Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Skreeper]

Obviously. But i offer them as a critical examination of the mandated, indoctrinated belief in common descent.
Skepticism and critical thinking are cornerstones of science. Dutifully believing Indoctrination is for compliant bobbleheads.

Sure, you're the woke one here.

We are the sheep who blindly follow the evil scientists and their secret agenda with their evidence and theories and all that useless junk.

Thank you, random forum poster with no credentials, for exposing the evolution agenda. Your hours of google searches really make you an equal to the decades of learning and studying and working in the field biologists go through.

*slow clap*

 

[usfan]

We are the sheep who blindly follow the evil scientists and their secret agenda with their evidence and theories and all that useless junk.

1. What 'evidence!'? That is the point of this thread, to examine this alleged evidence.
2. You BELIEVE in 'Really Smart People', who you think have 'all this evidence!' But it is indoctrination, not science. There is no evidence, as is painfully evident to the indoctrinees here, so they lash out at me, personally.
3. The scientific method is not owned by ideologues nor propagandists. Anyone with minimal reasoning ability can employ it as a dispassionate tool of discovery.
4. The BELIEF in common descent is a fine religio/philosophical, belief/opinion. It just lacks scientific credibility and evidence, and is NO WAY, 'settled science!', like the indoctrinees believe.
5. There IS an anti-Christian, anti-God agenda, with ideologues promoting THEIR religious opinions/worldview, and banning any from the competition. Whether this is 'evil!' .... ..i leave to you.

 

[Skreeper]

1. What 'evidence!'? That is the point of this thread, to examine this alleged evidence.
2. You BELIEVE in 'Really Smart People', who you think have 'all this evidence!' But it is indoctrination, not science. There is no evidence, as is painfully evident to the indoctrinees here, so they lash out at me, personally.
3. The scientific method is not owned by ideologues nor propagandists. Anyone with minimal reasoning ability can employ it as a dispassionate tool of discovery.
4. The BELIEF in common descent is a fine religio/philosophical, belief/opinion. It just lacks scientific credibility and evidence, and is NO WAY, 'settled science!', like the indoctrinees believe.
5. There IS an anti-Christian, anti-God agenda, with ideologues promoting THEIR religious opinions/worldview, and banning any from the competition. Whether this is 'evil!' .... ..i leave to you.

You remind me of flat earthers. They too claim to base their position on the scientific method. They too claim that the BELIEVE in a spherical earth is just an opinion and not settled science. They too claim that scientist and NASA are only using indoctrination, not science.

Taking this into account, I think we can safely ignore your ramblings as nothing more than hot air coming from a religious nutcase who is mad his faith based position isn't accepted by scientists.

 

[usfan]

Flaws in the theory of common descent:

Breeding/Natural Selection

If common descent was a real phenomenon, new genes, new traits, and new genotypes would be appearing all the time. But what do we observe? The opposite.

1. Breeding and natural selection are a DEVOLVING process. Fewer traits become available, as specific ones are 'selected' by man or nature. Eventually, a very narrow, homogeneous morphology is all that remains.
2. It is BELIEVED and ASSERTED, that new traits and genes are 'created', on the fly, by living organisms, but other than the adaptability of some bacteria and viruses, there is nothing to observe, and no mechanism to define that process in all other living things. We can't even identify it in bacteria and viruses, just assume it, based on their ability to adapt.
3. Organisms that devolve into low diversity conditions, do not conjure up new adaptive traits. They go extinct, locked in the limited selection of their gene pool.
4. The phylogenetic tree, for each distinct haplogroup/genotype/family/genus.. is a record of decreasing diversity, as the tips of the branches show LESS DIVERSITY, than the parent organisms. They become locked in genetic homogeneity, and if their environment changes, and they lack the necessary traits to adapt, they go extinct.
5. Those who claim that living things 'create' new traits, genes, and features are tasked with defining and demonstrating the mechanisms involved. Merely asserting it, or believing strongly, or ridiculing alternate caricatures, does not provide evidence for this belief.

This alleged phenomenon cannot be observed, is contrary to observable, experiential science, and becomes more absurd as the science of genetics unfolds. It is a belief, dogmatically indoctrinated into gullible people from infancy. Someday, it will go the way of flat earth theories, spontaneous generation, leeches, and the 4 humors, but it is the Officially Mandated Belief, for now.

 

[usfan]

You remind me of flat earthers. They too claim to base their position on the scientific method. They too claim that the BELIEVE in a spherical earth is just an opinion and not settled science. They too claim that scientist and NASA are only using indoctrination, not science.

Taking this into account, I think we can safely ignore your ramblings as nothing more than hot air coming from a religious nutcase who is mad his faith based position isn't accepted by scientists.

