Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

Right..

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

..such a problem, with those creationists..

No, they use Scripture.

My point was - missed by you - that you are hurling accusations in the wrong direction.

Anyway:

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.

 

[Polymath257]

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

I did read what you said. It was wrong. I corrected it.

Please show evidence this 'Eve gene'. Otherwise, it simply looks like you are misunderstanding how inheritance of mitochondria happens.

 

[usfan]

Here is a decent summary about mtDNA, and the 'Eve gene'.. the flag that indicates direct descendancy.
https://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/eve.html
One tiny piece of our DNA is inherited only down the female line. It is called mitochondrial DNA because it is held as a unique circular strand in small tubular packets known as mitochondria that function rather like batteries within the cell cytoplasm.

 

[Jose Fly]

My current theory is that it’s part of the social problem that I’ve been discussing of people using the word “science,” fallaciously and with harm to all people including themselves, to validate to themselves and others what they are saying.

Examples?

What I think people are are really doing when they accuse people of rejecting the “scientific consensus” is depreciating and vilifying all the people with science degrees who disagree with them

Or they're just making note of a relevant fact in a casual discussion. Specific to creationists, they do a fine job of depreciating themselves all on their own. From my experience, it's essentially impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner, primarily because creationism itself is an inherently dishonest position.

and using dishonest polarizing opinion polls, and political statements from professional associations, to excuse and camouflage what they’re doing.

First, you've done nothing to demonstrate that any poll is dishonest. But more importantly, what exactly do you think "they're doing" that is so nefarious, it requires camouflage?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Spectacularly on point and accurate.

It is almost as if someone created a character that combined all the worst behavioral traits represented in fascist totalitarians and creationists Then under the name of that character they posted these pro-fascist, pro-creationism threads claiming to be some elite intelligentsia posting the facts and seeking a dialogue, while doing the complete opposite.

It is like watching some contrarian, delusional fantasy play out.

What I see as really sad is that I don't think the character is fabricated.

 

[usfan]

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

I have offered, several times, to debate you with facts and science, and do a 'reset', for civil, rational discussion. You have declined every time, and seem to prefer to use the heckling strategy, rather than civil discussion.

Your choice, but i will not debate with the heckling, ridicule and ad hom inclusions.

It seems to be your preferred strategy.. to avoid a straight up scientific debate.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is a decent summary about mtDNA.
https://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/eve.html
One tiny piece of our DNA is inherited only down the female line. It is called mitochondrial DNA because it is held as a unique circular strand in small tubular packets known as mitochondria that function rather like batteries within the cell cytoplasm.

Yep. Exactly as I thought. You don't understand what a mitochondrium is. You don't understand why they are inherited through the female line. And you don't understand why we can use mtDNA to determine inheritance of all primates. Let me inform you a bit.

First. Mitochondria are organelles inside of ALL of our cells. They occur in both males and females and are quite important because they produce the ATP that is the energy currency for life. Each mitochondrium has a ring of DNA, called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA.

Second. Because of the way that eggs are feritlized, the mitochondria for a child comes mostly from the mother. In other words, the mtDNA is inherited in the female line. This allows us to see patterns of female-line inheritance.

Third. This can be used to follow inheritance patterns in *all* mammals, including primates. This allows us to trace the relatedness of humans to the other great apes.

Fourth. MtDNA is NOT a gene. In fact, mtDNA is, essentially, a bacterial chromosome. it has several genes on it. So calling it an 'Eve gene' is at best a misnomer and at worst ignorant or dishonest.

 

[usfan]

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.

I did not say, 'males don't have mtDNA! ' .. that is a strawman.
Your ignorance of the mtDNA 'marker' does not invalidate my points.

Study up a bit before you rush in and accuse me of error.

 

[usfan]

Yep. Exactly as I thought. You don't understand what a mitochondrium is. You don't understand why they are inherited through the female line. And you don't understand why we can use mtDNA to determine inheritance of all primates. Let me inform you a bit.

