Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

I thought you started other threads for the purpose of heckling, belittling, and misrepresenting me, personally?

Did your cronies pump you up so you thought you could return here, flood the thread with walls of irrelevant text, ignore my points completely, and continue your barrage of ad hom?

Does righteous indignation still substitute for Reason and evidence in Progresso World? It seems so.

You have not refuted any of my points in the canidae post, just dismissed them, ignored them, or shaped them into a caricature.

ONE POINT. Evidence and make your argument.
Ditch the ad hom, holier-than-thou pretense, and faux indignation.

FACTS AND REASON are sufficient, to refute any alleged 'error!' you see.

I still don't think you can do it. You are not a scientific minded debater, but a propagandist, attacking your perceived ideological enemies for daring to question your sacred beliefs.

EVIDENCE.. that is what we are attempting to examine here.. no mean task, given the hordes of hecklers and religious zealots defending the honor of their beliefs with jihadist zeal. But this is SUPPOSED to be a critical look into the evidence for common descent.. a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Religious zeal, outrage, cries of 'Blasphemy!' and other such religious reactions are not appropriate in a scientific discussion.

I'll debate the science, but I'm not interested in your religious hysteria and propaganda.

 

[usfan]

Oh, look! Another dishonest misrepresentation of science!

Vestigial doesn't mean the organ necessarily serves NO function, it means it serves REDUCED function. Apparently, these "main arguments for our theory" that we're apparently "unaware of" are only because they're not actually true.
Try again.

If you have an argument for vestigiality to support common descent, make it.. ..knock yourself out. But don't hurt yourself.. maybe you've never tried reason before?

Heckling from the sidelines with poo flinging descendants of apes does not support vestigiality.

Mocking a caricature of my point is not a rebuttal..

..progressive indoctrinees..

 

[usfan]

Again the use of an undefined term and the ignorance that positive mutations have been observed many times. In fact you discussed an experiment where they were observed. Such a short memory.

The moral outrage over ambiguous terminology is very perplexing.. common, but bizarre.

This is not a thread to neatly list all terms in a clear, formulaic fashion. There is much ambiguity in evolutionary terminology.. some by design, it appears. I am addressing the CONCEPTS, and i use the terminology to that end. To attack and belittle me for trying to clarify the muddy concepts, misunderstandings, and disinformation out there, BECAUSE OF terminological ambiguity shows abject ignorance of the subject. You bluff, attack straw men, and mock my terms, which are difficult enough to convey the meaning behind.. all for your ideological agenda.. defending your sacred beliefs from evil blasphemers..

CLARITY, TRUTH, and UNDERSTANDING is my goal, in the midst of a heckling horde. ..probably an exercise in futility, and it furthers the perception that I'm a masochist..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you have an argument for vestigiality to support common descent, make it.. ..knock yourself out. But don't hurt yourself.. maybe you've never tried reason before?

Heckling from the sidelines with poo flinging descendants of apes does not support vestigiality.

Mocking a caricature of my point is not a rebuttal..

..progressive indoctrinees..

Is this all you're going to do? Erect strawman, be exposed as being dishonest, then ignore being exposed and patronize the people exposing you?

The fact is that YOU presented a caricature of science, not a refutation of it, and I exposed your argument as based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the science.

So, you're either ignorant about what "vestigial" means and the way in which it actually supports evolution, or you are dishonest and actively trying to mis-represent the science.

Which is it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

CLARITY, TRUTH, and UNDERSTANDING is my goal, in the midst of a heckling horde.

Then why can't you answer a simple question, like what you mean when you say that "not all DNA is the same"?

 

[usfan]

Is this all you're going to do? Erect strawman, be exposed as being dishonest, then ignore being exposed and patronize the people exposing you?

The fact is that YOU presented a caricature of science, not a refutation of it, and I exposed your argument as based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the science.

So, you're either ignorant about what "vestigial" means and the way in which it actually supports evolution, or you are dishonest and actively trying to mis-represent the science.

Which is it?

Make your argument about vestigiality, then. I was addressing the common perception, that has been used for a century and a half, as 'Evidence!' of common descent.

Pretended outrage over my posts, with no rebuttal, no specific correction, and no counter points does not refute my points.

Then why can't you answer a simple question, like what you mean when you say that "not all DNA is the same"?

