Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Bear Wild]

I assume that you are not speaking of comblike plates for feeding on planktonic crustaceans but of human and other organism prion virus diseases.

Prion Diseases | CDC
"The functions of these normal prion proteins are still not completely understood."

It is interesting that you chose something very rare. I applaud you for this. You are causing me to have to think.

Could they not possibly be a dna or rna mutations due to species mutations, not a disease, per se?

Where did viruses come from?
I would say that this shows that prions are not necessarily organisms but genomic changes to organisms.

Are Viruses Living?
Virues are not living organisms.

To me, prions are similar to brain plaques. There are other than organic organisms which cause diseases and mutations in organisms including human beings. I would consider prions to be such things.

Is there anything I overlooked here?

I am familiar with them because I have treated several cases. They are not brain plaques and they are not organisms yet they replicate and are considered a disease.

 

[Neutral Name]

I am familiar with them because I have treated several cases. They are not brain plaques and they are not organisms yet they replicate and are considered a disease.

I didn't say that they were brain plaques. I said that they could be similar in the fact that they might not be organisms on their own. In fact, they are not. I only used brain plaques as an example. I'm sorry that you have not understood what I have said. What I am saying is that they are parasites, only able to survive when feeding from the body of another organism. Ok, let's say like protozoa. Forget brain plaques. Is that better?

 

[Neutral Name]

Are prions actually organisms? They create themselves.

I'm not sure that they do create themselves. I don't think that enough is known about them. It is known that they are not organisms. So, until more is known about them, we won't know what they actually are. There are only hypotheses currently.

 

[tas8831]

You have yet to explain, or provide a rationale, or give examples regarding this 'requirement' for "new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome " in order for 'macroevolution' (which you also have not defined) to have occurred.

Why are "new genes" required for macroevolution (as you define it)? And what is your evidence for this?

What are "structural changes in the genome" required? I have provided evidence that major structural differences in genome architecture can produce creatures with strikingly similar morphology that are interfertile - where is your evidence that such changes would be required?

New traits are a given, but that is easy - unless you have a unique definition for 'trait' as well?

Isn't it informative that this was ignored, yet time was taken to write a complaint post about something else I had posted.

One might see this behavior as avoidance.

 

[Neutral Name]

Where did you ever learn that? It really is not "basic science".

The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. Conservation of mass - mass can neither be created or destroyed. Is there anything I forgot to mention, like space and time. I'll go there too if you need.

 

[Neutral Name]

Not necessarily as all the components of organic molecules are inorganic. Carbon, for example, is obviously inorganic, and yet it is a basic component in living organisms.

Now, don't get me wrong, as I have no idea how life first started.

I do have to say to you that organisms are much different than organic particles or molecules. Everything is atoms, even rocks but rocks aren't alive. We use charcoal (carbon) to barbeque but charcoal is not alive. The most interesting thing to me is how did organisms first form and how do they continue to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. Conservation of mass - mass can neither be created or destroyed. Is there anything I forgot to mention, like space and time. I'll go there too if you need.

Right, and as I explained already the measured total energy of the universe is as closely as can be determined zero. That includes all versions of energy including energy in the form of mass. A universe from nothing does not violate that law.

Seriously you should invest an hour and watch Krauss's video.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do have to say to you that organisms are much different than organic particles or molecules. Everything is atoms, even rocks but rocks aren't alive. We use charcoal (carbon) to barbeque but charcoal is not alive. The most interesting thing to me is how did organisms first form and how do they continue to do so.

Where and how life arose is the study of abiogenesis. So far there is no indication of any natural hurdle that would prevent life from arising on its own, and some, but clearly not all, questions of that process have been answered.

But again that is a different field than evolution. I take it that you have no problem with the theory of evolution.

 

[gnostic]

I do have to say to you that organisms are much different than organic particles or molecules. Everything is atoms, even rocks but rocks aren't alive. We use charcoal (carbon) to barbeque but charcoal is not alive. The most interesting thing to me is how did organisms first form and how do they continue to do so.

And your point being?

The normal human body is made of around 60 to 65% water (H2O), but it isn't alive. And yet, it is essential for life to remain hydrated, especially humans.

Yes, how organisms form for the first time, is interesting, but that Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is still an ongoing hypothesis for field in biochemistry, which any biology students and biologists don't have to study or agree on in their current fields.

