Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

DNA and comparative genomics are physical sciences, not mere philosophy.

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

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia


That's a phylogenetic tree that has been generated by an automated process that just plots out matches in DNA comparisions. No humans are part of that process. No data is being "forced" into any patterns.

It's just an algoritm in which DNA samples are fed and which plots out matches with other DNA samples. It just so happens to result in a nested hierarchical tree. A family tree.

The exact pattern expected if life has common ancestry.

Pretty solid evidence.
ESPECIALLY when you consider that you can draw this exact same tree from multiple independent angles. You can plot atterns out based on comparative anatomy of extant species. You can do it based on the fossil record. You can even do it based on a single gene, a single bone or even geographic distribution of species.

All these independent lines of evidence all converge on the same tree.

Again, exactly as one would expect, if life shares common ancestry.
If life does NOT share common ancestry, such a pattern is the very last pattern one would expect. It shouldn't exist, if common descent is false. But it does exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Not a belief. Rather, a scientific conclusion based on the data and evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. Present ONE bit of evidence for the theory of common descent?

The pattern of nested hierarchies found in DNA and anatomy, through multiple independent means. When multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on the same answer....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I only see evidence for micro evolution....

1+1+1+1+1+1+....+1 = HUGE number

"1" is a microstep.
Accumulation of microsteps will inevitably lead to macrosteps.

You do understand that DNA is inherited by off spring, I hope?
When your off spring inherits your DNA, it also inherits your mutations (= micro-changes) and it will in turn add its own mutations. Its off spring well then inherit those mutations + your mutations. And so it goes on.

To say that "only micro evolution can happen" is like saying that you can only walk a "micro distance" taking 1 step at a time... completely ignoring that the distance covered is determined by the amount of steps taken.

Indefinte accumulation of steps is inevitably going to result in crossing a distance of many many miles.

Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.

The anatomy of the body is regulated by DNA sequences.
Mutations change DNA sequences.

What more evidence do you need to understand that changing DNA can potentially change anatomical structures?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you try to claim that a human can be evolved from a single cell, you need to predict how it is so. That is, you are given a single cell organism, then you apply your theory to predictably evolve this single cell into a human. This is the predictability of science. It's not an arbitrary prediction on, say, lotto max!

Again, it's your twist of the concept of predictability that it makes ToE in the religious sector a satanic deception!

Did you really just ask him to "repeat" a process that took some 700 million years to accomplish?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans all work under limits, they are not omnipotent. For example, BBT is just a consensus because under today's human capability, that's already the best we can get. However, not until we can make a big bang repeatedly happens, we can't get to a confirmed scientific conclusion.

It's because the unconfirmable nature of BBT that other theories can co-exist!

Would you say that forensic scientiest are incapable of getting to a confirmed conclusion of who committed a murder, because they can't repeat the murder?

 

[metis]

Then how about we,

1. Present ONE bit of evidence for the theory of common descent?
2. Avoid fallacies, and stick with facts and reason?

Both of those can easily be avoided.

Here's more than enough information, which also links the reader to scientific studies: Human evolution - Wikipedia

Now, how about if you provide objectively-derived evidence for Divine creation? Also, before jumping to conclusions as to what I may believe, let me recommend that you read "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts first.

 

[usfan]

You might be surprised, since you are not staff, to know how many people have gotten warned or even banned by attempting to enforce a purely scientific environment.

I might be, but probably not. This isn't my first rodeo. Ive been debating origins for over 40 years.

I make no demands. I do not expect anyone's minds will change. This is a discussion forum, and this topic is a popular subject for discussion.

We don't let anyone win. If you start to win your argument you are probably breaking a forum rule to do it. Sorry.

No need to be sorry. ..Nor premptive strikes and warnings. How about we discuss a topic that is:
1. Controversial
2. Emotional
3. Allegedly empirical
4. Polemical
5. Interesting
..with as much rationality and empiricism as we can? A novel concept, in opinion forums, but why not?

