Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

Seriously? Just repeat the same old asserted 'proofs!'?

Seeing as how your entire reply was to first ignore it all by saying it was 'too long', and then having to bring up morphology and citrates and E.coli even though they were never mentioned, yes.

You did not actually address anything.
You bluffed.

Declaring, 'Molecular analysis proves common descent!', is not evidence

That is why I presented many pieces of evidence.Did you ignore it on purpose?

. None of those studies compel a conclusion of common descent.

And yet you accept that same type of evidence (actually, much less rigorous anaylses than I presented) in your now refuted and debunked Canid post, so why dismiss it here?

Emotional prejudice?

I have repeatedly quoted, and explained the flaws in the e.coli conclusions, and they do NOT prove horizontal gene transfer, speciation, or anything even remotely resembling common descent.

Great!

And here you go again, bringing up things I NEVER POSTED ABOUT!!!

Are you really this daft? or this desperate?

Pathetic...

 

[tas8831]

This was presented earlier, and i touched on it, but since the 'looks like!' morphology is one of the main arguments for common descent, it deserves another look.

You cannot tell the difference between molecular and morphological analyses?

40 years wasted...

1. It is primarily circular reasoning. 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.

This is hilarious!
The SAME methods used in the Canid paper you love so much is used in these other analyses.

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

Let's see that again, folks:


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



Wow.... I wasted my time on this... creationist???

Why do pretty much all creationists have this totally unrealistic, superlative view of their own intellect? Is the Dunning-Kruger effect REALLY this powerful in uneducated religious creationists? (rhetorical)

 

[tas8831]

You've decided to join the hecklers, so i glaze over any alleged 'rational!' arguments that might be hidden in your bombastic rants.

If you want to make a rational, civil, evidentiary based argument, i will reply. But i won't go through and sift out some alleged nugget of 'proof!' you only allude to.
.especially if it is framed in a deluge of mocking and ridicule.

I do not believe you are a sincere or honest debater, but a heckling True Believer, with jihadist zeal for your cherished beliefs. You have no Reason, just outrage and hysteria.

Can you present a reasoned reply? I don't think you can. Your religious zeal overrides any rational thinking, and the Groupthink loyalties crush any hopes of science or reason..

Enough bluff. Enough pretension. Enough religious hysteria. Do you have any ability to debate this issue rationally? Prove it.

Creationists are unintentionally hilarious.

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

LOL!

All you deserve at this point is heckling. What a pretender.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This was presented earlier, and i touched on it, but since the 'looks like!' morphology is one of the main arguments for common descent, it deserves another look.

1. It is primarily circular reasoning. 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.

You just demonstrated that you do not know what scientific evidence is again. I gave a link more than once, I quoted from it and simplified it for you. You did not raise any objection when you were informed that the theory of evolution is falsifiable. But we can go over that if needed. That leaves one question:

"Does the theory of evolution predict that life will form a phylogenetic tree?" .


The answer is a resounding yes. That means like it or not it is evidence for the theory of evolution. Nor is it circular reasoning. There is no need for life to form such trees other than the fact of evolution. Once more you fail at applying a logical fallacy.

2. "Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes. Certain haplogroups, like canidae, mentioned earler, HAVE the evidence of descendancy. But to extrapolate that to all living things is flawed. It is not the case. There is NO GENETIC EVIDENCE of descendancy in cross genetic architectures. There is real genetic evidence of descendancy within canidae, felidae, equus, etc, but nothing to suggest any of them came from, or are becoming, something else. The 'high genetic walls,' that the hecklers love to ridicule, PREVENT any departure from the parent architecture. That is repeatable, observable, scientific FACT.

Plausibility, and 'looks like!' imagination, is not scientific evidence.

Wow, that is an EPIC ignoring of the facts and observation. And you confirmed that you do not understand scientific evidence yet again. That life would form the clear phylogenetic trees that we can observe is not necessitated by anything but the theory of evolution. That you deny such clear evidence only tells us that you are in full cognitive dissonance mode.

One more time. Did the theory of evolution predict the observed phylogenetic trees that we see using DNA before it was sequenced? Yes it did. Did any other scientific hypothesis make such a prediction? No. Therefore the observed "trees" are evidence for the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution only.

 

[tas8831]

Dang - missed this in my earlier haste -

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.

Whaaaaat in the world????

