• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Status
Not open for further replies.

usfan

Well-Known Member
There have been a lot of amazing and enlightening discoveries, about DNA, and especially the mitochondrial DNA, in the last 30 yrs. Most of them have been problematic for the theory of universal common descent. Reconciling the facts about genetics, with the beliefs about common descent has not been easy, and has given rise to hysterical dogmatism, among the True Believers in evolutionary theory.

I have gleaned a lot of information from this study by Ann Gibbons, and will refer to it often.

The small circles of DNA in mitochondria have been the favored tool for evolutionary and forensic studies since their sequence was unraveled in 1981. Unlike the DNA in the nucleus of the cell, which comes from both egg and sperm, an organism's mtDNA comes only from the mother's egg. Thus mtDNA can be used to trace maternal ancestry without the complicating effects of the mixing of genes from both parents. And every cell in the body has hundreds of energy-producing mitochondria, so it's far easier to retrieve mtDNA than nuclear DNA.

From Gibbons:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was
ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.


Source

I'll give you a summary, in layman's terms.

1. Mitochondrial DNA was discovered in the early 80s.
2. A 'flag', or correlation was discovered, showing descendancy from mother to daughter.
3. An estimate of dating, based on phylogeny (evolutionary tree assumptions) was made of 1 mutation every 10k yrs, or so.
4. MEASURED dating of mtDNA mutation, from multiple actual samples, produced a constant 800 yr rate.
5. Facts and scientific results have been poo pooed, in favor of preconceived beliefs, based only on assumptions of evolution.. aka, circular reasoning.

I am surprised, that the facts about mtDNA, in humans and other phylogenetic haplogroups, have not already introduced more doubt as to the 'settled science!' beliefs, regarding universal common descent. But dogmatic beliefs do not fade easily, and the dogma indoctrinated into modern 'science!' students are based on decades old teachings, and mandated Indoctrination.

It is too bad, that the hecklers here will not allow a rational, civil discussion about the significance and connotations of the mtDNA discoveries. Anything i say is pounced on & ridiculed without any consideration, or perusal. Standard debate practices of 'point/counter point' are abandoned in favor of fallacies and propaganda. Eventually I'll give up, which is the goal of the hecklers.
No scientific discussion allowed! Only the Approved State Beliefs can be repeated!
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Really? Here is a side-by-side comparison between human and chimp chromosomes.
Since you have chosen to join the hecklers, i will ignore any points you make. Sorry, i have to be consistent in this. Request a reset, and ditch the ad hom, if you want to debate the science.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Since you have chosen to join the hecklers, i will ignore any points you make. Sorry, i have to be consistent in this. Request a reset, and ditch the ad hom, if you want to debate the science.

Where did I do an ad hom? I pointed out where your information is incorrect. I pointed out where things you have said are wrong. And I have explained *why* they are wrong.

I have been attempting to keep this about the actual science, but if you present material that is wrong, I will call it out as such. And that is what *should* be done in a scientific discussion.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
The hecklers are afraid to submit their beliefs/opinions to scientific scrutiny. They prefer to jeer and ridicule from the sidelines, comfortable in the knowledge their assertions will NOT be examined.

It shows doubt, imo, in the blind faith in common descent.. that they are afraid to examine the facts in a systematic, orderly, scientific manner. Anything that upsets the tidy belief system they have been indoctrinated with is dangerous and must be avoided. Echo chambers are preferable, to keep those cherished beliefs intact.

I only have to endure some brief demeaning ridicule.. they have to live with denial and rational impotence. It is too bad, and is a tragic indicator of the direction of epistemology, empiricism and Reason, in our corrupt society.
 

usfan

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

Yep. Exactly as I thought. You don't understand what a mitochondrium is. You don't understand why they are inherited through the female line. And you don't understand why we can use mtDNA to determine inheritance of all primates.

So calling it an 'Eve gene' is at best a misnomer and at worst ignorant or dishonest.

i suggest you learn how such inheritance trees are constructed and what they mean.

And it is still a misnomer, ignorant, or dishonest. That you got it from a dishonest website doesn't change that fact.

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.

Furthermore, errors that are very common (and promoted) among creationist sources.

It is your misunderstandings about mtEve that are the issue

your seeming to think

All I can say here is that the level of misunderstanding is huge.

These are not point by point rebuttals, but ad hominem smears, to demean me, in general. You assume and project some strawman of my points, and/or make snide insinuations about my person, instead of addressing the facts and points.

I'm a bit sensitive to this, since i get it in such volume. I doubt many would put up with the barrage of hostility, over a scientific theory, that i endure here.