First. Mitochondria are organelles inside of ALL of our cells. They occur in both males and females and are quite important because they produce the ATP that is the energy currency for life. Each mitochondrium has a ring of DNA, called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA.

Second. Because of the way that eggs are feritlized, the mitochondria for a child comes mostly from the mother. In other words, the mtDNA is inherited in the female line. This allows us to see patterns of female-line inheritance.

Third. This can be used to follow inheritance patterns in *all* mammals, including primates. This allows us to trace the relatedness of humans to the other great apes.

Fourth. MtDNA is NOT a gene. In fact, mtDNA is, essentially, a bacterial chromosome. it has several genes on it. So calling it an 'Eve gene' is at best a misnomer and at worst ignorant or dishonest.

Your eagerness to refute my points causes you to assume wrongly, and address straw men.

The 'eve gene', is not my phrase, but was coined many years ago. Look it up, before you attack with indignation.

 

[Polymath257]

I did not say, 'males don't have mtDNA! ' .. that is a strawman.
Your ignorance of the mtDNA 'marker' does not invalidate my points.

Study up a bit before you rush in and accuse me of error.

The mtDNA is in ALL humans (actually all complex cells). Any marker that females have will be seen in males also. it's just that males don't pass down their mtDNA.

Exactly what 'marker' are you talking about? be specific. Are you talking about mtEve? In which case, i suggest you learn how such inheritance trees are constructed and what they mean.

 

[Polymath257]

Your eagerness to refute my points causes you to assume wrongly, and address straw men.

The 'eve gene', is not my phrase, but was coined many years ago. Look it up, before you attack with indignation.

And it is still a misnomer, ignorant, or dishonest. That you got it from a dishonest website doesn't change that fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

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.

Remember, as I showed you earlier speciation (the evolution of new species) is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. It happens...period. In fact, it's the only way we've ever seen new species arise. Thus, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the same is true of the past. So when paleontologists look at the fossil record and see new species appear, it makes perfect sense for them to conclude that they came to be by evolving from previously-existing species.

Further, we do have examples of species-species transitions in the fossil record.

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

article 8

Oceanographic controls on the diversity and extinction of planktonic foraminifera

But again, the overriding factor here is that we've observed the evolution of new species in real time.

It may or may not be true that most people with science degrees agree with imposing a premise of common descent on all research, and the models that result might turn out to be useful even if that premise is false. The people that I would most trust to construct a history of life on earth would be paleontologists, and I would hope that they would not allow that premise to be imposed on them.

You're not really making sense. You may as well be chastising geologists for "imposing a premise of volcanism" on strata that contains ash deposits.

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.

Um.......what?

 

[tas8831]

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.

1. What is this "gene" you refer to?I have never once read about or heard of this the 'Eve' gene. mtDNA is also passed from mother to son (in very rare circumstances, male mitochondria can be passed on).

So please provide some confirmation on these claims .

Males don't have it, but all women do

Men would essentially have to have it, since mitochondria are all (or nearly all) inherited from the ovum.
This is basic high school biology.

. It is passed down from mother to daughter in ANY descended line

And mother to son.

. It is the same 'marker' in every human being

WHAT IS THE MARKER???

If this is something so obvious, then why do you engage in these cryptic "explanations" devoid of verification or citation?
A MARKER is something specific that can be defined and employed as needed.

Here are some examples of actual genetic markers:

Microsatellites
"Here we argue the merits of a particular class of nuclear markers, variable numbers of tandem repeats (VNTR) loci. VNTRs themselves comprise two (probably related) classes of loci, the minisatellites and microsatellites (Wright, 1993, 1994; Park and Moran, 1994). Our intent in this commentary is to highlight the general utility of microsatellite VNTRs to fisheries and aquaculture research."

mtDNA
"Animal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is playing an increasingly important role as a genetic marker in population and evolutionary biology."
THAT IS - the mtDNA itself, either specific genes or DNA sequences, or the entire mtGenome.

mtDNA control region polymorphisms
"We describe a rapid and sensitive method for the detection of population‐specific genetic markers in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the use of such markers to analyse population structure..."

