Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

You have to wonder how long the claim no one is presenting evidence within all the posts presenting evidence will continue. Will stubborn pride win out or will there be that rare, fleeting burst of recognition of the absurdity?

 

[Jose Fly]

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

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?

I ask where you believe "new genetic information" comes from, and your answer is that I can believe whatever I want?

I hope you appreciate how this sort of evasive behavior is one of the reasons for the responses you've been getting.

What does the evidence say?

The evidence shows that genomes change all the time. For example, every human is born with over 100 new mutations that weren't present in either parent.

Do you accept that reality?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I am glad you pointed this out. It is insightful to read posts by the same poster in forums outside of this one. It is really interesting to see them post the same material from one place to the next that is refuted at every location.

It all pretty much explains what these posters really are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow. There are so many legitimate questions being asked and so much deflection, ad hominem and snark as a response to those questions.

So much science is being presented to support common descent, I cannot understand how a reasonable person with years of informal study could dismiss any of it, let alone all of it, with a wave of the hand and snarky, personal comments that have nothing to do with the content of the posts or the arguments being made.

 

[tas8831]

You have to wonder how long the claim no one is presenting evidence within all the posts presenting evidence will continue.

As long as he has a few enablers.

Will stubborn pride win out or will there be that rare, fleeting burst of recognition of the absurdity?

Pride.

 

[tas8831]

I am glad you pointed this out. It is insightful to read posts by the same poster in forums outside of this one. It is really interesting to see them post the same material from one place to the next that is refuted at every location.

It all pretty much explains what these posters really are.

Starts with a "T" I think...
That is actually how I found this forum - I was on another one and a creationist posted some long screeds that looked a bit too polished compared to the regular posts. Googled, saw he had posted the same things here (justatruthseeker). Exact same claims - mostly verbatim, even though they had been demolished on the other forum - repeatedly, and for YEARS. You'd think they could at least update their stuff once in a while.

 

[tas8831]

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

Sorry about the "wall of text", but I thought those with scientific backgrounds might enjoy it:

De Novo Origination of a New Protein-Coding Gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
De Novo Origination of a New Protein-Coding Gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

From the Abstract:

"...Processes of creating new genes using preexisting genes as the raw materials are well characterized, such as exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, gene fusion, and fission. However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown. On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have identified a new de novo protein-coding gene, BSC4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The BSC4 gene has an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a 132-amino-acid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of S. cerevisiae, when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment. Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence."

In summary -
They found a gene not present in closely related species of yeast (sort of like dog breeds) in an area that is noncoding otherwise. The gene encodes a functional protein. There are transcribed but nonfunctional sequences in closely related taxa, lending credence to the observation that due to the limited number of functional combinations of nucleotides, due to the size of typical genomes we can expect promoters and such to occur sporadically and in this case, subsequent mutation produced a functional gene. Those interested in this can see this search link:

Google Scholar

And of note, this does not include other mechanisms known to produce new genes, such as exon shuffling, duplication, etc.
Lots of facts, reason, and evidence to be found if one dares to look at actual science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As long as he has a few enablers.

No shortage of those here. Plenty of Dunning Kruger grads have already stepped up. It is the new common nonsense.

Pride.

Ignorance too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Starts with a "T" I think...
That is actually how I found this forum - I was on another one and a creationist posted some long screeds that looked a bit too polished compared to the regular posts. Googled, saw he had posted the same things here (justatruthseeker). Exact same claims - mostly verbatim, even though they had been demolished on the other forum - repeatedly, and for YEARS. You'd think they could at least update their stuff once in a while.

There was another poster on here--a drive by poster it turns out--that someone pointed out was on Quora and had written the exact same material as they were posting on here. Now that I think about it, that may have been you that revealed him/her/it.

They are like street preachers on the internet.

 

[usfan]

I ask where you believe "new genetic information" comes from, and your answer is that I can believe whatever I want?

Anybody can believe whatever they want.. that is the point. My beliefs, and yours, are irrelevant.
From the OP:

Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

The fact is, that organisms do not create new genetic information. They can only produce traits that are present in the parent stock.

Adapting bacteria and yeasts merely adapt, with the ALREADY EXISTING genes that enable them to do so. They do not change, in their genetic structure. Bacteria remain bacteria. Yeasts remain yeasts. They are not 'evolving!' into another organism. They remain CONSTANT, for as long as we have observed them, with no evidence of genomic structural changes. That is a belief, not science.

