Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

You didn't answer either of the questions I asked you. Again...

Of course i answered it. You were talking about BELIEFS. Those are irrelevant, in a evidentiary based debate.

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?

And I'll repeat my reply:
..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?

FACTS, REASON, and EVIDENCE, are the tools of this analysis, not beliefs or arguments of incredulity, which you are still making, here.

Do you really believe no genomes have ever changed at any point in the entire history of life on earth?

What does the evidence say? Do you know any facts about the genome? Or do you just have beliefs?

There is not ONE observable, repeatable experiment, test, or breeding sequence that demonstrates the POSSIBILITY of structural changes in the genome.

Misunderstandings about genes, dna, and the blueprints of life abound, and deliberate ambiguity of terminology, as well as completely false scifi perceptions contribute to these misunderstandings. I try to draw analogies, that illustrate the actual reality of genetics, but it is difficult with the Definition Nazis, the Scifi Believers, and the superstition that runs rampant with this concept of Life's Building Blocks.

I am working on another explanation that i hope will convey the reality of our genetic makeup better.

 

[usfan]

DNA
The science of genetics is still in its infancy, relative to all other quests for understanding the world around us. Ambiguity, confusion, false perceptions, scifi imagination, and superstition all contribute to the muddy, jumbled, conflicted, and varied BELIEFS about the building blocks of life.

I've used an analogy of books..

genome = book
chromosome = chapter
genes = words

But there is also the added variable of language, which correlates to each genetic haplogroup. A Canid's genome would be like 'War and Peace', in Russian. The Cat's genome is like a Tantric book in Hindi. Humans can be analogous to an Egyptian hieroglyph.

You can't take a word, sentence, or chapter, and replace it in another genome. That is the reality of genetics, that beliefs and assertions cannot change.

But a better analogy, which isn't an analogy at all, is living things themselves.

The entire body = genome
Systems in the body = chromosomes
Individual organs = genes

This breaks down, too, as each strand of dna contains ALL the chromosomes and their genes for the entire organism.. even traits that are not used, but passed on to descendants.

But here's where the analogy clarifies the nature of the genes, and corrects the false perception of 'lego block', plug and play genes:

1. Genes are not interchangeable across haplogroups, and often not even within the same clades or related organisms. Some are close, and we have fooled the genome with 'similar' genes from another organism. The jellyfish gene that directs phosphorescence has been spliced into cats, to make glowing cats.. look it up, if you're interested.
2. Organ transplants require almost exact matches, even in the same haplotype. You cannot take a liver from any mammal, hominid, or even human, and plug it into someone else. That is the gene. It is specific with each haplotype, genotype, or closely related clade. You cannot even use blood from other organisms to replenish a loss, and it is tricky enough doing that within the same exact haplotypes.. blood types vary, even in the same offspring.
3. The biological systems, such as cardiovascular, nervous, hormonal, etc, have similarities of function across different families or haplogroups, but they do not interchange. You cannot take 'parts' from a canid and swap it out with a felid or equid. Nor can you attach limbs from a gorilla on a human. The genetic differences are too great. The parts are not interchangeable.

Now, like any analogy, it is not perfect, and the Definition Nazis can nitpick some term and howl 'Liar!' for the imperfections. But my goal here is not listing exact techno babble definitions, which are vague and ambiguous enough already, but to impart understanding and clarification.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is not ONE observable, repeatable experiment, test, or breeding sequence that demonstrates the POSSIBILITY of structural changes in the genome.

You say this, after repeatedly referencing the E-coli experiment yourself.

Misunderstandings about genes, dna, and the blueprints of life abound, and deliberate ambiguity of terminology, as well as completely false scifi perceptions contribute to these misunderstandings. I try to draw analogies, that illustrate the actual reality of genetics, but it is difficult with the Definition Nazis, the Scifi Believers, and the superstition that runs rampant with this concept of Life's Building Blocks.

You say this, but you're the one who keeps alleging that evolution says it can do things that it never has - specifically, producing a "new phyla" rather than "variation within the phyla". You are the one using ambiguity to avoid what the evidence actually shows:

a) The E-coli experiment shows that, from a single gene pool, variation through mutation and selective pressures can produce new traits.
b) The fossil record shows nested hierarchies of organisms that fit perfectly with common ancestry, and that we would have absolutely no reason to find if common ancestry weren't true.
c) Genetics shows that all life shares a percentage of inheritable DNA, and this percentage is greater with species predicted to be more closely related by evolutionary theory.

