Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

Looking back on this thread, I can't help but to get the feeling that you set it up from the beginning... After all, if you act like a douche, it's only a matter of time before people will treat you like one.

And there clearly is a pattern in this thread. It starts of with normal comments pointing out your errors and misunderstandings. Then there's you being completely cocky, ignoring what people say and just accusing them of all kinds of things (your favorite one being handwaving entire arguments away by just wildly throwing around random accusations of "ad hominim"). And then you're surprised that you are getting responses in kind....


Well, what did you expect?

You reap what you sow.

These antics go WAYYY back.

About 20 years ago, I was on a forum called 'Creationtalk'. This fellow joins, starts a thread asking for evidence - much like this one.
The fellow writes that he was there for honest scientific debate, but cautioned that he knew he was right and that evolution believers were deceived and deluded and ignorant and going to hell.

And my goodness - can you believe he was taken aback and shocked - SHOCKED! - at the replies he got????

 

[tas8831]

The Big Problem.. the Central Flaw of the theory of common descent, is the false equivalency. 'Macro', is not 'micro'. Horizontal variability within the genetic parameters is observable, repeatable, and has been going on for millennia. Vertical changes in the genomic architecture is speculated, believed, and assumed. .....

Common descent is a religious belief, indoctrinated for an ideological agenda..

Projection.

You claim to 'know the material,' yet you IGNORE 'the material':

OK. Here is my case, along with the evidence (hate to be the broken record):

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

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. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relelevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationsit has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.

 

[tas8831]

Pathetically, i understand this.. being a bit of a science geek, & having followed with great interest this subject for decades.

Apparently by only reading creationist propaganda...

I take issue with the use of the terminology, 'evolution', as it seems to use circular reasoning.. using the premise (and terminology) to prove itself. If by 'genomic evolution' you merely mean minor changes in generations, or micro evolution, that is plainly obvious. But to correlate it with macro is still a false equivalence.

Now, the study is claiming 'beneficial' mutations, among 'several lines of evidence'. I am a bit confused about the statement above, which seems to conflict with the findings of the study:

Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains.[5][19][20] Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame,only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.....

All this fluff, and yet you ignore the actual evidence presented.

 

[tas8831]

But to summarize to now, i have seen these arguments presented in this debate:

1. Phylogenetic tree

My summary replies:
1. Circular reasoning, based on 'looks like!' morphology. Just because someone can draw a tree, showing similarities in living things, and imply a progression of evolution, does not mean it happened.

Thanks for proving what I suspected when I read your OP - you are clueless, but think you are not.

In the papers I presented for you, NOT ONE mentioned morphology.

You're just anbother pretender.

OK. Here is my case, along with the evidence (hate to be the broken record):

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

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. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relelevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationsit has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.



NOTHING ABOUT MORPHOLOGY

 

[tas8831]

Since not much scientific evidence has been presented,

None that you can grasp, I suppose...

Deflections, instead of evidence:

Techno Babble Obfuscation
We haven't had this a lot, but it is a popular deflection. Rather than communication for clarity and understanding, obfuscation and dazzling BS is substituted. Nobody has a clue what was said, especially the person who said it! But bedazzlement is the intent, not clarity.

Weird....

So in your supposed 40 years (not thirty - sorry, it was some other creationist that made that easily debunked claim) at this, and given your claim of 'knowing the material', when we use actual field-relevant terminology, you find that an obfuscation tactic?


What that REALLY means is that your claim of 40 years at this is false. Or you wasted 40 years reading creationist garbage and never learned to tell if it had merit or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nice cut and paste. ..and continued reliance on snark and insult, belittling me, personally, and ignoring my points entirely.

I've already addressed this techno babble bluff. This is more of the same, ASSERTING that since a previously unknown trait came up.. digesting citrates in e.coli.. this 'proves common descent!' But it does not. It doesn't even prove that 'new!' genes were formed for this adptation
I quoted the study, pointing out important distinctions in what was actually, factually discovered, and the speculative mumbo jumbo that bedazzles the gullible.