I have decided to ignore a couple of the more hostile and voluminous posters, to protect my dainty psyche. And i may abandon the thread altogether, if no scientific discussions are offered.

..matters not to me.. :shrug: i can leave echo chambers of mandated compliance of belief, and stick with scientific methodology.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
These are not point by point rebuttals, but ad hominem smears, to demean me, in general. You assume and project some strawman of my points, and/or make snide insinuations about my person, instead of addressing the facts and points.

No, I took your actual posts and deduced that you didn't understand some relevant information. Your subsequent posts supported that conclusion. So these are *not* ad homs, but are, rather, attempts to point out mistakes and to give correct information in their place.

So, I presented the basic information that you to not know concerning how genes are passed between generations. I supplied the information about mitochondria that you apparently were missing.

I pointed out how the use of 'Eve gene' is at least a misnomer and at worst ignorant or dishonest. In your case, I think it was done with good intent, but that does not deny the fact that it was misinformation that betrays ignorance about the topic.

I also pointed out several other aspects where what you have written betrays a lack of understanding of the basics *and* I attempted to prove good information that might allow you to get up to speed.

And yes, from what you have actually written, you have some very big misunderstandings about this material. If you want to learn, I am more than happy to help you to do so. But, for example, your claim that human and chimp genes are 'completely different', while it may be an honest mistake, also shows your lack of proper education in this subject.

Now, if you are too sensitive to admit it when you are wrong and to be educated, then you are not going to be able to conduct a good scientific discussion. Everyone is wrong at some point. The honest thing to do is admit it and never use the false information again. Can you do that?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Now, if you are too sensitive to admit it when you are wrong and to be educated, then you are not going to be able to conduct a good scientific discussion. Everyone is wrong at some point. The honest thing to do is admit it and never use the false information again. Can you do that?
You merely accuse me of 'wrong!, by attacking straw men of your own construction, not any of my actual points.

If my wording is unclear, or you do not understand the terminology, ask for clarification, do not pounce on a 'gotcha!' statement that is not there.

Patronizing is also a fallacy.. you can display your understanding and knowledge by communicating, not be presuming or asserting it.

You can believe what you want, about me, personally, but it is irrelevant to include those opinions in a scientific, fact based discussion.

Show me the CONCEPT that you feel is wrong, then support that with reasoning and facts. Merely accusing, 'Ignorant!', 'Wrong!', is not a logical rebuttal.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
These are not point by point rebuttals, but ad hominem smears, to demean me, in general. You assume and project some strawman of my points, and/or make snide insinuations about my person, instead of addressing the facts and points.

I'm a bit sensitive to this, since i get it in such volume. I doubt many would put up with the barrage of hostility, over a scientific theory, that i endure here.

I have decided to ignore a couple of the more hostile and voluminous posters, to protect my dainty psyche. And i may abandon the thread altogether, if no scientific discussions are offered.

..matters not to me.. :shrug: i can leave echo chambers of mandated compliance of belief, and stick with scientific methodology.
You really need to learn what an ad hominem is. Corrections and observations of errors are not as hominems.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You merely accuse me of 'wrong!, by attacking straw men of your own construction, not any of my actual points.

If my wording is unclear, or you do not understand the terminology, ask for clarification, do not pounce on a 'gotcha!' statement that is not there.
And I did that also. I asked for clarification if I was wrong in my understanding of what you said about 'the 'Eve gene'. I asked for clarification concerning what you meant my 'markers' in mtDNA and specifically what they are. You were silent in both cases.

And the problem is that the wording certainly *looked* clear. And it looked to clearly show misunderstandings about the basic material.

Patronizing is also a fallacy.. you can display your understanding and knowledge by communicating, not be presuming or asserting it.

You can believe what you want, about me, personally, but it is irrelevant to include those opinions in a scientific, fact based discussion.

Show me the CONCEPT that you feel is wrong, then support that with reasoning and facts. Merely accusing, 'Ignorant!', 'Wrong!', is not a logical rebuttal.

OK, that mtDNA is a gene, specifically the 'Eve gene'. Or that mtDNA qualifies as a 'marker'.

You also made the claim that the 'Eve gene' never appears in males.

Another is the concept that chimp genes and human genes are 'completely different' when, in fact, many are actually identical.

And another is that mtDNA for humans is something special and cannot be used *with exactly the same techniques& to show the relations between humans and other primates.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
I pointed out how the use of 'Eve gene' is at least a misnomer and at worst ignorant or dishonest. In your case, I think it was done with good intent, but that does not deny the fact that it was misinformation that betrays ignorance about the topic.
This is your opinion. The term has been in use for over 30 years. I did not coin it, nor have i pounded it as a point. It was a side point, mostly, to illustrate the matrilineal ancestor, and which we talked about at length in the canidae study.