Your only responses to these facts above is to claim that none of them "prove" common ancestry, or that "evolution within the taxa is only micro-evolution, so not evidence of common ancestry" (despite the fact that speciation - i.e macro-evolution - has also been observed). The best you can do is obfuscate, and use language like:

"Any mechanism that adds genes, chromosomes, or traits, that are not ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock?"

Which is clearly a loaded question, because evolution has never claimed it "adds genes or chromosomes", but that it produces alterations in genetic code that can lead to new traits. This is something you MUST accept yourself, since you accept the findings of E-coli experiment, that a new trait developed in a population of E-coli from a single genetic pool. It didn't "add genes or chromosomes". It USED the genes that existed in the original population to PRODUCE VARIATION which lead to NEW TRAITS in successive generations.

You can continue to pretend this isn't true if you like, but if you do then you are NOT engaging in discussion of science - you're engaging in CONTRADICTION of science.

 

[usfan]

Oh look, another lie.

You think calling me a liar constantly will endear me to you? You think i will want to 'debate' with a hostile, belligerent opponent? You think i will even examine any points you have hidden in a hateful, accusatory, PERSONAL screed? Don't hold your breath.

Vestigiality is, and has been, a MAJOR argument for common descent. I have offered a rebuttal to that argument. Do with it what you will.

But your hostile distortions of my posts are not replies for a rational, evidentiary based debate, but ad hom attacks from an ideologue, zealously defending his religious beliefs. You can pretend 'Science!', all you want, but your methodology betrays you. You're a religious dogmatist, not a scientific minded person.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

DNA
The science of genetics is still in its infancy, relative to all other quests for understanding the world around us. Ambiguity, confusion, false perceptions, scifi imagination, and superstition all contribute to the muddy, jumbled, conflicted, and varied BELIEFS about the building blocks of life.

I've used an analogy of books..

genome = book
chromosome = chapter
genes = words

But there is also the added variable of language, which correlates to each genetic haplogroup. A Canid's genome would be like 'War and Peace', in Russian. The Cat's genome is like a Tantric book in Hindi. Humans can be analogous to an Egyptian hieroglyph.

You can't take a word, sentence, or chapter, and replace it in another genome. That is the reality of genetics, that beliefs and assertions cannot change.

Your analogy fails almost immediately, as you're essentially alleging that the genetic code of the animals you've listed are entirely dissimilar, like the books you use in the metaphor. But this is not how DNA works, and not what the reality of the similarity between ours and other clade's DNA is like, so your metaphor is an outright fabrication.

See, humans and dogs share 84% of our DNA. With 25% of our DNA code being exactly the same, and the remaining 75% being a re-arrangement of similar, mammalian ancestry. So if you're going to say that the canid genome is like War and Peace, then the human genome is not like hieroglyphics - it would be 25% exactly like War and Peace, with the rest being a mix of bits and pieces of War and Peace mixed up with various other things.
SOURCES:
Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences
Understanding Genetics

To argue, even metaphorically, that our genomes are entirely different is distortion of reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You think calling me a liar constantly will endear me to you?

No, but I think it will expose you as a liar. And maybe, just maybe, prevent you from lying in the future.

One can dream.

You think i will want to 'debate' with a hostile, belligerent opponent?

I don't think you want to debate at all. I think you're not capable of debating science honestly.

You think i will even examine any points you have hidden in a hateful, accusatory, PERSONAL screed? Don't hold your breath.

So, pointing out a lie in one sentence of what I wrote makes everything I wrote a "hateful, accusatory, PERSONAL screed"?

Are you serious?

Vestigiality is, and has been, a MAJOR argument for common descent. I have offered a rebuttal to that argument. Do with it what you will.

Goalposts moved again. You've gone from claiming that people have said that vestigiality "proves common descent" to saying it is as "major argument for common descent". These are not the same claim.

But your hostile distortions of my posts are not replies for a rational, evidentiary based debate, but ad hom attacks from an ideologue, zealously defending his religious beliefs. You can pretend 'Science!', all you want, but your methodology betrays you. You're a religious dogmatist, not a scientific minded person.

I've not once used an ad hom, I've not once distorted your arguments. All I have done is address your argument, and your dishonesty where appropriate.

Don't blame me because you can't debate science without lying.

 

[usfan]

You can continue to pretend this isn't true if you like, but if you do then you are NOT engaging in discussion of science - you're engaging in CONTRADICTION of science.

All ad hom, all the time.
.but denial and projection keeps it alive..