A phylogenetic tree is NOT the evidence, it is the output of an analysis!

Are you for real??

HILARIOUS how when the going gets tougher, your lack of understanding becomes more bombasitc and prevalent. I mean, my gosh - this is amazing!

I mean, do you also dismiss graphs like this:

because a graph is not evidence????

All I can do, literally, is laugh at this guy's hubris and cluelessness.

 

[tas8831]

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.

And keep in mind - we have it on good creationist authority that these sorts of analyses are top notch!

See, for example:

"Genetics has replaced and updated the old morphological taxonomic classifications, which were one limited to 'looks like!' correlation. Now, we have hard science, not just speculation."

"The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy..."

"You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA"

"As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line."


Can't argue with that great creationist wisdom!



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."



Primate phylogenetic relationships and divergence dates inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes
"Here we present a comprehensive mitogenomic study of primates. We assembled 87 mammalian mitochondrial genomes, including 62 primate species representing all the families of the order. We newly sequenced eleven mitochondrial genomes, including eight Old World monkeys and three strepsirrhines. Phylogenetic analyses support a strong topology, confirming the monophyly for all the major primate clades. In contrast to previous mitogenomic studies, the positions of tarsiers and colugos relative to strepsirrhines and anthropoids are well resolved. "


And NOTHING about E. coli, citrate, or morphology!

 

[usfan]

Keep it up.. you guys are on a roll!

Eye rolling, pretended exasperation, straw men of my points.. and of course the gratuitous ad hom.

Any points of science?

Maybe.. buried in a barrage of ridicule, mocking and pretended expertise.. but actually grasping the concepts? Addressing the points? Dealing with science? Hardly.. not at all.

The pretentiousness of these pseudo scientific bluffs can only fool the gullible, and willfully deluded. ..that covers most progressive indoctrinees, so good job with the propaganda!

..let me know, if by some bizarre mental twist, you actually want to talk science. Otherwise, continue with the heckling.. its really all you have..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Keep it up.. you guys are on a roll!

Eye rolling, pretended exasperation, straw men of my points.. and of course the gratuitous ad hom.

Any points of science?

Maybe.. buried in a barrage of ridicule, mocking and pretended expertise.. but actually grasping the concepts? Addressing the points? Dealing with science? Hardly.. not at all.

The pretentiousness of these pseudo scientific bluffs can only fool the gullible, and willfully deluded. ..that covers most progressive indoctrinees, so good job with the propaganda!

..let me know, if by some bizarre mental twist, you actually want to talk science. Otherwise, continue with the heckling.. its really all you have..

Yes. It is unfortunate that the focus seems to be on this and not the science. Speaking of which, you must have missed my responses to your posts about the dog. When you have time, I would love to see some response to those.

 

[usfan]

The pompous arrogance of pseudo science True Believers only confirms that the belief in common descent is a religious opinion.. not backed by any scientific evidence. They are religious extremists.. jihadists defending the sacred tenets of their faith..

They wouldn't know science or Reason if it bit them on the butt..

 

[usfan]

Yes. It is unfortunate that the focus seems to be on this and not the science. Speaking of which, you must have missed my responses to your posts about the dog. When you have time, I would love to see some response to those.

Oh, sure.. heckle and ridicule page after page, fist pumping each other, high fiving your witty comebacks, then pretend to want a scientific discussion..

But I'll look back, and if you have rational, civil points, I'll reply. If it's just more of the mocking, ridicule, and heckling, don't expect a reply.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, sure.. heckle and ridicule page after page, fist pumping each other, high fiving your witty comebacks, then pretend to want a scientific discussion..

But I'll look back, and if you have rational, civil points, I'll reply. If it's just more of the mocking, ridicule, and heckling, don't expect a reply.

I am sorry you feel that way. I have seen only constructive criticism and none of this heckling you claim.

Well, you did say you wanted to discuss science. If you think this thread has degraded to heckling, then the best way to cure that would be to take back control and focus on the science. Wouldn't you say?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, sure.. heckle and ridicule page after page, fist pumping each other, high fiving your witty comebacks, then pretend to want a scientific discussion..

But I'll look back, and if you have rational, civil points, I'll reply. If it's just more of the mocking, ridicule, and heckling, don't expect a reply.