I'd be happy to clarify, in context, any terms or concepts that are unclear. But the barrage of attacks on EVERY SINGLE TERM, that the Evolution True Believers do, is not a request for clarity, but a tactic of disruption.

Deal with the science, in a non-defensive, rational manner. Leave the religious hysteria, righteous indignation, and faux outrage in religious discussions..

Can you argue science, in an evidentiary, logical manner? Show me. I have little interest in bickering with hecklers and propagandists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Make your argument about vestigiality, then. I was addressing the common perception, that has been used for a century and a half, as 'Evidence!' of common descent.

Wrong. You used an erroneous definition of "vestigial" to erect a strawman, supported by quotemining.

Pretended outrage over my posts, with no rebuttal, no specific correction, and no counter points does not refute my points.

But there was a specific correction. Your entire post was centered on the definition of "vestigial" as "no function", which is not what vestigial has ever meant, so your argument was based on a flawed understanding of definitions.

You can continue to not admit this if you like, I'll just continue to shine a light on it. It's fine to make mistakes.

I'd be happy to clarify, in context, any terms or concepts that are unclear. But the barrage of attacks on EVERY SINGLE TERM, that the Evolution True Believers do, is not a request for clarity, but a tactic of disruption.

Then ignore it.

Why is that so hard?

Deal with the science, in a non-defensive, rational manner. Leave the religious hysteria, righteous indignation, and faux outrage in religious discussions..

If you want to deal with just the science, then why do you waste all your time an energy addressing posts that you think don't present any? If people are trolling, ignore them.

Can you argue science, in an evidentiary, logical manner? Show me. I have little interest in bickering with hecklers and propagandists.

Absolutely. What would you like to discuss, specifically?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The moral outrage over ambiguous terminology is very perplexing.. common, but bizarre.

This is not a thread to neatly list all terms in a clear, formulaic fashion. There is much ambiguity in evolutionary terminology.. some by design, it appears. I am addressing the CONCEPTS, and i use the terminology to that end. To attack and belittle me for trying to clarify the muddy concepts, misunderstandings, and disinformation out there, BECAUSE OF terminological ambiguity shows abject ignorance of the subject. You bluff, attack straw men, and mock my terms, which are difficult enough to convey the meaning behind.. all for your ideological agenda.. defending your sacred beliefs from evil blasphemers..

CLARITY, TRUTH, and UNDERSTANDING is my goal, in the midst of a heckling horde. ..probably an exercise in futility, and it furthers the perception that I'm a masochist..

Please, when you use a term you need to be able to use it properly. If you don't understand terms you should not use them. And you have not addressed the concepts. If you want to we can do so. And there is no "moral outrage". When you make false claims you will be corrected. No one is ranting at the ignorance that you constantly post. If anything that appears to be your flaw. Also I need to remind you that you do not understand what a strawman is . Where was the supposed strawman? In fact all of your attacks appear to be projection of your flaws upon others.

By the way is that all that you could respond to in that long post? Do you think that you can try to understand the basics of science. One more time I will post the definition of scientific evidence for you:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

When someone presents what they claim to be evolution all you need to do is to check to see if the concept being supported is falsifiable. If that is the case is the evidence something that that theory predicts. If the answer is yes to both questions the observation is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

ROFL!!

Reading. It are hard..

So, you seem to think that sweet talking me like this will substitute for scientific, rational arguments? ..or it will endear me to you for further discussion?

Or is this just your sadistic, homoerotic fantasies kicking in again? I'm flattered, but i really don't swing that way, in spite of what seems to be masochism on my part for enduring the constant barrage of sadism..

Boy, you seem quite full of yourself.

That poster has provided a ton of scientific evidence for you to ponder. Are you planning on addressing it at some point, or are you just going to continue on with your fantasies?

You've made it clear that you don't want a rational, scientific discussion.. just heckling and disruption, with the others in the peanut gallery. So no, don't expect a scientific response to a fallacy laden rant. You want to heckle and throw ad hom grenades. Fine. I'll let you disrupt all you want, and only occasionally pick up a grenade, pull the pin, and toss it back..

Actually, the behaviour of the True Believers in common descent is a compelling argument FOR human descendancy with monkeys.. shrieking, flinging poo, and base animal crudeness seems to describe the 'debaters' for common descent..

This poster provided a bunch of evidence for you to look over.
Why don't you address it?

 

[usfan]

Since this topic is easily sidetracked with emotional and philosophical beliefs, the actual evidence is overlooked. I will re-examine some of the 'evidence' mentioned FOR common descent.

