Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

got an iq125?
and I've been doing this for a very long time

and probability and complexity have been demonstrated ……..a lot
try watching some science demos

you might learn something

Good numbers.

What probability and complexity are we talking about?

 

[Thief]

Good numbers.

What probability and complexity are we talking about?

yeah....over the years
several demos have been presented

I like the one wherein Chaos has become the name of a new science

for example..
pick three points at random on a piece of paper draw the triangle
pick one more within that geometry
number the corners one through six 1 and 2 …..3and4 …...5and 6

roll one piece of dice and the note a point
halfway from the starting point to the corner noted by the roll

keep going

as the triangle fills with dots a pattern emerges

triangle overlaid with more triangles
various sizes

but ALL have the same proportions as the original

all brought up.....in random.....in chaos

only one kind of motion in play

 

[Dan From Smithville]

yeah....over the years
several demos have been presented

I like the one wherein Chaos has become the name of a new science

for example..
pick three points at random on a piece of paper draw the triangle
pick one more within that geometry
number the corners one through six 1 and 2 …..3and4 …...5and 6

roll one piece of dice and the note a point
halfway from the starting point to the corner noted by the roll

keep going

as the triangle fills with dots a pattern emerges

triangle overlaid with more triangles
various sizes

but ALL have the same proportions as the original

all brought up.....in random.....in chaos

only one kind of motion in play

It will require a little time for me to image this in my mind.

Are you familiar with emergent properties and the study of complexity? For instance, we know a lot about the chemistry of water. But there is nothing in what we know about the properties of water that would lead to the prediction of rivers, lakes and oceans. Those are emergent properties of the complex interaction of water and the environment.

 

[Thief]

It will require a little time for me to image this in my mind.

Are you familiar with emergent properties and the study of complexity? For instance, we know a lot about the chemistry of water. But there is nothing in what we know about the properties of water that would lead to the prediction of rivers, lakes and oceans. Those are emergent properties of the complex interaction of water and the environment.

It was not just the water

the earth churns and heaves
tectonic plates shift
the tilt of the earth wobbles
the par sec to the sun varies

the water …...for it's lighter weight is on the surface
as the firmament shifts......so too the location of the water

predict the earth quake
you can then know where the river will bend

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was not just the water

the earth churns and heaves
tectonic plates shift
the tilt of the earth wobbles
the par sec to the sun varies

the water …...for it's lighter weight is on the surface
as the firmament shifts......so too the location of the water

predict the earth quake
you can then know where the river will bend

Water is just an example. But there are many properties that are emergent and predictability is difficult.

When I think of how all the preceding generations lead to me, it is amazingly improbable, yet here I am. But the prediction that some human might end up existing is not so improbable. It is the same notion that is applied to proteins to claim that they are evidence for design. Of course it would be nearly impossible for the random creation of a specific protein with a certain specificity and function to form as it is today. But the mutation of an existing gene that leads to a protein with even a little affinity that leads to a new trait is not that impossible. With selection by the environment as the guiding hand that drives for a continual improvement through random changes. That sort of evolution by random and non-random action is very probable.

 

[Thief]

Water is just an example. But there are many properties that are emergent and predictability is difficult.

When I think of how all the preceding generations lead to me, it is amazingly improbable, yet here I am. But the prediction that some human might end up existing is not so improbable. It is the same notion that is applied to proteins to claim that they are evidence for design. Of course it would be nearly impossible for the random creation of a specific protein with a certain specificity and function to form as it is today. But the mutation of an existing gene that leads to a protein with even a little affinity that leads to a new trait is not that impossible. With selection by the environment as the guiding hand that drives for a continual improvement through random changes. That sort of evolution by random and non-random action is very probable.

and you are implying?.....the rise of a Prophet

a begotten Son?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

and you are implying?.....the rise of a Prophet

a begotten Son?

No. Just the facts that can be established about life as we know it. Nothing about what I believe or what others believe.

 

[usfan]

What's false? Are you no longer claiming to be an expert in evolutionary biology?

I never have made such a claim.. therefore, the accusation is false.

I deal in facts and reason. Fallacies are for the hecklers and True Believers..

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never have made such a claim.. therefore, the accusation is false.

I deal in facts and reason. Fallacies are for the hecklers and True Believers..

Considering that you have revealed yourself to be. A True Believer, and have done more than your share of heckling you appear to have contradicted yourself again.

By the way, I am curious as to whether you are ready to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence yet.

