Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Jim]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution' ...

You didn’t define “evidence,” so I’ll use a definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and discuss the question of what points to common ancestors for humans and other species and/or to evolution theory. I’m not sure what you’re calling “the theory of evolution,” so for now I’ll consider it as some views about the history of life on earth that are currently the most popular among people with biology degrees.

First I want say that I consider the whole question of what is true and false in history, including natural history, as a false question with harmful consequences for society and for research. What I think matters is finding the best ways to develop and apply models of history, for the benefit of all people everywhere.

What I see pointing to common ancestry is simply the observation of similarities between species. From what I’ve seen, ever since common ancestry was first proposed as a possible explanation for similarities between species, more and more similarities have been found. One sign of good possibilities in a theory is that it explains things that it was not originally designed to explain. Other than similarities between species, I don’t know what there is, or ever could be, that would point to common ancestry between humans and other species. All I can think of would be findings in archaeology and paleontology connecting some reproductive dots from humans and from some other species, to a common ancestor.

Apart from common ancestry, it looks to me like everything else in evolution theory is either trying to explain variations in fossils over time, or trying to answer questions about differences between species that arise from imagining that they have common ancestors. What I see pointing to those theories is that they have been very useful for some beneficial purposes. On that topic I want to say that I don’t see endless, aimless, acrimonious debating about the theory across lines of prejudice, as a way of socializing and passing the time away; or stigmatizing people who don’t agree with the theory , as examples of beneficial uses of the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Has anyone tried to simulate a super nova?

Has anyone tried to simulate the 1906 San Francisco earthquake?

Has anyone tried to simulate the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo?

Has anyone tried to simulate creation by a deity?

I did try to simulate a super nova, but I did not get very far. You know how much that would cost? Not to mention waiting around for a couple of hundred years, at best, for the space travel technology to reach a practical level of usefulness.

That super nova business is still a luxury market.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What are phylogenetic haplogroups? I just read this in a post denying science on religious and political grounds.

Is that like sub-atomic retroviral transcriptionase? Or resource partitioning of altrical cellular organelles? Is it taking a bunch of science terms and merging them together to sound like you know something, when you really know nothing?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right? I thought 'charts' were just speculation and meant to obfuscate?

I thought they were ad hominem attacks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Somebody correct me, since I must be wrong, but if all the genes in two different organisms correlate, wouldn't they be the same species? If you take the correlation down to the fine detail, wouldn't you be examining twins?

 

[YoursTrue]

Somebody correct me, since I must be wrong, but if all the genes in two different organisms correlate, wouldn't they be the same species? If you take the correlation down to the fine detail, wouldn't you be examining twins?

And that's intriguing, because if organisms are related in dna findings (meaning some animals have similar dna to another species, but not all), does that mean that God could not use the same basics to organize a different species or kind?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does it mean to be an organism in a genetic family? My family was genetic just like their families before them. I guess we are all in genetic families. Unless some of you are really AI's.

What's a genetic hurdle? Is that like a regular hurdle, but one used by racing biologists?

I think if anyone wants a good laugh, please do debate the most recent common ancestor issue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And that's intriguing, because if organisms are related in dna findings (meaning some animals have similar dna to another species, but not all), does that mean that God could not use the same basics to organize a different species or kind?

God could make all life using vanilla pudding, but we have no evidence that God has done anything. You are merging belief with what can be determined and demonstrated by the evidence. I have my beliefs, but I cannot see evidence for those beliefs in the natural world such that I can demonstrate it so others can see it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All I can say here is that the level of misunderstanding is huge.

No, the gene differences between humans and chimps are not very great. That is one of the many ways we know relatedness. And many (even most) genes are *identical* between chimps and humans.

Next, the similarity between the chimp chromosomes and the pieces of the human ones *is* detailed at the level of genes. It isn't just overall shapes, but detailed locations of the same genes. This is directly contrary to what you say here.

It is staggeringly huge.

Bacteria have been exchanging genes for billions of years, between different species. We regularly move genes around, either by traditional breeding, or more precisely with modern genetic engineering. Companies are making billions from products created moving the genes across entire different domains of life, despite his claiming it does not happen. There are natural transposable elements that move around in different taxa. The mariner transposon is found in such diverse organisms as humans and dragonflies.

The similarities between humans and chimpanzee genomes is roughly 98% or close to that. We share similar genes with chimpanzees, but also have some that are different. Evolution did continue for both lines after humans and the other apes diverged from a common ancestor.

I suspect purposeful misrepresentation at times. Claiming proof is an attempt to be misleading. The chromosome fusion is evidence that supports a shared common descent between humans and chimpanzees. All this talk about genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees is a big smoke screen. The fact that a fused chromosome was recognized in humans and comparisons to chimpanzee chromosomes tells us which of the actual chromosomes were fused, since the genes are similar.

All the science appears to be directly contrary to most of what he claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

God could make all life using vanilla pudding, but we have no evidence that God has done anything. You are merging belief with what can be determined and demonstrated by the evidence. I have my beliefs, but I cannot see evidence for those beliefs in the natural world such that I can demonstrate it so others can see it.