Dogs vary, within the parameters of their parent variability. As they isolate in specific morphologies, they vary LESS, not more. They devolve, and have less diversity. ALL ORGANISMS are at the tips of their phylogenetic tree, and many low diversity organisms have become extinct, lacking the necessary genetic options to adapt to changing environments.

THAT is observable reality, not the far fetched BELIEF, that organisms are constantly generating new genes, new chromosomes, and new traits. They do not vary outside of their dna 'blueprint', but only produce what the parent stock offered.

It is simple science, with no need to muddy it with speculative theories and religious beliefs that are science fiction, not observable science.

 

[usfan]

The propaganda drums are pounding louder and louder, and any alternate observations, that do not fit the Official Narrative, are attacked relentlessly, with false accusations, caricatures, belittling and ridicule. I am not going to be distracted from the science of this topic, even if i point out the fallacious 'reasoning' from time to time, or trade a few barbs with the hecklers.

SCIENCE, not belief, or Indoctrination, is the subject here. Parroting memorized dogma, force fed from agenda driven institutions is not 'scientific evidence!' Neither is setting up straw men to shoot full of arrows, or throwing wave after wave of ad hominem grenades at the 'evil blasphemers!', who dare challenge the sacred cows of evolutionary belief.

I offer Reason and Scientific methodology. We can examine the actual concepts, not just parrot definitions, or hide behind walls of obfuscating techno babble.

Living things do not 'change', as the common descent Believers suggest. Organisms remain true to their genetic blueprint, and can only vary within their existing options.

Variability WITHIN a phylogenetic structure does not compel a BELIEF that organisms can vary WITHOUT that structure. No evidence has ever been observed to show that to even be possible, much less that it actually did happen, is happening, or can happen. It is a religious conjecture, to prop up a religious belief. It has no basis in observable science.

Howling with Righteous Indignation and faux outrage is not evidence of common descent. Deflecting with personal attacks, false accusations, cherry picked 'gotcha!' phrases and other such 'poison the well' fallacies do not support the belief in common descent.

Believe what you want. My roots are in the Enlightenment, the reformation, and the Age of Reason.. i accept diversity of belief. And i esteem scientific methodology, as a vehicle of discovery. But to attempt to hijack 'science!' as a propaganda meme for a religious opinion does violence to True Science, and shows the perpetrators as agents of propaganda, not practitioners of the scientific method.

 

[usfan]

The genome in a specific organism does not 'change!', in its basic structure. There are mutations constantly happening, most of which are deleterious to the organism, but some are neutral. But even mutation does not change the architecture of an organism into different genes with different traits. It is a leap of faith to correlate the minor horizontal variations and/or mutations into the BELIEF in common descent. There is no evidence that changes like that are even possible. They are only imagined, with plausible conjecture.

It is a FLAWED CONCLUSION, to extrapolate observable, repeatable variability WITHIN an organism to wholesale architectural changes in the genome.

You can belittle me all you want. It does not change observable reality. That only exposes you as propagandists, not scientific minded seekers of truth.

If you want me to examine any studies, present them without the gratuitous ad hom. Otherwise, i can only lump the posts with the hecklers. I suspect that is the reason.. they do not want a critical examination of the dubious claims made, but demand they be accepted on authority.

 

[usfan]

As long as he has a few enablers.

Projection. You hecklers enable each other, pile on with hysteria, and belittle me constantly. I stand alone, with Scientific Truth. You guys run in terror from that, and depend on fallacies.

Anyone here have the balls to examine the evidence for common descent? Or do you prefer the 'arguments', from hysterical religious fanatics?

Don't you have some other threads you started to heckle and demean me, personally? You have to thread**** in this one, too? No problem.. you can thread$hit wherever you want..

Propagandists hate science, but they love fallacies..

 

[tas8831]

There was another poster on here--a drive by poster it turns out--that someone pointed out was on Quora and had written the exact same material as they were posting on here. Now that I think about it, that may have been you that revealed him/her/it.

They are like street preachers on the internet.