 

[usfan]

The range of genes that exists now is far more than the range that existed in the past.

This is not established fact, but an asserted belief. What evidence do you have that the genes that were revealed as 'new' traits were NOT already there? Selection acts upon EXISTING variability, which means it has to be there to 'select'.

WRONG. The evidence for variability is the actual genes and how many different types there are.

And that is an unknown assumption. The logical, biological FACT, is that the variability we see, now, was ALREADY PRESENT, in the ancestral canid.

Asserting a belief in 'new created genes!', with no evidence, does not compel a conclusion of common descent.

And yet, new breeds keep popping up from breeds such as these.

Not so. The only 'new breeds!' we see, from the tips of phylogenetic trees (like chihuahuas and great danes) are cross bred with other breeds, to inject some diversity that is not there, in the low diversity breed.

You can breed purebred chihuahuas for multiple generations, and you will not get great dane traits. Only if you could cross breed a chihuahua and great dane, can you inject their respective traits into the child populations. (That is a difficult mental image! ..)

The actual range of genes seen now in dogs is far, far more than the actual range of genes in the ancestral population.

So you assume and assert. But the facts say otherwise. There was not enough time for 'mutation+time!' to "create" all the diversity in domestic dogs. That variability could only have been in place in the ancestral canid parent.

Actually, yes it does. it shows that the ancestral population did not actually have chihuahuas. That diversity arose later.

asserted and believed, with no evidence.

Traits that come up that were not seen before, is the Big Question. Were they already there, in the ancestor, waiting to come up in the lottery pull of genetics? Or, were these traits 'created' by some undefined, unobserved mechanism, usually shrouded in 'time + mutation!?'

Evidence for either 'theory' must be presented, not merely assertions of belief.

All the evidence, in observable, repeatable science, says the traits/genes were there, in the ancestral population. There is no evidence that any of the canid clades were formed by mutation. That 'theory', or more accurately, 'belief', would have to have hard evidence to support it, not just plausibility or conjecture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not established fact, but an asserted belief. What evidence do you have that the genes that were revealed as 'new' traits were NOT already there? Selection acts upon EXISTING variability, which means it has to be there to 'select'.

And that is an unknown assumption. The logical, biological FACT, is that the variability we see, now, was ALREADY PRESENT, in the ancestral canid.

Asserting a belief in 'new created genes!', with no evidence, does not compel a conclusion of common descent.

Not so. The only 'new breeds!' we see, from the tips of phylogenetic trees (like chihuahuas and great danes) are cross bred with other breeds, to inject some diversity that is not there, in the low diversity breed.

You can breed purebred chihuahuas for multiple generations, and you will not get great dane traits. Only if you could cross breed a chihuahua and great dane, can you inject their respective traits into the child populations. (That is a difficult mental image! ..)

So you assume and assert. But the facts say otherwise. There was not enough time for 'mutation+time!' to "create" all the diversity in domestic dogs. That variability could only have been in place in the ancestral canid parent.
asserted and believed, with no evidence.

Traits that come up that were not seen before, is the Big Question. Were they already there, in the ancestor, waiting to come up in the lottery pull of genetics? Or, were these traits 'created' by some undefined, unobserved mechanism, usually shrouded in 'time + mutation!?'

Evidence for either 'theory' must be presented, not merely assertions of belief.

All the evidence, in observable, repeatable science, says the traits/genes were there, in the ancestral population. There is no evidence that any of the canid clades were formed by mutation. That 'theory', or more accurately, 'belief', would have to have hard evidence to support it, not just plausibility or conjecture.

You are grasping at straws assuming that you are correct. This sort of bad behavior is why you receive what you call "heckling" .

But to answer your questions, yes mutations occur to existing traits. The evolution of venom in snakes has been studied very well and the original gene, which still exists in snakes, evolved through a series of gene duplication and point mutations. It arose from the salivary protein gene.

https://phys.org/news/2014-08-snake-venom.html

I may be able to find a better article on this for you.

 

[Polymath257]

This is not established fact, but an asserted belief. What evidence do you have that the genes that were revealed as 'new' traits were NOT already there? Selection acts upon EXISTING variability, which means it has to be there to 'select'.

Yes, selection acts on the variability that mutations produce.

Do you have any evidence that those genes *were* there?

Since we know changes to the genes happen every generation, and those changes are, in fact, new gene variants, why would you *assume* that all the different variants for all the different sorts of dogs were there in the ancestral population. That goes against everything we know.

