Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[TagliatelliMonster]

The 'connection' between chimps and humans is asserted

No. It is infered from evidence.

, based ONLY upon the chromosome count

Not at all. Humans and chimps sharing primate ancestry was concluded and known long before we knew about the fused chromosome.

If anything, discovering that splitting the fused chromosome at the fusion site would end up matching the "missing" chromosome, was a very powerfull confirmation of that conclusion.

, and the assumed telomere reattachment.

Not assumed, but observed. It's actually right there on the drawing you posted. It has telomeres at the endings. Not in the middle. Finding telomeres in the middle, is a very good indication of chromosomal fusion for that reason. And when you split it at that center telomere and then find out that the resulting chromosomes match the chimp chromosomes that we seems to be missing...... that's very powerfull confirming evidence that we indeed share an ancestor and that in the human lineage, after the split, at some point that chromosomal fusion happened.

Equus has evidence for this, not just speculation.

Not speculation.
Evidence.

Telomeres in the middle of a chromosome are indicative of chromosomal fusion.

 

[usfan]

As an aside, note this famous sequence:

The last few guys could be walking the street anywhere in a suit & would go unnoticed. The only implication of this graphic is that dark, hairy humans are lower on the evolutionary scale than light skinned, fair haired humans. Is this not a racist meme? Is this not what has been indoctrinated into our citizenry for generations, now, & is a clear factor in poor race relations? Instead of the Enlightenment values of Human Equality, where these kinds of things are mere cosmetic differences, the evolutionists have turned it into an indicator of advancement & superiority.. the very things the nazis, the eugenicists, marxists, & many other evolution based ideologies that have sprung up in the last 100 yrs or so have promoted. But this is making a false assumption, based only on visuals. The basic structure of the DNA in either the dark skinned or light skinned person is the same.. other than the cosmetic difference (a few genes governing skin melatonin). It is not 'evolving' into a more advanced, superior being.

Humans are all related. There is the mother's mitochondrial gene 'marker' that is transferred between mother & daughter, which PROVES the descendancy (and brotherhood) of man. We all descended from the same mother, thousands of years ago. This proves that environmental evolution does not apply, at least with humans. Our differences are very slight, do to isolation by geography, & we can easily stir the variability pot back by intermarrying of the races. No reproductive isolation has taken place, among humans, & no new species have been formed. We are the same, for thousands of years, with this genetic sequence of 46 chromosomes. There is NO evidence or no mechanism that can demonstrate how an evolutionary step from fewer (or greater) chromosomes could have happened. It is scientifically impossible, yet it is asserted as 'settled science!'

 

[Jim]

This thread is about examination of empirical evidence.. to see if the belief in common descent is warranted by scientific methodology. It is not for everyone. A certain amount of nerdy empiricism is needed, instead of the relationship based relating that is common in most personal discussion threads.

I mean no offense, i just hope to keep the thread topical. Philosophical debates over beliefs are legion, in this forum. This one is for empirical science.

I see that I was wrong, that there actually is some communication happening, and that I really was interrupting something. Sorry.

 

[Polymath257]

If you dispute my description, show where it is wrong. Casting aspersions is an ad hom deflection. Snarky innuendo is not a fact based rebuttal.

Well, first of all, the child DNA is NOT simply a 'combined odds' of the parents.

In meiosis, the 46 chromosomes of the parents first 'cross over' in pairs. Then, the pairs split up so each sperm or egg has 23 of the chromosomes. Finally, the child chromosomes are produced by adding the chromosomes from the sperm and the egg, making 46 once again.

Because of the cross-over, different children will get different collections of genes from the parents.

This is NOT simply combining odds.

Second, there are mutations in the chromosomes for the sperm and the eggs, so the genes in the child don't have to come from the genes of either parent (they exist in the sperm or egg, but not in the somatic cells of the parents). Among the possible mutations is duplication of genes (having more than one copy).

There is no 'depletion' of the traits. Dominance is NOT determined by having many generations. It is due to the fact that many genes have variants (from mutation) and a child may not get the same variant from both parents. When this happens, it is possible one variant will 'turn off' the other so the child shows the traits of the one that is 'on'. That variant is said to be dominant.

