Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

It is false that it can only be speculated. We know that there was never a bottleneck in the human population to the extent that there would have been only one female.

..then provide evidence for these 'other women' who existed during, or before, the mt-MRCA.

It is speculation, ONLY to assume either:
1. This was the first human woman.
2. There were other women and humans around.

Her 'Origin' is unknown. That can only be speculated. All we know is that she was there, as the single woman ancestor for all humanity.

A repeated claim, but still wrong.

You assert, with no reasoning or facts.

And this is false. The exact same type of analysis of mtDNA can give the female-line MRCA of humans and chimps or humans and other primates. To say this is speculative is to deny the exact methods that lead to our discovery of mtEve in the first place.

Where? You assert this, but provide no evidence or studies. I have only seen a link from an ignored poster to support this claim. Where are the facts? Show the studies that indicate descendancy with other primates, through the mtDNA. This is an asserted bluff, with no substance. I cannot examine or rebut assertions. I can only dismiss them.

Show evidence of 'high walls' around DNA.

Observable Reality. Every reproduction ever observed produces the combined genes from the parents. Nothing else can get by the high walls of genetic homogeneity.

If you claim, or believe, that organisms can 'create' new genetic information, add traits, chromosomes, or change the genomic structure, it is incumbent on you to evidence this theory. Merely asserting it as plausible is not evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

..then provide evidence for these 'other women' who existed during, or before, the mt-MRCA.

It is speculation, ONLY to assume either:
1. This was the first human woman.
2. There were other women and humans around.

No, it is NOT speculation. If the population was down to one woman, that would have had observable effects on the variations we see in humans (we would be closer to cheetahs in our variability).

Her 'Origin' is unknown. That can only be speculated. All we know is that she was there, as the single woman ancestor for all humanity.

Actually, we can know her ancestry by looking at other primates.

You assert, with no reasoning or facts.

Where? You assert this, but provide no evidence or studies. I have only seen a link from an ignored poster to support this claim. Where are the facts? Show the studies that indicate descendancy with other primates, through the mtDNA. This is an asserted bluff, with no substance. I cannot examine or rebut assertions. I can only dismiss them.

Well, do you want me to repost the article the other poster linked to? That is where the evidence resides.

Observable Reality. Every reproduction ever observed produces the combined genes from the parents. Nothing else can get by the high walls of genetic homogeneity.

Simply wrong. In every generation there are hundreds of mutations. This is well documented and observable and repeatable. There are simply no 'high walls'.

If you claim, or believe, that organisms can 'create' new genetic information, add traits, chromosomes, or change the genomic structure, it is incumbent on you to evidence this theory. Merely asserting it as plausible is not evidence.

I have given evidence of this theory. I have explained mechanisms for this process. I have pointed to specific examples where we have observed this happen. You refused to look at any of this.

 

[usfan]

Regarding the genome in bacteria:

They are completely different than most other life forms. They have a circular structure, compared to the coiled, double helix of most everything else. Here is an interesting graphic about the human genome:

About 45-50% of the current gene pool just in humans is unknown, as to function or purpose. Lots of the 'millions' of base pairs are repetitive.. copies of the dna blueprint so that you can't stray from the original design. Bacteria have different parameters that they operate under.. you cannot correlate the actions of the bacterial genome to those of other organisms.

Bacteria can & do vary more WITHIN their genetic structure, modifying their genes on the fly, & adapt to conditions. Here is an article about the bacterial genome.

"Genomic islands in pathogenic and environmental microorganisms
Ulrich Dobrindt, Bianca Hochhut, Ute Hentschel & Jörg Hacker
Abstract
Horizontal gene transfer is an important mechanism for the evolution of microbial genomes. Pathogenicity islands — mobile genetic elements that contribute to rapid changes in virulence potential — are known to have contributed to genome evolution by horizontal gene transfer in many bacterial pathogens. Increasing evidence indicates that equivalent elements in non-pathogenic species — genomic islands — are important in the evolution of these bacteria, influencing traits such as antibiotic resistance, symbiosis and fitness, and adaptation in general. This review discusses the recent lessons that have been learned from pathogenicity islands in pathogenic microorganisms and how they apply to the role of genomic islands in commensal, symbiotic and environmental bacteria."

source
I know this is a mouthful.. and these bacteria don't taste very good, anyway. But the gist of the article is about certain bacteria adapting to conditions, such as antibiotic resistance, on the HORIZONTAL level. They have genes that allow adaptation.. this is something observable, & repeatable, & the mechanism within the genes of the bacteria can be defined. IOW, we can see it happening, & it is a real, scientifically proven process.

But to make a leap over to other organisms, or claim they can do this too, is not accurate. It is false. There are SOME genes that can allow more variability, such as Darwin's finches.. which is some birds that have greater beak variability WITHIN that species. They have even isolated the genes in the finch that allows this variation. But the variety of beaks is NOT new & different genes, but the same ones, allowing a wider range of variability. See the difference? We can SEE & OBSERVE the genes working in bacteria, finches, & some other organisms. But those are specific genes, that we cannot observe in other organisms. You cannot correlate this ability in all other organisms. The genes are specific to the organism, & do not apply universally to all organisms.

Also, note the first sentence in the above paper:
Horizontal gene transfer is an important mechanism for the evolution of microbial genomes.
This 'seems' to imply that bacterial gene transfer 'proves evolution!' But the 'evolution' they are talking about is HORIZONTAL, or 'micro' evolution. It is the changing goal posts again.. the false equivalency. Just because you can see the obvious variability WITHIN a basic genetic structure, does NOT mean you can apply it OUTSIDE of that structure. That is another process, & has to be proved, scientifically, not just asserted that they are the same.