While you were busy poisoning the well, concocting association fallacies, and deflecting with ad hom, i typed the above argument and observation about breeding and selection.

You certainly can believe (and ignore) whomever and whatever you want.

..just don't pretend scientific objectivity for what can only be a religious belief.. your fallacies do not support your beliefs, nor do they provide evidence for common descent.

 

[Skreeper]

While you were busy poisoning the well, concocting association fallacies, and deflecting with ad hom, i typed the above argument and observation about breeding and selection.

You certainly can believe (and ignore) whomever and whatever you want.

..just don't pretend scientific objectivity for what can only be a religious belief.. your fallacies do not support your beliefs, nor do they provide evidence for common descent.

You can wake me as soon as you have convinced the scientific community of your fringe views.

I'm really not sure why you're not talking to them instead of wasting your time here. We are no experts, we can't change the current scientific consensus.

Write an article, get it published and peer-reviewed since you seem to know so much about this topic.

 

[usfan]

You can wake me as soon as you have convinced the scientific community of your fringe views.

I'm really not sure why you're not talking to them instead of wasting your time here. We are no experts, we can't change the current scientific consensus.

Write an article, get it published and peer-reviewed since you seem to know so much about this topic.

No problem. This is just a topic of discussion. I'm not out to change the world.. ..it's a logical exercise, for forum entertainment. I'm not sure why some people get so worked up over a scientific theory..

..probably better to trust the Really Smart People.. that way we don't have to think for ourselves!

 

[Skreeper]

..probably better to trust the Really Smart People.. that way we don't have to think for ourselves!

I cannot commit a lot of time studying every single scientific field for myself. I rely on experts every day in my life, it's just much more practical.
I assume you do too or do you question everything other people tell you, like your doctor?

Just because I trust a doctor, professor or mechanic to give me accurate information doesn't mean I don't think for myself. But I have enough respect for their expertise that I don't question everything they tell me when they have shown to be a reliable source of information.

 

[usfan]

I cannot commit a lot of time studying every single scientific field for myself. I rely on experts every day in my life, it's just much more practical.
I assume you do too or do you question everything other people tell you, like your doctor?

Just because I trust a doctor, professor or mechanic to give me accurate information doesn't mean I don't think for myself. But I have enough respect for their expertise that I don't question everything they tell me when they have shown to be a reliable source of information.

Sure. But if some doctor says you have a 'Brain Cloud', or something, would you not investigate and research the diagnosis? Would you trust someone's opinion if your life was on the line? Or would you investigate the evidence and reasoning thoroughly?

Personally, i am too much of a skeptic.. always have been. I have seen too many instances of hidden agendas, conflict of interest, laziness, and indifference to trust any so-called 'experts!' for anything of significance and importance.

The, 'Trust me, I'm from the government,' appeal is for bobbleheads, not critically thinking people.

 

[Skreeper]

Sure. But if some doctor says you have a 'Brain Cloud', or something, would you not investigate and research the diagnosis? Would you trust someone's opinion if your life was on the line? Or would you investigate the evidence and reasoning thoroughly?

If my doctor tells me I have cancer then I'm going to get a second opinion from a different doctor to confirm the diagnosis.
I am certainly not going to waste time asking doctor google or random people on the internet. The chance that my own research, as a person that has basically no training in medicine, comes up with a more accurate or different conclusion is very unlikely.

There is a place for scepticism, but there is no place for your hyper scepticism. Because that is boderline paranoia when you don't trust anybody.

 

[Polymath257]

Flaws in the theory of common descent:

Breeding/Natural Selection

If common descent was a real phenomenon, new genes, new traits, and new genotypes would be appearing all the time. But what do we observe? The opposite.

1. Breeding and natural selection are a DEVOLVING process. Fewer traits become available, as specific ones are 'selected' by man or nature. Eventually, a very narrow, homogeneous morphology is all that remains.

False. We see much more variation in, say, dogs, than we do in the parent population of wolves. Most of the wide variety of characteristics we see in the many dog breeds never show up in wolves. Those are all *new* traits.

2. It is BELIEVED and ASSERTED, that new traits and genes are 'created', on the fly, by living organisms, but other than the adaptability of some bacteria and viruses, there is nothing to observe, and no mechanism to define that process in all other living things. We can't even identify it in bacteria and viruses, just assume it, based on their ability to adapt.

Evolution *is* adaptation extended over multiple generations.

And yes, we *do* have mechanisms for new traits being 'created': gene duplication and subsequent modification is one common mechanism. We see it in globin genes, for example.

3. Organisms that devolve into low diversity conditions, do not conjure up new adaptive traits. They go extinct, locked in the limited selection of their gene pool.