But, if the child gets two copies of the recessive gene (one from each parent), then the child will show the properties of that recessive variant. But whether the variant is recessive or dominant is NOT determined by whether the parents have interbred many times.

You seem to think that there are 'odds' of genes 'coming up'. But this is a
faulty understanding of how genes work. Once again, the details are that genes have promoters (proteins that are also encoded by genes) and these promoters *also* have variants. often a single promoter gene can 'control' many other genes.

it is common for evolution to happen when there is a mutation in a promoter that changes the sequence of number of genes that are expressed.

Again, ALL of this is well-established in the labs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As an aside, note this famous sequence:

The last few guys could be walking the street anywhere in a suit & would go unnoticed. The only implication of this graphic is that dark, hairy humans are lower on the evolutionary scale than light skinned, fair haired humans. Is this not a racist meme? Is this not what has been indoctrinated into our citizenry for generations, now, & is a clear factor in poor race relations? Instead of the Enlightenment values of Human Equality, where these kinds of things are mere cosmetic differences, the evolutionists have turned it into an indicator of advancement & superiority.. the very things the nazis, the eugenicists, marxists, & many other evolution based ideologies that have sprung up in the last 100 yrs or so have promoted.

I'm lolling at the invocation of Godwin.

Having said that, misrepresenting the science, which offers just an explanation of diversity and ancestral lineage, and pretending that evolution is all about being "better, smarter, faster", as if it is some kind of ladder towards "superiority", is just arguing silly strawmen.

There is the mother's mitochondrial gene 'marker' that is transferred between mother & daughter, which PROVES the descendancy (and brotherhood) of man. We all descended from the same mother, thousands of years ago.

So-called "Mitochonrial Eve" (or Chromosomal Adam, for that matter) does not mean what you would like it to mean.

This proves that environmental evolution does not apply, at least with humans.

All of them descendent from the same "mitochondrial eve".

But "environmental evolution does not apply" ha?

So what was mitochondrial eve? Black? Asian? Caucasian? Native american? Aboriginal?

Our differences are very slight, do to isolation by geography, & we can easily stir the variability pot back by intermarrying of the races. No reproductive isolation has taken place, among humans

The differences in the above (black, caucasian, asian, etc) are exactly the result of prolonged genetic isolation of several thousand years, with only very little "leakage".

, & no new species have been formed.

Only because the genetic isolation of all those groups resulting in the various types of humans (black, asian, etc...) wasn't long enough. What you see there in those pictures, is literally the result of isolated populations embarking on their own evolutionary path.

We are the same, for thousands of years, with this genetic sequence of 46 chromosomes. There is NO evidence or no mechanism that can demonstrate how an evolutionary step from fewer (or greater) chromosomes could have happened.

Especially if you ignore the known process of chromosome duplication or chromosomal fusion, off course,....

 

[usfan]

Let's look at some facts:

1. The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene. Males don't have it, but all women do. It is passed down from mother to daughter in ANY descended line. It is the same 'marker' in every human being.. african, scandinavian, chinese, native american, eskimo, islander, european, indian, mongolian, aborigine. Every human being can trace their actual descendancy to this singular 'mother' of all humanity.
2. IF, we evolved separately, from an ape or chimp, we would not have this common marker, but each people group or race would have their own, as the human mother that first started the 'race' could be traced to everyone else in this race.
3. Apes & chimps do not have a human mtDNA marker, but their own, by which we can trace their descendancy.
4. Equids have a similar path, but with much more diversity than homo sapiens. Horses, donkeys, zebras, etc can all trace their descendancy to a common ancestor, through the mtDNA.. and even though there is a minor 'reproductive isolation' between some of them, the genetics shows the ancestry.
5. All humans can interbreed.. pigmies in africa can mate with tall white russians, & aborigines can mate with eskimos. There is no trace of reproductive isolation among human beings, which makes sense, since they are all descended from the same phylogenetic base.