E.coli study.
This study has been presented several times. It is supposed to prove that traits are 'created' on the fly, by organisms adapting to changes in their environment. It is not a speciation event. That claim is refuted by the scientists who did the study. The study also denies any knowledge of a specific gene, either changing or created to digest citrates. That is merely hypothesized. I examined this study in specific detail back in post #250. There is nothing here. It is ASSERTED and ALLEGED by others, that this 'proves evolution!', but the ones doing the study make no such claim, and close examination reveals that the claim of 'proof of evolution!', is a deceptive lie. It is not evidence of common descent at all. No genes were identified as 'new!', no speciation took place. The organism in the study is still e.coli, with the same genetic architecture, drawing from the same gene pool.

from the study:
Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene.

So, there is NO EVIDENCE of 'new!' genes, just common adaptation. It is like the moths on trees.. dark ones get 'selected' to survive, and the traits that already exist are selected, either naturally or by human engineering. This is evidence of normal adaptation, or micro evolution, which is not disputed by anyone. But it does not evidence or support the LEAP to macro evolution, or a vertical change in the genetic structure.. adding genes, chromosomes, etc. No study has EVER OBSERVED any such genomic changes in the parent architecture. The BELIEF that organisms can add, subtract, create, or conjure up 'new!' genetic information is unsupported by scientific observation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since this topic is easily sidetracked with emotional and philosophical beliefs, the actual evidence is overlooked. I will re-examine some of the 'evidence' mentioned FOR common descent.

E.coli study.
This study has been presented several times. It is supposed to prove that traits are 'created' on the fly, by organisms adapting to changes in their environment. It is not a speciation event.

Once again, you are engaged in the fallacy known as "moving the goalposts". The E-Coli experiment was presented not as an example of speciation, but as an example of new traits evolving in existing living populations - something you specifically denied ever having been observed. Nobody argued that the E-coli experiment represented an observed instance of speciation - it's an observed instance of new traits evolving.

That claim is refuted by the scientists who did the study. The study also denies any knowledge of a specific gene, either changing or created to digest citrates. That is merely hypothesized. I examined this study in specific detail back in post #250. There is nothing here. It is ASSERTED and ALLEGED by others, that this 'proves evolution!', but the ones doing the study make no such claim, and close examination reveals that the claim of 'proof of evolution!', is a deceptive lie.

Nobody posited that this experiment presented "proof of evolution". Please present a single post in this thread that suggested it was "proof of evolution" rather than "evidence of new traits evolving in living populations".

It is not evidence of common descent at all.

It was never presented as evidence of common descent, it was presented as evidence that new traits evolved - which, again, is something you denied science ever having observed.

No genes were identified as 'new!', no speciation took place.

Again, this is not why the experiment was presented and has no relation to the claim you made that it was intended to refute. You argued new TRAITS don't arise through evolution, that such a thing had never been observed. What the study shows is new traits (the ability to digest citrates) evolving in a population of E-coli. As has been said before, this needn't require "new genes", just a re-arrangement of existing genetic information - hence how new traits CAN evolve through mutation of existing genetic material.

The organism in the study is still e.coli, with the same genetic architecture, drawing from the same gene pool.

from the study:
Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene.

Again, nobody said it wasn't. The fact is that the E-coli, all drawing from the same gene pool, evolved a new trait. That's the point.

So, there is NO EVIDENCE of 'new!' genes, just common adaptation. It is like the moths on trees.. dark ones get 'selected' to survive, and the traits that already exist are selected, either naturally or by human engineering. This is evidence of normal adaptation, or micro evolution, which is not disputed by anyone. But it does not evidence or support the LEAP to macro evolution, or a vertical change in the genetic structure.. adding genes, chromosomes, etc. No study has EVER OBSERVED any such genomic changes in the parent architecture. The BELIEF that organisms can add, subtract, create, or conjure up 'new!' genetic information is unsupported by scientific observation.

Yet again, you're missing the argument, moving the goalposts and misrepresenting the actual science. Look at it again.