If the rate of new mutations is small compared to the evolutionary stress, then the species will go extinct. The mutation rate is fairly constant, but needs time to produce the variability to allow further adaptation.

4. The phylogenetic tree, for each distinct haplogroup/genotype/family/genus.. is a record of decreasing diversity, as the tips of the branches show LESS DIVERSITY, than the parent organisms. They become locked in genetic homogeneity, and if their environment changes, and they lack the necessary traits to adapt, they go extinct.

Again, simply false. The diversity is in the range of species. And that increases.

5. Those who claim that living things 'create' new traits, genes, and features are tasked with defining and demonstrating the mechanisms involved. Merely asserting it, or believing strongly, or ridiculing alternate caricatures, does not provide evidence for this belief.

This is a repeat of one above. Already answered.

This alleged phenomenon cannot be observed, is contrary to observable, experiential science, and becomes more absurd as the science of genetics unfolds. It is a belief, dogmatically indoctrinated into gullible people from infancy. Someday, it will go the way of flat earth theories, spontaneous generation, leeches, and the 4 humors, but it is the Officially Mandated Belief, for now.

No, it is NOT contrary to what we know of genetics. It is, in fact, an observed phenomenon in multiple genes. We see duplication and subsequent mutation in many different gene lines, from the globin genes, to the serine proteases, to the G proteins, etc. In ALL of these, duplication and subsequent mutation have produced new capabilities.

 

[usfan]

There is a place for scepticism, but there is no place for your hyper scepticism. Because that is boderline paranoia when you don't trust anybody.

No problem. Believe and trust whom and what you want. ..Ok if i do the same?

 

[usfan]

False. We see much more variation in, say, dogs, than we do in the parent population of wolves. Most of the wide variety of characteristics we see in the many dog breeds never show up in wolves. Those are all *new* traits.

I addressed the evidence of canidae in the earlier post. I'll make a few points afterward.

Since the thread is going to the dogs, and, since many posters are being dogmatic, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae..

What does man's best friend have to say about universal common descent?

I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about dogs, & their genetic base.

Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics:

1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. the origin of the huge morphological diversity that led Darwin to his speculation remains largely unknown
2. All of the current variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old
3. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about.selection acts upon existing variability
4. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent, according to the time frame in the UCD model. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population
5. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.

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

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

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

From the link:
"Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green."

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is indicate descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. There is no evidence for those speculations.

Canidae shows diversity and adaptability. There is no evidence they shared ancestry with felids, equids, or any other haplogroup. We can follow the MICRO variations within canidae, but there is NOTHING to suggest they were once of a different genetic structure, or varied to or from a MACRO change. Canids have always been canids, and always produce canids, though with reduced variability, as we reach the ends of the branches in their haplotree.

And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed. But leaping to 'common descent!', based on the diversity within canidae is unwarranted, unscientific, and unbelievable..

Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc. The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together. Canidae, for the most part, consists of the single haplogroup of genetic commonality and evidenced descendancy. Genetics has replaced and updated the old morphological taxonomic classifications, which were one limited to 'looks like!' correlation. Now, we have hard science, not just speculation.

Quotes from the referenced study:

1. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population.
2. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.
3. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old..
4. selection acts upon existing variability..

The diversity that was once in the ancestors of the canid line, has DECREASED, as each branch of the tree dead ends in limited diversity. Even contemporary wolves are tips of the branches, lacking the diversity the parent population once had.

This canid study is about mtDNA, but the FACTS about descendancy are plainly illustrated.

 

[Polymath257]

I addressed the evidence of canidae in the earlier post. I'll make a few points afterward.


Quotes from the referenced study:

1. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population.

Really? Show that any of the characteristics of modern dogs existed in the ancestral wolf population.

2. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.

Except, of course, through the techniques we actually used: selective breeding, which speeds up things considerably.

3. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old..

And is there any evidence such variation existed in the wolf population? Care to do a genetic sweep and see if there are any new/different genes in modern dogs and wolves? I'd bet there are a host of genes we will find in dogs and not in wolves.

4. selection acts upon existing variability..

Yes, and mutation produces said variability. In a population that is reasonably stable (no selection pressures), variability will increase to the point where it causes an unstable population.

The diversity that was once in the ancestors of the canid line, has DECREASED, as each branch of the tree dead ends in limited diversity. Even contemporary wolves are tips of the branches, lacking the diversity the parent population once had.

I'd love to see your study of ancient wolf DNA to support this claim.

This canid study is about mtDNA, but the FACTS about descendancy are plainly illustrated.

mtDNA is NOT the basis of variability in dogs, so is irrelevant.

 

[usfan]

Really? Show that any of the characteristics of modern dogs existed in the ancestral wolf population.