DNA is evidence, it is as specific as it gets. Sorry it you dont like it but that is really your problem, not mine?

Ok. This is your belief, that the existence of DNA, somehow proves common descent.
My rebuttal: It does not. That is an asserted belief, with no evidence.

Sorry, but evolutionary theory is settled science, and isn't going anywhere however threatening it is to actual religious beliefs like yours.

Yes, so you believe. And while common descent is a religious belief, we are not doing a comparative religion thread. This is specifically about UCD, not other theories or beliefs of origins.
If you have no evidence or valid arguments, you can still heckle and disrupt from the sidelines.. but i won't always reply.

Nested hierarchies.

..similar to the DNA! assertion, mentioned earlier. But it is incumbent on you to show HOW 'Nested hierarchies!', is evidence. Merely stating phrases isn't much of an argument..

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?

Yes, you can pile on with criticisms of me, but the subject is still plain & simple. If you don't know the subject, or don't like it, you don't have to contribute.

I would say the best evidence is that genealogy of species via DNA analysis confirms morphology.

Good reply. Someone is finally attempting to present actual evidence for this theory.

Here's the problem with this statement.
1. 'Genealogy of species', is just another way of saying common descent. It is circular reasoning. 'Organisms descended. They look related, and you can see similarities. Therefore, evolution!'
2. DNA analysis does not confirm morphology. That is a subjective, "looks like!', argument. DNA is unique and locked in with each species/haplogroup. Genetics is a problem, not a supporter, of common descent. Everything we are learning about genetics screams, 'NO!' to ucd. Gene don't do that..

To me, that is evidence for all living things and their interacting processes having the same Designer.

Exactly. There are other possibilities than 'common descent!' Similarity of construction and materials does not prove descent.

Universal Common Descent is different from Theory of Biological Evolution. Which one is up for discussion

They are functionally the same, and close enough for this debate. If you want to parse nuances from each, to make a point, do it!

Micro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution.

Not at all. That is the central problem.. assumption.. for the theory.

Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but believed as proven fact.

The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science.

The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Simply asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major changes in the genetic structure

So you understand on the micro scale. What don't you understand about how small changes add up to larger changes on the macro scale? It's all the same, with the only difference being the amount of time involved.

see above. Perhaps i will post that argument in a separate post, for easier rebutting.

Your discussion is futile as evolutionists adapt a distorted concept of what science is.

Yes, many people believe in pseudo science, or science by decree. They do not have the mental discipline to follow scientific methodology.

What a completely disingenuous post. IF you genuinely are looking for scientifically based evidence for the ToE there are thousands of books

Fine. Don't participate in this discussion, if it triggers you so..

Many birds are anatomically very similar to dinosaurs, and even to other lizards.

Not at all. There are HUGE differences between birds and reptiles. 'Looks like!' descendancy is an argument of plausibility, not evidence.
1. Warm blood vs cold.
2. Light, hollow bones vs heavy ones.
3. Scales vs feathers.

It is not enough to ASSERT 'descendancy!', it must be shown, scientifically, that it could happen. HOW do you get to the massive changes in the DNA?

Common descent is a religious belief is it.

Yes, as evidenced in threads like this:
1. Jihadist zeal
2. Religious bigotry for competing beliefs
3. Neglect of science and reason, for assertion and dogmatic insistence

challenging evolution to "prove" creationism is true

..this is about common descent. A scientific theory must stand on its own merits. Comparative religion is not useful in that examination.

 

[usfan]

This was too long, for a nested reply.
Since 'cumulative change!' is perhaps the biggest argument FOR common descent, i will repeat my rebuttal here.

Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but believed as proven fact.

The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science.

The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major verticle changes in the genetic structure.

 

[gnostic]

Meanwhile take a good look at this:

Looks good to me.

I would include preliminary observation either before or after Ask a Question, because such early observation, usually provide the ideas for a potential hypothesis.

 

[usfan]

Nobody demeans Christians better than Christians with competing doctrine.

