Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

Walls of cut & pastes, from regular hecklers, are just deflections. I've clearly set forth the conditions for me to 'debate' here:

1. Make one point, supported, if you wish, by facts, studies, or references.
2. Omit ALL ad hom, ridicule, snark, and heckling tactics.
3. I will examine the claim, and reply.

You don't HAVE to do this, but these are my terms for discussion. This is a scientific thread, about a scientific topic, and requesting civil, SCIENTIFIC based arguments is appropriate. I am not being unreasonable, by ignoring the hecklers who only seem to want to disrupt and propagandize.

If any of the regular hecklers want a reset, and would like to try a rational, civil, scientific based discussion, i am willing to forget the past, and address the topic. But page after page of ridicule, cherry picked 'gotcha!' statements, straw men, poisoning the well, and enough ad hom to choke a horse, is not the subject, here.

Your call. Continue the mocking, snark, and personal attacks, with an obscure point hidden in it, or post a rational, scientific argument. I'll ignore the ad hominem laced rants, directed at me, personally, but i will debate the science, if any of you pseudo science hecklers have the balls to do that..

All you tell me, with this 'strategy', is you're afraid of me. You don't want me to examine your points, so fill your posts with ridicule and personal dickery, KNOWING i will not rebut any obscure points you have included.

Pseudo science pretenders, that's what all the heckling, poisoning the well, ridicule, and fallacies demonstrate. These are inappropriate in a civil, scientific discussion. Yet that is the preferred tactic, for the True Believers. It is another indication of the religious nature of common descent. It is very difficult to 'debate' it rationally, with hordes of jihadists shouting, 'Kill the Blasphemers!'

Anytime you think you can handle a scientific based discussion, let me know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Walls of cut & pastes, from regular hecklers, are just deflections. I've clearly set forth the conditions for me to 'debate' here:

1. Make one point, supported, if you wish, by facts, studies, or references.
2. Omit ALL ad hom, ridicule, snark, and heckling tactics.
3. I will examine the claim, and reply.

You don't HAVE to do this, but these are my terms for discussion. This is a scientific thread, about a scientific topic, and requesting civil, SCIENTIFIC based arguments is appropriate. I am not being unreasonable, by ignoring the hecklers who only seem to want to disrupt and propagandize.

If any of the regular hecklers want a reset, and would like to try a rational, civil, scientific based discussion, i am willing to forget the past, and address the topic. But page after page of ridicule, cherry picked 'gotcha!' statements, straw men, poisoning the well, and enough ad hom to choke a horse, is not the subject, here.

Your call. Continue the mocking, snark, and personal attacks, with an obscure point hidden in it, or post a rational, scientific argument. I'll ignore the ad hominem laced rants, directed at me, personally, but i will debate the science, if any of you pseudo science hecklers have the balls to do that..

All you tell me, with this 'strategy', is you're afraid of me. You don't want me to examine your points, so fill your posts with ridicule and personal dickery, KNOWING i will not rebut any obscure points you have included.

Pseudo science pretenders, that's what all the heckling, poisoning the well, ridicule, and fallacies demonstrate. These are inappropriate in a civil, scientific discussion. Yet that is the preferred tactic, for the True Believers. It is another indication of the religious nature of common descent. It is very difficult to 'debate' it rationally, with hordes of jihadists shouting, 'Kill the Blasphemers!'

Anytime you think you can handle a scientific based discussion, let me know.

You broke your own rules. You cannot demand that others follow them.

I would suggest an apology if you want anything other than you have received.

 

[usfan]

This is frequently called 'pigeon chess'. The pigeon walks around, pushes over pieces, poops on the board, then declares victory.

Et tu, Brute?

This is projection. I deal in facts and reason. I don't 'declare!' victory, but only present facts and reason, and let the reader decide.

This tactic is from progressive indoctrinees, who must have clearly defined 'winners & losers!' for their groupthink loyalties. True science does not work that way, but is evidentiary based, with facts and arguments presented, to support or refute any theory or hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Et tu, Brute?

This is projection. I deal in facts and reason. I don't 'declare!' victory, but only present facts and reason, and let the reader decide.

This tactic is from progressive indoctrinees, who must have clearly defined 'winners & losers!' for their groupthink loyalties. True science does not work that way, but is evidentiary based, with facts and arguments presented, to support or refute any theory or hypothesis.

No, you don't know what projection is either. All you have been doing is playing pigeon chess.

Once again an apology is in order from you.

 

[Polymath257]

Et tu, Brute?

This is projection. I deal in facts and reason. I don't 'declare!' victory, but only present facts and reason, and let the reader decide.

