Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you for real, Mr. "Eve gene'?

I am afraid he is.

Maybe you can get me up to speed here. How is posting a picture cut from the internet, explaining things. I thought they were visual "aids" used in explanations and not dumped out to give the false impression of a knowledge not possessed?

I should look into what it takes to get a PhD in psychology. I think I have found something to write about.

 

[tas8831]

I did read some of those.

If I were to claim that I have been studying a field for 40 years and then were to address people educated in that field, I would use the vernacular that was common and current to discuss the topics of the field. I would not elect to use dubious terms that are found only in very limited use in popular culture and have no basis in fact, but were coined out of ignorance.

I re-looked at the Google returns when I searched for "Eve gene" - most were as I mentioned - to blogs and such. The other distinct group I saw this mentioned on?
Creationist or religious websites... Hmmm...

I would also not use different terms that do not mean the same thing to refer to a single concept or object, yet, we have seen "marker" "gene" and "mitochondria" all used as if they refer to the same thing.

If there was even a casual study of science, after 40 years, I would expect better than what I am seeing.

I tend to agree, but that is ad hominem, apparently.

 

[tas8831]

I am afraid he is.

Maybe you can get me up to speed here. How is posting a picture cut from the internet, explaining things. I thought they were visual "aids" used in explanations and not dumped out to give the false impression of a knowledge not possessed?

I should look into what it takes to get a PhD in psychology. I think I have found something to write about.

Not only that, this is like the 4th time he has pasted that, along with an implication that he knows it all and nobody else here does...

 

[tas8831]

The 'connection' between chimps and humans is asserted, based ONLY upon the chromosome count, and the assumed telomere reattachment.

40 years, you said...

Please do not dismiss this is a 'wall of text' meant to 'obfuscate', rather it is me showing a person with 40 years of evolution debate under his belt what he should have known starting more than 20 years ago regarding human-chimp affinities.

Protein sequence data:

Macromolecular Sequences in Systematic and Evolutionary Biology pp 115-191
Amino Acid Sequence Evidence on the Phylogeny of Primates and Other Eutherians


DNA hybridization of complete single-copy genomes:

J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data.

"Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) presented the results of a study of 514 DNA-DNA hybrids among the hominoids and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae). They concluded that the branching order of the living hominoid lineages, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. Thus, a chimpanzee-human clade was indicated, rather than the chimpanzee-gorilla clade usually suggested from morphological evidence."​

DNA sequence data:
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Volume 1, Issue 2, June 1992, Pages 97-135

Reexamination of the African hominoid trichotomy with additional sequences from the primate β-globin gene cluster

"Additional DNA sequence information from a range of primates, including 13.7 kb from pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus), was added to data sets of β-globin gene cluster sequence alignments that span the γ1, γ2, and ψη loci and their flanking and intergenic regions. This enlarged body of data was used to address the issue of whether the ancestral separations of gorilla, chimpanzee, and human lineages resulted from only one trichotomous branching or from two dichotomous branching events.... Maximum parsimony analysis further strengthened the evidence that humans and chimpanzees share the longest common ancestry. Support for this human-chimpanzee clade is statistically significant at P = 0.002 over a human-gorilla clade or a chimpanzee-gorilla clade."​

These are a mere three examples of literally thousands of such papers, easily searchable via Google Scholar - not to mention the dozens that employ the "Eve gene"...

Your claim that "The 'connection' between chimps and humans is asserted, based ONLY upon the chromosome count," is thus, handily and soundly, refuted.

Please do not ever make this claim - now known by you to be false - again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not only that, this is like the 4th time he has pasted that, along with an implication that he knows it all and nobody else here does...

I have noticed the add campaign. It is noteworthy for its brevity of explanation and focus on the visual. A visual designed and created by someone else.

I should post a picture of a rabbit with the claim that it is all the evidence for evolution in one furry, cute little package. Common descent? Check. Change over time? Check. Natural selection? Check.

I have already gotten too detailed in the text.

I could just post "Look here" with an arrow. That would be brevity.

 

[tas8831]

I have offered, several times, to debate you with facts and science, and do a 'reset', for civil, rational discussion. You have declined every time, and seem to prefer to use the heckling strategy, rather than civil discussion.

Your choice, but i will not debate with the heckling, ridicule and ad hom inclusions.

It seems to be your preferred strategy.. to avoid a straight up scientific debate.

It seems that your only tactic is hiding behind your whining.

You are far less informed than I even thought a day ago - you clearly wasted those 40 years patting yourself on the back for the pseudo-knowledge you convinced yourself you possessed.

"Eve gene"? Evolutionists claim that groups of humans evolved separately from chimps?
Human chimp affinites are solely based on karyotype?

You are amazingly uninformed yet supremely confident - a true Dunning-Krueger effect specimen and truly a waste of our time.