..that was the goal of the study.. to show actual descendancy, based on mtDNA evidence. Both modern wolves AND all dog breeds are descended from a common ancestor, that ONCE HAD the diversity to 'create' each haplotype. As they spread to the tips of the phylogenetic tree, that diversity became localized in morphological homogeneity.. they became less varied, and produced fewer diverse cosmetic traits.

..the same has happened with other genus/family/haplogroups .. man diversified LESS, as we became reproductively isolated, and homologous differences became less pronounced. Only when we RE-ENTER the genetic diversity, and expand the gene pool to more options, do the other traits become available. They do not create themselves. They can only be drawn on from the gene pool of the parents.

That is observable, repeatable science, that we have used and observed for millennia.

 

[Polymath257]

..that was the goal of the study.. to show actual descendancy, based on mtDNA evidence. Both modern wolves AND all dog breeds are descended from a common ancestor, that ONCE HAD the diversity to 'create' each haplotype. As they spread to the tips of the phylogenetic tree, that diversity became licalized in morphological homogeneity.. the became less varied, and produced fewer diverse cosmetic traits.

Descendancy is not the same as ancient diversity.

..the same has happened with other genus/family/haplogroups .. man diversified LESS, as we became reproductively isolated, and homologous differences became less pronounced. Only when we RE-ENTER the genetic diversity, and expand the gene pool to more options, do the other traits become available. They do not create themselves. They can only be drawn on from the gene pool of the parents.

That is observable, repeatable science, that we have used and observed for millennia.

No, we know of many circumstances where NEW traits were the result of single mutations that did not exist in the ancestral population. The diversity develops over time and did NOT previously exist.

Are we talking about morphological diversity? Or genetic diversity? And do you realize that using myDNA to determine a common ancestor does NOT show that diversity decreased (because that is for nuclear DNA)?

 

[usfan]

Descendancy is not the same as ancient diversity.

No, we know of many circumstances where NEW traits were the result of single mutations that did not exist in the ancestral population. The diversity develops over time and did NOT previously exist.

Are we talking about morphological diversity? Or genetic diversity? And do you realize that using myDNA to determine a common ancestor does NOT show that diversity decreased (because that is for nuclear DNA)?

1. Post one experimental study where new genes, or traits were created, and proved that they were not already there. That is the goal of this thread: evidence of common descent.
2. The morphological AND genetic diversity are reflected in the child descendants. The morphology is a visual, 'looks like!' observation, while the genetics provides hard science for that result. Less morphological differences? = Less genes to draw from.

The mtDNA only shows actual descendancy. Observation of less diversity is shown throughout the phylogenetic tree.

 

[Polymath257]

1. Post one experimental study where new genes, or traits were created, and proved that they were not already there. That is the goal of this thread: evidence of common descent.

OK, so to be clear. You want a case of a gene that we know is new. That was not in the ancestral population *anywhere*. Right?

Would it be enough for you to simply know it wasn't in the genome of either parent? Alternatively, is it enough to show that a small change in a common gene would produce the observed new gene?

2. The morphological AND genetic diversity are reflected in the child
descendants. The morphology is a visual, 'looks like!' observation, while the genetics provides hard science for that result. Less morphological differences? = Less genes to draw from.

Doesn't quite work that way in practice. there can be a LOT of genetic diversity that doesn't show up morphologically because the relevant genes are recessive, for example.

The mtDNA only shows actual descendancy. Observation of less diversity is shown throughout the tree.

Funny, I actually see MUCH more diversity in dogs than I do in wolves.

Would examples of dog genes that are not in any wolf population we can find be enough for you to accept the genes are new in the dogs?

 

[usfan]

Would examples of dog genes that are not in any wolf population we can find be enough for you to accept the genes are new in the dogs?

All that does is show BOTH dog breeds and wolves as tips of the canid tree.

Genetically, the wolf is the same as a dog. They can interbreed, which shows them as the same 'species', and they are similar both morphologically and genetically. There is more diversity among canids than most other haplogroups, yet they have not become reproductively isolated.

The condition of domestication is a man bred trait.. genetically, the wolf and dog are of the same haplogroup, or genotype. IOW, the wolf (many varieties) are just canids, like dogs. They descended from the same ancestor, and became morphologically homogeneous through man made or natural selection.

There is still a lot of variability within canidae, and new breeds (of all canids) continually present themselves. But the SOURCE of that genetic information is deep within the gene pool, and has limited presentation. There is no mechanism to 'create' new traits. Only by 'selecting' the traits, can they become regular occurrences in the new clade or breed.

 

[usfan]

BTW, Poly, thanks for the civil, rational discussion. I was beginning to despair that to be possible in this environment!