Your righteous indignation was misdirected at me, as the terminology was not my point, but the concept of The matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor.

It is a deflection to rail about some pop term, that is used in journalistic pieces, and project 'Ignorance!' 'Deception!' ..over a pop science term that has nothing to do with me or my points.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is your opinion. The term has been in use for over 30 years. I did not coin it, nor have i pounded it as a point. It was a side point, mostly, to illustrate the matrilineal ancestor, and which we talked about at length in the canidae study.

Your righteous indignation was misdirected at me, as the terminology was not my point, but the concept of The matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor.

It is a deflection to rail about some pop term, that is used in journalistic pieces, and project 'Ignorance!' 'Deception!' ..over a pop science term that has nothing to do with me or my points.
No, Mitochondrial Eve has been used as a term for thirty years. The term "Eve gene" has not been used. That was the objection.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This is your opinion. The term has been in use for over 30 years. I did not coin it, nor have i pounded it as a point. It was a side point, mostly, to illustrate the matrilineal ancestor, and which we talked about at length in the canidae study.

Yes, it is my opinion that anyone truly educated about this material would not use that term and would *immediately* see that it was a misnomer.

The term has been used only in places where ignorance and misinformation abound. There is a HUGE difference between mitochondrial Eve and the 'Eve gene'.

Your righteous indignation was misdirected at me, as the terminology was not my point, but the concept of The matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor.

Well, you didn't mention anything about a MRCA prior to that.

Now, in your own words, what do you think that mtEve represents?

Do you realize that mtEve would NOT be a MRCA in general?


It is a deflection to rail about some pop term, that is used in journalistic pieces, and project 'Ignorance!' 'Deception!' ..over a pop science term that has nothing to do with me or my points.

Why bring in the pop term at all? You attempted to make points based on the idea in a way that, again, I think you were honestly mislead into believing was legitimate.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Another is the concept that chimp genes and human genes are 'completely different' when, in fact, many are actually identical.
Please show these 'identical' genes. I dispute this as a belief, not empirical science. Unless you establish this as fact, it is an unevidenced assertion.

While you're at it, show how all the genes are the same, on the telomere arm, to indicate chromosome fusion.. THAT would be evidence.
And another is that mtDNA for humans is something special and cannot be used *with exactly the same techniques& to show the relations between humans and other primates
Straw man. I have only said that the mtDNA can be used to trace ancestry, WITHIN a genotype.. humans, equids, and canids have been presented as examples. Apes, too, have mtDNA through which you can trace their ancestry, which i said earlier. But it is FALSE that you can trace the mtDNA matrilineal 'marker' between humans and apes, or canids and felids, or ANY different phylogenetic structure.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Um.......what? :confused:
:smile: I like your posts very much. Like an oasis in a desert. Your posts to me have been very helpful. You’ve helped me clarify my thoughts about some things. I think you said that it’s only to correct misinformation, so you might not be interested in any other kind of conversation with me, but I would like to have a discussion with you about the social problem that I’m seeing here, and why it matters to me. It’s about some ways that people excuse and camouflage their unloving attitudes and behavior, and the adverse affects of that on human progress, including the kinds of research and representations that facilitate progress.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Yes, it is my opinion that anyone truly educated about this material would not use that term and would *immediately* see that it was a misnomer.

The term has been used only in places where ignorance and misinformation abound. There is a HUGE difference between mitochondrial Eve and the 'Eve gene'.
..take it up with Science Magazine, Wiki, and innumerable articles on the subject. I have called it, from the beginning, the mtDNA 'marker', that indicates descent. Howls of ridicule and jeering went up over that. :shrug:

The unscientific hysteria, and 'gotcha!' replies, only reinforce my perception that bluff, hysteria, and propaganda is used to support common descent.

Some terminology is ambiguous.. by design? ..Some, maybe. Lack of understanding about the many complex nuances in genetics.. that is still not completely understood by those in the fields.. ..is not an indicator of 'Deception!' 'Ignorance!' ..from those with a more informed opinion.

The 'Thou Fool!', 'Knave!', replies, that typify the hecklers and True Believers, are pretense.. pseudo science bluff, to fool the uninformed. They are not rational, scientific arguments.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
More from Gibbons (the study referenced above):

The most widely used mutation rate for noncoding human mtDNA relies on estimates of the date when humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, taken to be 5 million years ago. That date is based on counting the mtDNA and protein differences between all the great apes and timing their divergence using dates from fossils of one great ape's ancestor. In humans, this yields a rate of about one mutation every 300 to 600 generations, or one every 6000 to 12,000 years..