But as is typical in forum 'debates' on this subject, religious deflections, indignation, and personal quips replace actual scientific debate.

This article said nothing different than i already addressed. I doubt you knew that, just posted it to bluff, as techno babble. It provides no point, just re-asserts the false assumption that an ASSUMED 'acquired trait', (which is not established) was 'created!' by evolution.

From your article:
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies.

What this is saying, is that we use the 'looks like!' ASSUMPTION to guess descendancy. Any actual science behind it is "hampered by the lack of known phylogenies."

So, they took a set of bacteria that showed no ability to digest citrates, and put 'pressure' on it to adapt. It did, so, 'proof of evolution!'

But there are too many assumptions, and alternative possibilities, to categorically declare, 'evolution!' as the Cause.

1. The specific gene, that enabled this trait was not identified. Was it already there?
2. Like in other living things, traits can be hidden deep in the dna, and is only 'selected' if it is used and needed for adaptation.
3. Bacteria and viruses show a unique ability to adapt, with a wide range of conditions. That is not universal with all other organisms.

..were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors

Yes, you can infer a lot of things, if you are hell bent on proving some hare brained 'theory!' But the only thing really 'proved!' here is desperation. Adaptation of e.coli is not proof, or evidence, or even inference, of common descent.

If your whole belief in evolution is based on the fuzzy conclusions of an 'experiment!' designed to prove horizontal gene transfer, rife with assumptions and speculation, that is fine. People can believe whatever they want. But to pretend this is 'settled science!', and 'proves evolution!' is absurd, and does violence to the scientific method. This is religious propaganda, masquerading as 'science!'

The techno babble fools the gullible, and fuels the illusion that 'we're really smart, 'cause we know big words!' But when you sift through the bluff, there is nothing there.

From the e.coli study:
A single, spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli was reported by Hall in 1982.[33] This mutant had been isolated during prolonged selection for growth on another novel substance in a growth broth that also contained citrate. 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

This is not that hard to grasp.. even for desperate True Believers. No gene was identified, so we assumed a 'cryptic transporter gene!' This is guess and extrapolation, not hard evidence of anything. Is this really the best 'evidence!', you have?

Points to ponder, from some of the studies quoted:

1. Selection acts upon existing variability
2. No specific genes were isolated. The 'cryptic transporter gene' is hypothesized.

And from this 'study' on the antics of True Believers:

1. Fist pumps, high fives, and middle school snark passes for 'scientific evidence!'
2. Techno babble, where the 'proof!' is assumed, passes for critical thinking.
3. Hordes of True Believers, dogpiling on rational, scientific based arguments and facts can be more effective, they believe, than rational, evidentiary based discussion.

Perhaps you need more than 30 - 1.. at least the 30 in your collective knowledge base lack evidence for your beliefs, and must resort to fallacies.

Yes. Yes. We know you have nothing. You do not have to keep demonstrating that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nice cut and paste. ..and continued reliance on snark and insult, belittling me, personally, and ignoring my points entirely.

I've already addressed this techno babble bluff. This is more of the same, ASSERTING that since a previously unknown trait came up.. digesting citrates in e.coli.. this 'proves common descent!' But it does not. It doesn't even prove that 'new!' genes were formed for this adptation
I quoted the study, pointing out important distinctions in what was actually, factually discovered, and the speculative mumbo jumbo that bedazzles the gullible.

But as is typical in forum 'debates' on this subject, religious deflections, indignation, and personal quips replace actual scientific debate.

This article said nothing different than i already addressed. I doubt you knew that, just posted it to bluff, as techno babble. It provides no point, just re-asserts the false assumption that an ASSUMED 'acquired trait', (which is not established) was 'created!' by evolution.

From your article:
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies.

