Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is difficult to have a rational, scientific discussion with hecklers and disrupters about. But that is part of it. You will have the advantage of raucous cheering, 'likes' on your posts, etc, while i will have boos, mocking, and cat calls..

Still, this is public forum, and a public debate, and i have waded in here boldly with a premise. I prefer to continue this venture, for a while.

I am not looking for instruction. I know the material. I am challenging the status quo of belief in this theory, that has become a religion in the modern culture. Memorized dogma, not scientific methodology, have been the tools of indoctrinating this belief into a gullible populace.

It is a simple request:

Evidence for common descent.

Is it compelling? Or flawed? Anyone want to look?

Yes, the evidence for common descent is more than compelling. Millions of pieces of scientific evidence for common descent and no scientific evidence to the contrary. Did you forget that you set the standard for this thread? You demanded scientific evidence. You Did not seem to understand the concept so I wrote a post on the topic for you.

It appears that you not only reject common descent, you deny almost all evolution. Would you like to go over some of the slam dunk evidence that tells us that you are an ape? By the way, the fact that you are an ape is not an insult. It is not as hominem. We are all apes, in fact it would be an insult to claim that you are not an ape since that would be an accusation that you were a cat or a dog or some other species of animal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm fine with adaptation, variation, 'micro', or whatever labels are preferred. That is observable, repeatable science. It has been used for thousands of years in breeding and hybridization.
There is abundant evidence that shows living things varying within their genetic parameters.

What does "varying within their genetic parameters" mean? What are "genetic parameters"?

Where it gets troublesome, is in EXTRAPOLATING the variations within a haplogroup into a distinctly different haplogroup. That is NOT observed, cannot be repeated, and is merely a belief. It does not happen naturally, neither can we force it under laboratory conditions.

Can you explain what a haplogroup is and what you mean by extrapolating variation between them?

So in essence, we have to delineate between 'micro', which is observed variation, and 'macro', that is presumed, from cumulative changes.

Is observed speciation not macro-evolution? Why? So observed variation that can be used to separate species into genera is micro-evolution?

But none of the changes in a micro, horizontal variance modify the basic architecture of the genome. They do not add traits, chromosome pairs, or any genotypic movement in a verticle, structural way.

What do you mean by horizontal variance? What is the architecture of the genome that you refer to? What is genotypic movment? Are you implying that genes are not passed on vertically to offspring through reproduction? In a structural way? Does this mean that chromosomes are not inherited from the parents? Where do they come from then. Chromosomes are a structural component of the genome.

Adding traits, making new genes, increasing complexity.. none of these can be observed, repeated, or tested. It is ASSUMED, based only on plausibility and 'looks like!' morphology.

New genes, new traits and increased complexity are not observed? Can you explain why there are volumes of data that contradict your claim. I have caused mutations in a few select animal and plant genomes. Plant breeders have used mutagens to introduce variation in the plants that they breed. If they are not making new genes and traits, what are they doing?

But please, present your arguments and evidence, for what you believe to be observed changes in the genomic architecture.

Again, what do you mean by genomic architecture? Hybridization changes the genome. Gene duplication has changed the genome. Sometimes to the point of whole genome duplication. This has been demonstrated to have happened in yeast. Where I live, there are two species of grey tree frog that are cryptic and cannot be differentiated by external morphology. They can be identified by differences in the frequency of their calls and by genetic examination. One is a tetraploid. Is that what you mean by genome architecture?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, it is difficult to have a rational, scientific discussion with hecklers and disrupters about. But that is part of it. You will have the advantage of raucous cheering, 'likes' on your posts, etc, while i will have boos, mocking, and cat calls..

Still, this is public forum, and a public debate, and i have waded in here boldly with a premise. I prefer to continue this venture, for a while.

I am not looking for instruction. I know the material. I am challenging the status quo of belief in this theory, that has become a religion in the modern culture. Memorized dogma, not scientific methodology, have been the tools of indoctrinating this belief into a gullible populace.

It is a simple request:

Evidence for common descent.

Is it compelling? Or flawed? Anyone want to look?

Can you provide evidence to support your claim that accepting the theory of evolution based on reason and evidence is a belief and a religion? I fully expect this to be ignored along with the rest of my reasonable questions and requests. I suspect if it is addressed it will dismissed as not part of the OP, but you opened the door.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, the evidence for common descent is more than compelling. Millions of pieces of scientific evidence for common descent and no scientific evidence to the contrary. Did you forget that you set the standard for this thread? You demanded scientific evidence. You Did not seem to understand the concept so I wrote a post on the topic for you.