So, don't reply. I no longer care. I will continue, however, to expose your bombastic ignorance every chance I get so as to warn would-be creationists not to listen to your naive, ignorant gibberish. I am archiving your claims for future reference, I might write a book on how delusional so many creationists are.

"Eve gene" marker... HILARIOUS!!!

 

[tas8831]

I can only try to stick with science and empiricism, in this exercise.

"Eve gene"
"the 'connection' between chimps and humans is asserted, based ONLY upon the chromosome count, and the assumed telomere reattachment."
""Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes"

So scientific. So empirical.

So creationist with no science education or understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I looked it up.
The phrase only appears on blogs and places like Quora where people ask about it.

It appears that the "Eve gene" refers to all mtDNA:

"So each of us inherits our mtDNA from our own mother, who inherited her mtDNA intact from her mother, and so on back through the generations – hence mtDNA’s popular name, ‘the Eve gene’."

'Popular name' - never heard it until today. That is because as a biologist, I don't use 'popular' terms.

Regardless, your story is undercut, since "Eve gene" refers to the entire mtGenome.

I have been thinking about what I am seeing in the use of "eve gene". Say I were foolish enough to start a discussion of cosmology and the Big Bang with a bunch of physicists and people knowledgeable in physics. Then I claim that everything they understand about the science is mere belief. I have spent 40 years of informal study and I know they are just progressivist endoctrinees bent on spreading their religion and I am going to debate them using real science and civility.

Skipping over the idea of creating a hostile environment and blaming that on others, when I discovered that I was aligned against people that might know more than I do, I would have to find a way to compensate as best I could. There is no chance I am going to concede defeat to a bunch of people I have falsely and incorrectly labeled as members of some political group I hate no matter how correct they might be.

What to do? What to do?

I know. I'll race through searches on Google. I'll grab the first things I can that fit something I remember from school. Pictures! Awesome! I'll look smart posting these. If they ask questions. I'll deflect and rely on my hostile atmosphere.

What about terms? Scientists love technical words. Hmmmmm. I'll just do the same thing. I'll grab the first thing I see. Eve gene. Yeah! That sounds sciencey. Who knew that a lot of popular terms coined out of ignorance sound so sciencey?

It is just an analogy, but I think it is a good one for what we are seeing.

 

[tas8831]

So you assert. Do you have any evidence of a reattached telomere? Or any evidence of ancestry?

I presented it with equus. The mtDNA maternal marker, and the ability to reproduce indicate descendancy.

You and real science people have very different notions of what constitutes "evidence."

You tell a story that runs counter to understood science and call it evidence.

I present an explanation supported by references to the scientific literature, you call it "obfuscation."

My initial impression of you was perfectly accurate.

 

[tas8831]

Wow. It looks to me like someone needs some basic education in how reproduction works at the genetic level.

A claimed 40 years of debate on this stuff under his belt, bro - can't beat that with your fancy book lernin'!

 

[Polymath257]

Read the Quora entries... Hilarious - one high school kid claimed it confers black skin to African women or some such nonsense.

Yeah, I saw that one also.

It really is amazing the amount of ignorance there is out there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I re-looked at the Google returns when I searched for "Eve gene" - most were as I mentioned - to blogs and such. The other distinct group I saw this mentioned on?
Creationist or religious websites... Hmmm...

In addition to the snatch and grab tactic of gathering "information", creationists fake science would be consistent as a source for the position.

I tend to agree, but that is ad hominem, apparently.

Apparently, ad hominem has a definition here that it has no where else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, I saw that one also.

It really is amazing the amount of ignorance there is out there.

And people will still ask why educated people get so passionate when they see people preaching ignorance. As if there is no possibility that ignorance could become the core knowledge base. That is why education and science were invented. Because ignorance was the core knowledge base.

 

[tas8831]

Here is a decent summary about mtDNA, and the 'Eve gene'.. the flag that indicates direct descendancy.
https://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/eve.html
One tiny piece of our DNA is inherited only down the female line. It is called mitochondrial DNA because it is held as a unique circular strand in small tubular packets known as mitochondria that function rather like batteries within the cell cytoplasm.