What this is saying, is that we use the 'looks like!' ASSUMPTION to guess descendancy. Any actual science behind it is "hampered by the lack of known phylogenies."

So, they took a set of bacteria that showed no ability to digest citrates, and put 'pressure' on it to adapt. It did, so, 'proof of evolution!'

But there are too many assumptions, and alternative possibilities, to categorically declare, 'evolution!' as the Cause.

1. The specific gene, that enabled this trait was not identified. Was it already there?
2. Like in other living things, traits can be hidden deep in the dna, and is only 'selected' if it is used and needed for adaptation.
3. Bacteria and viruses show a unique ability to adapt, with a wide range of conditions. That is not universal with all other organisms.

..were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors

Yes, you can infer a lot of things, if you are hell bent on proving some hare brained 'theory!' But the only thing really 'proved!' here is desperation. Adaptation of e.coli is not proof, or evidence, or even inference, of common descent.

If your whole belief in evolution is based on the fuzzy conclusions of an 'experiment!' designed to prove horizontal gene transfer, rife with assumptions and speculation, that is fine. People can believe whatever they want. But to pretend this is 'settled science!', and 'proves evolution!' is absurd, and does violence to the scientific method. This is religious propaganda, masquerading as 'science!'

The techno babble fools the gullible, and fuels the illusion that 'we're really smart, 'cause we know big words!' But when you sift through the bluff, there is nothing there.

From the e.coli study:
A single, spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli was reported by Hall in 1982.[33] This mutant had been isolated during prolonged selection for growth on another novel substance in a growth broth that also contained citrate. 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

This is not that hard to grasp.. even for desperate True Believers. No gene was identified, so we assumed a 'cryptic transporter gene!' This is guess and extrapolation, not hard evidence of anything. Is this really the best 'evidence!', you have?

Points to ponder, from some of the studies quoted:

1. Selection acts upon existing variability
2. No specific genes were isolated. The 'cryptic transporter gene' is hypothesized.

And from this 'study' on the antics of True Believers:

1. Fist pumps, high fives, and middle school snark passes for 'scientific evidence!'
2. Techno babble, where the 'proof!' is assumed, passes for critical thinking.
3. Hordes of True Believers, dogpiling on rational, scientific based arguments and facts can be more effective, they believe, than rational, evidentiary based discussion.

Perhaps you need more than 30 - 1.. at least the 30 in your collective knowledge base lack evidence for your beliefs, and must resort to fallacies.

Okay, I gotta say......that was freakin' hilarious!! To watch a self-described "science geek" try and rebut a paper he clearly doesn't understand at all, and in doing so make egregious, fundamental errors (e.g., bacteria vs. viruses)....a sitcom writer couldn't dream that up!

Just....plain.....hilarious.

 

[tas8831]

Underinformed, bombastic, AND desperate! Love it!

Nice cut and paste. ..

Yes, it was a cut and paste of something I've posted before. Is that supposed to be an insult of some kind? Can't you handle it? You, after all, claimed to 'know the material'...

and continued reliance on snark and insult, belittling me, personally, and ignoring my points entirely.

You made no point. You just dismissed it all as being a long cut and paste. You didn't actually think you had made a point, did you? I no more belittled or insulted you than you have done to us. Why the double standard snowflakery?

I've already addressed this techno babble bluff.

By technobabble, you are referring to actual scientific terminology? Like.. "the material"? 40 years at this and you've never seen an actual scientific paper's abstract?

This is more of the same, ASSERTING that since a previously unknown trait came up.. digesting citrates in e.coli.. this 'proves common descent!'

I have not once mentioned E. coli or citrates. Sorry.

This article said nothing different than i already addressed. I doubt you knew that, just posted it to bluff, as techno babble. It provides no point, just re-asserts the false assumption that an ASSUMED 'acquired trait', (which is not established) was 'created!' by evolution.

Again, YOU claimed to know the material. Was that a lie?