That sort of thing, but you just keep saying 'marker' and now 'gene'. Which gene? What marker?

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.

You will need to provide some documentation.

I have never, no once, heard any geneticist, evolutionary biologist, population biologist, etc. claim that all different groups of people evolved independently "from an ape or a chimp".

In fact, no evolutionist claims that we evolved from a chimp at all.

1. Apes & chimps do not have a human mtDNA marker

Until you can define this "human mtDNA marker", and provide evidence that it exists, I see no reason to take your arguments seriously.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you look up eve gene on Google, the hits refer to mitochondrial Eve or mtEve. The only mention of "eve gene" I found was a Carnegie Mellon scientist explaining how there is no "eve gene".

Score another hit for the self-proclaimed Master of Science and his Fake Facts.

 

[tas8831]

The 'eve gene', is not my phrase, but was coined many years ago. Look it up, before you attack with indignation.

I looked it up.
The phrase only appears on blogs and places like Quora where people ask about it.

It appears that the "Eve gene" refers to all mtDNA:

"So each of us inherits our mtDNA from our own mother, who inherited her mtDNA intact from her mother, and so on back through the generations – hence mtDNA’s popular name, ‘the Eve gene’."

'Popular name' - never heard it until today. That is because as a biologist, I don't use 'popular' terms.

Regardless, your story is undercut, since "Eve gene" refers to the entire mtGenome.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”--Adolph Hitler, 1936

 

[tas8831]

If you look up eve gene on Google, the hits refer to mitochondrial Eve or mtEve. The only mention of "eve gene" I found was a Carnegie Mellon scientist explaining how there is no "eve gene".

Score another hit for the self-proclaimed Master of Science and his Fake Facts.

Read the Quora entries... Hilarious - one high school kid claimed it confers black skin to African women or some such nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

I think an understanding of the chromosome & some of the terminology would be good to clarify.

Are you for real, Mr. "Eve gene'?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Read the Quora entries... Hilarious - one high school kid claimed it confers black skin to African women or some such nonsense.

I did read some of those.

If I were to claim that I have been studying a field for 40 years and then were to address people educated in that field, I would use the vernacular that was common and current to discuss the topics of the field. I would not elect to use dubious terms that are found only in very limited use in popular culture and have no basis in fact, but were coined out of ignorance.

40 years of study, loving and knowing science does not equal what I am seeing. That does not add up. There is something wrong here.

I would also not use different terms that do not mean the same thing to refer to a single concept or object, yet, we have seen "marker" "gene" and "mitochondria" all used as if they refer to the same thing.

If there was even a casual study of science, after 40 years, I would expect better than what I am seeing.

 

[tas8831]

I dispute the assertion that the chimp and human chromosomes show identical structure, and have merely reattached at the telomere level, as in equus. That is believed and assumed, but the structure is not the same.

Where is your dispute, other than mere assertion? Citation please.

1. Caballus and asinus have mtDNA evidence of common descendancy.

What is it? Your mere assertion will not do.

3. Chimps and humans have no indication of common descendancy from the mtDNA marker.
.

I have presented this to you about 5 times:

Primate phylogenetic relationships and divergence dates inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes

"We assembled 87 mammalian mitochondrial genomes, including 62 primate species representing all the families of the order. We newly sequenced eleven mitochondrial genomes, including eight Old World monkeys and three strepsirrhines. Phylogenetic analyses support a strong topology, confirming the monophyly for all the major primate clades."​

Their analysis includes humans.
Are you claiming non-human Primates do not have the "Eve gene" - i.e., mtDNA? If what you keep asserting (without evidence) were true, then there is no reason whatsoever that humans would cluster with chimps and gorillas. Yet, they do:

And this study used the 'Eve gene', remember. And remember that the 'Eve gene' is just a "popular" (i.e., layman) term for mtDNA.

I eagerly await your science that supports your currently un-supported assertion, such that my position will be refuted.