And that is an unknown assumption. The logical, biological FACT, is that the variability we see, now, was ALREADY PRESENT, in the ancestral canid.

Please present the evidence for this supposed fact.

Asserting a belief in 'new created genes!', with no evidence, does not compel a conclusion of common descent.

Except that we have plenty of such evidence, down to the mechanisms of how the genes duplicate and change to produce variability.

Not so. The only 'new breeds!' we see, from the tips of phylogenetic trees (like chihuahuas and great danes) are cross bred with other breeds, to inject some diversity that is not there, in the low diversity breed.

False. We actually see new changes arise on a regular basis that were not in either parent.

You can breed purebred chihuahuas for multiple generations, and you will not get great dane traits. Only if you could cross breed a chihuahua and great dane, can you inject their respective traits into the child populations. (That is a difficult mental image! ..)

How about if you *select* for non-standard traits in those chihuahuas? Not the pure-breed traits, but some other ones?

So you assume and assert. But the facts say otherwise. There was not enough time for 'mutation+time!' to "create" all the diversity in domestic dogs. That variability could only have been in place in the ancestral canid parent.

And that was addressed in the article *you* gave. There *was* enough time between the beginning of domestication and the current time for such mutations to build up since the selection pressure was lower.

asserted and believed, with no evidence.

Traits that come up that were not seen before, is the Big Question. Were they already there, in the ancestor, waiting to come up in the lottery pull of genetics? Or, were these traits 'created' by some undefined, unobserved mechanism, usually shrouded in 'time + mutation!?'

How is mutation NOT a mechanism? Time is required for the mutations to build up and for selection to operate. How is that NOT a mechanism for producing diversity?

Evidence for either 'theory' must be presented, not merely assertions of belief.

OK, produce evidence that ALL the different variations we see in modern dogs were actually present in the ancestral wolf populations (as opposed to being potential for new changes).

All the evidence, in observable, repeatable science, says the traits/genes were there, in the ancestral population. There is no evidence that any of the canid clades were formed by mutation. That 'theory', or more accurately, 'belief', would have to have hard evidence to support it, not just plausibility or conjecture.

No, NONE of the evidence says that. The evidence is that there was a lot of potential, but there is no evidence those variants were actually in the population. You need to present that evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I never have made such a claim.. therefore, the accusation is false.

So you are not an expert in evolutionary biology. That makes me wonder...do you think your opinions and evaluations of the work of evolutionary biologists are of any significance to anyone but yourself?

 

[Bear Wild]

This is not established fact, but an asserted belief. What evidence do you have that the genes that were revealed as 'new' traits were NOT already there? Selection acts upon EXISTING variability, which means it has to be there to 'select'.

And that is an unknown assumption. The logical, biological FACT, is that the variability we see, now, was ALREADY PRESENT, in the ancestral canid.

Asserting a belief in 'new created genes!', with no evidence, does not compel a conclusion of common descent.

Not so. The only 'new breeds!' we see, from the tips of phylogenetic trees (like chihuahuas and great danes) are cross bred with other breeds, to inject some diversity that is not there, in the low diversity breed.

You can breed purebred chihuahuas for multiple generations, and you will not get great dane traits. Only if you could cross breed a chihuahua and great dane, can you inject their respective traits into the child populations. (That is a difficult mental image! ..)

So you assume and assert. But the facts say otherwise. There was not enough time for 'mutation+time!' to "create" all the diversity in domestic dogs. That variability could only have been in place in the ancestral canid parent.
asserted and believed, with no evidence.

Traits that come up that were not seen before, is the Big Question. Were they already there, in the ancestor, waiting to come up in the lottery pull of genetics? Or, were these traits 'created' by some undefined, unobserved mechanism, usually shrouded in 'time + mutation!?'

Evidence for either 'theory' must be presented, not merely assertions of belief.

All the evidence, in observable, repeatable science, says the traits/genes were there, in the ancestral population. There is no evidence that any of the canid clades were formed by mutation. That 'theory', or more accurately, 'belief', would have to have hard evidence to support it, not just plausibility or conjecture.

You clearly avoid evidence you do not like. You ask for evidence then ignore it.
I provided a link about genetic comparisons in dogs that are breed, village dogs that breed amongst themselves without the influence of directed human breading, and wolves.
The link is here.
www.journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451
You have ignored so many others have presented to you. Clearly you have no intention of addressing research that shows you are incorrect. Typical for creationists and ID people. Selective unsupported evidence or misrepresentation of real evidence.
Second you do not understand the influence of time between similar organisms separated from interbreeding for long period of times.