From your article:
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies.

Oh, that was from the article I posted on E. coli and citrates...

What this is saying, is that we use the 'looks like!' ASSUMPTION to guess descendancy. Any actual science behind it is "hampered by the lack of known phylogenies."

Your reading comprehension is absolute crap.

Or you are just dodging and flailing out of desperation and panic.

What it is ACTUALLY saying is that while the underlying premises were sound, no actual direct tests had been done because there were few known phylogenies. This was in 1992, by the way. And guess what they did - they found a known phylogeny, and tested the genetic analyses against that known phylogeny, and the molecular methods WORKED! Amazing what you can learn when you actually read and understand the science you claim to!

And I do not need to 'bluff' - if I were going to bluff, I would reply to you and bring up things that you had not even mentioned. You know... like you did.

So, they took a set of bacteria that showed no ability to digest citrates, and put 'pressure' on it to adapt. It did, so, 'proof of evolution!'

Are you for real?

Are just TRYING to get flamed? Because not one of the papers I referred to even MENTIONED citrates.

Talk about bluffing - you didn't even TRY to read what I posted, did you?

But there are too many assumptions, and alternative possibilities, to categorically declare, 'evolution!' as the Cause.

1. The specific gene, that enabled this trait was not identified. Was it already there?
2. Like in other living things, traits can be hidden deep in the dna, and is only 'selected' if it is used and needed for adaptation.
3. Bacteria and viruses show a unique ability to adapt, with a wide range of conditions. That is not universal with all other organisms.

All of that is bluffing - none of the stuff I presented even mentioned any of that.

Funny - you seem to do an awful lot of the things you accuse others of doing.

..were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors

Yes, you can infer a lot of things, if you are hell bent on proving some hare brained 'theory!'

Hare brained - you mean like believing a tribal deity made a man from dust 6000 years ago?

And we know that you don't understand what an ad hominem is, but now we see that you don't know what "infer" means, either:


in·fer
/inˈfər/
verb

1. deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
   "from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing"

Poor fellow - you try so hard!

But the only thing really 'proved!' here is desperation. Adaptation of e.coli is not proof, or evidence, or even inference, of common descent.

Desperation - like continuing to refer to E. coli and citrate in response to a series of abstracts that did not once mention either?

You certainly do project and deflect with the worst of your kind...

If your whole belief in evolution is based on the fuzzy conclusions of an 'experiment!' designed to prove horizontal gene transfer, rife with assumptions and speculation, that is fine.

It isn't, as yet again, I did not once mention E. coli or citrate. Your bluffing is entertaining and informative, though, I must say.

And remind me what YOUR 'belief' is based on? Some tall tales written by pre-technological numerologist mystics in the ancient middle east? Cool!

People can believe whatever they want. But to pretend this is 'settled science!', and 'proves evolution!' is absurd, and does violence to the scientific method. This is religious propaganda, masquerading as 'science!'

Cool slogan, bro. Got anything relevant to what I posted?

The techno babble fools the gullible, and fuels the illusion that 'we're really smart, 'cause we know big words!' But when you sift through the bluff, there is nothing there.

If you cannot understand the abstracts despite claiming to be a science geek and to have been at this for 4 decades, I have to wonder what you were actually doing all this time.

From the e.coli study:
*OMITTING BLUFFING AND DODGING AND REFERENCES TO PAPERS I DID NOT POST*

Perhaps you need more than 30 - 1.. at least the 30 in your collective knowledge base lack evidence for your beliefs, and must resort to fallacies.

No, it is pretty obvious any ONE of us is too much for you - you rely WAYYYY too much on these pre-fabricated slogans that you probably scalped from some half-wit professional creationist.

Let me know when you think you can actually address molecular phylogenetics. As it stands, you are way out of your league, but too prideful and too geeked up on the Dunning-Kruger effect to be taken seriously..