Abiogenesis don't affect other fields of knowledge in biology, and evolution isn't affected in any way, since it is a different type of field.

 

[usfan]

The terms micro and macro evolution are descriptors and are not about the mechanisms.

Exactly. They describe 2 different concepts..
Micro: horizontal changes WITHIN an organism. Man made breeding & natural selection are observable and repeatable as scientifically verifiable processes.
Macro: the extrapolation that the variability observed in micro accumulate and can change an organism's genomic architecture. It is not observed, cannot be demonstrated as a possibility, and is believed, by faith.

Yes we have evidence for major changes as the accumulation of small changes over time.

Show me one. You merely assert this without evidence.

The fossil evidence gives the evidence of progressive change and the development of types of organisms

How? You assert a vague reference to 'fossils!', but show no evidence that the drawings, phylogenetic trees, and speculations have any scientific basis. They are props for a religious theory.

Comparison of the different phyla genetics supports what we see in the fossil evidence.

.again, you assert with no corroboration. This is an argument of plausibility. Because you can construct a plausible scenario, with a chart showing imagined progressions, does not make it real. The times and alleged chronologies don't even support the theory, so 'millions of years!' is tossed in to mask the problems in ambiguity.

Embryology associated with some important segments of the DNA explain how minimal changes in the DNA can create major difference in the development and appearance. Just look at how one or two changes in the foxp2 gene create major changes in the organism or the homeobox genes.

? Really? Embryology does all that? This is vague, unsourced, and has the look and feel of obfuscating with techno babble. I see no point, no reference, no study, just assertions with some innuendo to some secret 'knowledge!' that proves common descent.

If you are presenting this as evidence, do it. Make the argument, source the data, and allow me to examine it. Vague allusions to some gene, and 'embryology!', does not constitute an argument nor evidence.

There is not one part of the study of evolution that supports common descent there are multiple aspects of evolutionary theory that support each other and the understanding of common decent. I have mention a few. Each could be discussed at length.

Then do it. Present ONE aspect that supports this theory, not just assertions of 'all this evidence!', that cannot be specified .

Your argument has no support. None. Just your opinion which unfortunately blinds you from reality does not allow you to see how it all fits together no matter how much you are given and the members of this forum have given you so much which you do not appreciate .

Too bad. You have devolved again into ad hom.

Instead of worrying about my understanding, why not demonstrate yours? Show me the evidence, not just fallacies. Poisoning the well and trying to discredit me is a desperate attempt to mask the impotence of your own arguments.

That ignorance you posses can be corrected by listening to those helping you to understand. Ignoring all that has been presented only continues the ignorance. You have to want to learn which will not happen as long as your mind is closed.

Right. Then refute my pathetic ignorance with facts and evidence, instead of going on and on about how stupid i am..


This is just ad hominem deflection, and does not support your argument for common descent.

Evidence. That is the challenge here. Not me. Not your beliefs and assertions. ..Scientific Evidence that supports your belief in common descent.

Otherwise, you have blind faith, not science.

 

[usfan]

There are a lot of buzz words tossed about, that seem to refer to talking points and memorized dogma that affirms the belief in common descent. The Indoctrination that went on for YEARS.. decades, for most, has overcome any natural doubt or skepticism, and since scientific methodology is not used in this theory, but mandated acceptance, the idea that this 'could be wrong', is unthinkable. It would destroy the tidy little formulas and constructs that are woven together in this worldview.

DNA!
Nested heirarchies!
Embryology!
Phylogenetic tree!
Allelle frequency!
Mutation!
Millions of years!
Fossils!
E.coli!
Vestigiality!

..these and many others are buzz words or phrases that trigger endorphins, or something, that soothe the indoctrinees, and put them into a trance-like state.. an almost hypnotic, transcendental frame of mind. And any who upset that comfortable feeling are viewed as blasphemers and enemies.

But that indicates a religious debate, not a scientific one. This is supposed to be an examination of the scientific evidence for common descent. It is widely believed.. some with impassioned zeal.. but is it valid as a scientific theory?

That is the question i am examining here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are a lot of buzz words tossed about, that seem to refer to talking points and memorized dogma that affirms the belief in common descent. The Indoctrination that went on for YEARS.. decades, for most, has overcome any natural doubt or skepticism, and since scientific methodology is not used in this theory, but mandated acceptance, the idea that this 'could be wrong', is unthinkable. It would destroy the tidy little formulas and constructs that are woven together in this worldview.