It appears that you not only reject common descent, you deny almost all evolution. Would you like to go over some of the slam dunk evidence that tells us that you are an ape? By the way, the fact that you are an ape is not an insult. It is not as hominem. We are all apes, in fact it would be an insult to claim that you are not an ape since that would be an accusation that you were a cat or a dog or some other species of animal.

He knows the material, so I am sure he has an explanation for the highly conserved regulatory genes shared across phyla and often performing the same function in organisms as dissimilar as jelly fish, roaches and people.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, it is difficult to have a rational, scientific discussion with hecklers and disrupters about. But that is part of it. You will have the advantage of raucous cheering, 'likes' on your posts, etc, while i will have boos, mocking, and cat calls..

Still, this is public forum, and a public debate, and i have waded in here boldly with a premise. I prefer to continue this venture, for a while.

That's a "no" then. Understood.

I am not looking for instruction. I know the material. I am challenging the status quo of belief in this theory, that has become a religion in the modern culture. Memorized dogma, not scientific methodology, have been the tools of indoctrinating this belief into a gullible populace.

I'm always curious when I see this sort of claim...if you truly believe what you say, why haven't you written your arguments into a manuscript and submitted it to a scientific journal? If you're not sure how to go about it, I can help you access and navigate the process.

It is a simple request:

Evidence for common descent.

Is it compelling? Or flawed? Anyone want to look?

Let me know if you change your mind on my offer.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm fine with adaptation, variation, 'micro', or whatever labels are preferred. That is observable, repeatable science. It has been used for thousands of years in breeding and hybridization.
There is abundant evidence that shows living things varying within their genetic parameters.

Where it gets troublesome, is in EXTRAPOLATING the variations within a haplogroup into a distinctly different haplogroup. That is NOT observed, cannot be repeated, and is merely a belief. It does not happen naturally, neither can we force it under laboratory conditions.

So in essence, we have to delineate between 'micro', which is observed variation, and 'macro', that is presumed, from cumulative changes.

But none of the changes in a micro, horizontal variance modify the basic architecture of the genome. They do not add traits, chromosome pairs, or any genotypic movement in a verticle, structural way.

Adding traits, making new genes, increasing complexity.. none of these can be observed, repeated, or tested. It is ASSUMED, based only on plausibility and 'looks like!' morphology.

But please, present your arguments and evidence, for what you believe to be observed changes in the genomic architecture.

Now you asked for one piece of evidence a time then you go rambling on beyond the subject presented exactly the way so many creationists and intelligent design advocates do. But from your first statement you seem to agree with the concept of variation. That's a good start. The next step is natural selection which drives change and essential to understanding common descent. Do you have any problem with the concept that natural selection can select traits that can change the morphology or dominant traits of a type of organism. Any problems with this concept.
With progress you will understand the misconception of macro and micro changes with respect to evolution but you asked for one piece of evidence at a time so now can you deny that natural selection causes changes? If so give supporting evidence to support your claim.

 

[Bear Wild]

He is batch processing all the posts he cannot or does not want to address and using wild claims of logical fallacies as his reason. It is his crutch letting him walk away from those tough questions. The impression I get is that he recognizes more science than he lets on, otherwise he would not know which points and questions to avoid. He also seems to be aware of how he has constructed this thread to get others to do the work and pass off his burden of proof.

So true and this is the only way creationists and intelligent designers can operate. Show the extremes and, oh my, how could that happen. Its like showing someone unfamiliar with any human history and showing humans with stone tools then showing the latest virtual technology without looking at all of the steps to get there. Only conclusion could be that god created computers for mankind because how could a creature using only stone tools create a technology that we can no argue about whether evolution is correct or not. The only answer could be god did it. The other trick is to bring up multiple different topics at once with long posts to try and overwhelm with so many problems how could anyone be true. Science works slowly and carefully for the most part with large jumps in our understanding every now an then as happened with Darwin.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

In this post you clearly show you have no understanding of modern genetics and the flexibility of the genetic code. Without an even basic understanding of all the mechanisms that cause variability in genes for certain parts of the genetic code and the mechanisms for strong conservative of other parts of the genetic, how can you even create a legitimate argument. The genetic evidence supports common ancestry because of the well conserved genetic portions of the genetic material that are essential which are seen throughout phylogenetic comparisons revealing commonality and the highly variable parts of the genetic code with multiple ways of creating different phenotypic patterns that can appear so different. You may want to start with a better genetics background before making such inaccurate statements if you really want to discuss evolution with any useful meaning.