This tactic is from progressive indoctrinees, who must have clearly defined 'winners & losers!' for their groupthink loyalties. True science does not work that way, but is evidentiary based, with facts and arguments presented, to support or refute any theory or hypothesis.

You have yet to acknowledge the distinction between 'potential diversity' and 'actual diversity' and how it relates to the article you presented to us.

This means you have misinterpreted that article to say almost the exact opposite of what it does, in fact, say.

Can you now acknowledge that distinction?

 

[usfan]

Once again, there is a distinction between *potential* diversity and actual diversity.

This just muddies the issue. 'Potential', in the ancestral population is only evidenced by the actual diversity we have observed. It WAS there, in the ancestral populations, because we see the results.

Speculations about 'potential', now, are just that: speculations.

For example, there is much concern over low levels of diversity, in felidae. There are numerous articles and studies lamenting this observation. Nobody talks about the 'potential!' diversity among cheetahs, for instance, but they agonize over how we can save them, by breeding in them the needed diversity to survive.

Dying breeds head for extinction, not 'potential diversity!'

'Potential', is a hindsight conclusion, about the ancestral population. Canids HAD that potential, because we see the diversity. Do we talk about 'potential' diversity in sharks? There is some, but not as much. Plus, man has not bred sharks for certain characteristics (like with canids, anyway), so any 'potential' diversity is selected out, naturally.

The point is, which is confirmed by millennia of breeding and observation, the diversity that was in the ancestral canid has expressed itself in the wide range of diversity we see. Arctic wolves, mexican greys, coyotes, dingos, wild dogs, and domestic dogs all display the wide range of diversity that was ALREADY PRESENT, in the ancestral population.

St. Barnard traits do not pop up in arctic wolf populations, nor do arctic wolf traits pop up in chihuahuas. The trees have branched into lower diversity, and the tips have 'bred out' the diversity, until a homogeneous morphology is presented.

That is observable, repeatable science. It is in stark contrast to the BELIEF of common descent, where populations are INCREASING in diversity, all the time. New traits are allegedly being added, and 'low diversity levels' would be impossible.

 

[usfan]

You have yet to acknowledge the distinction between 'potential diversity' and 'actual diversity' and how it relates to the article you presented to us.

This means you have misinterpreted that article to say almost the exact opposite of what it does, in fact, say.

Can you now acknowledge that distinction?

Yes, i was addressing that.. give me some time to reply, before pouncing!

..thanks for the civil, rational discussion.. it does seem to be ending, now..

 

[Polymath257]

This just muddies the issue. 'Potential', in the ancestral population is only evidenced by the actual diversity we have observed. It WAS there, in the ancestral populations, because we see the results.

No, that is the whole point, not a muddling of the issue. The *potential* is the range of viable mutations that *would* be available *if* the selection pressures changed. it does NOT describe the *actual* diversity of the population at the time.

Speculations about 'potential', now, are just that: speculations.

Except in this case we can *observe* the diversity in later generations and use mtDNA to determine when the changes happened. We can compare the modern diversity to the diversity of the ancient line (preserved in the native species) and make a comparison.

Once again, this paper *starts* with the observation that diversity increased in the dog line. That increase is clear to anyone who looks at this. What the paper attempts to do (and, I think, succeeds) is to explain *how* that diversity came about (through decreased selection pressures allowing previously deleterious mutations to be preserved).

For example, there is much concern over low levels of diversity, in felidae. There are numerous articles and studies lamenting this observation. Nobody talks about the 'potential!' diversity among cheetahs, for instance, but they agonize over how we can save them, by breeding in them the needed diversity to survive.

But we can talk about the potential diversity of the ancestral felids, leading to the wide variety of felids we see today. In the case of cheetahs, the timing is short enough that any potential diversity won't have the *time* to manifest because the mutation rate is slow enough that to build up the diversity again from the current population would take too long and the species might well go extinct before that can happen.

Dying breeds head for extinction, not 'potential diversity!'

No, no *actual* diversity. Any potential diversity is short circuited by the short extinction time.

'Potential', is a hindsight conclusion, about the ancestral population. Canids HAD that potential, because we see the diversity. Do we talk about 'potential' diversity in sharks? There is some, but not as much. Plus, man has not bred sharks for certain characteristics (like with canids, anyway), so any 'potential' diversity is selected out, naturally.

But again, that diversity was not there in the ancestral population. The ancient wolf population didn't have chihuahuas, for example. It didn't even have the *genes* for chihuahuas.

