• 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.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.


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!


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.

37162_9879ac238e088d8a54e27bcfb0f0fd88.png


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.
Heckling!!! Ad hom!! Strawman!

Just saving @usfan some time.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
1. Make your point
2. Support it with facts, reasoning, and/or quotes & references.


1. POINT:

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. These same techniques have been used when employing mitochondrial genomes ("Eve gene").

2. SUPPORT with evidence, quotes, citations:



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]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
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.

The same mtDNA used to assess Primate phylogeny - you know, the paper you keep ignoring?

I cannot believe that you are still using this argument after your "Eve gene" gaffe.
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.
You are amazing...

Right above, in your precious Canid study, a PHYLOGENETIC TREE is presented that you are so enamored with.
But cool that you all but admit your total ignorance of how such trees are produced.

In fact, at this point in the game, you just make yourself look Trump-level stupid by re-posting this crap.

Do yourself a favor and actually TRY to learn about this stuff before you make a fool of yourself again:

Creating Phylogenetic Trees from DNA Sequences

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
This too - I debunked this and here you are, just re-posting like nothing happened.

Creationist dishonesty: the case of RS Scadding

"Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."
~Scadding, 1982​

Why keep lying?

Is that how a "science minded:" person operates? Just keep lying and bringing up the same, repetitive, debunked, irrelevant nonsense over and over?

You deserve every "heckle" you get.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
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


LOL!

Is this your way of admitting that your '40 years of debate' boast was just bull@#$%?

"Science minded", he says....
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I think the motivation is more political, but the results are the same. It could be both. Fascism with the trimmings of religious indoctrination and fanaticism hiding behind a pseudo-scientific facade.
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?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the correction!
WHAAAA???????

Look at this!!

A person responding to a correction of an error says "THANKS" and moves on!!!???


Wow, is that how it is supposed to work?

Because from what I see in this thread, if one's errors are corrected, you just call the person correcting you names, ignore further rebuttals, and then re-post the same errors over and over.....
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
AFAIK, no arguments or evidence has been presented. How have i dismissed anything, other than unbased assertions?
:shrug:
But of course we have all forgot to present the evidence. Oh but wait we have given you evidence and arguments but you reject anything that disagrees with you. Your request for scientific evidence was a farce. That's ok we all learned new things. As for your arguments: as the dolphins all said " So long and thanks for all fish".
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@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.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is a typical creationist strategy to roll the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth and the evolution of life on earth into one package. They are independent phenomena. Cosmology is not a field of biology and evolution biology is not a field of cosmology. The origin of life is involves chemistry and biology. It is pointless and disingenuous to conflate them two or three at a time.

Since we do not know how life originated, you can still hold out hope that it was by divine intervention. That option is still on the table until we can find ways for it to have occurred naturally. Of course, divine intervention is not "your favorite version" by default.
I have stated that I don't know how God did it. But 'it,' I mean the universe including the planet Earth.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
But of course we have all forgot to present the evidence. Oh but wait we have given you evidence and arguments but you reject anything that disagrees with you. Your request for scientific evidence was a farce. That's ok we all learned new things. As for your arguments: as the dolphins all said " So long and thanks for all fish".
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?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
He seems to take the Trump approach. Keep saying something is true over and over again while ignoring what everyone else is saying.
Your ironic projection is noted. This is your tactic, to dodge any evidence, facts, and reason. Your Trump card is played well, like the fallacy it is.

Got any actual evidence and arguments for your belief in common ancestry? No? Just deflections and ad hominem? :shrug:
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@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.
I understand. Because scientists can't say for sure how water as it preceded 'life ' got on this planet. Why do I say that? Because I am reminded of the water that Jesus spoke of. He spoke of living water. John 4

10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,14but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
The same mtDNA used to assess Primate phylogeny - you know, the paper you keep
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. 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.

It is NOT on par with the discovery of mtDNA, the mitochondrial clock, and yes, mitochondrial Eve, that you love to jeer at. Take it up with the coiners of the phrase. I only noted it as an aside, yet you pounce with all fours at a perceived. 'Gotcha!' moment. You are easily entertained, and are stubborn as a mule, i will concede. ;)

If you had a clue about the significance of the mitochondrial 'eve' discovery, (aka, the mt-MRCA), you wouldn't make a fool of yourself pretending it is some crackpot theory or like some contrived study of statistics. But alas! You are devoted as a heckler, and there is no room for scientific discussion or discovery in that realm. You have a propaganda drum to pound! Don't bother you with facts and science! ;)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your ironic projection is noted. This is your tactic, to dodge any evidence, facts, and reason. Your Trump card is played well, like the fallacy it is.

Got any actual evidence and arguments for your belief in common ancestry? No? Just deflections and ad hominem? :shrug:
Evidence has been given. People that have supplied you with evidence understand the concept. You either do not understand the concept or are a liar.

The question is why are you afraid to even discuss the concept? Is it because every reliable site out there uses a variation of the definition that I posted.

Running away is a sign that you know that you are wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I understand. Because scientists can't say for sure how water as it preceded 'life ' got on this planet. Why do I say that? Because I am reminded of the water that Jesus spoke of. He spoke of living water. John 4

10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,14but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
You do not seem to understand that that was a poetic phrase.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
You are amazing...

Right above, in your precious Canid study, a PHYLOGENETIC TREE is presented that you are so enamored with.
But cool that you all but admit your total ignorance of how such trees are produced.

In fact, at this point in the game, you just make yourself look Trump-level stupid by re-posting this crap.

Do yourself a favor and actually TRY to learn about this stuff before you make a fool of yourself again:

Creating Phylogenetic Trees from DNA Sequences
Your arrogance and pretended knowledge does not provide evidence for your cherished beliefs.

You believe that 'similarity!', in some artistic graph is 'proof of evolution!', and you display your ignorance by posting a link to make your point.

The folly is all yours, with your pseudoscience pretension.

So, you think calling me names, and posting a link, is a rebuttal to my points? :facepalm:

You can't even verbalize what you believe, and show no clue how the phylogenetic tree is contrived, yet pretend to lecture (and berate) me? :rolleyes:

..progressive indoctrinees..
/shakes head/
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Running away is a sign that you know that you are wrong.
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:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top