It doesn't have to.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

12 isolated populations of E-coli.
Generation 0 was the same for all 12.
Ancestral generations were not capable of metabolising citrate.
One day, suddenly a population explosion in one of the populations.
Upon investigation, mutations have been identified that allowed for new matebolic pathways in that population, wich allowed e-coli to suddenly metabolise citrate. None of the other populations can do this, neither can the ancestors.
.

Thank you for the excellent reference with Wikipedia in respect to an organisms which can be observed with enough generations to see the amount of genetic change and the ways the genetics can change. I particularly liked the following articles with others mention I want to read. Amazing evidence for evolutionary change.
"Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli" which the full article can be read at the following website
www.ohio.edu/plantbio/staff/showalte/PBIO%20427%20&%20527/Genome%20evolution%20and%20adaptation.pdf
and
"Recursive genome wide recombination and sequencing reveals a key refinement step in the evolution of a metabolic innovation in Escherichia coli" at the website
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926077/

Clearly "usfan" is not familiar with these studies, does not understand them, or wants to ignore them. But that is the hallmark of the creationist/intelligent design. Make big statements unsupported and ignore all of the carefully documented evidence availible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm fine with adaptation, variation, 'micro', or whatever labels are preferred. That is observable, repeatable science. It has been used for thousands of years in breeding and hybridization.
There is abundant evidence that shows living things varying within their genetic parameters.

Where it gets troublesome, is in EXTRAPOLATING the variations within a haplogroup into a distinctly different haplogroup. That is NOT observed, cannot be repeated, and is merely a belief. It does not happen naturally, neither can we force it under laboratory conditions.

Firstly, we have directly observed speciation occurring - both in the lab an in nature - multiple times.

Secondly, we don't need to extrapolate at all. We have the evidence in DNA and the fossil record, which clearly shows nested hierarchies of organisms diversifying from a common ancestor all the time. What you're saying here is akin to saying "we can see gravity working on a rock on earth, but we cannot extrapolate from that how gravity impacts Pluto".

So in essence, we have to delineate between 'micro', which is observed variation, and 'macro', that is presumed, from cumulative changes.

Macro-evolution is defined scientifically as evolution above the level of species:
Macroevolution - Definition, Examples and Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Evolution above the level of species has been observed multiple times.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Speciation in real time

But none of the changes in a micro, horizontal variance modify the basic architecture of the genome. They do not add traits, chromosome pairs, or any genotypic movement in a verticle, structural way.

Adding traits, making new genes, increasing complexity.. none of these can be observed, repeated, or tested. It is ASSUMED, based only on plausibility and 'looks like!' morphology.

This is demonstrably false. We have seen new traits evolve in living populations directly, again, both in nature and in the lab.

Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth
The arms race
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home
Evolution: Library: Adaptive Radiation: Darwin's Finches
E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

Each of these instances are clear, unambiguous examples of existing species developing new traits through genetic changes and natural selection. They are observed and tested and utterly demonstrable.

You are wrong.

And, in case you wish to use the typical, canned response of "but they are still lizards, crabs, finches and bacteria", take note that to do so would be:

1- Shifting the goalposts, since that's not what you asked for examples of. You specified "new traits" being observed, which is exactly what these are examples of.

2- A strawman, since evolution does not, and has never, asserted that organisms produce "something other than what they are", but produce "variations of what they are".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm fine with adaptation, variation, 'micro', or whatever labels are preferred. That is observable, repeatable science. It has been used for thousands of years in breeding and hybridization.
There is abundant evidence that shows living things varying within their genetic parameters.

Where it gets troublesome, is in EXTRAPOLATING the variations within a haplogroup into a distinctly different haplogroup. That is NOT observed, cannot be repeated, and is merely a belief. It does not happen naturally, neither can we force it under laboratory conditions.

So...
Let's take a step back here for a second and just do some objective rational analysis.

You acknowledge that variation and adaption happens generation by generation.
You acknowledge, I hope, that this variation/adaption is accomplished through random genetic mutation.
You acknowledge, I hope, that these genetic mutations are passed on to off spring, who in turn add their own mutations.

This means that over generations, mutations accumulate.
This is how we obtain a family tree, right?

Using such data, we can determine that your sibling is more closely related to you then your distant cousin.
Mutations passed on to your cousin which happened in your uncle, will only be present in your cousin. You won't be having those mutations. Neither will your parents or your siblings. Right?