I am surprised you did not see an alert indicating that I had posted or seen the posts themselves. I responded to every point and even agreed with you that the evidence did support common descent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Keep it up.. you guys are on a roll!

Eye rolling, pretended exasperation, straw men of my points.. and of course the gratuitous ad hom.

Any points of science?

Maybe.. buried in a barrage of ridicule, mocking and pretended expertise.. but actually grasping the concepts? Addressing the points? Dealing with science? Hardly.. not at all.

The pretentiousness of these pseudo scientific bluffs can only fool the gullible, and willfully deluded. ..that covers most progressive indoctrinees, so good job with the propaganda!

..let me know, if by some bizarre mental twist, you actually want to talk science. Otherwise, continue with the heckling.. its really all you have..

The science was brought up a long time ago. You lost the right to criticize when you either ignored it or tried to use terms that you did not understand in "refuting" it.

Tell me, where is the ad hom? Where are the strawman arguments?

Did you see that you were corrected on the fact that scientific evidence has been presented and you could not deal with it?

One more time, you do not understand logical fallacies. You really should not try to apply them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The pompous arrogance of pseudo science True Believers only confirms that the belief in common descent is a religious opinion.. not backed by any scientific evidence. They are religious extremists.. jihadists defending the sacred tenets of their faith..

They wouldn't know science or Reason if it bit them on the butt..

Lying is never a good idea. When you do not even understand a concept as basic as scientific evidence that makes you the "pseudo science True Believer".

Why not take a break from discussing the science that you do not understand and we can discuss the concept of evidence that you do not understand?

 

[usfan]

A personal opinion of your own that does not reflect the facts and I do not agree with.
This entire post is a poorly written summary (mainly it appears to be an attempt to summarize the abstract of the paper) of a single study published 13 years ago that supports the theory of common descent, while the poster of the summary presents a trivial understanding of the findings, false conclusions and contradictory claims.
So we still do not have all the information, therefore any unscientific belief is correct by default? No.
A confirmation of the recent history of dog breeding, but that fact says NOTHING against common descent.
All selection acts on existing variability. This is not a revelation that scientists and other posters on here have overlooked. How could selection act on variability that does not exist? That is just ridiculous. This in no way means that the existing variability had to always exist in the genome and it can be as recent as the latest generation.

The false suggestion here is equating evolution over time with variability and implying that the variability has to be pre-existing. Evolution happens over thousands and millions of years. Variability is constantly changing with each generation.
This is the false equivalence of "potential" with "variability". Potential and variability are not the same. The study IS NOT claiming that the variability always existed in the ancestral species.
So this is where the set up is taking us. Falsely equating the fact that many recent breeds are the result of breeding conducted over the last 200 years to a claim that earlier evolution did not happen.

The paper does not claim or support that all variability in dogs occurred over the last 200 years. It confirms the history of dog breeding and that many recent breeds were derived over the last 200 years. Any conclusion that variability prior to the last 200 years did not exist and change under selection is the worst sort of biased, myopic claim and does not reflect a careful review of the paper in question.
So the data indicates common descent, but YOU are claiming that common descent is refuted due to questions about unrelated aspects of dog evolution. This would be a straw man argument. How surprising.
So the argument against common descent is supported by the data reported, but YOU are denying it on false premises regarding issues unrelated to common descent.
The ultimate straw man argument. The study is a study of the origin of the modern dog and not a study of dogs relationship to other mammals, so there would be no evidence shown for relationships with cats and horses. Is anyone surprised how this has been twisted to demonstrate something that is not there? I am not. I also note that there are unstated and very plastic definitions of both micro-evolution and macro-evolution being used here.
Sure it has evidence to support it. Did you expect otherwise? It shows the descent of modern dogs from a common ancestor. What is unwarranted, unscientific, and unbelievable is your use of this study to show common descent and deny it at the same time.

Relationships and descent from a common ancestor shared by dogs and other mammals is not part of this study and your conclusion using it against common descent is based on facts not in evidence, and is mere supposition based on YOUR own bias, dogma and ignorance.
A haplotype is a set of alleles that are passed entire from one parent and are on the same loci of one of a pair of homologous chromosomes. A haplogroup is a group of related haplotypes. A number of haplogroups have been identified in canines and not identified by a single haplogroup as claimed here. The study and other studies confirm that all modern dogs evolved from a shared common ancestor and that many recent breeds were derived in the last 200 years.