So, you would prefer a rousing, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war. I get it. But that is not the topic here. Put up or shut up. Show me evidence, not demeaning, hate filled screeds.

Your unscientific minded, religious dogmatism is showing, not a demonstration of scientific knowledge and methodology.

Ditch the ridicule, belittling, and ad hominem filled rants, and I'd look at your points.

Or is that what you're afraid of? You know I'd rip your pathetic arguments apart, so you can only heckle and belittle from the sidelines, throwing poo with the rest of your troupe? Are you afraid of a rational, civil debate on the EVIDENCE for common descent? It sure looks that way..

Heckle away. I don't care.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All ad hom, all the time.

Nope, not a single ad hom in that post. Try again.

.but denial and projection keeps it alive..


So, you would prefer a rousing, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war. I get it. But that is not the topic here. Put up or shut up. Show me evidence, not demeaning, hate filled screeds.

Not once have I ever even mentioned atheism or Christianity. And what's the point of posting evidence if all you do, as you have done in these past two posts, is ignore literally everything in my post except the few sentence you can twist into interpreting as personal attacks?

Take your own advice. If you're not going to read or respond to the evidence, stop complaining about "nobody posting it". Put up or shut up.

Your unscientific minded, religious dogmatism is showing, not a demonstration of scientific knowledge and methodology.

Ditch the ridicule, belittling, and ad hominem filled rants, and I'd look at your points.

And you don't see the irony here? Look at the last two posts I've made compared to these posts you've made. You mention NO evidence, you just attack me. I've presented dozens of sources, not a single one you have responded to.

Or is that what you're afraid of? You know I'd rip your pathetic arguments apart, so you can only heckle and belittle from the sidelines, throwing poo with the rest of your troupe? Are you afraid of a rational, civil debate on the EVIDENCE for common descent? It sure looks that way..

Heckle away. I don't care.

Yet again, talking a big game while hiding away from any actual facts.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'm smarter than you. Talking down to me is not wise.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For reference, here is the post that usfan writes off as "a hateful, accusatory, PERSONAL screed". I've highlighted in green all the parts that are not personal, hateful or accusatory. I've highlighted in blue all of the scientific arguments. I've highlighted in red the parts of the post that usfan has interpreted as a personal attack. Let's have a look, shall we:


You don't know that "genetic traits" means traits inherited through genes?

Um, no. You didn't present his argument, just a small fraction of his conclusion. And I never said it was an argument from authority, I said (and demonstrated) that it was a quotemine.

Then why did you quote him?

Which argument of his do you want to address? The one where he agrees that vestigial organs do represent evidence of common descent?

I've presented dozens of scientific sources. Why have you not commented on them?

That sounds very much like the heckling, emotion-driven, unscientific argument you accuse your detractors of.

I've already provided multiple sources of observed macro-evolution. Here they are again:
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

No, the fact that you lied means that you're lying. And to accuse someone of lying is not an ad hominem. Once again, please try to learn what constitutes an ad hominem.

Oh look, another lie. Please present one example of someone in this thread claiming that vestigiality "proves common descent".


Yes, clearly a hate-filled screed with no scientific arguments in it whatsoever.

Or maybe, just maybe, this whole "hateful screed" accusation is just an excuse to belittle people without addressing their actual arguments or the science they present, because usfan is terrified of being wrong.

Just a theory, though.

 

[usfan]

Yes, clearly a hate-filled screed with no scientific arguments in it whatsoever.

Have it your way. I post arguments, examine rational points and evidence, and point out fallacies. You only seem to want to stir up personal polemy, which is an ad hominem deflection.

• Post points, facts, and arguments.. >>> i can exsmine and respond in kind
• Post ad hom, accusations, and fallacies >>> i ignore it or point it out from time to time.

I cannot make anyone post topical arguments and replies.. i can only point out when they don't.

Toot your own horn about how smart you are. That does not validate your arguments. SUBSTANCE, not assertion, is what works in scientific methodology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Have it your way. I post arguments, examine rational points and evidence, and point out fallacies.

You can't even correctly identify fallacies. You still have yet to understand what an actual ad hominem looks like.

You only seem to want to stir up personal polemy, which is an ad hominem deflection.

Sure, if you ignore the vast majority of my posts which ask questions, present sources and explain the flaws in your arguments and claims.

• Post points, facts, and arguments.. >>> i can exsmine and respond in kind

You've yet to respond to or examine a single actual argument I've made.

