Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[shunyadragon]

Post 1: You are all wrong, Deceived and delusional. And you don't understand anything - creationism is TRUE and evolution is the devil!

Interesting plot for a grade D scifi flic.

...

Post 10: Golly, why are you guys so mean to me?

@usfan is suffering from self inflicted wounds. Time to get on his knees on the 10,000 marble steps with a cat of nine tails firmly in his grip.

 

[tas8831]

Felidae has been the target of much concern, regarding decreasing diversity. The cheetah has bee studied a lot, and is the poster child for dead end genetic diversity.

It seemed as though the ancestors of modern cheetahs had offloaded most of their endemic genetic variability, leaving a species dramatically reduced in genetic diversity.

Conservation Genetics of the Cheetah: Lessons Learned and New Opportunities

This is observable, repeatable science.

Golly, I wonder what a bottleneck of 2 would produce....

 

[tas8831]

The same responses have been presented numerous times by several people. The points that you are responding to are misinterpreted, but no amount of information has been successful at encouraging a rational re-interpretation based on evidence.

Indeed. "Heckler" accusations are around the bend...

 

[tas8831]

People have asked him to state his case and present the evidence for it. Rather than follow his backward request that was obvious attempt to shift his burden of proof. So far, none of the evidence presented to him has been accepted.

From what I have seen no type or amount of evidence is going to be enough to persuade him that his belief does not trump the evidence showing common descent.

Plus I mean come on - he has STUDIED this stuff for 40 years.... Who are we to disagree with the retired home builder turned creationist science expert?

 

[Bear Wild]

Plus I mean come on - he has STUDIED this stuff for 40 years.... Who are we to disagree with the retired home builder turned creationist science expert?

Yes 40 years of rhetoric with no evidence. If anyone has given excellent evidence you have. So what does he do? What he does best - belittle what is presented with absolutely no evidence of support. Then make derogatory statements to those who take the time to provide good evidence that disagrees with is view. Then switch the blame to those providing the evidence asked for as the ones making inappropriate comments. Fortunately most of those on this forum see through this rhetoric. By the way, thanks all the excellent information you provide.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes 40 years of rhetoric with no evidence. If anyone has given excellent evidence you have. So what does he do? What he does best - belittle what is presented with absolutely no evidence of support. Then make derogatory statements to those who take the time to provide good evidence that disagrees with is view. Then switch the blame to those providing the evidence asked for as the ones making inappropriate comments. Fortunately most of those on this forum see through this rhetoric. By the way, thanks all the excellent information you provide.

I will second that thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information?

Individuals are not constantly producing new genetic information. Populations of individuals over generations produce new genetic information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Plus I mean come on - he has STUDIED this stuff for 40 years.... Who are we to disagree with the retired home builder turned creationist science expert?

I know tenured faculty in numerous departments that would quake in their boots when confronted with such vast and comprehension science knowledge that I have seen. The entire haplotype/haplogroup issue would have them doubled over in agony.

From laughing their butts off.

 

[tas8831]

I know tenured faculty in numerous departments that would quake in their boots when confronted with such vast and comprehension science knowledge that I have seen. The entire haplotype/haplogroup issue would have them doubled over in agony.

From laughing their butts off.

'Genetically evidenced descendency chart'...

\And here is one from way back on July 9 or so:

"I think an understanding of some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change."


.....classic!

 

[tas8831]

Show us the observable, repeatable science supporting the notion that dust of the earth can be transformed into the thousands of bio-organic compounds that make up a fully-formed adult human male in the middle east a few thousand years ago.

Can't wait!

Hello?

 

[usfan]

Repeated, from the study on canidae mtDNA:

That is 'hypothesized.' They clearly state they don't really know, from evidence, and the actual evidence suggests the variability was already there.

Quotes from the canidae study:
We hypothesize that changes in the living conditions of dogs as a result of domestication resulted in the release of selective constraint

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..

