Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

The tactic here, it seems, is to flood the thread with heckling & personal accusations, to divert attention from any rational, scientific points or rebuttals.

The topic is still, 'Evidence for Common Descent', and while i may banter with the hecklers some, i will engage the topic, if anyone dares to look at the science..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

You spend half of this paragraph saying that modern canids, in all their variety and shape (it's also worth noting that not all canids can interbreed, by the way) come from a common ancestor, then you say "there is no evidence that they are evolving to another phylogenetic structure".

Do you not see the contradiction there? You've basically just said "canids have evolved hugely different phylogenetic structures from a single population, but there is no evidence canids can evolve new phylogenetic structures".

Once again, this argument is grounded on a fundamental misunderstanding what evolutionary theory says: the idea that evolution should "produce phyla other than that which produced it". This is not, nor has it ever been, how common ancestry works, as has been explained before. Evolution is a branching tree, hence every "branch" is still a smaller part of the "branch" that birthed it. Hence why canids have such variety, but are still canids. Just as canids are a variety of mammals, mammals are a variety of vertebrates, and vertebrates are a variety of eukaryotes.

I'll put it in larger words so that they cannot be missed:
Evolution produces VARIETY WITHIN THE PHYLA, not a phyla other than what produced it.

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.

Actually, the tree is based on shared genetic traits and the fossil record, both of which line up perfectly with predictions of evolutionary ancestry. Again, you're alleging that the tree has no basis, while ignoring all of the evidence upon which the tree is based - it is an illustration based on observation, not the other way around.

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

This is a well-known creationist quote mine. Scadding actually DOES accept vestigiality as evidence of evolution, but not for their vestigiality in and of itself - but for their homologies:

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs. . . . While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument . . . asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution."
(Scadding 1981, p 173)

"Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."
(Scadding 1982, p 172)

SOURCE: Citing Scadding (1981): Poor Creationist Scholarship on Vestigial Structures

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?

This challenge has already been met by multiple posters. You even referenced the study that met your challenge earlier.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

For somebody who claims to hate heckling, fallacies and avoiding the science, you seem to go out of your way to heckle, commit fallacies and never actually produce any science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

This is a classic creationist strawman. Species do not evolve into "something else". This is why you are still an ape. And you are now repeatedly lying by claiming "no evidence.

Did you forget the two questions you were supposed to ask? Is the theory of evolution testable (yes, it is). Does the given evidence support it (again so far the evidence presented does). you have been given evidence all you can do is to lie and run away.

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.

Wrong again. The fact that life can be shown to fit into phylogenetic trees, by various different means and yet the trees being identical, is very strong evidence for the theory of evolution that you have no explanation for. If life did not evolve there is no reason that they should fall into such a tree. Creationists have no explanation to the contrary. Again, since the theory of evolution predicts this observation of life behaving in such a manner is evidence for the theory.

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

How is the argument "circular"? Do you even know what vestigiality is? And a quotation without a link is worthless in a debate. It also indicates that the person making the quote is lying by quote mining. Don't worry, I am here to save you. It turns out S. R. Scadding is the only somewhat reliable source that has ever made such a claim. And his claim came from a journal that did not have very high standards and was refuted itself by other biologists. You can read more here:

Citing Scadding (1981): Poor Creationist Scholarship on Vestigial Structures

Now you are officially grasping at straws.

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?

You have been given evidence. At this point all that needs to be said is that you are the person that "deflects" all of the time here.

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?

Once again, you do not know what an ad hom is since none have been made here. In case you forgot an ad hom is an argument where the supposed attack has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This has not happened here. An example of an ad hom is:

"You are ugly. Therefore you are stupid and wrong".

That is an ad hom. Being ugly has nothing to do with being stupid or wrong.

And since you have yet to address the topic of evidence here is the definition of scientific evidence once more 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."

One more time, ask yourself two questions Is the concept being discussed falsifiable. Do the observations support it. So far every example given to you has a yes answer to both questions. Therefore it is scientific evidence for evolution and common descent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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..

What a strange thing to say, given that (again) said poster provided a lot of evidence for you to consider.
And yet you just brushed it off and ignored it and spent your time on the "poo flinging hominids" instead. Perhaps you have a mirror handy?

 

[tas8831]

Projection, or maybe wishful thinking..

And yet, you ignore the evidence. You make demonstrably false - often hilariously so - claims.

But you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong.

Hilarious.

You're going to misquote and misattribute, as well? Running out of fallacies, so have to get new ones? LOL!!

Are you claiming that you did not write these laughable gems:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."​

Please say that I am misquoting or misrepresenting you. Please do it, so that I can provide links to the posts in which you wrote those laughably ignorant things - and did so with great confidence, almost as if you thought they were meaningful and yet again show people what sort of people we are dealing with in this "debate."