In a way, I feel sorry for folks like you - so desperate to try to make your actual religious beliefs seem valid and rational by attacking that which you fear, that you seemingly do not care how foolish you come across.

In another way, I'm totally cool with your antics. Shows the shallowness and desperation of the religious fanatics out there.

 

[tas8831]

Okay, I gotta say......that was freakin' hilarious!! To watch a self-described "science geek" try and rebut a paper he clearly doesn't understand at all, and in doing so make egregious, fundamental errors (e.g., bacteria vs. viruses)....a sitcom writer couldn't dream that up!

Just....plain.....hilarious.

I know, right? Almost as pathetic as his indicating that molecular phylogenetics papers were about morphology - do you think that he doesn't actually know the difference, or just doesn't care as he is more concerned with living out his intellectual martyrdom fantasy?

 

[Jose Fly]

I know, right? Almost as pathetic as his indicating that molecular phylogenetics papers were about morphology

And immediately going off about Lenski's E. coli experiment, as if the work you posted had anything to do with it.

- do you think that he doesn't actually know the difference, or just doesn't care as he is more concerned with living out his intellectual martyrdom fantasy?

Well as you know, that's kinda the long-running question about internet creationists....do they really believe the crap they post and are they really as dim as they seem to be?

I don't know the answer, but I do know that it's what keeps me coming back. I just had to weigh in after reading his "rebuttal" to what you posted, because.....I mean, come on.....does he truly believe he's posted a legitimate counter-argument? Is he really that clueless and arrogant?

Dunning-Kruger indeed.

 

[tas8831]

Since the thread is going to the dogs, and, since many posters are being dogmatic, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae..

What does man's best friend have to say about universal common descent?

I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about dogs, & their genetic base.

Gosh, so much technobabble! canidae? Genetic base? Please stop, you are making me feel inferior!

Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout.

Thanks for clarifying. When I read a creationist essay on, say AiG or ICR, I have to remind myself that it was written by creationists with the assumptions of creation dispersed throughout.

They even quote Darwin.

GOOD LORD, NOOOOOO!!!!

Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics:

1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype.

I have to ask - are you referring to this paper:

Genome Res. 2006 Aug; 16(8): 990–994.
doi: 10.1101/gr.5117706
PMCID: PMC1524871
PMID: 16809672
Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication
Susanne Björnerfeldt,1 Matthew T. Webster,1,2 and Carles Vilà3

Because the abstract - you know, that paragraph packed with obfuscating technobabble - ends thusly (emphases mine):

...Here we show that dogs have accumulated nonsynonymous changes in mitochondrial genes at a faster rate than wolves, leading to elevated levels of variation in their proteins. This suggests that a major consequence of domestication in dogs was a general relaxation of selective constraint on their mitochondrial genome. If this change also affected other parts of the dog genome, it could have facilitated the generation of novel functional genetic diversity. This diversity could thus have contributed raw material upon which artificial selection has shaped modern breeds and may therefore be an important source of the extreme phenotypic variation present in modern-day dogs.​

So I'm not sure what you read, but it sure looks like you engaged in some heavy-duty fantasizin'.

More later, if I feel it necessary to pile on.

 

[usfan]

The intent, it seems, is to pile on with ridicule, deflections, and fallacies. I prefer to NOT 'debate' under such conditions. I don't mind a little snark, in context, and topical, but page after page is childish and boring.

My conditions stand.
1. Single argument/evidence
2. Ditch the ad hom

I know, that dogpiles of ridicule is a favorite pastime of hecklers and pseudoscience devotees, but all it does is make me glaze over, and grieve the loss of reason and civility in our culture.

Repeating the same assertions is not evidence. Long cut and pastes, that do not support a point made (if any), are bluff.

Obsessing over my knowledge or understanding is ad hom, especially when you cannot clearly present an argument or evidence of your own..