Since the mtDNA is one of the few actual, reliable 'markers' of descendancy... much better than the 'looks like' morphology of the past, we have hard science, & not just speculations of visual similarities (or differences).

 

[usfan]

So what was mitochondrial eve? Black? Asian? Caucasian? Native american? Aboriginal

Yes. All of the above.

Just like canidae, the diversity was in the ancestral human, and branched out into low diversity homogeneity. But by interbreeding the different clades of humans, those traits can once again present themselves.

 

[Jim]

To whom it may concern: I haven’t been paying any attention to what usfan has been saying about other people, and I’m not going to go back through the thread to see. I’ve said and thought some uncomplimentary things myself, and I might agree with him about some things, but I’m not endorsing everything he’s saying.

 

[usfan]

Only because the genetic isolation of all those groups resulting in the various types of humans (black, asian, etc...) wasn't long enough. What you see there in those pictures, is literally the result of isolated populations embarking on their own evolutionary path.

So you believe. But in actual genetic fact, they are examples of lower diversity, as they reach the tips of their phylogenetic tree branches. They are stagnating in homogeneous morphology, not 'becoming!' a new species.

 

[usfan]

To whom it may concern: I haven’t been paying any attention to what usfan has been saying about other people, and I’m not going to go back through the thread to see. I’ve said and thought some uncomplimentary things myself, and I might agree with him about some things, but I’m not endorsing everything he’s saying.

I don't address the poster, if they present facts and reason. I address the points.

I point out fallacies, sometimes, from the hecklers and religious fanatics, and sometimes trade barbs, but i have endeavored to keep this an empirical, rational discussion. IOW, i return fire, a little, but i cannot keep up with the pages of ridicule and insults that the True Believers throw at me. I don't even want to.

This is a polemical debate. A discussion about a major belief about the universe. I do not expect or desire agreement. I hope for reason and informative, civil discussion.

 

[tas8831]

I think that you have an idea that may be clouding your perception. Most of the claims about the author and the authors actions on this thread are not based on ideological differences, but the actions that the author regularly takes that are even in opposition to the authors stated claims and intents.

Genuine and valid criticism is dismissed as personal attack. Attempts to keep the thread on topic by the very people that have been requested to post here are continually derailed by the author. The author is more interested in preaching his personal political views, falsely portraying himself as a victim and vilifying anyone that disagrees with his agenda or points out what he is doing.

Posting this is not a personal attack. It is publicizing the accumulation of observations and they are not solely my observations. They reflect the independent observations of a growing number of participants here.

I would say that bank robbers have personal views and it may be of some value to establish a dialogue with them. But missing that they are criminals and what that means, while trying to establish a dialogue about those beliefs, would be ignoring some very important and very relevant points.

Spectacularly on point and accurate.

 

[usfan]

Having said that, misrepresenting the science, which offers just an explanation of diversity and ancestral lineage, and pretending that evolution is all about being "better, smarter, faster", as if it is some kind of ladder towards "superiority", is just arguing silly strawmen.

You ignore history, where the nazis, eugenicists, marxists, and white supremacists did just that. 'Evolution!' was the justification for genocide, the 'new man!' pursuit, and claims of genetic superiority. That goes on even now.

 

[tas8831]

Do not presume that because i banter, some, with the hecklers, i take them seriously.

I presume that you look for ways to AVOID the very 'scientific debate' you pretend to want. And my presumptions seem to be on solid ground.

Is there nobody here who will take the challenge for a rational debate on this topic?

Yes - but you keep finding ways to avoid them.

 

[tas8831]

You ignore history, where the nazis, eugenicists, marxists, and white supremacists did just that. 'Evolution!' was the justification for genocide, the 'new man!' pursuit, and claims of genetic superiority. That goes on even now.

Yes - by conservative Christians.

 

[tas8831]

I don't address the poster, if they present facts and reason. I address the points..

Came across this paper using complete mitochondrial genomes and all of the markers contained therein to assess Primate evolution.