I think you brought in that quote from another thread, as that was not an origins debate. But 'Christian bashing!', is not the topic, here. ..though for some, it is every thread!

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

Actually, it is easy to argue against, as evidence. It is just an assertion.

the big stumbling block with alternatives to the theory of evolution

alternatives, such as alien seeding, aren't the topic. Common descent must stand on its own merits.

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

No optimism here! I just deal with reality, and debating religious beliefs is fraught with pits and snares!

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

'Origins of species?'

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

I'm a human being, who uses scientific methodology to sift empiricism from conjecture.

Many theists accept the theory of common descent.

Exactly. This is NOT an 'Atheists vs Christians!' debate, but a look at origins.

Chromosome 2 in humans

Another good post. Well detailed, too. This deserves a closer examination, not in a nested reply. I'll begin to ignore the hecklers, so we can concentrate on the science. Thanks for the topical reply.

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.

I'm still waiting for evidence, and am just beginning to craft responses. How can i 'Reject!!' what has not been presented?

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

ok, you want to heckle and disrupt.. I'll just pass over your posts, then.

You religious belief and indoctrination to creationism have already made

This is not about creation, or alien seeding. Common descent. Did you read the OP, before launching into talking points and attacking straw men?

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

Don't project you biases and agenda on me.

DNA and comparative genomics are physical sciences, not mere philosophy.

Right. But some are presenting philosophy, not science.

That's a phylogenetic tree that has been generated by an automated process that just plots out matches in DNA comparisions. No humans are part of that process. No data is being "forced" into any patterns.

Really.
A human designed program, gives out the desired results, and you claim objectivity.

Did you really just ask him to "repeat" a process that took some 700 million years to accomplish?

No, repeat a process that is allegedly happening, now. Show how you can get from amoeba to man, in as small or large of steps as you want.

Now, how about if you provide objectively-derived evidence for Divine creation? Also, before jumping to conclusions as to what I may believe, let me recommend that you read "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts first.

Bizarre. I have not jumped to any conclusions about YOUR beliefs, yet that is what you do exactly, with mine.

1. Divine Creation is not the topic, here.
2. Evidence for common descent, is.
3. Heckling and disruption are common practices, in hysterical religious comparison threads.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok. This is your belief, that the existence of DNA, somehow proves common descent.
My rebuttal: It does not. That is an asserted belief, with no evidence.

What you appear to be saying here is that life started on this planet more than once. Although that is one hypothesis there is no evidence for anything more than hypothesis.

And of course the dna of every living cell on this planet is evidence of common descent. Your genetic similarly to a banana or a pansy, a fly or an elephant tells its story. You are entitled to stomp your foot and shout wrong as loud as you want, it makes no difference to the evidence.

Not at all. That is the central problem.. assumption.. for the theory.

Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but believed as proven fact.

The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science.

The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Simply asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major changes in the genetic structure

Total bullpoop, evolution is being observed at this very moment across a wide spectrum of animal life. You can spout your denials until the cows turn red, white and blue. I would prefer you to put your money where your mouth is and rather than demanding evidence you joyfully ignore you actually provide peer reviewed evidence of your claims of god magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you brought in that quote from another thread, as that was not an origins debate. But 'Christian bashing!', is not the topic, here. ..though for some, it is every thread!

Actually, it is easy to argue against, as evidence. It is just an assertion.
alternatives, such as alien seeding, aren't the topic. Common descent must stand on its own merits.

No optimism here! I just deal with reality, and debating religious beliefs is fraught with pits and snares!


'Origins of species?'

I'm a human being, who uses scientific methodology to sift empiricism from conjecture.

Exactly. This is NOT an 'Atheists vs Christians!' debate, but a look at origins.

Another good post. Well detailed, too. This deserves a closer examination, not in a nested reply. I'll begin to ignore the hecklers, so we can concentrate on the science. Thanks for the topical reply.