As usual, science is avoided and trampled, for the preferred antifa tactics of heckling and disruption. Your needling and constant belittling of me, personally, is an open admission of scientific impotence.

Don't blame me, that the best evidence for common descent is 'it could have happened!', and 'e.coli!'

Hsve your fun.. matters little to me.. mostly amused by the effort.. your beliefs are secure and well defended by the jihadist warriors, here. They will not accept blasphemy toward the sacred beliefs of common descent!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gosh, so much technobabble! canidae? Genetic base? Please stop, you are making me feel inferior!


Thanks for clarifying. When I read a creationist essay on, say AiG or ICR, I have to remind myself that it was written by creationists with the assumptions of creation dispersed throughout.


GOOD LORD, NOOOOOO!!!!



I have to ask - are you referring to this paper:

Genome Res. 2006 Aug; 16(8): 990–994.
doi: 10.1101/gr.5117706
PMCID: PMC1524871
PMID: 16809672
Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication
Susanne Björnerfeldt,1 Matthew T. Webster,1,2 and Carles Vilà3

Because the abstract - you know, that paragraph packed with obfuscating technobabble - ends thusly (emphases mine):

...Here we show that dogs have accumulated nonsynonymous changes in mitochondrial genes at a faster rate than wolves, leading to elevated levels of variation in their proteins. This suggests that a major consequence of domestication in dogs was a general relaxation of selective constraint on their mitochondrial genome. If this change also affected other parts of the dog genome, it could have facilitated the generation of novel functional genetic diversity. This diversity could thus have contributed raw material upon which artificial selection has shaped modern breeds and may therefore be an important source of the extreme phenotypic variation present in modern-day dogs.​

So I'm not sure what you read, but it sure looks like you engaged in some heavy-duty fantasizin'.

More later, if I feel it necessary to pile on.

I am confused. If a person has 40 years of experience reading and understanding scientific papers, then the technical terminology should be a second language to them. What confuses me is that claims of decades of understanding and knowledge are submitted simultaneously with claims that the language is too technical. Implying that there is no 40 years of understanding and acquisition of knowledge.

How can it be both?

I have that paper. Like you, I do not see any confirmation from it for the assertions about variation I have seen bandied about.

Are you saying that a lot of the opposition is just made up and they know it is made up or that they are repeating propaganda that they are too ignorant to recognize for what it is?

Surely not. That boils down to two conclusions. Arguments against science, based on creationism, are either lies or ignorance. That is not a good place to work from.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The intent, it seems, is to pile on with ridicule, deflections, and fallacies. I prefer to NOT 'debate' under such conditions. I don't mind a little snark, in context, and topical, but page after page is childish and boring.

My conditions stand.
1. Single argument/evidence
2. Ditch the ad hom

I know, that dogpiles of ridicule is a favorite pastime of hecklers and pseudoscience devotees, but all it does is make me glaze over, and grieve the loss of reason and civility in our culture.

Repeating the same assertions is not evidence. Long cut and pastes, that do not support a point made (if any), are bluff.

Obsessing over my knowledge or understanding is ad hom, especially when you cannot clearly present an argument or evidence of your own..

As usual, science is avoided and trampled, for the preferred antifa tactics of heckling and disruption. Your needling and constant belittling of me, personally, is an open admission of scientific impotence.

Don't blame me, that the best evidence for common descent is 'it could have happened!', and 'e.coli!'

Hsve your fun.. matters little to me.. mostly amused by the effort.. your beliefs are secure and well defended by the jihadist warriors, here. They will not accept blasphemy toward the sacred beliefs of common descent!

Do not put yourself down. The material you posted on dogs was excellent evidence for common descent. You convinced me that common descent is the best explanation for the evidence we see and I already accepted it as such. That is pretty compelling.

Thank you so much.