The point is, which is confirmed by millennia of breeding and observation, the diversity that was in the ancestral canid has expressed itself in the wide range of diversity we see. Arctic wolves, mexican greys, coyotes, dingos, wild dogs, and domestic dogs all display the wide range of diversity that was ALREADY PRESENT, in the ancestral population.

And that is precisely what is NOT true. The ancestral population showed NONE of the range of diversity we see in the modern populations. There simply were NOT the chihuahuas, the pugs, the dalmations, etc. NONE of those variants existed until fairly recently. And *that* means there was an *increase* of diversity.

St. Barnard traits do not pop up in arctic wolf populations, nor do arctic wolf traits pop up in chihuahuas.

Exactly!! That range of diversity simply wasn't there.

The trees have branched into lower diversity, and the tips have 'bred out' the diversity, until a homogeneous morphology is presented.

The range of branches itself shows the increase of diversity.

That is observable, repeatable science. It is in stark contrast to the BELIEF of common descent, where populations are INCREASING in diversity, all the time. New traits are allegedly being added, and 'low diversity levels' would be impossible.

No, it is NOT the position of 'common descent' that diversity is increasing all the time.

There are *two* aspects at work: mutation tends to increase diversity, and selection tends to decrease it. Whether overall diversity increases or decreases depends on the *balance* between those two influences.

In the case of cheetahs, for example, the selection pressure overcame the mutation rate and diversity decreased.

In the case of wolves, the selection pressure was eased for the domesticated lines and diversity increased.

 

[tas8831]

Walls of cut & pastes... OMIT typical whining and deflecting

You cold have just written:

"My psychological dependence on my egotism precludes me from admitting error on anything even when such error is obvious to all others. Please understand that deep down I know I am out of my league intellectually, but my Trump-like narcissism will not allow me to admit it."

Then I would be sympathetic. As it stands, I will continue to laugh at your desperation and to refute your naive takes on science.

 

[tas8831]

Et tu, Brute?

This is projection. I deal in facts and reason. I don't 'declare!' victory, but only present facts and reason, and let the reader decide.

This tactic is from progressive indoctrinees, who must have clearly defined 'winners & losers!' for their groupthink loyalties. True science does not work that way, but is evidentiary based, with facts and arguments presented, to support or refute any theory or hypothesis.

And there it is!

More projection, more dodging and whining and excuse making, NO dealing with the science.

The pretender in action!

 

[tas8831]

All this cut and paste - dismissed!

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.

I actually like this post.

It shows the naivete and child-like usage of terminology that I have come to expect from Trumpist creationists who think they know more than they do.

 

[usfan]

The ancient wolf population didn't have chihuahuas, for example. It didn't even have the *genes* for chihuahuas.

This is an unproved assumption. The study stated clearly, that given the relatively short time since domestication, (< 200 yrs for most dog breeds), that was insufficient time to even POSTULATE an 'evolutionary' explanation for all of the variety that revealed itself. Therefore, the only rational conclusion, which the study affirmed, is that those traits were ALREADY THERE, in the ancestral population.

There is NO MECHANISM defined, or observed, to account for the diversity in canids, other than they ALREADY WERE PRESENT, in the ancestral population, and over the centuries, revealed themselves to breeders.

Just as chihuahuas no longer present arctic wolf morphological traits, and arctic wolves do not present chihuahua morphologies, but both are homogeneous in their respective morphologies, the only observable, scientific conclusion is that those diverse characteristics were present in the ancestral canid, and have lost diversity as they reached the tips of their phylogenetic tree.

The mtDNA traces the ancestry. We can follow that chihuahuas and arctic wolves descended from the same ancestral canid. They are from the same genetic haplogroup. The observable science of breeding would EXPECT that these 'breeds' would show less diversity as they were trait selected for their respective morphologies.

And that is what we observe. Less diversity, as we reach the tips of the phylogenetic tree. Not more.

 

[tas8831]

This is pretty cool - on another forum where our hero had been spewing his usual charming condescension, I saw this reply:

"Desperate, self soothing pap...it was meant to mock you, not be a "scientific answer". And people have been more than gracious by spoonfeeding you factual information, despite your obviously very dishonest line of questioning. You deserve no responses, as you are a deceptive time waster and in no way whatsoever represent a person honestly seeking information about evolution."​

Seems that when a person gets these kinds of replies from multiple people on more than one forum, at some point you cannot really keep blaming it on them....

 

[tas8831]

This is an unproved assumption.

So where is your 'proof' that wolves possess all of the alleles needed for chihuahuas and mastiffs and bulldogs and poodles?

You have merely asserted it. But you offer nothing.

You blabber about "markers" in mtDNA, yet cannot say what they are.