DNA!
Nested heirarchies!
Embryology!
Phylogenetic tree!
Allelle frequency!
Mutation!
Millions of years!
Fossils!
E.coli!
Vestigiality!

..these and many others are buzz words or phrases that trigger endorphins, or something, that soothe the indoctrinees, and put them into a trance-like state.. an almost hypnotic, transcendental frame of mind. And any who upset that comfortable feeling are viewed as blasphemers and enemies.

But that indicates a religious debate, not a scientific one. This is supposed to be an examination of the scientific evidence for common descent. It is widely believed.. some with impassioned zeal.. but is it valid as a scientific theory?

That is the question i am examining here.

LOL! So "buzz words" are terminology that our dear OP does not understand.

 

[usfan]

LOL! So "buzz words" are terminology that our dear OP does not understand.

Still pounding the propaganda drum about MY understanding?

I know much of the lingo.. more than most here, and i can tell when techno babble is being employed, to OBFUSCATE the concepts, rather than enlighten.

Why not try to demonstrate your own understanding, instead of ad hom deflections about mine? ..since 'understanding!' seems to be your obsession.. my understanding, anyway..

Present your evidence, in a systematic, scientific manner. One point. A premise. Supporting references. Studies. Conclusions.. you know, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

..let that demonstrate your vast knowledge of the subject, rather than taking pot shots at what you project on me?

..progressive indoctrinees..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still pounding the propaganda drum about MY understanding?

Please do not lie about me. You either do not understand the concept of evidence or you are afraid to discuss it. Why isvthat?

I know much of the lingo.. more than most here, and i can tell when techno babble is being employed, to OBFUSCATE the concepts, rather than enlighten.

No, you only pretend and then complain when people use terms that you cannot understand.

Why not try to demonstrate your own understanding, instead of ad hom deflections about mine? ..since 'understanding!' seems to be your obsession.. my understanding, anyway..

Two more lies. No one "deflects" here except you and you still do not know what an ad hominem is. But yes, it is rather obvious that a person needs to understand a topic to debate it effectively.

Present your evidence, in a systematic, scientific manner. One point. A premise. Supporting references. Studies. Conclusions.. you know, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

But it appears that you do not understand the scientific method either. In fact without understanding the concept of scientific evidence it is all but impossible to understand the scientific method.

..let that demonstrate your vast knowledge of the subject, rather than taking pot shots at what you project on me?

..progressive indoctrinees..

And you have to end your post with another lie. I will be more than happy to go over the basics with you. Once we do that then we can move on to the evidence that you demand.

 

[tas8831]

There are a lot of buzz words tossed about, that seem to refer to talking points and memorized dogma that affirms the belief in common descent.

That is the question i am examining here.

You have yet to explain, or provide a rationale, or give examples regarding this 'requirement' for "new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome " in order for 'macroevolution' (which you also have not defined) to have occurred.

Why are "new genes" required for macroevolution (as you define it)? And what is your evidence for this?

What are "structural changes in the genome" required? I have provided evidence that major structural differences in genome architecture can produce creatures with strikingly similar morphology that are interfertile - where is your evidence that such changes would be required?

New traits are a given, but that is easy - unless you have a unique definition for 'trait' as well?

I see a lot of your buzzwords/phrases, but no science.

 

[tas8831]

LOL! So "buzz words" are terminology that our dear OP does not understand.

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

 

[tas8831]

This is just ad hominem deflection, and does not support your argument for common descent.

You ignore the arguments for common decent as being "too long" or for using 'science words.'

 

[tas8831]

Still pounding the propaganda drum about MY understanding?

I know much of the lingo.. more than most here, and i can tell when techno babble is being employed, to OBFUSCATE the concepts, rather than enlighten.

"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."

"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."​

Yup. 4 decades of study and we have the great lingo expert.

 

[tas8831]

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 simple 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.
5. Define "evidence"

 

[usfan]

Personal belittling, name calling, false accusations, cherry picked 'gotcha!' phrases, straw men, well poisoning, and ad hominem is not evidence for common descent.

Are the True Believers that dense, that they believe a flurry of angry indignation and ad hom provides evidence for their beliefs?

Pour it on. I really don't care if you can follow reason, or not. But its kind of pathetic.. all i do is point out your deflections. You have no arguments or evidence.