Your off spring won't have those mutations either. The offspring of your cousin however, would.

Now consider what this looks like if you loop this process a couple hundred times. What pattern is going to emerge? It would be a family tree. A nested hierarchy, where you'ld be able to trace a lineage or bloodline by making use of genetic markers.

So, this process of mutating and subsequently passing on those mutations, results in the pattern of nested hierarchies. Now, if we compare multiple species and map their genetics out in the exact same way, we ALSO obtain nested hierarchies.... exactly as we would expect if those species shared ancestry. Just another family tree.


If the shoe fits.................................................

So what, really, is your objection here?

So in essence, we have to delineate between 'micro', which is observed variation, and 'macro', that is presumed, from cumulative changes.

If your complaint is that we can't observe a process that takes several million years.... do your really think such is a reasonable complaint? Do you really believe that there is no other way to find out what happened in the past without having the means (or time, in this case) to observe it happening?

Let's illustrate...

Here's a big crater in Arizona. Are you saying that it's impossible to find out why that crater is there, because it already happened and "we can't repeat or observe" it?

But none of the changes in a micro, horizontal variance modify the basic architecture of the genome. They do not add traits, chromosome pairs, or any genotypic movement in a verticle, structural way.

I've already given you an example of NEW traits evolving right under our noses during a long running e-coli experiment, where the new trait was unique to 1 of 12 populations and NOT present in the ancestral lineages. The mutations that made it happen have even been identified. So that's clearly wrong.

As for changes in chromosome pairs... there's a mutation called "chromosomal fusion" and it is known to have happened plenty of times.

Adding traits, making new genes, increasing complexity.. none of these can be observed, repeated, or tested. It is ASSUMED, based only on plausibility and 'looks like!' morphology.

ALL of those have been observed.

But please, present your arguments and evidence

Allready did on several occasions.
You ignored it all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not looking for instruction.

Well... at least you're being honest about not being willing to learn.........................

I know the material

Clearly, you don't. And no, that's not an ad hominim. It's an observation and conclusion from all the things you've written on the subject.

Plenty of people have been correcting you already. But off course, if you start from the idea that you don't want to learn anything....

I am challenging the status quo of belief in this theory, that has become a religion in the modern culture.

It's when you say stuff like that about an established science like biology, that your credibility drops to below zero.

It is a simple request:

Evidence for common descent.

Is it compelling? Or flawed? Anyone want to look?

Do YOU want to look?
Because plenty of people have presented plenty of things and you're ignoring most of it.

 

[Darkstorn]

You will have the advantage of raucous cheering, 'likes' on your posts, etc, while i will have boos, mocking, and cat calls..

Do you ever wonder why this happens?

I'll give you a hint: It's not what you're saying. There are other instances of people doing exactly what you're doing, with the difference that others are much better at it than some. I.E you're not the first one to come here and proclaim these exact same things.

It's the WAY you're saying it. You frame this whole thing as a "honest unbiased debate." But it becomes obvious rather quickly that you're holding a hidden agenda, and as such, a bias, and aren't interested in actual debate.

It's a public debate, and people are reading it and reacting accordingly.

You merely saying this shows how arrogant and clueless you are: "Yes, it is difficult to have a rational, scientific discussion with hecklers and disrupters about."

It's blatantly obvious that for something to count as "disrupting or heckling," is merely disagreeing with you in any capacity.

TLDR: You're a dishonest simpleton who came here with an agenda. But you're so simple you are unable to hide this in any way. You're so simple and dishonest you can't see us as anything but hecklers and disruptors. You're so dishonest your arguments are 100% based on misrepresenting and lying about your opponents.

The worst thing is, that you really know this. You know that you're the heckler and disruptor in your own thread, and you cannot stand it. So you keep calling us those names.

 

[usfan]

Most of the problems with the belief in common descent are due to a faulty understanding of genetics. I mentioned that earlier, & gave a short clarification, but obviously more is needed.

We do not, even now understand all the nuances and hows and whys in genetics.. it is a new science, with clarifications happening all the time.

I think an understanding of some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change.

For example: equidae

We have evidence that the equid line has changed chromosome numbers. It is theorized that at some point, a chromosome pair detached at the centromere, & reattached at a telomere, presumably at the fertilized egg level. We have mtDNA to indicate actual descendancy, but the chromosome pairs are different. But, under further examination, the structure of the chromosome 'arms' are the same, just rearranged at the centromere/telomere level.