This is hilarious - this is the same source I used, but I note that the expert here avoided some very important parts -

1st paragraph:

To say that we get exactly half of our DNA from our father and half from our mother is not quite true. One tiny piece of our DNA is inherited only down the female line. It is called mitochondrial DNA because it is held as a unique circular strand in small tubular packets known as mitochondria that function rather like batteries within the cell cytoplasm....Males, although they receive and use their mother’s mitochondrial DNA, cannot pass it on to their children. The sperm has its own mitochondria to power the long journey from the vagina to the ovum but, on entry into the ovum, the male mitochondria wither and die. It is as if the man had to leave his guns at the door.​

What was it the 40-year expert on all things scientific proclaimed? Ah yes -

The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene. Males don't have it, but all women do. It is passed down from mother to daughter in ANY descended line. It is the same 'marker' in every human being..​

2nd paragraph:

So each of us inherits our mtDNA from our own mother, who inherited her mtDNA intact from her mother, and so on back through the generations – hence mtDNA’s popular name, ‘the Eve gene’.​

What was it the 40-year expert on all things scientific proclaimed? Ah yes -

I did not say, 'males don't have mtDNA! ' .. that is a strawman.
Your ignorance of the mtDNA 'marker' does not invalidate my points.​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems that your only tactic is hiding behind your whining.

You are far less informed than I even thought a day ago - you clearly wasted those 40 years patting yourself on the back for the pseudo-knowledge you convinced yourself you possessed.

"Eve gene"? Evolutionists claim that groups of humans evolved separately from chimps?
Human chimp affinites are solely based on karyotype?

You are amazingly uninformed yet supremely confident - a true Dunning-Krueger effect specimen and truly a waste of our time.

So, don't reply. I no longer care. I will continue, however, to expose your bombastic ignorance every chance I get so as to warn would-be creationists not to listen to your naive, ignorant gibberish. I am archiving your claims for future reference, I might write a book on how delusional so many creationists are.

"Eve gene" marker... HILARIOUS!!!

I have been considering writing a book like that too. There is certainly plenty of material to work with.

 

[Polymath257]

"Eve gene" marker... HILARIOUS!!!

I also have to say that there is a LOT of misinformation out there about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Not many people seem to grasp the fact the mtEve was part of a population that did NOT include Y-chromosome Adam.

 

[tas8831]

I did not say, 'males don't have mtDNA! ' .. that is a strawman.
Your ignorance of the mtDNA 'marker' does not invalidate my points.

Study up a bit before you rush in and accuse me of error.

The expert of 40 years wrote:

"The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene. Males don't have it, but all women do. It is passed down from mother to daughter in ANY descended line. It is the same 'marker' in every human being.."​

YOUR OWN SOURCE CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE "EVE GENE" IS A LAYMAN'S TERM FOR mtDNA:

So each of us inherits our mtDNA from our own mother, who inherited her mtDNA intact from her mother, and so on back through the generations – hence mtDNA’s popular name, ‘the Eve gene’.

​

This "marker" that you have been yammering on about yet not defining all along is actually just mtDNA!
So - do you not read your own sources, or are you just really this uninformed yet confident?
Creationists...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I also have to say that there is a LOT of misinformation out there about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Not many people seem to grasp the fact the myEve was part of a population that did NOT include y-chromosome Adam.

It is sometimes a mistake to use a popular idea in naming a scientific discovery after. Maybe it was to make technical ideas more accessible. But it gives the wrong impression and that impression is what remains alive in the minds of people. mtEve is not the first woman, but many think that scientists found the first human woman. Impressions.

 

[tas8831]

I also have to say that there is a LOT of misinformation out there about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Not many people seem to grasp the fact the mtEve was part of a population that did NOT include Y-chromosome Adam.

That, too. But HIS OWN SOURCE indicated that the "Eve gene" is just a layman's term for mtDNA - he HAD to have read that, yes? Yet he maintains that this 'Eve gene' is some kind of "marker" unique to humans. I don't understand the psychology behind these antics. Sad, whatever it is.

 

[Polymath257]

Your eagerness to refute my points causes you to assume wrongly, and address straw men.

Exactly where did I get it wrong? Your own link says that the 'Eve gene' is actually the same as mtDNA. You said that males do not have the 'Eve gene', which by this identification is simply false.

Now, if you *don't* claim the 'Eve gene' is the same as mtDNA, then what, precisely, is it?

The 'eve gene', is not my phrase, but was coined many years ago. Look it up, before you attack with indignation.

And it was invented by people who were either ignorant or dishonest. But, you failed to pick up on their misinformation. And the fact that it *is* misinformation is clear to anyone who understands this stuff.

 

[Polymath257]

That, too. But HIS OWN SOURCE indicated that the "Eve gene" is just a layman's term for mtDNA - he HAD to have read that, yes? Yet he maintains that this 'Eve gene' is some kind of "marker" unique to humans. I don't understand the psychology behind these antics. Sad, whatever it is.

Well, I *suspect* there is little or no understanding of what a mitochondrium is, why it has DNA, and why the mitochondrial chromosome is different than the nuclear chromosomes. There is also showed a lot of misunderstanding of how genes are passed on in general and why there are differences with mtDNA. Finally, it isn't really clear there is understanding of what a gene *is*, what it means to be a 'mutation', and why the patterns of inheritance are relevant for a discussion of evolution.