Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[SkepticThinker]

This thread is a waste of time.

 

[usfan]

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?

..you can beleve whatever you want. This is about evidence. Do you have ANY evidence that shows a verticle, structural change in the genome? Any mechanism that adds genes, chromosomes, or traits, that are not ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock?

Arguments of incredulity do not provide support for the belief in common descent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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."​

I think I am giving up. I have gotten all the laughs out of a thread that was designed from the very beginning as a deceit and means to ridicule others that have a serious interest and a willingness to listen.

I'll check in on what you guys post, since that is the only place where the real information and perspectives are coming from. Otherwise, my last post to the OP was probably my last post to the OP. Getting this thread to turn from a bashing science and personal attack on science supporters thread to a discussion thread does not seem to be in the cards.

Those quotes are still funny though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This thread is a waste of time.

Exactly.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

You clearly did not read or understand the E. coli studies very well so here is the figure and explanation of one of the studies showing the genetic change and mutations over time.
www.ohio.edu/plantbio/staff/showalte/PBIO%20427%20&%20527/Genome%20evolution%20and%20adaptation.pdf

View attachment 31034


"Figure 1 | Mutations found by sequencing genomes sampled between

2,000 and 20,000 generations from an evolution experiment with E. coli.

The outermost ring represents the genome sampled at 20,000 generations,

and labels all genes with SNP mutations in coding (black) and intergenic

(purple) regions, and those with DIP mutations including deletions (red),

insertions (green), insertion sequence (IS) element insertions (blue), and an

inversion between citC and gatZ (orange). Insertion sequences are

transposable elements present in bacterial genomes. The next four rings,

from outer to inner, show mutations present in genomes sampled at 15,000,

10,000, 5,000, and 2,000 generations. The innermost circle shows the

genome position and scale in megabase pairs (Mb). Mutations that are off

the line of descent to a genome sampled at 40,000 generations are capped

with a circle. Only one mutation (kup/insJ-5), a 1-base-pair (bp) insertion

near an IS150 element, shows an aberrant homoplastic distribution, being

present in clones 10K and 20K but not 15K. Precise molecular details for all

mutations are shown in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2."

As with so many examples already given to you here is evidence of the genetic changes well documented with multiple ways of changing the genetic code which clearly supports evolution. To continue to deny the evidence is to be dishonest and the preacher like rhetoric gives you no support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This thread is a waste of time.

Of course, now the claim will be made that we all ran off.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since the OP opened the door to any topic being up for grabs, does anyone want to talk about cars?

 

[usfan]

Do

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

You know when the human genome project was begun? Finished? Do you know when the breakdown of the dna was first observed? What is the point in looking for 'gotcha!' phrases to pounce on? Is that a 'rational debate!', to you?

Deal with the science, you pseudo science pretenders. Attacking every word, comma, or definition is not a scientific debate, but a propaganda meme.

If you have no evidence, and cannot even provide ONE valid argument for common descent, why believe it so passionately? Why the indignation over a scientific theory?

 

[Bear Wild]

Since the OP opened the door to any topic being up for grabs, does anyone want to talk about cars?

Sure. I finally got an electric car to help decrease co2 emissions. Cant go real far and have to plug it in all night long but it is quiet and no carbon monoxide concerns.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure. I finally got an electric car to help decrease co2 emissions. Cant go real far and have to plug it in all night long but it is quiet and no carbon monoxide concerns.

We need some breakthroughs in battery technology to help improve that, but the carbon reduction is good.

I am always concerned by the fact that electric cars are so quiet. When walking, I not only look for cars, but listen for them as well. These new electric cars are startlingly quiet.

I was behind a Tesla the other day and that acceleration is impressive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do

You know when the human genome project was begun? Finished? Do you know when the breakdown of the dna was first observed? What is the point in looking for 'gotcha!' phrases to pounce on? Is that a 'rational debate!', to you?

Deal with the science, you pseudo science pretenders. Attacking every word, comma, or definition is not a scientific debate, but a propaganda meme.

If you have no evidence, and cannot even provide ONE valid argument for common descent, why believe it so passionately? Why the indignation over a scientific theory?

Guy. I am done. You made it clear there was no point to bother trying to have a discussion here. All you want to do is call people names and make fun of science by wiping your butt with it.

I provided valid responses to your posts about dogs. You could not rebut it and you blew it off with a wave of the hand.

Have fun. I am no longer participating with you.

 

[Bear Wild]

Do

You know when the human genome project was begun? Finished? Do you know when the breakdown of the dna was first observed? What is the point in looking for 'gotcha!' phrases to pounce on? Is that a 'rational debate!', to you?

Deal with the science, you pseudo science pretenders. Attacking every word, comma, or definition is not a scientific debate, but a propaganda meme.

If you have no evidence, and cannot even provide ONE valid argument for common descent, why believe it so passionately? Why the indignation over a scientific theory?

I just showed you the evidence for E. coli with a diagram for you to see. Just click on the attachment. To not see how the genetic code changes in this study is to refuse to even try to understand any scientific evidence which means you have no argument. Preach all you want but you are intentionally ignoring the outstanding evidence you have been given. In doing so you arguments are empty. The continuous posting of inaccurate information over and over again is the hallmark of supporters of the creation theory and intelligent design since they have no evidence to offer.

 

[Bear Wild]

We need some breakthroughs in battery technology to help improve that, but the carbon reduction is good.

I am always concerned by the fact that electric cars are so quiet. When walking, I not only look for cars, but listen for them as well. These new electric cars are startlingly quiet.