• Post ad hom, accusations, and fallacies >>> i ignore it or point it out from time to time.

Are you serious? Look at EVERY post you've made in response to mine in the last two pages - every single one of them EXCLUSIVELY addresses what you feel are "ad homs, accusations or fallacies" and not a single one even QUOTES the arguments that I've made.

You are NOT ignoring these alleged "ad hom, accusations and fallacies". Your entire argument is predicated on addressing them OVER the science, because you know you can't actually win in a civilized, fact-based debate.

I cannot make anyone post topical arguments and replies.. i can only point out when they don't.

And I can't make you an honest debater, but I can point out when you lie.

Toot your own horn about how smart you are. That does not validate your arguments. SUBSTANCE, not assertion, is what works in scientific methodology.

Exactly. So when are you going to get around to responding to the substance of my post, or posting something of substance yourself?

 

[tas8831]

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.

Ya... hard to justify the wasted energy - especially after reading his history at politicalforums... Brick wall action... Think I'll just keep reminding people that he asked for science, got it, and then dutifully ignored it and dodged it is a most shallow and desperate fashion.

 

[usfan]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'm smarter than you. Talking down to me is not wise.

ROFL!!

More self righteous arrogance!!

You just want a pissing contest, not a rational debate. You think by DECLARING your Intellectual superiority that makes your arguments more substantive? Ha!

All you have is ad hominem, with a link now and then. You heckle and fling poo, but make NO ARGUMENTS, provide NO EVIDENCE, and just flood the thread with personal attacks.

I suppose, in Progresso World, that is a sign of superior intellect..

But in a world of Reason, that is a fallacy, and exposes you as an intellectual fraud.

What points do you EVER bring up, that are not laced with ad hominem and snarky insults? ..a science and reason pretender, that is what you portray yourself as..

 

[tas8831]

Are you serious? Look at EVERY post you've made in response to mine in the last two pages - every single one of them EXCLUSIVELY addresses what you feel are "ad homs, accusations or fallacies" and not a single one even QUOTES the arguments that I've made.

You are NOT ignoring these alleged "ad hom, accusations and fallacies". Your entire argument is predicated on addressing them OVER the science, because you know you can't actually win in a civilized, fact-based debate.

Seems like a trend...

 

[usfan]

Pile on, poo flinging, irrational, snarky disruptors. You have nothing substantial to offer, just disrupt any possible rational debate with religious hysteria.

I can't make you post rational, evidentiary based posts. Carry on. Do what you do best..

I get very tired of pointing this out, but you hecklers NEVER tire of doing it. Do what you will.. pretend reason and 'science!', if you want. I don't care. Enjoy your delusions..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

ROFL!!

More self righteous arrogance!!

I think, at this point, it's just a statement of fact.

And, I'm going to be honest, a bit of an attempt to get your goat up. It seems to have worked!

You just want a pissing contest, not a rational debate. You think by DECLARING your Intellectual superiority that makes your arguments more substantive? Ha!

No, I think my arguments BEING more substantive, and the fact that you have utterly stopped even trying to respond to them, makes them more substantive. The superiority thing was just a barb, because I knew you cared more about your intellectual vanity than the actual facts, and it would most likely get a better response from you than any facts I presented have.

Also, I believe it happens to be true.

All you have is ad hominem, with a link now and then. You heckle and fling poo, but make NO ARGUMENTS, provide NO EVIDENCE, and just flood the thread with personal attacks.

I've not made a single ad-hominem attack this entire thread.

And as for the links, it really doesn't take any more than one or two links "now and then" to demonstrate that your claims are false. It isn't difficult to show new traits DO evolve, or that macro-evolution HAS been observed, or that humans and other animals DO share DNA, or that the biologist you quoted WAS a quotemine.

I suppose, in Progresso World, that is a sign of superior intellect..

But in a world of Reason, that is a fallacy, and exposes you as an intellectual fraud.

Meanwhile, your endless diatribes, lack of any scientific sources, complete inability to engage with the evidence and argument, distortion of reality and outright lies expose you as... A paragon of reason?

What points do you EVER bring up, that are not laced with ad hominem and snarky insults? ..a science and reason pretender, that is what you portray yourself as..