Yeah, that was me (actually, the Quora dude was active on Christianforums, but he may have been here also). He plagiarized a LOT, yet when caught, he would insist that he had never heard of the essay that he... copy-pasted... He was another of those 'decades of study'-types. In his case, it was a mere 3 decades...
One example:
Does science actually admit "design"?

 

[tas8831]

Projection. You hecklers enable each other, pile on with hysteria, and belittle me constantly.

You poor martyr.

I stand alone, with Scientific Truth.

I don;t think you know what that even means.

You guys run in terror from that, and depend on fallacies.

Yes, that is why I wasted hours refuting your Canidae post and exposing your ignorance of basic science.

Anyone here have the balls to examine the evidence for common descent?

Yes - but your treatment of it is rather naive and child-like. Your pseudo-machismo is boring, and it really isn't working, seeing as how you simply ignore or whine about rebuttals to your uninformed assertions.

Or do you prefer the 'arguments', from hysterical religious fanatics?

No, your arguments are rather boring and trite. I would prefer a creationist that at least has a basic understanding of science and does rely on name-calling and dodging as much as you do.,

Don't you have some other threads you started to heckle and demean me, personally?

No - I had one in which I re-posted my refutation of your naive take on the Canid paper, but someone whined to the admin and it was removed.

You have to thread$hit in this one, too? No problem.. you can thread$hit wherever you want..

Such a tough guy - sorry that this is the only way you learned to reply to people that have refuted your claims. Rather childish, don;t you think?
Maybe you should spend less time being a boastful incel-type and spend some actual time trying to understand the things you pretend to know about.

I mean, this really sums your knowledge up pretty well:

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

Propagandists hate science, but they love fallacies..

And simpletons cannot even realize when they've engaged in projection.


It is so weird how despite the fact that you claim to know the material, to want to discuss science and all that, all you ever focus on are things you can whine about and use as an excuse to avoid having to address any science. It is very much as if you are afraid of dealing with it all.


Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

And:

So you cannot answer these questions:

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!


Got it .


You can rant and rave and whine and ignore all you want - none of that will make you correct. None of that will help your religion right and evolution wrong. None of that will make anyone believe your claim of 4 decades of study - especially when you cannot even get basic definitions correct (and I won't even mention your double standards).
But no, you keep doing what you are doing. People like you are a major force in driving fence-sitters away from evangelical conservatism.

 

[tas8831]

The genome in a specific organism does not 'change!', in its basic structure.

What do you mean "basic structure"?

There are mutations constantly happening, most of which are deleterious to the organism, but some are neutral.

And some are beneficial. More than previously thought.

But even mutation does not change the architecture of an organism into different genes with different traits.

Again, what does that even mean? You do not seem to understand the relationship of the genotype to the phenotype. You seem to be among the horde of creationists that bel;ieve that there is some kind of 1-to-1 relationship between mutations (or in your case 'genome structure' ) and phenotype.
There isn't.

It is a leap of faith to correlate the minor horizontal variations and/or mutations into the BELIEF in common descent.

Not as much of a leap as thinking that the use of inept terminology makes an argument.

There is no evidence that changes like that are even possible. They are only imagined, with plausible conjecture.

You simply ignore/dismiss the evidence, so that must make it easy to keep believing that you have an argument. You accept such evidence when you think it supports your position, you dismiss or ignore the same evidence if it supports evolution. Your antics are not that clever or original.

It is a FLAWED CONCLUSION, to extrapolate observable, repeatable variability WITHIN an organism to wholesale architectural changes in the genome.

Ah, so you DO think that genome "architecture" must change for some reason.

You give no reasons, rationale or evidence for that, you just believe it.

You can belittle me all you want. It does not change observable reality. That only exposes you as propagandists, not scientific minded seekers of truth.

I only belittle those that embellish their ego and expect others to bow down to their fake knowledge. You do not even understand basic concepts like "haplogroup", yet you think you have a command of the entire field of genetics and evolutionary biology.

If you sought scientific truth as you pretend to, you would actually address THE SCIENCE instead of whining about meanies. You spend more posts whining and dodgiung than discussing the science.
Like you did with these -


Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

And:

So you cannot answer these questions:

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.

You just found ways to ignore/dismiss them.

"Too long" you said.
"wall of text" you said.
"ad hom" you said.

And you not once actually addressed ANYTHING in those posts.