I'm still waiting for evidence, and am just beginning to craft responses. How can i 'Reject!!' what has not been presented?

ok, you want to heckle and disrupt.. I'll just pass over your posts, then.


This is not about creation, or alien seeding. Common descent. Did you read the OP, before launching into talking points and attacking straw men?

Don't project you biases and agenda on me.

Right. But some are presenting philosophy, not science.

Really.
A human designed program, gives out the desired results, and you claim objectivity.

No, repeat a process that is allegedly happening, now. Show how you can get from amoeba to man, in as small or large of steps as you want.


Bizarre. I have not jumped to any conclusions about YOUR beliefs, yet that is what you do exactly, with mine.

1. Divine Creation is not the topic, here.
2. Evidence for common descent, is.
3. Heckling and disruption are common practices, in hysterical religious comparison threads.

Clearly you have demonstrated that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Why are you so afraid to discuss the topic?

 

[usfan]

There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species. ...

As promised, i will examine this evidence FOR common descent.

You posted supporting information, and sourced it. This was a very good reply to this thread, and is the kind of 'debate', i proposed in the OP.

I'll post a reply, from another recent thread, regarding this issue:

Can you fuse 2 pair of chromosomes from a human and produce an ape, with completely different genes, chromosomal makeup, and architecture? No. If they were the same, genetically, there might be some credence for a chromosome fusion theory. Merely counting chromosome pairs does not make an ape into a man, or vice versa.
A sable antelope has 23 chromosome pairs.. did it come from the ape, too?
A potato has 24 pairs. Did man descend from a potato?

And, btw, i was indignantly condemned for suggesting what you have presented here.

The problem with counting chromosomes, and theorizing 'fusion!', or 'splits!', is the organization and genes located in those splits. Assuming 'splits and fusions!' as the mechanism for evolving a distinctively new haplotype requires more compelling evidence than assertion, and ignores the huge hurdles therein. It reveals a faulty view of genetics.. i call it the 'Lego Block' view.

The idea there, is that all genes are the same, and just interchange like lego blocks, arranged differently to create each distinct species.

But that is not the case. Each species has unique and specific genes, that comprise their DNA. To theorize 'split & fusion!' in dna, it would have to be shown that the genes were the same. They are not. There are similarities in genes, and splicing can occur to fool the host with a similar gene, such as the iridescent cats. But unless the genes were the same, in the claimed 'split & fusion!', there is only conjecture, not evidence. The fact that human genes are different, along the telomere, shows this as a very unlikely possibility. How or why did they all change into human genes, if it was just an ape chromosome? How did you get two SIMULTANEOUS 'splits and fusions!', that could interbreed, to form the new species?

We cannot even FORCE 'splits and fusion!', in carefully controlled lab environments, to create new species.. how did this allegedly happen in nature?

The conjecture and assumptions needed to arrive at this conclusion are highly speculative, with no evidentiary support. It is desperation, not science, that concludes common descent from 'splits and fusions!'

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Unfortunately, the OP is fundamentally flawed - because common descent is a conclusion that is reached only by looking at the cumulative implications of many, many different branches of evidence, so no one single piece of evidence on its own can constitute sufficient rational justification - in isolation - to justify common descent. It's essentially a rhetorical trap.

Nevertheless, the strongest single field of evidence lies in genetics, which strongly (and Universally) indicates that all life shares common genetic lineage, and the only known method of sharing genetic inheritance is common ancestry.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But that is not the case. Each species has unique and specific genes, that comprise their DNA. To theorize 'split & fusion!' in dna, it would have to be shown that the genes were the same. They are not. There are similarities in genes, and splicing can occur to fool the host with a similar gene, such as the iridescent cats. But unless the genes were the same, in the claimed 'split & fusion!', there is only conjecture, not evidence. The fact that human genes are different, along the telomere, shows this as a very unlikely possibility. How or why did they all change into human genes, if it was just an ape chromosome? How did you get two SIMULTANEOUS 'splits and fusions!', that could interbreed, to form the new species?