Now, you are correct in pointing out the HYPOTHESES and speculations of the writers of the study, but the actual evidence does not compel their conclusion. It is a philosophical conjecture, not compelled by the facts.

And neither did the ancestral population. Those traits are ALL new. That shows *increased* diversity.

That is not established. It is believed, or speculated. The traits in canidae were not 'new', but the study explicitly stated they existed in the ancestral population.

Decreased diversity is OBSERVED, as organisms reach the tips of their phylogenetic trees. Increased diversity is NEVER observed. That is only imagined.

Yes, cheetahs went through a severe population bottleneck fairly recently. Such bottlenecks *do* decrease diversity until there has been enough time for mutations to restore it again.

Yes, so the theory goes..

'Time and Mutation.'

Unfortunately no mutation has ever been observed that increases complexity, or changes the basic architecture of the genome, or adds traits. Wings, warm bloodedness, the eye, and countless other traits of living things have no explanation from the theory of common descent. Amazingly complex functions appear suddenly, with no mechanism to form them.

No, it is repeatable, observable science that mutations happen even in stable populations and serve to increase diversity. That diversity is then acted upon by selection pressures.

'Mutations', cannot explain increased diversity. They explain DECREASED diversity, as a low diversity organism reaches the dead end of its variability. It is only an unobserved, unscientific BELIEF, that the vast array of highly complex organisms all evolved from a single cell.

No, that is specifically NOT what the article shows. It shows an *increase* of diversity after domestication and *proposes* a mechanism for that increase in the decrease of selection pressures due to domestication.

The 'article' states facts that conflict with their hoped hypothesis. Merely asserting their beliefs does not refute or dispel the facts of the diversity ALREADY EXISTING in the ancestral population.

And you are misreading what the article actually says. Selection acts on existing diversity. But a reduction of selection pressure allows for mutations that would usually be selected against to continue to exist in the population, allowing for *increased* diversity. Again the *whole point* of the article: to explain that increased diversity.

I read exactly what the article said. Their conclusions and hypothesis have no factual basis, and conflict with the known facts.

, in answer to your questions, the *mechanism* of increased diversity has been pointed out: mutation along with changes of selection pressure.

Yes, that is the belief. Unfortunately, there is no science to support it.

 

[usfan]

Individuals are not constantly producing new genetic information. Populations of individuals over generations produce new genetic information.

Right..

Is this some kind of collectivist theory, that pretends facts and Reality come through groupthink loyalty?

DNA is ONLY transferred through individual parents, to the child. There is no collectivist theory of genetic transference, as though traits come by decree, from the Party Elite..

And you guys make fun of me..

 

[Polymath257]

That is not established. It is believed, or speculated. The traits in canidae were not 'new', but the study explicitly stated they existed in the ancestral population.

No, it specifically stated the *potential* existed in the ancestral population, not the actual traits. As I explained previously (and you acknowledged), those are very different propositions.

Decreased diversity is OBSERVED, as organisms reach the tips of their phylogenetic trees. Increased diversity is NEVER observed. That is only imagined.

Nope. As described in the article itself, the *diversity* increased once domestication happened. The whole point of the article was to explain that observed increase of diversity.

Yes, so the theory goes..

'Time and Mutation.'

Unfortunately no mutation has ever been observed that increases complexity, or changes the basic architecture of the genome, or adds traits. Wings, warm bloodedness, the eye, and countless other traits of living things have no explanation from the theory of common descent. Amazingly complex functions appear suddenly, with no mechanism to form them.

Again, simply false. For one, we know that gene duplications occur and, with subsequent mutation, that *does* increase complexity.

Second, as an *actual example*, I would point to the recent thread showing zebrafish developing leg bones and capsules based solely on a single mutation:

Fin to limb transition - interesting genetic evidence...