This is not absolutely proven fact, but is merely a theory for HOW the equid line changed at the chromosomal level. it does fit with the more empirical evidence of mtDNA descendancy, however, so it is a pretty good theory. But, we do not see the same thing with canids.. some, but not as much. Nor do we see it with hominids, especially humans. So a particular trait from one genotype does not mean it can be universally applied to ALL genotypes. Each genomic structure is different, with different rules governing their propagation.

Also, as i noted in the earlier post, the number of chromosomes is not an indicator of ancestry.

Here are some chromosome pairs numbers from wiki:
Fennec fox Animals Vulpes zerda 64
Horse Animals Equus ferus caballus 64
Spotted skunk Animals Spilogale x 64
Mule Animals 63 semi-infertile
Donkey Animals Equus africanus asinus 62

We have mtDNA evidence that asinus & caballus are related. But there is nothing to indicate any genetic relationship with the fox or skunk. So the mere number of chromosomes is not a significant indicator, but the GENETIC structure in it, is. Both the asinus & caballus are from the same root haplogroup.. they are descended from the same ancestor. Their genetic STRUCTURE is the same. the fox & skunk are not. They are a different genotype, from a different haplogroup.

So it is not the number of chromosomes, but their structure, that is the indicator of ancestry.

Does that help any?

 

[usfan]

An old 'proof!' of common descent was Neanderthal.. everybody 'knows!' that they prove the little progression that were shown us from infancy.

Many people still believe, falsely, that they were a 'subspecies!' of man, or a missing link..

for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language.

Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only "human" but also, it turns out, more 'modern' than scientists previously allowed. "In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will," says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. "They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought." Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals "were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished." source

Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.
Rethinking Neanderthals | Science | Smithsonian

Since drawing about 60% of neanderthal dna, a lot has been discovered about them.
They interbred with homo sapien. ~ 2 Billion people have neanderthal genes in them.. mostly european & asian. What does this tell us?
1. They were the same species. Separate species cannot interbreed.
2. They were merely a 'tribe' of humans that had unique physical features.. like many tribes today.
3. Their genetic 'line' can be traced. They did not evolve separately, nor were they a distinct hominid species. They just 'looked different' than whatever some arbitrary 'normal' 'homo sapiens' looked like. They were, in fact, just another tribe of human beings.

This was a problem for those in the evolution field.
"We were suspicious of the result," Reich says. "We found signals of mixture and then worked very hard to make them go away."
He tried for a year, to no avail. Finally, Reich and his colleagues had no choice but to conclude that Neanderthals had mated with humans. They estimated that the DNA of living Asians and Europeans was (on average) 2.5 percent Neanderthal. source

We are spoon fed these kinds of images from infancy..

They are the result of a creative mind, but not anything that can be called science. Evolutionists are so desperate to validate their 'theory' that they easily fall victim to any scammer or self seeking con man looking to make a name for himself. Instead of trying to force the data into the theory, why not try something novel? Use the scientific method. Let the data speak for itself, rather than distorting it into religious propaganda.

 

[tas8831]

It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

By those lacking relevant education/experience/intelligence and/or having an agenda.

1. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
2. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
3. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
4. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
5. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.

OK. Here is my case, along with the evidence (hate to be the broken record):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can hereby ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relelevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationsit has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.

 

[usfan]

He's been told that repeatedly. Nevertheless, he postures as the only person interested in honest discussion and with an utter lack of insight, calls others religious zealots and indoctrinees.

Nor will he. He is here to ask for evidence so that he can reject it unexamined. That's the creationist shuffle - feign interest in evidence as if it is what you use to decide what is true when in fact one is a faith-based thinker, and pretend that the reason that nobody can convince you is because they have no argument.

None. He was asked to make his argument against science if he could. He didn't even answer.

Oh, is that your version of the "turn the other cheek" that Jesus taught?

Jesus said we should "love one another as I have loved you", but I hate to say this but I really don't see much of that being reflected in your posts. Instead, I see a lot of condescending sarcasm and arrogant grandstanding.

Translation. I cannot address the points raised by many, so I will avoid them at all costs.

That is all I have seen too. He is doing his best to avoid that so that he can pretend the burden of proof for his claims is with others and not himself.

That should probably be his tagline.

You can deny it if you want, like you so clearly do.
And if your objection to tests and experiments is going to be that "humans set them up / design them", then congratulations: you have just thrown all of science out the window.
Good grief........................................