Please present evidence that there are different "types" of genes, rather than simply different "arrangements" of genes.

I.E, if not for arrangement, then what is the difference between "human" genes and "ape" genes?

We cannot even FORCE 'splits and fusion!', in carefully controlled lab environments, to create new species.. how did this allegedly happen in nature?

This is a lie. We observe new species arising both in labs an in nature all of the time.

 

[usfan]

All DNA is not the same. The genes are different, the architecture is different, & they do not interchange.

It is more like parts of a car. Say that a chevy pickup with a 350 engine has mechanical problems. You cannot take a part from a ford to fix it. That 'species' of auto needs its own genetic type or structure. Now, if you have 2 chevy pickups, with different engines, some of their body or mechanical parts can interchange. That is like humans getting kidney transplants, or blood transfusions. But you cannot put monkey blood in a human, or vice versa. the parts are not interchangeable with the different models.

There is a lot of confusion & misinformation about genetics floating around. Some people have a 'lego block' view of genetics.. like there is this big box of lego blocks. These are the genes, & they can be put together to make different objects. Juggle them around, & make something else. but this is not an accurate picture. A single gene is specific to a particular organism. It is not a 'plug & play' part that can be unplugged from one, & plugged into another. The experiments of hybrids, glowing cats, or other 'gene splicing' experiments rely on 'fooling' the host organism with 'similar' genes that have been spliced into a native gene structure. They have some similarities.. they are not exact matches.. but they are able to be genetically modified, to fool the host with some feature. But this takes intelligence, laboratory conditions, & repetition, to even make a viable hybrid.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All DNA is not the same. The genes are different, the architecture is different, & they do not interchange.

Please demonstrate this, because it literally contradicts everything that we currently understand about DNA.

 

[usfan]

Here is a graphic that shows the structure of the chromosome. I think perhaps the main problem is in understanding the complexity & inflexibility of the genetic structure.

You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup. That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE. The genes WITHIN the chromosomes are completely different, & do not correlate. Similarity does not imply descendancy. That is where the science of genetics has given us a more complete understanding of living things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored.

There are no genetic parameters that prevent multiple small changes over lesser time intervals from accruing into much larger changes over longer durations. As long as life continues to exist, manifests genetic variation, and be subjected to natural selection. DNA can become as complex as is physically possible, including reaching the complexity of a human being.

That's science. What you offer is religion. The way we can tell the difference is that science is useful. It can be used to predict outcomes. Creationism is a sterile idea, useful for nothing. You'd need a creator, a mechanism for creation. and a way to use that information to improve the human condition.

DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME.

This is why we go to the scientists for our science, and not those with a religious agenda to misinform others about it. That might be the most scientifically illiterate comment I have ever read.

Aren't you the one berating others for making unsupported claims?

It is not enough to ASSERT 'descendancy!', it must be shown, scientifically, that it could happen.

Yes, it was you.

And no, nobody need do any more than has already been done. Being possible is the default position for all objects, processes and relationships not known to be impossible.
​

Yes, so you believe. And while common descent is a religious belief, we are not doing a comparative religion thread. This is specifically about UCD, not other theories or beliefs of origins. If you have no evidence or valid arguments, you can still heckle and disrupt from the sidelines.. but i won't always reply.

I've already explained to you why I don't bring evidence to faith-based thinkers. Evidence is for those who use it to decide what is true about the world. You didn't get to your present faith-based position using evidence, and it won't budge you from it.

This is why there is never a burden of proof when dealing with such a thinker. A burden of proof is only assumed by the person who makes an existential claim that he wants others who use reason applied to evidence to believe. If that's not how you process information, then I have no means of reaching you, and therefore no duty to reach you.

Somebody recently introduced me to the term sealioning to describe what I call the creationist shuffle - a faith-based thinker feigning interest in evidence, which he intends to dismiss as you have done with whatever it is creationists mean when they say macroevolution. Why bother trying to deal with thinkers who don't process information according to the rules of reason applied to evidence?