I was behind a Tesla the other day and that acceleration is impressive.

It is kind of fun to drive past gas stations and even though the acceleration of mine is amazing I find myself driving at a safer speed to maximize distance. It is a different way of driving.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You clearly did not read or understand the E. coli studies very well so here is the figure and explanation of one of the studies showing the genetic change and mutations over time.
www.ohio.edu/plantbio/staff/showalte/PBIO%20427%20&%20527/Genome%20evolution%20and%20adaptation.pdf

View attachment 31034


"Figure 1 | Mutations found by sequencing genomes sampled between

2,000 and 20,000 generations from an evolution experiment with E. coli.

The outermost ring represents the genome sampled at 20,000 generations,

and labels all genes with SNP mutations in coding (black) and intergenic

(purple) regions, and those with DIP mutations including deletions (red),

insertions (green), insertion sequence (IS) element insertions (blue), and an

inversion between citC and gatZ (orange). Insertion sequences are

transposable elements present in bacterial genomes. The next four rings,

from outer to inner, show mutations present in genomes sampled at 15,000,

10,000, 5,000, and 2,000 generations. The innermost circle shows the

genome position and scale in megabase pairs (Mb). Mutations that are off

the line of descent to a genome sampled at 40,000 generations are capped

with a circle. Only one mutation (kup/insJ-5), a 1-base-pair (bp) insertion

near an IS150 element, shows an aberrant homoplastic distribution, being

present in clones 10K and 20K but not 15K. Precise molecular details for all

mutations are shown in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2."

As with so many examples already given to you here is evidence of the genetic changes well documented with multiple ways of changing the genetic code which clearly supports evolution. To continue to deny the evidence is to be dishonest and the preacher like rhetoric gives you no support.

We could spend the entire day just posting evidence of the changes that have been observed in genes. Of genes that have been duplicated and those duplicated genes being appropriated for other needs depending on selection. Changes to genes and the mechanisms for those changes are well established in science. Just not in the building trades.

 

[usfan]

You clearly did not read or understand the E. coli studies very well so here is the figure and explanation of one of the studies showing the genetic change and mutations over time.

No, i clearly do understand, and this preface is just ad hom for bluff.

As with so many examples already given to you here is evidence of the genetic changes well documented with multiple ways of changing the genetic code which clearly supports evolution. To continue to deny the evidence is to be dishonest and the preacher like rhetoric gives you no support.

No new genes were defined. No changes were made in the genomic architecture. They started out e.coli, and remained e.coli. they adapted to digest citrates, from either ALREADY EXISTING traits, deep in the gene pool, or some unique ability of e.coli to adapt to diverse conditions. There is NO WAY, this is a speciation event, nor evidence of a 'gene creating mechanism'. That is speculation.

It is a huge stretch.. a LEAP OF FAITH, to 'see!' common descent in this oft quoted study. If that's what you see, or want to see, fine. Enjoy your beliefs. But don't try to bully me into buying that half baked theory, with such pathetic evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is kind of fun to drive past gas stations and even though the acceleration of mine is amazing I find myself driving at a safer speed to maximize distance. It is a different way of driving.

I would not have to learn to love passing gas stations. That is always a goal.

I have yet to drive an electric car, but I have driven other electric vehicles and they were usually fun to drive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just showed you the evidence for E. coli with a diagram for you to see. Just click on the attachment. To not see how the genetic code changes in this study is to refuse to even try to understand any scientific evidence which means you have no argument. Preach all you want but you are intentionally ignoring the outstanding evidence you have been given. In doing so you arguments are empty. The continuous posting of inaccurate information over and over again is the hallmark of supporters of the creation theory and intelligent design since they have no evidence to offer.

Clearly no amount of evidence is going to be sufficient. Especially when that evidence is not understood by the recipient. Watching the charade of responses to the evidence people have offered was funny at first, but now it is tedious and sad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is kind of fun to drive past gas stations and even though the acceleration of mine is amazing I find myself driving at a safer speed to maximize distance. It is a different way of driving.

I have not kept track and do not know if the research into hydrogen fuel cells is continuing or not, but I was interested when I first saw a Dodge Charger prototype running on one. It would still leave us tied to a gas station of sorts, but it would reduce the carbon footprint.

 

[usfan]

Guy. I am done. You made it clear there was no point to bother trying to have a discussion here. All you want to do is call people names and make fun of science by wiping your butt with it.

I provided valid responses to your posts about dogs. You could not rebut it and you blew it off with a wave of the hand.
Have fun. I am no longer participating with you.

So, you'll just heckle now, with no pretense of 'science!'?

..just because i stick with the demands for evidence?

If you guys had any, why not present it? The e.coli study? Really? That 'proves common descent!', to you?


I don't think you guys want to debate science at all. You want to heckle and ridicule, but don't have a clue WHY you believe in common descent. You just do, because it was indoctrinated from infancy.

But if you want to look at the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, I'll do that. There's not much there, and it is mostly assumed and speculated, but if a fact and reason based discussion interests you, I'm game.

..but not a one way shooting arcade from religious fanatics..

 

[usfan]

We could spend the entire day just posting evidence of the changes that have been observed in genes

Clearly no amount of evidence is going to be sufficient.

How about ONE? No more bluffing. If you have evidence for all theses genetic changes for common descent, why not present it? Alluding to 'mountains of evidence!', but presenting NOTHING, is a bluff.

E.coli adapting to digest citrates, where no new genes were identified is 'mountains of evidence?'