Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God cast his first and most intelligent and beautiful angel and 1/3rd of the hosts , angels, down to the newborn earth before he created the first humans.

Thank you, Jesus. How about we throw it back into heaven?

*Checks to see if the responder is a Christian*...says they are....but wow! That is the greatest misunderstood piece of hateful slander I think I have ever seen against God in my lifetime...and from a Christian!?I could respond to every single point in that post and show you how misguided your response is, but what would be the point? I have heard some verbal poison against God in my time on internet forums, but that was something I would expect to read from a committed atheist. Gotta put you on ignore, sorry. That just made me feel sick.

Nobody demeans Christians better than Christians with competing doctrine.

The orientation of the OP feels a bit like sea-lioning to me, no?

I looked that up. Perfect. It's what I usually call the creationist shuffle - to pretend to care about reason and evience just to ignore it. Yes, he just wants to take batting practice fouling off pitches. I wasn't interested, either.

Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids. To me, that is evidence for all living things and their interacting processes having the same Designer.

If life was intelligently designed, there would be no need or reason for common embryological forms, common proteins, a common genetic code, etc.. Evolution by common descent predicts it.

The world is full of these kinds of situations - if an interventionalist god existed, things might be A or B, but in a godless universe, it could only be B. It's always B. If a god authored a holy book, it might contain information unavailable to mankind when it was written, but if human beings write these books themselves, their fingerprints will be all over it.

Consider coin flipping. If the coin is a fair coin, it will come up heads and tails approximately equally. If the coin is loaded, it will turn up the same each time - let's say tails. How many coin flips in a row coming up tails does one need to decide not to bet on heads?

The above is a scientifically fallacious conclusion. In terms of the religious sector, it's a satanic deception because it's perceived as a legitimate scientific conclusion!

The religious sector has no say in the scientific community.

ToE in a nutshell is the use of an alternative approach under the circumstance that we humans cannot establish a scientific model simply because it takes too long for an end-to-end repetition to complete for us to draw a legitimate scientific conclusion.

We are not obligated to go back in time to determine what must have happened earlier. If you see a man lying dead on the street. The evidence allows me to reliably predict and reasonably assume that this person was conceived, developed in a womb, was born, took a first breath, etc.. I don't need any additional evidence to know that. Reason requires it.

If you try to claim that a human can be evolved from a single cell, you need to predict how it is so.

Darwin did that already. It was a combination of genetic variation, natural selection, and deep time.

 

[Skwim]

One quick note. The concept of "species" is not well defined either, but that does not give any relief to creationists, in fact it makes their position even harder to defend. That the observed boundaries between closely related species is "fuzzy" is predicted by the theory of evolution. Our inability at times to tell exactly what species an organism belongs to is a plus for the theory. On the other hand creationists should be able to come up with a definition with clear sharp boundaries and a way to tell if two different groups of animals are of the same "kind" or not.

No kidding. Just consider the plight of the poor echidna who went from being classified as Myrmecophaga aculeta ( prickled anteater) to Ornithorhynchus hystrix (porcupine like with a birdlike snout) to Echidna hystrix (After the Greek goddess Ekhidna, who was half reptile and half mammal) to Tachyglossus acluleatus (rapid tongue with prickles).
Source: This is Not a Weasel by Philip B. Mortenson, p8

Then there's the domestic dog who was recently downgraded from being a species Canis familiaris to a subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus familiaris.

.

 

[exchemist]

It seems you're asking everyone else to do the heavy lifting here? The orientation of the OP feels a bit like sea-lioning to me, no?

But in an attempt to respond in good faith, from what I've heard many times, the more we study the genes of various species, the more we find them to be mostly similar.

If that's not sufficient I'd say that you can research it for yourself. I for one an happy to rely on scientific concensus.

I also had to look this up but....yep, that is exactly what is going on here. What a useful term. Well worth adding to the inventory of creationist rhetorical techniques.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't know. You tell me:

Do you need some more?

Lol. Pictures! (@Deeje used pictures, and got pounded for it.) please, ask Feduccia, if that's good enough to reach a conclusion....

The "Birds Are Not Dinosaurs" Movement

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm a bit surprised Cladistics hasn't been mentioned yet.

Introduction to Cladistics

Cladistics - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. Pictures! (@Deeje used pictures, and got pounded for it.) please, ask Feduccia, if that's good enough to reach a conclusion....

The "Birds Are Not Dinosaurs" Movement

Did you even read that article? I bet that you did not. That article refutes the arguments of a minority of paleontologists that go against the mainstream. You just supported my claim with that article. Thank you.

EDIT: And you specifically stated that theropods do not look like birds. Since you were making a claim on how a species looked pictures are the best method to make your error clear. And @Deeje gets hammered because she does not know how to use pictures correctly.

 

[blü 2]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

As ChristineM said, the DNA evidence is hard to argue against ─ has not ever been successfully argued against, as far as I'm aware.

And for me, the big stumbling block with alternatives to the theory of evolution is that so many of them rely on magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, often just by wishing.

For instance, what actually happened, step by step, to bring light into being when the God of the bible said, 'Let there be light'?