 

[Polymath257]

This is an unproved assumption. The study stated clearly, that given the relatively short time since domestication, (< 200 yrs for most dog breeds), that was insufficient time to even POSTULATE an 'evolutionary' explanation for all of the variety that revealed itself. Therefore, the only rational conclusion, which the study affirmed, is that those traits were ALREADY THERE, in the ancestral population.

There is NO MECHANISM defined, or observed, to account for the diversity in canids, other than they ALREADY WERE PRESENT, in the ancestral population, and over the centuries, revealed themselves to breeders.

Just as chihuahuas no longer present arctic wolf morphological traits, and arctic wolves do not present chihuahua morphologies, but both are homogeneous in their respective morphologies, the only observable, scientific conclusion is that those diverse characteristics were present in the ancestral canid, and have lost diversity as they reached the tips of their phylogenetic tree.

The mtDNA traces the ancestry. We can follow that chihuahuas and arctic wolves descended from the same ancestral canid. They are from the same genetic haplogroup. The observable science of breeding would EXPECT that these 'breeds' would show less diversity as they were trait selected for their respective morphologies.

And that is what we observe. Less diversity, as we reach the tips of the phylogenetic tree. Not more.

All of this has been dealt with already. You are merely repeating yourself and not addressing the points made.

 

[usfan]

There are *two* aspects at work: mutation tends to increase diversity,

This is the BELIEF of common descent. But this is not observed, just conjectured. There is NO EVIDENCE, that any of the diverse canid traits were 'created', on the fly, by mutation. It is ASSUMED, that this happened millennia ago, and then suddenly.. RECENTLY,.. revealed themselves, over the last 200 yrs or so, through man's selective breeding processes.

That is the Great Assumption, that has not, and cannot be observed.

Mutations + millions of years = common descent

But there is no observable evidence that this is even possible, and there is no mechanism defined to 'create!' all of these very complex traits through mutation.

The eye was 'caused' by mutation? All the interrelated components? Simultaneously?

Millennia of observation AND genetic comparison only shows VARIABILITY WITHIN a genetic type.. we have never observed or repeated a structural leap to another genetic architecture. Canids remain canids. Their variability DECREASES, as they reach the tips of their tree, but they are not becoming some other genetic structure, nor have they come from some other genetic structure.

It is only a religious belief, that all living things descended from a common ancestor. There is no scientific evidence that this can, much less did, happen.

 

[tas8831]

"The mtDNA traces the ancestry."

Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships:

It sure does.

Well, until the creationist finds a lame way to assert it doesn't.

 

[usfan]

In the case of cheetahs, for example, the selection pressure overcame the mutation rate and diversity decreased.

In the case of wolves, the selection pressure was eased for the domesticated lines and diversity increased.

You assume and speculate this. The ONLY THING we observe, is decreased diversity. Never do we observe increasing diversity, as the tree reaches its tips.

'Mutation!' is wishful thinking.. a 'hopeful monster!' belief, that is based on sci fi imagination, not observable science.

 

[tas8831]

Wow...

I left the strawman, ignorance and propaganda-based gibberish ... Strawmen in RED, ignorance in BLUE... lies? in green

...There is NO EVIDENCE, that any of the diverse canid traits were 'created', on the fly, by mutation. It is ASSUMED, that this happened millennia ago, and then suddenly.. RECENTLY,.. revealed themselves, over the last 200 yrs or so, through man's selective breeding processes.

That is the Great Assumption, that has not, and cannot be observed.

Mutations + millions of years = common descent

But there is no observable evidence that this is even possible, and there is no mechanism defined to 'create!' all of these very complex traits through mutation.

The eye was 'caused' by mutation? All the interrelated components? Simultaneously?

Millennia of observation AND genetic comparison only shows VARIABILITY WITHIN a genetic type.. we have never observed or repeated a structural leap to another genetic architecture. Canids remain canids. Their variability DECREASES, as they reach the tips of their tree, but they are not becoming some other genetic structure, nor have they come from some other genetic structure.

It is only a religious belief, that all living things descended from a common ancestor. There is no scientific evidence that this can, much less did, happen.

Sad...

This one seems to believe that merely repeating strawmen, lies, and propaganda constitutes a winning argument.

He does not realize how pathetic and desperate it makes him look.

 

[tas8831]

You assume and speculate this. The ONLY THING we observe, is decreased diversity. Never do we observe increasing diversity, as the tree reaches its tips.

'Mutation!' is wishful thinking.. a 'hopeful monster!' belief, that is based on sci fi imagination, not observable science.

Cool repeated assertions based on lies and fallacies and ignorance, bro!