'Mutations', cannot explain increased diversity. They explain DECREASED diversity, as a low diversity organism reaches the dead end of its variability. It is only an unobserved, unscientific BELIEF, that the vast array of highly complex organisms all evolved from a single cell.

So you misunderstand the concept of diversity. Diversity means that there is a range of different possibilities for specific genes in the population. Mutation, by changing a gene, increases that range and thereby increases the diversity.

The 'article' states facts that conflict with their hoped hypothesis. Merely asserting their beliefs does not refute or dispel the facts of the diversity ALREADY EXISTING in the ancestral population.

Except that it *didn't*. The diversity happened *after* the domestication of dogs, not before. The *potential* for that diversity existed previously, but not the atual traits nor the actual diversity.

I read exactly what the article said. Their conclusions and hypothesis have no factual basis, and conflict with the known facts.

it seems clear to me that you misunderstood what the article was saying. It was actually quite clear that domestication produced *increased* diversity because of the decrease in selection pressure.

Yes, that is the belief. Unfortunately, there is no science to support it.

The article *is* part of the science that supports it.

 

[usfan]

Plus I mean come on - he has STUDIED this stuff for 40 years.... Who are we to disagree with the retired home builder turned creationist science expert?

This is just ad hom, and a straw man. I make no appeals to authority, and it is only the hecklers who seize upon personal information to use as 'poison the well' fodder, to ridicule and heckle.

I deal in facts and science.. you know, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD? If any of the hecklers could do that, they would. But since they can't, ridicule, mocking, and heckling will have to do.

I see you can't go for long without a reply from me, but bait me incessantly with derogatory comments in hopes of provoking a reaction. But even though you get very personal, I'm determined to keep this as a scientific, evidentiary based discussion.

You are very good at baiting, though! I would say you are the Master!

..either that, or I've attracted a horde of homoerotic sadists, who mistake my long suffering and patience as masochism...

But it is clear that they are obsessed with me, personally, and have no interest in science..

 

[usfan]

it seems clear to me that you misunderstood what the article was saying. It was actually quite clear that domestication produced *increased* diversity because of the decrease in selection pressure.

That is an interpretation OF the article, and the hypothesis they hope to support.

And, if you believe the evidence presented (mtDNA tracking) supports that hypothesis, then that is your prerogative. I don't. I see the hard facts as evidence of the opposite.

Domestication is just man made 'selection'. Because man is able to ARTIFICIALLY support these variants that would have been culled by nature, is not evidence of 'increased diversity!' And, the FACT that modern wolves NO LONGER have this diversity, but have settled into a homogeneous morphology of DECREASED diversity, only confirms what we know by observation.

I did not present the study on canidae mtDNA for the hoped confirmation of their hypothesis, but to present the FACTS about canidae and their genetic line. Those facts do not support their hypothesis, but conflict. Nevertheless, i appreciated the facts from this study, in illuminating one of the more diverse haplogroups in the animal kingdom.

But there is no value rehashing our conclusions about this study, and i did not offer it as an editorial for common descent, but to note some facts about canidae.

 

[usfan]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about 'Mutation!', and its role in genetics. I can expand on this subject more, if there is interest, but the pop notion of 'X-Men!', movies, mutants, apocalyptic doom scenarios, and the PERCEPTION of 'mutation!' as the engine of common descent is flawed at its core. That is belief and pop science, not empirical, testable reality.

Mutations go on all the time. We have even measured the rate, in the human DNA, from known ancestors (Russian Romanovs, for example). But there is NOTHING that supports the belief in common descent, from the observable phenomenon of mutation. That is an extrapolation, that makes the flawed assumption of accumulated horizontal variations (and mutations) in the genome (micro), with the BELIEF in vertical, MACRO changes. It is a false equivalence.

Micro evolution (variability), does NOT equal Macro evolution (common descent).

 

[Polymath257]

That is an interpretation OF the article, and the hypothesis they hope to support.

No, the hypothesis they propose is the *explanation* of the *observed* increase of diversity.