And in what form did 'the heavens and the earth', which you'll recall God had created earlier, exist before the EM spectrum came into existence?

 

[Deeje]

Nobody demeans Christians better than Christians with competing doctrine.

No one demeans Christianity better than someone who slanders the God that they purport to worship.
Or carries on with actions that Christ condemned.....its not hard to figure it out.

 

[Milton Platt]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

I think you are overly optimistic about the outcome, but you can try....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. It is based on sound logic, reason and evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.

Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent. Simple.

Why don't you start with your claims against the theories of evolution, common descent and natural selection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

..and, of course, if nobody has any evidence, or if they only wish to assert THEIR beliefs and ridicule other's, that is a common occurence in forums, too.

It is appropriate to debate common descent as a religious belief, because that is what it is.

Please provide the evidence and argument that a scientific theory is a religious belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How? Explain, not just link to an assumed authority. I don't debate links, and can only deal with evidence provided.

I know this argument, i would just like it presented. I won't go through some link as a proxy, and rebut their points.

How does the 'development of embryos', evidence common descent?

What are your qualifications for dealing with the scientific evidence, arguments, explanations and conclusions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No problem. Anybody can assert whatever they like. I am only suggesting an evidence based look into this widely held belief..

Please explain how accepting a scientific explanation is a belief in the same way that believing in a deity based on faith is a belief? Many theists accept the theory of common descent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nobody demeans Christians better than Christians with competing doctrine.

And almost as soon as you set this up, one of the hardcore offenders comes in to provide the example for your claim.

 

[Salvador]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species. ...

Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry:

Chromosome 2 in humans

Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry. Cats (Felidae) present a notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged. Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, but 1% to 8% has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny.

The first individual of the genus Homo-species could have formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.

References:

1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595[

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems you're asking everyone else to do the heavy lifting here? The orientation of the OP feels a bit like sea-lioning to me, no?

But in an attempt to respond in good faith, from what I've heard many times, the more we study the genes of various species, the more we find them to be mostly similar.

If that's not sufficient I'd say that you can research it for yourself. I for one an happy to rely on scientific concensus.

That is my take on it. Phrase the position against evolution in such a way that you make defenders provide the burden of proof for the claims against the theory.

The theory, the logic and the evidence are widely publicized. The body of evidence has been growing over the last 200 years or more. No other scientific explanation has been found that is better than the theory of evolution for the accumulated evidence.

It is with this background that the OP needs to present his claims, arguments and bear the burden of proof in support of those claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@usfan , nothing substantial yet, huh? You won’t get anything, only evidence for micro evolution, ie., change within species.

Somebody mentioned the “fossil record”, but this works against evolutionary theory...the supposed gaps are too great.

Stephen Jay Gould recognized this. That’s why he and Eldredge came up with “punctuated equilibrium”, allowing for big jumps in mutations. Unfortunately for them, no observed tests support it. It’s only assumption.

And ERV’s apparently serve functions necessary for regulating genes and other processes, as if they were made for those tasks.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_/

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/toppling_anothe/

No ‘junk DNA’, there!

 

[Subduction Zone]

@usfan , nothing substantial yet, huh? You won’t get anything, only evidence for micro evolution, ie., change within species.

Somebody mentioned the “fossil record”, but this works against evolutionary theory...the supposed gaps are too great.

Stephen Jay Gould recognized this. That’s why he and Eldredge came up with “punctuated equilibrium”, allowing for big jumps in mutations. Unfortunately for them, no observed tests support it. It’s only assumption.

And ERV’s apparently serve functions necessary for regulating genes and other processes, as if they were made for those tasks.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_/

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/toppling_anothe/

No ‘junk DNA’, there!

More PRATT's. ERV's are from viruses. You and I are not experts in the field, but experts can and do recognize them. Also either man created "life" or they really are viruses:

This is old news but they have revived a more recent one, proving that they are viruses:

Ancient human virus resurrected : Nature News

And can you tell me why a person that claims to be a Christian uses lying sites such as "Evolution news"?

EDIT: And you really have no legs to stand on. Until the creationists involved here learn what is and what is not evidence you will only reject the evidence presented to you.

Any takers? Does any creationist want to learn what scientific evidence, which the OP referred to, is in the first place? We don't even have to discuss evolution. Let's first get the concept of scientific evidence nailed down.

Meanwhile take a good look at this:

 

[gnostic]

@usfan

I don't see how this thread is going to be of any use to you since you are already determine to reject any evidence presented, out of hand.

You are not going to accept evidences regardless how many of them are given. All you do dismiss them without consideration.

You religious belief and indoctrination to creationism have already made

2nd, any evidence given, you have to understand where it come from, and how to relate to any theory, which in this case - Evolution.

You have already don't understand basic biological mechanism, like genetics (in another thread), then how do you expect to judge which evidences "are scientific" and which "are not scientific"?

You cannot judge anything that you cannot possibly understand. You reminded me of one of Jesus' saying - because you have a log in your eye:

7 “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

You judge what you don't understand and you judge others' for their views and yet you don't see your own flaws.

Giving you some scientific evidences for common descent, would be like giving a gorilla a carburetor, and expecting that gorilla to know what to do with it.