 

[Jose Fly]

The intent, it seems, is to pile on with ridicule

You should appreciate how the ridicule is entirely deserved. On one hand you describe yourself as a "science geek" who "knows the material", but you follow that up with errors that are so fundamental and basic, it practically begs for ridicule. I mean, not knowing the difference between bacteria and viruses? Thinking the work Tas posted was at all related to the Lenski experiments? Completely misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the work as a whole?

It's like if I went into a Christian forum, declared myself to be a "student of Scripture", claimed that I knew all about the Christian Bible, but then started talking about how Abraham took the Ten Commandments aboard the Ark, but then dropped them overboard after Jesus told him to change them.

I'm pretty sure I would get ridiculed, and I hope you understand why such behavior would invite it. And once you appreciate that, apply the same thinking to your own behavior in this thread.

Obsessing over my knowledge or understanding is ad hom

Um, no. When a person presents himself as an expert in a subject, but then immediately makes fundamental mistakes when discussing that subject, it's entirely reasonable for folks to question that person's knowledge and understanding of the subject.

Surely you don't disagree with that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The intent, it seems, is to pile on with ridicule, deflections, and fallacies. I prefer to NOT 'debate' under such conditions. I don't mind a little snark, in context, and topical, but page after page is childish and boring.

My conditions stand.
1. Single argument/evidence
2. Ditch the ad hom

I know, that dogpiles of ridicule is a favorite pastime of hecklers and pseudoscience devotees, but all it does is make me glaze over, and grieve the loss of reason and civility in our culture.

Repeating the same assertions is not evidence. Long cut and pastes, that do not support a point made (if any), are bluff.

Obsessing over my knowledge or understanding is ad hom, especially when you cannot clearly present an argument or evidence of your own..

As usual, science is avoided and trampled, for the preferred antifa tactics of heckling and disruption. Your needling and constant belittling of me, personally, is an open admission of scientific impotence.

Don't blame me, that the best evidence for common descent is 'it could have happened!', and 'e.coli!'

Hsve your fun.. matters little to me.. mostly amused by the effort.. your beliefs are secure and well defended by the jihadist warriors, here. They will not accept blasphemy toward the sacred beliefs of common descent!

Once again, you focus on the very thing you previously claimed you would ignore, and refuse to acknowledge even a single actual, scientific argument or source presented to you.

And yet again you misuse the "ad hominem" fallacy, despite it being explained to you multiple times by multiple posters.

Why are you being so obtuse?

 

[Sapiens]

The intent, it seems, is to pile on with ridicule, deflections, and fallacies.

When one is faced with the ridiculous the most appropriate thing to do, definitionally, is to ridicule it.

I prefer to NOT 'debate' under such conditions.

Then please stop wasting bandwidth.

I don't mind a little snark, in context, and topical, but page after page is childish and boring.

The quantity of snark varies directly with the lack of quality of your musings.

My conditions stand.
1. Single argument/evidence
2. Ditch the ad hom

You've had the stuffing beaten out you on a number of single arguments and evidences yet you continue to exhibit the Black Knight Syndrome.

I know, that dogpiles of ridicule is a favorite pastime of hecklers and pseudoscience devotees, but all it does is make me glaze over, and grieve the loss of reason and civility in our culture.

Not to mention the loss of learning, discernment, intelligence and honesty.

Repeating the same assertions is not evidence. Long cut and pastes, that do not support a point made (if any), are bluff.

Denying appropriate evidence (or just ignoring it) is a bug, not a feature.

Obsessing over my knowledge or understanding is ad hom, especially when you cannot clearly present an argument or evidence of your own..

No, pointing out that you know nothing about the subject is no an "ad hom" it is a legitimate observation, as is pointing out that you do not know what an "ad hom" is. It would be an "ad hom" if I were to say that your opinion is wrong because you are a, say, pederast.

As usual, science is avoided and trampled, for the preferred antifa tactics of heckling and disruption. Your needling and constant belittling of me, personally, is an open admission of scientific impotence.

