believers
jihadist zeal.
you have a vivid imagination
Assertions and outrage
Progressive indoctrinees
lash out in unscientific, hysterical outrage

You've got nothing. That is why you run away when your errors are laid bare.

 

[tas8831]

These are not scientific minded people, but jihadists and cowards, who cannot reason themselves out of a wet paper bag.

Surely you are not pretending to be a 'science-minded person'?

"Eve gene"


"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"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."

"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."


"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."