..aka, circular reasoning.. you ASSUME the descendancy of apes and humans, THEN calculate a 'rate!'. It is convenient if the data fits within the preconceived assumptions.

The researchers sequenced 610 base pairs of the mtDNA control region in 357 individuals from 134 different families, representing 327 generational events, or times that mothers passed on mtDNA to their offspring. Evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations (one every 12,000 years). So they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations, or one every 800 years. The data were published last year in Nature Genetics, and the rate has held up as the number of families has doubled..

So the ACTUAL, MEASURED rates, from real life data and evidence, is suspected, while the ASSUMPTIONS are clung to with dogmatic certainty. The measured, scientifically based rate is dismissed, in favor of the assumed and believed rate that fits the status quo dogma. Even Wiki 'updated' their report of mt-MRCA to disavow the Gibbons study.

Don't you think that questioning some of the Indoctrination you have been pounded with, from all angles, would be a good idea?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Please show these 'identical' genes. I dispute this as a belief, not empirical science. Unless you establish this as fact, it is an unevidenced assertion.

Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia

"Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein. As mentioned above, gene duplications are a major source of differences between human and chimp genetic material, with about 2.7 percent of the genome now representing differences having been produced by gene duplications or deletions during approximately 6 million years [6] since humans and chimps diverged from their common evolutionary ancestor. The comparable variation within human populations is 0.5 percent.[7]"

This was originally published originally in Nature.

While you're at it, show how all the genes are the same, on the telomere arm, to indicate chromosome fusion.. THAT would be evidence.

Here is the large scale comparison: http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2008/05/hum-chimpchromosomes.gif

A more detailed comparison can be found in the databases for the human and chimp genomes.

Straw man. I have only said that the mtDNA can be used to trace ancestry, WITHIN a genotype.. humans, equids, and canids have been presented as examples. Apes, too, have mtDNA through which you can trace their ancestry, which i said earlier. But it is FALSE that you can trace the mtDNA matrilineal 'marker' between humans and apes, or canids and felids, or ANY different phylogenetic structure.

Actually, you can and it is done. And the results show that humans are related to other primates.

Now, you claim it cannot be done, but give no scientific reason to support the claim that it cannot be done. And this is in the face of the fact that it *is* done and it gives consistent results to other comparisons between humans and other primates. And, in fact, this is good evidence that humans and other primates *are* in the same 'phylogenetic structure'. In other words, we are related to them.

So, at this point, it looks like you are asking for special pleading.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
..take it up with Science Magazine, Wiki, and innumerable articles on the subject. I have called it, from the beginning, the mtDNA 'marker', that indicates descent. Howls of ridicule and jeering went up over that. :shrug:

No, you have given the whole mtDNA chromosome. And guess what? It indicates descent, true, but it also indicates descent of humans from the other primates.

The unscientific hysteria, and 'gotcha!' replies, only reinforce my perception that bluff, hysteria, and propaganda is used to support common descent.

No, exactly the same techniques that show the patterns of descent among canids show the patyterns of descent among primates (and that includes us).

Some terminology is ambiguous.. by design? ..Some, maybe. Lack of understanding about the many complex nuances in genetics.. that is still not completely understood by those in the fields.. ..is not an indicator of 'Deception!' 'Ignorance!' ..from those with a more informed opinion.

Um, no. The terminology isn't ambiguous. genes and chromosomes are different. MtDNA is NOT a single gene. The inventor of the term 'Eve gene' was ignorant, pure and simple.

The 'Thou Fool!', 'Knave!', replies, that typify the hecklers and True Believers, are pretense.. pseudo science bluff, to fool the uninformed. They are not rational, scientific arguments.

But they are natural responses when misinformation is presented as legitimate information.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
The hecklers are afraid to submit their beliefs/opinions to scientific scrutiny. They prefer to jeer and ridicule from the sidelines, comfortable in the knowledge their assertions will NOT be examined.

It shows doubt, imo, in the blind faith in common descent.. that they are afraid to examine the facts in a systematic, orderly, scientific manner. Anything that upsets the tidy belief system they have been indoctrinated with is dangerous and must be avoided. Echo chambers are preferable, to keep those cherished beliefs intact.

I only have to endure some brief demeaning ridicule.. they have to live with denial and rational impotence. It is too bad, and is a tragic indicator of the direction of epistemology, empiricism and Reason, in our corrupt society.
I believe in science
evolution
the universe

God did it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top