No, it is in recognition of the complete absence of any quality in your absurd arguments.

Don't blame me, that the best evidence for common descent is 'it could have happened!', and 'e.coli!'

The best evidence is, as you've been repeatedly told, is nested hierarchies.

Have your fun.. matters little to me.. mostly amused by the effort.. your beliefs are secure and well defended by the jihadist warriors, here. They will not accept blasphemy toward the sacred beliefs of common descent!

Truth appears to matter little to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You should appreciate how the ridicule is entirely deserved. On one hand you describe yourself as a "science geek" who "knows the material", but you follow that up with errors that are so fundamental and basic, it practically begs for ridicule. I mean, not knowing the difference between bacteria and viruses? Thinking the work Tas posted was at all related to the Lenski experiments? Completely misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the work as a whole?

It's like if I went into a Christian forum, declared myself to be a "student of Scripture", claimed that I knew all about the Christian Bible, but then started talking about how Abraham took the Ten Commandments aboard the Ark, but then dropped them overboard after Jesus told him to change them.

I'm pretty sure I would get ridiculed, and I hope you understand why such behavior would invite it. And once you appreciate that, apply the same thinking to your own behavior in this thread.


Um, no. When a person presents himself as an expert in a subject, but then immediately makes fundamental mistakes when discussing that subject, it's entirely reasonable for folks to question that person's knowledge and understanding of the subject.

Surely you don't disagree with that.

I do not disagree with it.

 

[tas8831]

The intent, it seems, is to pile on with ridicule, deflections, and fallacies.

Is this the coward's way of admitting that you totally biffed it when you replied to my molecular phylogeny evidence with BS about E. coli, citrate, and morphology, all because you are clueless about the actual science?

You are not fooling anybody. You've been 100% exposed as a pretender. Continuing to pretend and act all indignant as a pretense for not addressing that which you are ignorant of is just more krazy kreationist komedy.


40 years of bluster, bombast, and empty assertions wasted.

 

[tas8831]

Long cut and pastes, that do not support a point made (if any), are bluff.

So you ignored my breakdown and explanation of it all?:Typical creationist.

Obsessing over my knowledge or understanding is ad hom,

No, it really isn't.
When you reply to abstracts re: molecular phylogenetics with dopey ranting about E. coli and citrate and morphology, it is pretty clear that you either 1. did not bother to actually read any of it 2. could not understand any of it, or 3. knew it was problematic for your ancient mythology and the lies you read on YEC websites so decided to deflect and dodge.

Your knowledge is a RELEVANT component here. That you cannot understand that by definition, and ad hom is an 'argument' premised on an IRRELEVANT characteristic.
And besides - wondering about your lack of knowledge has been done AFTER having dismantled your pathetic 'arguments.'

You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

especially when you cannot clearly present an argument or evidence of your own..

LOL! Like when you copy-pasted wiki? Like when you paraphrase YEC essays re: Lenski (in response to nothing about Lenski)???

Here is a hint, skippy - unlike a retired 'home builder' and 'science geek' who claims to 'know the material' and to have been doing this for 40 years but who claims actual scientific paper abstracts are just "technobabble" meant to obfuscate, I have actually done original research and actually have scientific publications. That I won't write like a 5th grader (Trump) so some random creationist can understand it is just more evidence that you are a pretender.

Your needling and constant belittling of me, personally, is an open admission of scientific impotence.

Not as much as replying to DNA papers by crying 'morphology' and 'citrate' and E. coli!

Don't blame me, that the best evidence for common descent is 'it could have happened!', and 'e.coli!'

Why blame you for parroting a creationist lie? On second thought...

Hsve your fun.. matters little to me.. mostly amused by the effort.. your beliefs are secure and well defended by the jihadist warriors, here. They will not accept blasphemy toward the sacred beliefs of common descent!

Still laughing at your scientific incompetence.

Keep it up hero - I can point out the ignorance of creationists all day long.