 

[usfan]

Here are a few others, as a summary, presented as evidence FOR common descent:

1. Canidae.
Canids remain canids, with a wide range of morphological (looks like) variability. But they are all descended from the same parent stock, as evidenced by the mtDNA, they are able to breed, and they share the same genomic architecture. There does seem to be some variations in chromosome numbers, but the basic genetic architecture.. the core haplogroup that they all came from.. is traceable and evidenced through genetic analysis. But there is NO EVIDENCE that they are 'evolving' to or from another phylogenetic structure. Their ancestors were canids. Their descendants are, and forever will be, canids. There is nothing evidentiary to suggest otherwise.

2. Phylogenetic Tree.
This is a graphical illustration of the BELIEF in common descent. It does not provide any evidence FOR the belief, just illustrates it with plausibility and speculation. There is no evidence that evolutionary changes at the genomic level are even possible. Thst is conjecture and imagination, not observable, repeatable scientific methodology. It is circular reasoning. Drawing an imagined 'tree', and using that imaginary design as proof of itself.

3. Vestigiality.
The irrational, circular conclusion that unknown organs are 'vestigial', or remnants of a previous incarnation. I examined this argument in greater detail in post #402.

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding

4. Time and Mutation.
Greater detail in post #401.
"No structural changes in a genome have ever been observed, so time is suggested as a system of change. But time has no mechanism of change. It is a passive factor, that only supports degradation, as entropy returns all matter and energy to simpler forms."
"Mutations happen all the time. They are almost always deleterious, with negative consequences for the organism. A few are neutral, but there is no scientific way that structural changes in the genome can be explained by mutation."

I repeat the request for a SINGLE point of evidence, supported with references, if desired. But links and walls of text are deflections.

So far, the evidence for this belief system is pretty scant.. mostly imagined snd contrived. Does anyone have anything that actually supports the belief in common descent?

ONE POINT. Evidence and make your argument.
Ditch the ad hom, holier-than-thou pretense, and faux indignation.

Can anyone do this? Is ridicule, ad hom, strawmen, and fallacy the ONLY evidence you have for common descent?

 

[usfan]

As has been said before, this needn't require "new genes", just a re-arrangement of existing genetic information - hence how new traits CAN evolve through mutation of existing genetic material.

You confirm my point. My arguments stand, unrefuted. There is no 'new!' genetic information created.. no new genes. No changes in the genome. ..just adaptation, aka, 'micro' evolution.. simple adaptation.

So why is this presented SEVERAL TIMES, as 'evidence!' of common descent, when it obviously is not?

The study is thrown out as a bluff, and simple minded, gullible True Believers chant it like a mantra. It is actually evidence that organisms do NOT change, at the genomic level. They can only draw upon the gene pool given by their ancestors.. they have no provision, and no mechanism, for 'creating!' new genetic structures.

That is merely believed, with no evidence.

 

[usfan]

Yet again, you're missing the argument, moving the goalposts and misrepresenting the actual science. Look at it again.

You merely accuse this.. it is projection. You offer no rebuttal, nor correction, just accusatory dismissal.

Present the science and reasoning for your beliefs in 'evidence!' for common descent. Sniping at me, poisoning the well, and false accusations are not evidence for your beliefs. They do not even refute my arguments, which stand untouched and ignored.

 

[tas8831]

Science geek creationist with 40 years of study:
Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc.

No, that is not what a haplotype is.

"A haplotype is a group of genes within an organism that was inherited together from a single parent. The word "haplotype" is derived from the word "haploid," which describes cells with only one set of chromosomes, and from the word "genotype," which refers to the genetic makeup of an organism. A haplotype can describe a pair of genes inherited together from one parent on one chromosome, or it can describe all of the genes on a chromosome that were inherited together from a single parent. This group of genes was inherited together because of genetic linkage, or the phenomenon by which genes that are close to each other on the same chromosome are often inherited together. In addition, the term "haplotype" can also refer to the inheritance of a cluster of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are variations at single positions in the DNA sequence among individuals."

The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together.

Nope - that is wrong, too.

"Haplogroups are mtDNA sequence polymorphism variations that have occurred over more than 150 000 years and correlate with the geographic origins of populations traced through the maternal lineages."


Please learn to use science terms correctly - 40 years at this? You 'know the material'? OK...

So smart. So creationist.

 

[tas8831]

Since this topic is easily sidetracked with emotional and philosophical beliefs, the actual evidence is overlooked. I will re-examine some of the 'evidence' mentioned FOR common descent.

E.coli study.