As some scientists have bravely and aptly pointed out, despite commonly held teachings of other scientists, there is no absolute and final evidence that evolution in the sense of difference of organisms yet evolving such as birds and dinosaurs are true. Since that is unequivocally true, there is no reason to not believe that God used elements he created to make substantial beings with similar elements.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The homology of the genes on the fused human chromosome is the basis for recognizing which of the chimpanzees un-fused chromosomes our fused chromosome corresponds to.

Mutations are the way that new genes are made. That is pretty basic and it is laughable to see repeated claims that new genes cannot be made. Sickle-cell is a new gene. Lactase persistence is a couple of new genes, depending on the population being observed. The ice-binding protein of nototheniod fish is the result of a new gene through duplication and mutation. The original gene functions to express a digestive protein.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As some scientists have bravely and aptly pointed out, despite commonly held teachings of other scientists, there is no absolute and final evidence that evolution in the sense of difference of organisms yet evolving such as birds and dinosaurs are true. Since that is unequivocally true, there is no reason to not believe that God used elements he created to make substantial beings with similar elements.

You are free to believe as you choose with or without the evidence. No one is saying that you cannot. But if you make claims for divine causes, you cannot demonstrate support from physical evidence for those claims.

What scientists have been brave enough to recognize that theories and conclusions are not absolute and are all tentative, based on the finding of new evidence? Here is the answer. All of them.

The evidence supports evolution and no other theory has as much support in science than the theory of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would be nice if you properly quoted and linked those whom you think reacted this way. Odds are that they were commenting on your ignorance of the topic. I don't know of anyone on the evolution side that has ever denied mitochondrial Eve.

None of us have. We also understand and would not have used some popular term liken "eve gene" or used gene, chromosome and marker interchangeably either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I like your posts very much. Like an oasis in a desert. Your posts to me have been very helpful. You’ve helped me clarify my thoughts about some things. I think you said that it’s only to correct misinformation, so you might not be interested in any other kind of conversation with me, but I would like to have a discussion with you about the social problem that I’m seeing here, and why it matters to me. It’s about some ways that people excuse and camouflage their unloving attitudes and behavior, and the adverse affects of that on human progress, including the kinds of research and representations that facilitate progress.

Out of curiosity, is it unloving to correct a child that thinks an octopus is living in the toilet? I say this, because it is something I once had to do. I did not do this by yelling and screaming, but by confidently explaining to the child where his thinking was wrong and pointing out some of the irrational notions that my boy had. He was five, so irrational notions are part of the territory. But you have mentioned unloving as if correcting someone's ignorance and obfuscation was somehow targeted anger and hatred.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not promoting any creation models, and I didn’t learn about the Cambrian explosion from any creation Web site. Actually I don’t have idea myself about how to model the history of species. Like I said, that looks to me like a job for paleontology, unfettered by any preconceptions about common ancestry.

I would say that you would need paleontologists, geologists and biologists in the multi-flavor package for a job like that. Along with chemists and a couple of physicists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’ll revise what I said. The idea of common descent might have started as a way of explaining similarities between species.

Common descent - Wikipedia


The only research that it was based on when it was first proposed was an observation of some similarities between animal species.

Then it would be an hypothesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do we have all the DNA from the dead? What exactly does that mean? Dead what? Dead people? And all of them?

These are parts of what is claimed to be using science in response to people on this thread.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Show evidence of 'high walls' around DNA.

I believe that the president is currently trying to secure funding for those walls. They do not want the wrong DNA to get into the genome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ow man, this is too good....

So here's this guy posting a side by side comparision of human and chimp genomes, to counter your point about comparisions of humand and chimp genomes... and how do you react?

With accusations of "heckles" and "ad hom"


Good grief..........................................

It is so obviously a diversion. The complete like of respect expressed by engaging in such obvious and juvenile tactics is overwhelming. To see someone behaving like that and continually whining about ad hominems is ridiculous. It is all part of the toxic atmosphere that has been established, because the opposition really knows they do not understand science and have no argument nor leg to stand on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't even fib very well - odd, seeing as how you have so much practice...

Nothing to do with your points????

By date, oldest first:


Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Let's look at some facts:
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.​

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Here is a decent summary about mtDNA, and the 'Eve gene'.. the flag that indicates direct descendancy.​

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

We now know that all living humans have the same ancestral mother.. the Mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor. ..aka, mitochondrial Eve, or also called the 'eve gene'.​

Yup....

"Eve gene" had totally nothing at all to do with your points or your claims, just a term that popped up by accident or whatever excuse you will give...

Funny how your latest use actually implies that "Eve gene" is just mtDNA - you wrote that just today, well after I and others proved that it is stupid to claim that there is a thing called "Eve gene" that is a - how did you describe it initially? Ah yes:

"The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene."​

You also claimed initially that:

"Males don't have it, but all women do."​

Which you are now denying, crazily. I mean - it is like you don;t think we can actually look at your earlier posts or something...

And now, realizing how bombastically ignorant you've been all along, you are trying to blame US for "misinterpreting" your naive, uninformed assertions.


DEAR CREATIONISTS - PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT PRETENDER CLAIMING 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT..

I think he may be onto something here, now that I have read your post. The female ovum has a flag and the sperm don't have one. They gang up on the ovum and play capture the flag. The sperm that captures the flag, gets to fertilize the ovum. And that is how a baby is born.

It was there, right in front of me, the entire time. Mitochondrial Eve was killed by Mr. Sperm in the library with the candlestick and he took her flag.