 

[tas8831]

Wrong again. The fact that life can be shown to fit into phylogenetic trees, by various different means and yet the trees being identical, is very strong evidence for the theory of evolution that you have no explanation for. If life did not evolve there is no reason that they should fall into such a tree. Creationists have no explanation to the contrary. Again, since the theory of evolution predicts this observation of life behaving in such a manner is evidence for the theory..

Isn't it precious how he thinks phylogenetic trees are presented AS the evidence?

Almost as precious as is the fact that HE presented a phylogenetic tree of the canids - and praised it - to prop up a point he thought (erroneously) he had made?

 

[tas8831]

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.

Please see these posts for science-filled refutations of these naive claims:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Thus far, these posts have been completely ignored scientifically, and responded to only with insults and dodges. The reasons for this dodging are made obvious by my signature.

2. Phylogenetic Tree.
This is a graphical illustration of the BELIEF in common descent.

You mean like this phylogenetic tree that YOU provided (I mean, you DID know that what you presented was a phylogenetic tree, right?):

and referred to it as follows (emphases mine):

The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various phenotypes.

The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae, but the time frame is incompatible with the UCD model.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:​

I will pause to laugh at the use of the phrase "child branches" for a moment.....


OK, moving on... you then continued:

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is indicate descendancy...​

Such odd and obvious double standards - and fantastically naive use of 'terminology'...
But sure, you can go ahead and dismiss your own 'evidence':

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.

And all of this desperate double-standards BS was falsified (and of course ignored by you) here:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

wherein I provided scientific documentation on the use of the tested methods (the very methods used in your YEC-approved Canid paper) and then the application of those methods to larger-scale issues of "descendancy".

 

[tas8831]

2. "Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes.... There is NO GENETIC EVIDENCE of descendancy in cross genetic architectures. There is real genetic evidence of descendancy within canidae, felidae, equus, etc, but nothing to suggest any of them came from, or are becoming, something else. The 'high genetic walls,' that the hecklers love to ridicule, PREVENT any departure from the parent architecture. .

Not sure how I misquoted or mischaracterized the naivete...?

 

[tas8831]

The tactic here, it seems, is to flood the thread with heckling & personal accusations, to divert attention from any rational, scientific points or rebuttals.
.

The tactic here, it seems, is to describe all rebuttals and refutations as heckling & personal accusations so as to avoid having to admit defeat in the face of actual scientific evidence counter to your assertions, lack of double standards in those doing so, and an ability of others to understand the "technobabble" of the fields under discussion.



Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

 

[tas8831]

...

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 relevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationist has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.

isn't it odd how this was totally ignored and/or misinterpreted/misrepresented by the 4-decades-of-study guy....

 

[Subduction Zone]

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..

Observation. You refuse to even learn the basics of science. That limits your scientific literacy to not even a high school level.

Can you tell me why you constantly run away from the concept of scientific evidence? When one does not understand what is and what is not scientific evidence it is all but impossible to debate about it.

 

[Jose Fly]

My arguments stand, unrefuted. There is no 'new!' genetic information created.. no new genes.

Sure there is, but your argument does raise an interesting question.....if you truly believe "new genetic information" cannot come about via natural means, where exactly do you believe it does come from? Do you believe God personally and deliberately created every individual gene in existence?

No changes in the genome

No changes in genomes, ever? Seriously? Do you appreciate just how ridiculous that assertion is? I mean....do you really believe no genomes have ever changed at any point in the entire history of life on earth?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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..

Are there going to be any discussions on this discussion tour?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The tactic here, it seems, is to flood the thread with heckling & personal accusations, to divert attention from any rational, scientific points or rebuttals.

The topic is still, 'Evidence for Common Descent', and while i may banter with the hecklers some, i will engage the topic, if anyone dares to look at the science..

Well sure, but everyone has been trying to encourage you to get back on topic.

When you say banter some, what does that mean? It looks to me like 99% is your version of some.

It is your topic. It is your thread. Shouldn't you be the one driving the direction of it? From the looks of things, the direction you said you wanted and the direction you are taking this thread are not the same. The direction you appear to be fixated with seems to be a run around.

These are just observations and the logical conclusion of observations and not heckling. According to your rules, you will not banter with me about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

So debating science is selecting a single publication that supports common descent, reviewing it poorly including the misuse of terminology that you incorrectly define, claiming it supports your position while also acknowledging that it supports common descent and then spending the rest of your posts chasing windmills? You see that as science?

I think everyone has found the problems in this. You should consider listening to them.

 

[tas8831]

and irrelevant walls of text to mask your intellectual impotence..

Ah... "walls of text"... By which the pretender means explanations of his naivete, in-context quotes to demonstrate points... citations... that sort of thing.

Sensible people can see you for what you are - a spamming creationist zealot with an overblown sense of self-importance and a penchant for ignoring refutations of your naive claims.

Like here:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

 

[tas8831]

Are there going to be any discussions on this discussion tour?