It appears that you not only reject common descent, you deny almost all evolution. Would you like to go over some of the slam dunk evidence that tells us that you are an ape? By the way, the fact that you are an ape is not an insult. It is not as hominem. We are all apes, in fact it would be an insult to claim that you are not an ape since that would be an accusation that you were a cat or a dog or some other species of animal

Clearly "usfan" is not familiar with these studies, does not understand them, or wants to ignore them. But that is the hallmark of the creationist/intelligent design. Make big statements unsupported and ignore all of the carefully documented evidence availible.

In this post you clearly show you have no understanding of modern genetics and the flexibility of the genetic code.

You're a dishonest simpleton who came here with an agenda. But you're so simple you are unable to hide this in any way. You're so simple and dishonest you can't see us as anything but hecklers and disruptors. You're so dishonest your arguments are 100% based on misrepresenting and lying about your opponents.

..just a few of the objective, scientific based replies, from some of the True Believers.

They overwhelm me, in this thread, and while i usually return a few quips, which is the norm for forum debates, i haven't here as much, because it detracts from the topic..

And, of course, because I'm a little uncomfortable with all this homoerotic attention. Sure, I'll banter a bit, swap snippy remarks, and trade barbs, but once it starts getting hot & heavy, the obsession with me, personally, becomes awkward. I don't really swing that way.

Maybe i seem masochistic, for enduring the hate streams of ad hom and ridicule, but really, I'm just amused a bit, and fairly patient. I am not really wanting to be the object of homoerotic fantasies. I had hoped for a scientific discussion about common descent..

 

[tas8831]

Most of the problems with the belief in common descent are due to a faulty understanding of genetics.

Please set me straight.
As one that has taken graduate molecular and cell biology, and has taught Genetics and Evolution at the university level for some 2 decades, I will want to have my errors corrected by one with a true understanding of it all.

We do not, even now understand all the nuances and hows and whys in genetics.. it is a new science, with clarifications happening all the time.

All science is a 'work in progress.' But the 'nuances' and clarifications have not overturned anything major that I am aware of. But do go on.

I think an understanding of some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change.

I am sure this will be most informative.

For example: equidae

We have evidence that the equid line has changed chromosome numbers. It is theorized that at some point, a chromosome pair detached at the centromere, & reattached at a telomere, presumably at the fertilized egg level. We have mtDNA to indicate actual descendancy, but the chromosome pairs are different. But, under further examination, the structure of the chromosome 'arms' are the same, just rearranged at the centromere/telomere level.

This is not absolutely proven fact, but is merely a theory for HOW the equid line changed at the chromosomal level. it does fit with the more empirical evidence of mtDNA descendancy, however, so it is a pretty good theory. But, we do not see the same thing with canids.. some, but not as much. Nor do we see it with hominids, especially humans. So a particular trait from one genotype does not mean it can be universally applied to ALL genotypes. Each genomic structure is different, with different rules governing their propagation.

Also, as i noted in the earlier post, the number of chromosomes is not an indicator of ancestry.

Here are some chromosome pairs numbers from wiki:
Fennec fox Animals Vulpes zerda 64
Horse Animals Equus ferus caballus 64
Spotted skunk Animals Spilogale x 64
Mule Animals 63 semi-infertile
Donkey Animals Equus africanus asinus 62

We have mtDNA evidence that asinus & caballus are related. But there is nothing to indicate any genetic relationship with the fox or skunk. So the mere number of chromosomes is not a significant indicator, but the GENETIC structure in it, is. Both the asinus & caballus are from the same root haplogroup.. they are descended from the same ancestor. Their genetic STRUCTURE is the same. the fox & skunk are not. They are a different genotype, from a different haplogroup.

So it is not the number of chromosomes, but their structure, that is the indicator of ancestry.

Does that help any?

It does not.

It does, however, undermine a standard creationist argument about numbers of chromosomes, so thanks for that.

 

[tas8831]

And, of course, because I'm a little uncomfortable with all this homoerotic attention. ...but once it starts getting hot & heavy, the obsession with me, personally, becomes awkward. I don't really swing that way. ...I am not really wanting to be the object of homoerotic fantasies.

Project much?

 

[tas8831]

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

Interesting. Where were you when several such threads asking creationists for 'ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence..' FOR creation have been started, only to languish, reply-free, or to be swamped with burden shifting and bible quotes?

 

[tas8831]

This is a religious forum, and common descent is a religious belief, with no real scientific evidence. Why not talk about that?

Why talk about creationist fantasies? I thought you wanted evidence?