And, if you believe the evidence presented (mtDNA tracking) supports that hypothesis, then that is your prerogative. I don't. I see the hard facts as evidence of the opposite.

What the mtDNA evidence shows is the pattern of ancestry between wolves and dogs. That helps to map out *when* the diversity originated and the amount of selection pressure on the populations.

Domestication is just man made 'selection'. Because man is able to ARTIFICIALLY support these variants that would have been culled by nature, is not evidence of 'increased diversity!'

No, it is not *evidence of increased diversity*, it is evidence for *why* there is increased diversity. The difference in the selection pressure is why more of the mutations were able to continue and thereby increase the diversity.

And, the FACT that modern wolves NO LONGER have this diversity, but have settled into a homogeneous morphology of DECREASED diversity, only confirms what we know by observation.

Wrong again. The modern wolves *do* still have that same *potential* diversity. That has even been demonstrated, although in the case of foxes, via selective breeding programs from the native species.

I did not present the study on canidae mtDNA for the hoped confirmation of their hypothesis, but to present the FACTS about canidae and their genetic line. Those facts do not support their hypothesis, but conflict. Nevertheless, i appreciated the facts from this study, in illuminating one of the more diverse haplogroups in the animal kingdom.

No, the evidence does NOT contradict their hypothesis: that the increase of diversity is due to changes of selection pressure brought on by domestication.

But there is no value rehashing our conclusions about this study, and i did not offer it as an editorial for common descent, but to note some facts about canidae.

Yes, you offered it to propose that ancient populations had more diversity than modern ones. And that is precisely what the article does NOT support. In fact, it *starts* with the observed increase of diversity and attempts to explain why it happened! if your position was correct, the article would never have been written at all because that increase of diversity would not have been observed.

 

[Polymath257]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about 'Mutation!', and its role in genetics. I can expand on this subject more, if there is interest, but the pop notion of 'X-Men!', movies, mutants, apocalyptic doom scenarios, and the PERCEPTION of 'mutation!' as the engine of common descent is flawed at its core. That is belief and pop science, not empirical, testable reality.

Yes, of course. This whole description of mutation is completely wrong. We agree.

Mutations go on all the time. We have even measured the rate, in the human DNA, from known ancestors (Russian Romanovs, for example). But there is NOTHING that supports the belief in common descent, from the observable phenomenon of mutation. That is an extrapolation, that makes the flawed assumption of accumulated horizontal variations (and mutations) in the genome (micro), with the BELIEF in vertical, MACRO changes. It is a false equivalence.

And this is false. Mutations are changes in the genes which encode for proteins. They can also affect things like rates of transcription and whether transcription occurs at all.

There are several types of mutation, from point changes (deletions/additions), to changes of location, to rearrangements, to duplications.

The evidence for common descent is NOT in the mutations alone, but in the pattern of mutations as we see throughout a family of species.

Micro evolution (variability), does NOT equal Macro evolution (common descent).

Actually, the only thing left in going from micro to macro is time. Small changes (can) add up to give major changes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is this some kind of collectivist theory, that pretends facts and Reality come through groupthink loyalty?

No, your lack of education and understanding of evolution is blatant.

DNA is ONLY transferred through individual parents,

True so what?!!?!?!!?

And you guys make fun of me..

With your blatant ignorance of genetics and evolution it is easy.

So` far you have done nothing but throw turds. When come up with a scientific argument with coherent references.

Still waiting . . .

 

[usfan]

Actually, the only thing left in going from micro to macro is time. Small changes (can) add up to give major changes.

That is the belief. But we are examining the evidence. There is no observable testing to show this as even possible. Genetics and millennia of observation says otherwise. Organisms do NOT increase in diversity, or variability. They decrease. Devolution is all we observe. There is no mechanism for 'creating' new traits, that are not already there in the parent organism. It is an imagined belief, based on 'looks like!' plausibility.