I eagerly await the fact-filled demonstrations that these are "out of context":

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes

"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."
And this gem:

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."​

 

[usfan]

Actually, the tree is based on shared genetic traits and the fossil record, both of which line up perfectly with predictions of evolutionary ancestry.

So you assert, without evidence. Can you back up that claim? What 'shared genetic traits!' You mean limbs? Heads? Eyes? This 'proves common descent!' to you?

Scadding actually DOES accept vestigiality as evidence of evolution, but not for their vestigiality in and of itself - but for their homologies:

I used scadding's ARGUMENTS.. not his authority. Unlike the irrational progressive indoctrinees here..
F*** scadding. I don't care what he believes. But his arguments on vestigiality are sound. Address them, if you want to refute the argument, instead of trying to discredit the source..

This challenge has already been met by multiple posters. You even referenced the study that met your challenge earlier.

Bluff. You poo flinging hecklers won't touch scientific evidence with a 10 foot pole... oh, you may hide some vague innundo or allusion of something that 'sounds sciency!', in your floods of heckling and hateful personal attacks, but your evidence is pretty pathetic.. non existent, really

For somebody who claims to hate heckling, fallacies and avoiding the science, you seem to go out of your way to heckle, commit fallacies and never actually produce any science.

Hardly. I fling a little poo back at you every so often, but mostly just i expose you as unscientific propagandists and religious fanatics, defending your beliefs with jihadist zeal..

Species do not evolve into "something else".

Well, golly gee. That's what I've been saying. They only vary, within the limits of their dna. Macro evolution is an unevidenced belief, and has NEVER been observed.

you have been given evidence all you can do is to lie and run away.

Projection. Just because you impotent 'debaters' don't know the facts, have no reasoning ability, and run on emotion and hysteria, does not indicate I'm lying. That is a false accusation and is exactly ad hominem.

Scadding is the only somewhat reliable source that has ever made such a claim.

Who cares? so are you going to produce EVIDENCE for your belief that 'Vestigiality!' somehow proves common descent? Or just assert it dogmatically?

You have been given evidence. At this point all that needs to be said is that you are the person that "deflects" all of the time here.

Right. Project distort, and falsely accuse all you want. I have no illusions about the intellectual depth of the True Believers, here..

But you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong.

That's your schtick. I look at the evidence, and let people decide for themselves. You and your fanatical cronies are obsessed with 'winning!' or some other groupthink loyalty game. I deal in the facts of science and reason.. not something progressive indoctrinees are good with. You've got your memorized dogma, and facts, reason, and reality will not affect them.

Isn't it precious how he thinks phylogenetic trees are presented AS the evidence?

/Yawn/..
Let me know if you get tired of flinging poo with your heckling, shrieking troup.. did you bring peanuts?

isn't it odd how this was totally ignored and/or misinterpreted/misrepresented by the 4-decades-of-study guy...

Your obsession with credentials is pathetic. I make arguments and deal in facts. You have ridicule, mocking, and fallacies. So how does that evidence your beliefs? Deflect with arguments of authority all you want.. you merely out yourself as a propagandist.

The irrational, unevidenced, unscientific hysteria from these pseudo science religious fanatics always amazes me..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fascinating science of genetics, a relative newcomer in the quest to understand 'how?' and 'why?',

1865 may seem like yesterday to someone still living in the 19th Century, but sure it is relatively recent in some perspectives.

is still greatly misunderstood.

Can you be more specific? In what way? What specific issues here can be explained by that, other than your own posts? Do you think that someone would rely on the general complexity of a science like genetics and the weak understanding that his identity group has of the material to press an argument using that knowledge to fabricate understanding he does not posses and pass off fake science as if it were true?

Movies and scifi imagination dominate the perceptions, that the science disputes.

Also posts by people claiming to know genetics, but that do not really know it.

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?

I think it goes beyond the pale to say that the interest has seen more than a little expression on here.

I would love to hear what those in the building trade have discovered in the field of genetics. That is on the cutting edge I am sure.

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?

At this point, any perspective on science from the OP would be refreshing.

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!'

You say that. I do not know of anyone that understands genetics saying that.

2. 'Percentage of similarity proves common descent!'

It is evidence for common descent. Nobody that understands science claims that scientific evidence proves anything. Go on.

3. Obfuscating techno babble with vague, undefined terms, and ambiguous concepts proves common descent!

You say that. No one else is saying it.

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.

Hmmm. Never mind that it says the opposite of that and the one study you presented on dogs says common descent and you agreed with that.

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.

There is an interest, but it gets lost in the multitude of the posts you make heckling and deflecting.

You know that you can take genes from one organism and put them into other organisms. There are instances where multiple genes have been moved. Companies are making billions off the products they have created doing this. Transposable elements are the natural phenomenon where this occurs in nature. Genes can move horizontally in nature. I do not think you understand this as well as you are claiming. Are the building trades falling behind in their study of genetics?

There is little point in continuing this. There is nothing to see here.