Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

And that's it, in a nutshell. Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids.

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

Good for you.
Pity that those that actually study the subject disagree with your simplistic views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Or, and this is just a wild guess, he may just be trolling at this point.

..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..

Instead of running away and making claims about others, why not try to answer the points that have been brought up?

 

[tas8831]

Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.

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

Define "different".

Is the forelimb anatomy of a seal "different" from that of a primate? If yes, how? EXACTLY.

 

[tas8831]

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

Ah, another arbiter of what is and is not science SPEAKETH.

Evolutionists must first realize that ToE (as well as BBT) is not delivered the same way as all any other traditional science.

OOOOH - DO TELL!

Traditional science relies on a predictable model on how a phenomenon repeats itself

Is that right?

Provide an example that fits your 'description'/'prescription' for SCIENCE.

Can't wait for you to post... nothing!

 

[tas8831]

If you try to claim that a human can be evolved from a single cell, you need to predict how it is so.

Really?
You mean, science is not at all about EXPLAINING things? Because golly, I thought it was.

In fact, ALL people that actually do science think so, too. But not you!

That is, you are given a single cell organism, then you apply your theory to predictably evolve this single cell into a human. This is the predictability of science. It's not an arbitrary prediction on, say, lotto max!

Ah, i see - you don;t know what predictions are.

Because you did not actually present a prediction, but rather a post-diction of sorts.

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

Actually, it is your apparent ignorance of what science is that makes me want to ignore your irrelevant and desperate-to-prop-up-your-religious-fantasies proclamations.

 

[usfan]

The other trick is to bring up multiple different topics at once with long posts to try and overwhelm

Yes, i see. That was done, here:

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

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.

..oh, and thanks for the snarky, heckling posts, too. You really demonstrate scientific objectivity with those replies!

You might even have a valid point buried in there, but I'm not going to scientifically debate under those conditions.. just a disclaimer..

One point of evidence, or rational argument for common descent: I will examine and rebut it.
Barrages of ad hom, straw men, mocking: i will ignore it, or occasionally point out the religious, unscientific nature of those responses.
Your call.

 

[tas8831]

Wow, lot's of supposed experts on ToE applied to humans.

I am no 'expert', but I am betting that I have more experience doing evolutionary genetics research than you do.

You shouldn't do this! Nothing in nature has the the DNA peculiaritie we possess. It only leaves one logical answer which all evolutionist hate.

I do not hate the answer because the actual answer is evolution, which creationists hate almost as much as they hate non-Christians.

 

[tas8831]

No one demeans Christianity better than someone who slanders the God that they purport to worship.
Or carries on with actions that Christ condemned.....its not hard to figure it out.

Bacteria and their immune systems...

 

[tas8831]

@usfan , nothing substantial yet, huh? You won’t get anything, only evidence for micro evolution, ie., change within species.

Somebody mentioned the “fossil record”, but this works against evolutionary theory...the supposed gaps are too great.

Stephen Jay Gould recognized this. That’s why he and Eldredge came up with “punctuated equilibrium”, allowing for big jumps in mutations. Unfortunately for them, no observed tests support it. It’s only assumption.

And ERV’s apparently serve functions necessary for regulating genes and other processes, as if they were made for those tasks.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_/

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/toppling_anothe/

No ‘junk DNA’, there!

So cute how your level of understanding of these topics is such that you believe what you read at ENV!
Hilarious!

 

[tas8831]

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

It seems it...
I have on;ly been doing it for about 25 years, but started when I was in grad school studying evolution and doing actual research.

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

I presented such evidence already. Eagerly waiting to see which creationist tactic you will employ to dismiss it.

Here's the problem with this statement.
1. 'Genealogy of species', is just another way of saying common descent. It is circular reasoning. 'Organisms descended. They look related, and you can see similarities. Therefore, evolution!'

Right.... 30 years at this rodeo is that is what you've taken away from it?

2. DNA analysis does not confirm morphology.

What does that even mean?

That is a subjective, "looks like!', argument.

Isn't that the creationist argument?

DNA is unique and locked in with each species/haplogroup. Genetics is a problem, not a supporter, of common descent. Everything we are learning about genetics screams, 'NO!' to ucd. Gene don't do that..

On the contrary. Genetics is supporter, not a problem of evolution. I feel OK making such an assertion since that is all you did.

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

It proves 'creation'? Was the Lord Creator really that unimaginative that He was constrained to re-using basic plans and the same organization of materials?

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.

Right, wow. 30 years and this is what you've 'learned' - a bunch of creationist slogans and assertions?

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.

Cool - so please present the SCIENCE that for this constraint mechanism that your people pretend exists. I have been asking creationists for such evidence for decades, and all I get are assertions and analogies.
Wow, sort of like we are getting in this thread!

(snipped usual creationist aspersion casting)

 

[usfan]

Its tough on me, to try to sift through post after post of irrational religious hysteria, to find a 'point' to address. This is one i have seen, now, a couple of times:

- e.coli have evolved to a different species, and created new traits

Perhaps this could be presented in a logical way, with the evidence used to support the belief in common descent. But since it is only asserted as a vague proof text, i can only dismiss it with my own assertion:

- e.coli are the same species, that have adapted to digest citrates
This is only evidence of micro, which is not in question. It does not indicate a change in the genomic architecture. It is not macro evolution.

 

[tas8831]

That is observable, repeatable science..