For the most part, genetics and molecular biology have confirmed the bulk of taxonomy based on morphology. Usfans claim to the contrary is in defiance of the evidence.

This one? Where you ridicule my points, call me a liar, attack strawmen, pretend superiority, and ignore the EXACT QUOTES from the study?

yeah, i remember it. You really expected a reply?

If you want to extract points made in this study, and DEMONSTRATE how they apply to your arguments, go for it. But this is not a scientific rebuttal, nor did you address my points, except with ridicule, strawmen, and eyerolling..

Other than that, it was a fine, expected reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This one? Where you ridicule my points, call me a liar, attack strawmen, pretend superiority, and ignore the EXACT QUOTES from the study?

yeah, i remember it. You really expected a reply?

If you want to extract points made in this study, and DEMONSTRATE how they apply to your arguments, go for it. But this is not a scientific rebuttal, nor did you address my points, except with ridicule, strawmen, and eyerolling..

Other than that, it was a fine, expected reply.

When one uses terms that he does not understand incorrectly that person opens himself up to ridicule.

Meanwhile you have yet to address your inability to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This one? Where you ridicule my points, call me a liar, attack strawmen, pretend superiority, and ignore the EXACT QUOTES from the study?

yeah, i remember it. You really expected a reply?

If you want to extract points made in this study, and DEMONSTRATE how they apply to your arguments, go for it. But this is not a scientific rebuttal, nor did you address my points, except with ridicule, strawmen, and eyerolling..

Other than that, it was a fine, expected reply.

That is merely constructive criticism and a nudge to get you back on topic.

Yes. I fully expected a reply from the person that posted the original content and the same person that has been talking about discussions of the evidence. Were your claims not accurate. Is it that you do not want to discuss the science?

It appears that you have nothing to rebut what I posted. Again it is unfortunate. I suppose there is nothing left to do, since you have no interest in discussion of your own topic on your own thread is to wish you well, recommend you learn about science and the science you are trying to discredit and have good day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When one uses terms that he does not understand incorrectly that person opens himself up to ridicule.

Meanwhile you have yet to address your inability to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence.

It seems that we need to let this thread follow a natural course and die off. The OP is indicating that he has no interest in the discussion he asserted was the intent of this thread. He does not appear to have an interest or any valid opposition to the on topic responses I posted. Nothing I can do to change his mind on that it appears.

Perhaps we would be better off discussing this on another thread or, if the interest is great, then we could continue it here and leave the OP to his own devices.

It is interesting to note that the only questions regarding common descent I am finding in science are those that are generated by scientists. In order to demonstrate something, they must know the problems associated with succeeding at that. It is a wonder why these criticisms and issues were not offered here given assertions of knowledge regarding the literature.

It could be that I am mistaken in the intent of the OP, given that all the evidence offered establishes common descent and even the original poster has indicated that it shows common descent.

Ah well. It is much as I have seen in the past with these sorts of assertions in denial of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When one uses terms that he does not understand incorrectly that person opens himself up to ridicule.

Meanwhile you have yet to address your inability to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence.

He did not even try to rebut my posts. He just asserted some insults without evidence to wave it all away.

His opposition to his own intent confuses me. To claim an interest and knowledge in science, assert an intent to address scientific evidence and conclusions and then focus on everything but that is counterproductive to his own claims.

I wonder if he understands what evidence means at all.

If this is a mistaken conclusion based on what has actually been posted in defense of the original intent of this thread, I would love to have seen that discredited, but for now and moving forward, all the constructive criticism that has been offered is still holding up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

continue with the heckling.

What you call heckling is what others consider constructive criticism, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.They're not going to stop because you don't want to be disagreed with. If that's what you need, then either be correct or be silent.

The pompous arrogance of pseudo science True Believers only confirms that the belief in common descent is a religious opinion

No. You're the religious one. You're the creationist, which is the pseudoscience, the utterly useless idea. The shame and ignomy belong to you.

pretend to want a scientific discussion

Yes, you did, but you were found out.

let me know, if by some bizarre mental twist, you actually want to talk science.

Not with a creationist. They bring nothing to the table, and resist being educated. You have offered nothing but unsupported claims contradicted by the evidence, and a useless alternative to the fruits of reason applied to evidence. What use is creationism even if correct?