So cool how you just keep referring to that one thing that I never even mentioned. It is almost as if you just have these pre-fab rhetorical retorts that you pull out regardless of the topic at hand.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You confirm my point. My arguments stand, unrefuted. There is no 'new!' genetic information created.. no new genes. No changes in the genome. ..just adaptation, aka, 'micro' evolution.. simple adaptation.

Yet again, you're erecting a strawman.

Firstly, a re-arrangement of existing information IS new information - it is a new arrangement.

Secondly, as the E-coli experiment demonstrated, "new genes" need not be created in order for "new TRAITS" to evolve, so you're arguing against a ghost here.

So why is this presented SEVERAL TIMES, as 'evidence!' of common descent, when it obviously is not?

Provide a single post that specifically says it is evidence of common descent in and of itself, rather than evidence of the evolution of new traits.

The study is thrown out as a bluff, and simple minded, gullible True Believers chant it like a mantra. It is actually evidence that organisms do NOT change, at the genomic level. They can only draw upon the gene pool given by their ancestors.. they have no provision, and no mechanism, for 'creating!' new genetic structures.

But the population DID change and DID develop new traits. That's the point. It's a clear, unambiguous example of how a population with a single genetic pool can develop NEW TRAITS through the mutation and reproduction of existing genetic material. The population that started out was NOT the same as the population at the end, despite them drawing from the exact same genetic pool.

That is merely believed, with no evidence.

No, it's what the study actually shows, as per the conclusion of the scientists who conducted it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You merely accuse this.. it is projection. You offer no rebuttal, nor correction, just accusatory dismissal.

I explained my argument thoroughly in the paragraphs above that one in the post. I explained how you mis-characterized the presentation of evidence, mis-read the study and erected a strawman.

Present the science and reasoning for your beliefs in 'evidence!' for common descent. Sniping at me, poisoning the well, and false accusations are not evidence for your beliefs. They do not even refute my arguments, which stand untouched and ignored.

Once again, why do you have to lie? I spent the majority of that post addressing your argument and responding to it, reasonably and rationally, and yet you focus on this one paragraph. Of the entire post, you pulled out TWO sentences to respond to. That is not an adequate response to my post, which thoroughly went through each of your claims and presented a counter-argument.

Why can't you debate honestly if that's what you're interested in? If I'm willing to go through your entire post and address each of your points, why can't you go through mine and refute my points? Why can't you defend your own arguments?

 

[usfan]

The fascinating science of genetics, a relative newcomer in the quest to understand 'how?' and 'why?', is still greatly misunderstood. Movies and scifi imagination dominate the perceptions, that the science disputes.

If there is interest, i can attempt to clarify and explain some of the complex nuances of our genetic makeup. Why and how we are who we are. But if all that is wanted is 'gotcha!' deflections and definitional dodges, why should i waste my time?

Would you like a different perspective and analysis of the facts of science, or do you prefer the memorized dogma we were all force fed at school?

There are many false perceptions:
1. Lego block homogeneity. 'All genes are the same! We can just rearrange them or snap one in to another to change organisms!'
2. 'Percentage of similarity proves common descent!'
3. Obfuscating techno babble with vague, undefined terms, and ambiguous concepts proves common descent!

Close scrutiny and analysis of the FACTS of our genetics makes concluding common descent more problematic than ever. The facts do not align with perceptions.

Here is a repost of #99, which was likely lost in the flurry of heckling and indignation, that this topic seems to attract.

"Here is a graphic that shows the structure of the chromosome. I think perhaps the main problem is in understanding the complexity & inflexibility of the genetic structure.

You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup. That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE. The genes WITHIN the chromosomes are completely different, & do not correlate. Similarity does not imply descendancy. That is where the science of genetics has given us a more complete understanding of living things."

If there is interest, we could examine the complexities of dna, and the building blocks of life. If not, but just heckling and deflections, no problem. Carry on.

 

[usfan]

You are out of your league scientifically

Projection, or maybe wishful thinking..

Is that why you repeat the same phony narratives, 'gotcha' phrases out of context, ridicule, and distortions? To demonstrate your scientific superiority?

You're just an unscientific minded heckler, depending on fallacies and hysteria, since you can't debate the science. Propaganda, not scientific analysis, is your agenda. I'll point this out, from time to time, but i won't waste much effort on the poo flinging hominids in the peanut gallery. ..have your fun. You can even pretend to be 'scientific!', with your demeaning, heckling quips.. and irrelevant walls of text to mask your intellectual impotence..