Show us the observable, repeatable science supporting the notion that dust of the earth can be transformed into the thousands of bio-organic compounds that make up a fully-formed adult human male in the middle east a few thousand years ago.

Can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

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.

LOL!

I forgot that dodge.

So cute how you ask for evidence, get it, and then come up with a pathetic excuse not to deal with it.

Lengthy cut and pastes? It was 6 partial abstracts! WITH a summary!!

Hilarious...

 

[usfan]

Look, i know that the typical, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war carries over in almost every thread.. even an allegedly SCIENTIFIC examination of evidence. But i request that such polemy be left at the door, and a rational, scientific examination of the actual evidence can take place. This is not about atheists and/or Christians. It is about science. Specifically, the evidence for common descent.

Snarky inclusions will make me skip over everything else. Post EVIDENCE, not religious bigotry, and we can talk about it. I'm bored to tears with the phony flame wars, and prefer to discuss the science here. Perhaps another thread can be started to fire up the rousing polemy about religious beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

For those with short attention spans and double standards -

The latest creationist boasting of 3 decades of 'debate' experience asks for evidence but can apparently only handle that for which he has pre-fabricated retorts.

That is OK - allow me to offer it up in kiddie-sized chunks.


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


This is the first of 6 papers that I will present 1 at a time so as not to overwhelm the creationist science expert.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------

This paper tested the major modes of analyzing DNA phylogeny at the time - e.g., maximum parsimony.
Using known genealogies of lab mice, the authors sampled their DNA and using the methods of molecular phylogenetics, sought to see whether or not these techniques would match what was known about the relationships of these mice.
Their conclusion - yes, the molecular techniques did, in fact, match what was known.

Stay tuned for the next short installment after my class...

 

[tas8831]

Look, i know that the typical, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war carries over in almost every thread.. even an allegedly SCIENTIFIC examination of evidence. But i request that such polemy be left at the door, and a rational, scientific examination of the actual evidence can take place. This is not about atheists and/or Christians. It is about science. Specifically, the evidence for common descent.

Snarky inclusions will make me skip over everything else. Post EVIDENCE, not religious bigotry, and we can talk about it. I'm bored to tears with the phony flame wars, and prefer to discuss the science here. Perhaps another thread can be started to fire up the rousing polemy about religious beliefs.

Can't handle the evidence?

3 decades of this and when actual scientific papers are brought up you hide behind 'don't be mean to me' antics?

Whatever.

You are not fooling anyone.


Deal with the science of admit you can't.

 

[tas8831]

Its tough on me, to try to sift through post after post of irrational religious hysteria, to find a 'point' to address.It is not macro evolution.

Macro:

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]. "​

Oh, right, just a cot and paste.... Weird that those horse picture cut and pastes were OK...

 

[usfan]

I cannot, and will not try to compete with deluges of propaganda, accompanied by rude, incivil snark. That is not science. I can take, and give, snappy quips with the best, but too much detracts from the discussion.

Berating your ideological enemies is not a scientific argument, nor does it provide evidence for your beliefs.

Post a single argument, with supporting links, if desired, and I'll discuss it. But flaming me constantly, and attacking straw men are fallacies, and I'm not interested in playing that game.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Its tough on me, to try to sift through post after post of irrational religious hysteria, to find a 'point' to address. This is one i have seen, now, a couple of times:

- e.coli have evolved to a different species, and created new traits

Perhaps this could be presented in a logical way, with the evidence used to support the belief in common descent. But since it is only asserted as a vague proof text, i can only dismiss it with my own assertion:

- e.coli are the same species, that have adapted to digest citrates
This is only evidence of micro, which is not in question. It does not indicate a change in the genomic architecture. It is not macro evolution.

Why are you ignoring all of the scientific links people have provided?

Also, can you precisely define exactly what you think constitutes "macro-evolution", because science defines it as "evolution at or above the level of species", which - as I have demonstrated with numerous sources - has been observed multiple times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..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..

When 1 or 2 people comment like that, you might think it's them being a-holes.

When however the majority talks to you that way, you might want to ask yourself if it perhaps is something that YOU are doing which is triggering it....

Looking back on this thread, I can't help but to get the feeling that you set it up from the beginning... After all, if you act like a douche, it's only a matter of time before people will treat you like one.

And there clearly is a pattern in this thread. It starts of with normal comments pointing out your errors and misunderstandings. Then there's you being completely cocky, ignoring what people say and just accusing them of all kinds of things (your favorite one being handwaving entire arguments away by just wildly throwing around random accusations of "ad hominim"). And then you're surprised that you are getting responses in kind....


Well, what did you expect?

You reap what you sow.

To end with, I'll note that as good as the only things of me you actually responded to in this thread, are the few statements you cherry picked in which I express some frustration or annoyance at your address, wich is perhaps 10% at most of all the stuff I posted in this thread, and you COMPLETELY ignored everything else - where I actually answer your questions and provide you with the evidence YOU asked for.

And then you abuse that small portion to cry about "ad hominims", which isn't even correct either.


It's quite pathetic to watch.

It's fine though, I am under no delusion that anyone here is going to get through to you and actually make you see or acknowledge your errors. You even admitted as much earlier on, where you basicly said that you aren't interested in getting instructed, meaning as much as you not being willing to learn anything. I'm fine with readers being able to read it all and see how it really is and how you are behaving in this thread...


Any time you wish to actually go in on the actual answers you are getting and wish to actually discuss the evidence presented in an open, honest and adult conversation - I'm here for you.

Not counting on it though.