 

[usfan]

You clearly avoid evidence you do not like. You ask for evidence then ignore it.

Yes, i clearly and consistently have ignored incivil, ad hom filled rants demeaning my person, even if they include some alleged 'scientific point!'

1. Make a single point
2. Support with evidence, reasoning, quotes, sources, studies.
3. Ditch the snippy, middle school girl cattiness that is inappropriate in a scientific discussion

I'll reply, and examine your evidence and arguments.

It is quite simple, and i have been consistent.

If your posts are just ad hom filled rants, demeaning me, poisoning the well, attacking straw men, or other fallacy filled responses, i can only conclude you do NOT want me to reply, but just want to pitch propaganda memes, with no possibility of rebuttal. You're afraid for me to examine your claims rationally, so are sure to include lots of heckling, so it won't happen.

That is the only logical conclusion i see, for the pages of heckling posts that do not make a scientific or logical case for the belief in common descent. You have no logic or scientific evidence, so must rely on fallacies.

Drowning my replies with pages of cut & paste text walls, ridicule, "gothcha!' quotes out of context, false accusations, lies, and distortions, only confirms the impression that you are propagandists, not scientific minded debaters.

I'm by myself, here, against hordes of zealous True Believers. I insist on a modicum of civility, in this discussion. I've bantered with the hecklers, some, but i don't want to see the thread dominated by bickering over religious opinions. Science is the topic, and i will keep pointing us back to it.

 

[usfan]

So you are not an expert in evolutionary biology. That makes me wonder...do you think your opinions and evaluations of the work of evolutionary biologists are of any significance to anyone but yourself?

I rely on facts and reason, not arguments of authority.

 

[usfan]

Yes, selection acts on the variability that mutations produce.

Do you have any evidence that those genes *were* there?

Since we know changes to the genes happen every generation, and those changes are, in fact, new gene variants, why would you *assume* that all the different variants for all the different sorts of dogs were there in the ancestral population. That goes against everything we know.

Please present the evidence for this supposed fact.

Except that we have plenty of such evidence, down to the mechanisms of how the genes duplicate and change to produce variability.

False. We actually see new changes arise on a regular basis that were not in either parent.

How about if you *select* for non-standard traits in those chihuahuas? Not the pure-breed traits, but some other ones?
And that was addressed in the article *you* gave. There *was* enough time between the beginning of domestication and the current time for such mutations to build up since the selection pressure was lower.
How is mutation NOT a mechanism? Time is required for the mutations to build up and for selection to operate. How is that NOT a mechanism for producing diversity?

OK, produce evidence that ALL the different variations we see in modern dogs were actually present in the ancestral wolf populations (as opposed to being potential for new changes).
No, NONE of the evidence says that. The evidence is that there was a lot of potential, but there is no evidence those variants were actually in the population. You need to present that evidence.

We are repeating ourselves.

1. I posted the facts from the study, showing how there was not enough time for "mutation' to 'evolve' all the subsequent diversity.
2. Observable Reality, in that organisms DECREASE in diversity, as they settle in homogeneous morphologies.
3. 'Mutation', as a mechanism of gene/trait creation is believed, without evidence. It is speculated as plausible, but there is no observable, repeatable science to support it.

 

[Polymath257]

We are repeating ourselves.

1. I posted the facts from the study, showing how there was not enough time for "mutation' to 'evolve' all the subsequent diversity.
2. Observable Reality, in that organisms DECREASE in diversity, as they settle in homogeneous morphologies.
3. 'Mutation', as a mechanism of gene/trait creation is believed, without evidence. It is speculated as plausible, but there is no observable, repeatable science to support it.

1. And the article itself addressed that question. The release of selection pressure meant that mutations (changes) built up.

2. Not observed. In fact, this is one basic point at issue which you have given NO evidence to support and the rest have given mechanisms backed up by observation.

3. A mutation is simply a change. A change in a gene makes a new gene. New genes mean more diversity. All of those steps are observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I rely on facts and reason, not arguments of authority.

No you rely on denial. And then complain when people point that out. To say that your posts reek of hypocrisy is an understatement.

 

[Jose Fly]

I rely on facts and reason, not arguments of authority.

You didn't answer my question. Again, do you think your opinions and evaluations of the work of evolutionary biologists are of any significance to anyone but yourself?