A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
July 16, 2013

From the results and discussion:

We produced complete mt genome sequences from 32 primate individuals. From each individual, we obtained an average of 1508 tagged reads with an average length of 235 bp, yielding approximately 356 kb of sequence data corresponding to 21-fold coverage. All newly sequenced mt genomes had lengths typical for primates (16,280–16,936 bp; Table S1), but the GC-content varied largely among taxa (37.78–46.32%, Table S2, Figure S1). All newly generated mt genomes consisted of 22 tRNA genes, 2 rRNA genes, 13 protein-coding genes and the control region in the order typical for mammals. By combining the 32 newly generated data with 51 additional primate mt genomes, the dataset represents all 16 primate families, 57 of the 78 recognized genera and 78 of the 480 currently recognized species [31].​

They used 81 complete mitochondrial genomes from primates representing all 16 families. The descriptions of the genomic content represent all of the markers that one could hope for. The use of these markers allow for the tracing of the ancestry of all of the primate taxa used, as shown in this phylogenetic tree, and such trees are produced as the output of a rigorous analysis - the same sort employed in the Canid paper.

Note that this includes humans, Neanderthals, etc. This phylogenetic tree incorporates the tracing of mtDNA snps and other such markers. The shared ancestry of all Primates is thus proven.

 

[tas8831]

Oh my, once again a demonstration of incompetence when it comes to logical fallacies:


Actually this has been shown to be wrong both here and elsewhere on this forum. There are observations of mutations leading to "large changes in the genetic structure". You need more than a denial. It has been observed, and it can be tested. Just because you don't know how to test an idea does not mean that it has not been tested. It is not a false equivalence since you cannot show when or how evolution stops. You lose since the evidence all agrees that no sign of such a limit can be found.


But people do not just claim that. It has been demonstrated that evolution is supported by all of the authorities. There are two versions of this fallacy and you screwed the pooch on both of them. The most obvious version is the Appeal to False Authority. That is where one says "My friend told me how to fix my car, He should know, he is a DOCTOR after all". Just because your friend has some expertise in one area does not mean that he has them in all.

The second version is the Appeal to Authority. That is when a debate relies on the claims of one authority. That is not the case here. We have endless authorities which support our claims with scientific evidence. You have no scientific evidence to the contrary. And scientific evidence is what this thread is about. You put it in the title:

Appeal to Authority

Now this is an open lie since that was never the claim. The claim is that of the people that study this and understand it almost everyone agrees with it. The percentage that dispute it is far less than the percentage of seriously mentally ill people. I am not saying that the people that oppose it are necessarily crazy, but one should ponder that fact.


Again no one has claimed this. This is a creationist red herring based upon a mischaracterization of the theory of evolution. They have to ignore the role that selection plays to make this claim. With selection a limited number of monkeys has reproduced all of the works of Shakespeare. Your argument fails since it is based upon a lie.


The only that appears to be guilty of that is you. You keep calling corrections and observations "ad hominem". You do not understand this fallacy and that has been well proven throughout this thread.


Again that is your tactic. People have presented evidence. You have at best demonstrated that you do not understand the concept and you are afraid to discuss it.


Again, no one has claimed this.

• No, that is not the argument made. The fact that you must lie about the arguments that others use does not bode well for you.

Again, where has that ever been done by your opponents? You seem to be pulling logical fallacies out of your hind end without anything to back them up.

• Once again, where? If you want to make these claims you need to show that someone has done so. Now correlation can be evidence. But then you do not understand what is and what is not scientific evidence. Evidence alone is not proof. It is the body of evidence that is considered to be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Since all of your so called logical fallacies are either lies, fallacies that you are guilty of, or simply claims that you cannot back up you failed again.

One more time I invite you to discuss the nature of evidence. That way you will not make so many errors. If you actually do understand the nature of evidence (which I sincerely doubt) the discussion will take almost no time at all. What do you have to lose (except the debate of course, but then you lost that a long time ago).

Creationists have their archived retorts, and they employ them regardless of their utility or relevance.

 

[tas8831]

Just out of curiosity, I did a Web search with these words:
fossil records within between species

I was wondering if there is anything in the fossil records showing stages of evolution from one species to another, ever, for any species, comparable to the stages that are seen within some species.