If you want me to examine any studies, present them without the gratuitous ad hom. Otherwise, i can only lump the posts with the hecklers. I suspect that is the reason.. they do not want a critical examination of the dubious claims made, but demand they be accepted on authority.

Poor baby.

I don't care if you address them or not - I have seen how you "address" science that does not prop up your fantasies.

You don't.

 

[usfan]

Here is a link to a 'proof of evolution!' Article..

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html

It provides no evidence, but only speculation & 'plausible' possibilities.

"Many cellular processes are carried out by molecular machines assemblies of multiple differentiated proteins that physically interact to execute biological functions1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Despite much speculation, strong evidence of the mechanisms by which these assemblies evolved is lacking. Here we use ancestral gene resurrection 9, 10, 11 and manipulative genetic experiments to determine how the complexity of an essential molecular machine, the hexameric transmembrane ring of the eukaryotic V-ATPase proton pump, increased hundreds of millions of years ago. We show that the ring of Fungi, which is composed of three paralogous proteins, evolved from a more ancient two-paralogue complex because of a gene duplication that was followed by loss in each daughter copy of specific interfaces by which it interacts with other ring proteins. These losses were complementary, so both copies became obligate components with restricted spatial roles in the complex. Reintroducing a single historical mutation from each paralogue lineage into the resurrected ancestral proteins is sufficient to recapitulate their asymmetric degeneration and trigger the requirement for the more elaborate three-component ring. Our experiments show that increased complexity in an essential molecular machine evolved because of simple, high-probability evolutionary processes, without the apparent evolution of novel functions. They point to a plausible mechanism for the evolution of complexity in other multi-paralogue protein complexes.."

Now i will readily admit that this article is full to the brim with pseudo science jargon, attempting to mask what they are saying with complex, 'sciencey!' sounding words. But if you can follow plain english, & sift through the bull, you can understand what is being said.

Above, the phrases, 'ancestral gene resurrection', & 'manipulative genetic experiments' evidently refer to some computer models they have plugged the data into. It's not clear WHAT the 'experiment' is, but it is not anything real.. just some calculations based on assumptions about something they speculate that happened 'hundreds of millions of years ago'! Are you guys THAT desperate? Do you have NO skepticism? They don't have any genes from 'hundreds of millions of years ago'! They have not 'resurrected' any ancestral genes! They made a computer model based on what they want to find.. no doubt to renew a grant or something.

This is not scientific research, it is pseudo science gobbledy gook. It may fool gullible people who are impressed with words they don't understand, & give the appearance of scientific credibility because of that, but it is merely a cobbled jumble of meaningless words.. put together to say nothing. Obfuscation is the goal, not enlightenment.

This is one of the most blatant, absurd excuses for science.. i am appalled that this is read by thinking people who give it credibility. ..and they want to charge for the full text..

It shows me how pathetically ignorant people are about the ToE. They eagerly swallow up this crap, but cry, 'Blasphemy' over any critique or examination of the actual SCIENCE behind the 'theory'. Someday, the ToE will go the way of the flat earth theory, or the sun revolving around the earth.. or maybe using leeches to draw out bad blood.. I won't probably be around to see it, but eventually, real science will overcome this philosophical propaganda they pitch as 'science'.

 

[usfan]

I only belittle those that embellish their ego and expect others to bow down to their fake knowledge. You do not even understand

I cannot, or will not, debate deceptive propagandists. Your trademark 'belittling' outs you.

 

[usfan]

No - I had one in which I re-posted my refutation of your naive take on the Canid paper, but someone whined to the admin and it was removed.

Really? Your post was removed? I paid it little attention, and glaze over once the barrage of ad hom starts, but i did not report anything or anyone. That's not my style. I take you on directly, or ignore your posts. I don't use the censorship of moderation to make my points.. that's usually your schtick..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Projection. You hecklers enable each other, pile on with hysteria, and belittle me constantly. I stand alone, with Scientific Truth. You guys run in terror from that, and depend on fallacies.

Anyone here have the balls to examine the evidence for common descent? Or do you prefer the 'arguments', from hysterical religious fanatics?

Don't you have some other threads you started to heckle and demean me, personally? You have to thread$hit in this one, too? No problem.. you can thread$hit wherever you want..

Propagandists hate science, but they love fallacies..

Why do you always openly lie about others?