*Points at all of the above posts, in which a very small percentage of what I've written is even remotely personal, whereas the last three or four of your posts have been absolutely nothing but personal attacks and snark*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For further reference, here's two more posts from me that allegedly contain "no science" and just "ad hom laced diatribes". Non-accusatory statements are green, scientific arguments are in blue, potential personal attacks or remarks are in red:

POST 504:

You say this, but you're the one who keeps alleging that evolution says it can do things that it never has - specifically, producing a "new phyla" rather than "variation within the phyla". You are the one using ambiguity to avoid what the evidence actually shows:

a) The E-coli experiment shows that, from a single gene pool, variation through mutation and selective pressures can produce new traits.
b) The fossil record shows nested hierarchies of organisms that fit perfectly with common ancestry, and that we would have absolutely no reason to find if common ancestry weren't true.
c) Genetics shows that all life shares a percentage of inheritable DNA, and this percentage is greater with species predicted to be more closely related by evolutionary theory.

Your only responses to these facts above is to claim that none of them "prove" common ancestry, or that "evolution within the taxa is only micro-evolution, so not evidence of common ancestry" (despite the fact that speciation - i.e macro-evolution - has also been observed). The best you can do is obfuscate, and use language like:

"Any mechanism that adds genes, chromosomes, or traits, that are not ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock?"

Which is clearly a loaded question, because evolution has never claimed it "adds genes or chromosomes", but that it produces alterations in genetic code that can lead to new traits. This is something you MUST accept yourself, since you accept the findings of E-coli experiment, that a new trait developed in a population of E-coli from a single genetic pool. It didn't "add genes or chromosomes". It USED the genes that existed in the original population to PRODUCE VARIATION which lead to NEW TRAITS in successive generations.

You can continue to pretend this isn't true if you like, but if you do then you are NOT engaging in discussion of science - you're engaging in CONTRADICTION of science.

POST 506:

Your analogy fails almost immediately, as you're essentially alleging that the genetic code of the animals you've listed are entirely dissimilar, like the books you use in the metaphor. But this is not how DNA works, and not what the reality of the similarity between ours and other clade's DNA is like, so your metaphor is an outright fabrication.

See, humans and dogs share 84% of our DNA. With 25% of our DNA code being exactly the same, and the remaining 75% being a re-arrangement of similar, mammalian ancestry. So if you're going to say that the canid genome is like War and Peace, then the human genome is not like hieroglyphics - it would be 25% exactly like War and Peace, with the rest being a mix of bits and pieces of War and Peace mixed up with various other things.
SOURCES:
Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences
Understanding Genetics

To argue, even metaphorically, that our genomes are entirely different is distortion of reality.


Incidentally, usfan, the only part of either of the above posts you've seen fit to respond to or quote is the last paragraph of the former. Pray tell, if you really are only interested in facts, and want to ignore all personal attacks or remarks, why has literally everything else that I've written gone completely unremarked on by you? Don't you think it's a little odd how you don't even QUOTE the rest of these posts - almost as if you're deliberately trying to portray that they don't exist?

I'm seriously asking. Because it just looks like you ignore it because you know you don't have a reasonable argument to present.

 

[tas8831]

My arguments stand, unrefuted. There is no 'new!' genetic information created.. no new genes. No changes in the genome.

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.

thanks!

 

[tas8831]

Because it just looks like you ignore it because you know you don't have a reasonable argument to present.

Yup.
I present an argument based on several papers - he dismisses it as being 'too long' and a 'wall of text'.

I then break down that post into several individual posts, explaining the relevance of each citation. All ignored/dismissed with a smilie-laden 'What this stuff again?'-type of response.

I take his lengthy Canid posts, reply to each of his assertions with referenced rebuttals over three posts - all dismissed as 'too long' 'wall of text' and 'oh the ad homs!!!'

We'll see if he can answer some simple questions asked with NO commentary whatsoever. I'm betting more smilies and insults and no answers...

 

[usfan]

Don't you think it's a little odd how you don't even QUOTE the rest of these posts - almost as if you're deliberately trying to portray that they don't exist?

I'm seriously asking. Because it just looks like you ignore it because you know you don't have a reasonable argument to present.

..progressive indoctrinees..

I told you early on.. hiding some rational points in a personal, snark filled post will not be acknowledged.. I'll point out the snark, sometimes, but don't expect a civil, rational reply to some pretended 'evidentiary' reply that is just a vehicle for heckling.

This one, for example. You make a point, then muddy it up with bickering and snippy remarks. You can play that game by yourself.

Ad hom inclusions will invalidate any other points made. So might as well just flood the thread with heckling and personal sniping, since nothing else you say matters..

I really feel I'm "debating' with catty middle school girls.. snark and ridicule is your best 'argument'.

/shakes head/