What do you mean "the stages that are seen within some species"? Your use of terminology is very imprecise.
What is your background in genetics and development? I ask because it seems like you are going down a road most common among folks that do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype, genetics and development, very well.

Considering that, and some other things I’ve read, it looks to me like what researchers in evolution are doing with speciation is starting with the premise of common ancestry, and then trying to find ways to explain how that could be possible

The "premise" of common ancestry is well supported and has been assessed using tested methods. In my very first post in this thread, I presented such evidence for your new friend, and he dutifully dismissed it thusly:

"I'm not going to sift through all that to try to discover a 'point'. This is obfuscation with volume. Long cut & pastes, with no specific point being made does not equal 'evidence!' Perhaps it applied, in whatever setting you wrote it for, but this is not that setting. Bible verses are irrelevant in this discussion."​

IOW, he had nothing, and looked for an out. Your new pal. And his desire for scientific debate.

. Again and again, their explanations have failed in the face of paleontology. Even if they do find some plausible models, and those models turn out to be useful, that has nothing to do with the actual history of life on earth, and it is not a reason to denounce people for not believing in common descent, and depreciating their character and capacities.

Surely you will provide some citations regarding these failures "in the face of paleontology"?

This is why I asked about your knowledge of genetics and development.

. The people that I would most trust to construct a history of life on earth would be paleontologists

Why?

In any case, I denounce tha use of any evolutionary theory to excuse and camouflage denouncing people for not believing in common descent, and depreciating their character and capacities.

What is your position on the use of religio-political labels and bombast to denounce and belittle those that understand evolutionary theory? Because apparently anyone that went o college and learned about the science of evolution are just "progressive indoctrinees" that are apparently now aligned with Marx and White Supremacy (which is most humorous implication, given the state of the world) and the like.

Eagerly awaiting an on-topic response.

 

[usfan]

Yes - by conservative Christians.

Right..

Creationists use 'evolution!' to justify racism and genocide..

..such a problem, with those creationists..

 

[Polymath257]

Let's look at some facts:

1. The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene. Males don't have it, but all women do. It is passed down from mother to daughter in ANY descended line. It is the same 'marker' in every human being.. african, scandinavian, chinese, native american, eskimo, islander, european, indian, mongolian, aborigine. Every human being can trace their actual descendancy to this singular 'mother' of all humanity.

Um, no. MtDNA is passed from mother to daughter. It isn't a separate gene. And yes, males have mtDNA.

IF, we evolved separately, from an ape or chimp, we would not have this common marker, but each people group or race would have their own, as the human mother that first started the 'race' could be traced to everyone else in this race.

And who ever claimed that we evolved separately from chimps? The diversity of humans appeared *after* we split from the chimp line.

Apes & chimps do not have a human mtDNA marker, but their own, by which we can trace their descendancy.

Um, no. We can use mtDNA to trace the ancestry of ALL primates. And that includes humans.

Look here: Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Equids have a similar path, but with much more diversity than homo sapiens. Horses, donkeys, zebras, etc can all trace their descendancy to a common ancestor, through the mtDNA.. and even though there is a minor 'reproductive isolation' between some of them, the genetics shows the ancestry.

The term equiids corresponds to hominids, And there is a great diversity of hominids (great apes).

All humans can interbreed.. pigmies in africa can mate with tall white russians, & aborigines can mate with eskimos. There is no trace of reproductive isolation among human beings, which makes sense, since they are all descended from the same phylogenetic base.

Right. We are all the same species. And have been so for about 300,000 years (so, that does include Neanderthals).

That doesn't exclude the fact that we are related to the other apes by ancestors dating back millions of years.

Since the mtDNA is one of the few actual, reliable 'markers' of descendancy... much better than the 'looks like' morphology of the past, we have hard science, & not just speculations of visual similarities (or differences).

And we can use mtDNA to determine the relations between humans and the other great apes.

 

[usfan]

Um, no. MtDNA is passed from mother to daughter. It isn't a separate gene. And yes, males have mtDNA.

Read it again. You are not understanding or replying to what i said.