 

[usfan]

No, it is NOT speculation. If the population was down to one woman, that would have had observable effects on the variations we see in humans

But the entire human population ...IS... descended from this 'one woman.' That is what 'Most Recent Common Ancestor,' means.

All of our unique variability has been passed down to us, from her.

Actually, we can know her ancestry by looking at other primates.

Seriously? You can look at a gorilla and 'know' the MRCA's ancestry? How? This is a wild assertion, with nothing to support it.

Well, do you want me to repost the article the other poster linked to? That is where the evidence resides.

..if you want to use it to support your claims..
Otherwise, you have unbased assertions.

You refused to look at any of this.

Now don't start that again.. i challenge your 'facts', and look for real evidence. I sift out assertions, and look for facts. I refuse nothing, except to be drawn in to hysterical fallacies.

And btw, i do appreciate your posts. You have a mild snippy remark every so often, but so do i. You do, obviously, try to keep the discussion topical, and given the volume of heckling and jeering from the peanut gallery, this is no mean feat. It would be easy for you to be drawn in with your ideological comrades, and join them in unrestrained heckling. But you don't. I briefly thought i saw a trend to that, but you centered and returned to topical replies.

Thanks for the reasoned discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

But the entire human population ...IS... descended from this 'one woman.' That is what 'Most Recent Common Ancestor,' means.

Yes, everyone is a descendant of this one woman *in an unbroken line of women*. If you choose to look at Y-chromosome man, which is the MRCA for and *unbroken line of men*, you will find an ancestor that lived at a completely different time and place.

And, if you instead simply looked for a MRCA without restrictions on male or female line of descent, you would get a *third*, completely different ancestor.

All of our unique variability has been passed down to us, from her.

Nope. We got much of our variability from others alive at the same time. The fact is that mtEve is simply the MRCA for a line of only women. If you choose other criteria for your line of descent, you will get other individuals.

Seriously? You can look at a gorilla and 'know' the MRCA's ancestry? How? This is a wild assertion, with nothing to support it.

Not at all. We can do this in *precisely* the same way we found mtEve. We look at the descent tree obtained from the mtDNA. We would find mtEve as *one* of the nodes in the primate descent tree.

..if you want to use it to support your claims..
Otherwise, you have unbased assertions.

Now don't start that again.. i challenge your 'facts', and look for real evidence. I sift out assertions, and look for facts. I refuse nothing, except to be drawn in to hysterical fallacies.

But when I present actual evidence, you ignore it. The comparison between human and chimp chromosomes is actual evidence. The fact that humans and chimps have 30% *identical* genes and most of the rest have only two differences (out of hundreds of locations) together with gene duplications (which you have ignored can happen) has been completely ignored by you. Why is that?

And btw, i do appreciate your posts. You have a mild snippy remark every so often, but so do i. You do, obviously, try to keep the discussion topical, and given the volume of heckling and jeering from the peanut gallery, this is no mean feat. It would be easy for you to be drawn in with your ideological comrades, and join them in unrestrained heckling. But you don't. I briefly thought i saw a trend to that, but you centered and returned to topical replies.

Thanks for the reasoned discussion.

But the fact is that the 'peanut gallery' has more expertise than I in this topic and their evidence and assertions should be considered. Ignoring them because you have a delicate ego isn't a reasonable approach.

 

[tas8831]

Really? Here is a side-by-side comparison between human and chimp chromosomes.

http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2008/05/hum-chimpchromosomes.gif

Where's the "Eve gene"??? Huh???

 

[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.

"Eve gene"

Your own source said that this is just what ignorant people call mtDNA.

You claimed that men don;t have it initially, then when shown how stupid of a claim that was, you pretended that you never claimed such.

I have little need to debate someone with at best a high school (and when I say high school, I mean it was taught in high school, not that you could understand it) level grasp of the science, who then lies ab out his dopey errors to try to save face.

Can't wait to expose more of your bombastic ignorance - it will be fun AND easy!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only reason I can see for presuming common descent is because no one has any better idea. But, is it any harder to imagine various lines of ancestry tracing back to separate émergences of life from non-life, than to imagine that they all came from the same one? Would the Cambrian explosion be any harder to explain that way, than by speciation from pre-Cambrian species?

You may be making the mistake of looking for "proof" when you should be looking for "evidence".

Science does not prove things, at least not in a mathematical sense of absolute proof. All that it can do is to find supporting evidence for a concept. Right now the theory of evolution is the only concept with scientific evidence that supports it. And the evidence is almost endless. Scientists need to keep an open mind because of this. It is also why there are almost always tons of qualifiers in scientific articles that creationists are always talking about. Eventually though most people accept what appears to be reality. Such as the fact that a bowling ball will drop due to the as laid out in the theory of gravity and that life is the product of evolution as shown by the similar endless evidence for it.

Since the topic of this thread is "Scientific evidence . . ." I think I will quote from an article on what scientific evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

That is from the Wiki article on scientific evidence, but there are others that say the same thing. It seems like a very low hurdle to pass. Scientific evidence is any observation that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. That means for something to be evidence one only needs to ask two questions. Is the idea testable? That means can it be refuted by an observation? And there are many ways that the theory of evolution could fail The most common one you will hear is finding a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit". But there are countless other ways as well The concept is testable. The second question is "Does this observation support the concept?" And again we see that time after time.

I think that the OP has conflated "evidence" with "proof". But as has been explained countless times in this thread, there is no proof in science there is only evidence.

Now, why is there not any scientific evidence for creationism? The fault lies with creationists. Creationists are afraid to form an idea that is refutable and give examples of reasonable tests that could refute it. They tend to have improper tests. For example they try to base their "tests" on how well other ideas do. A test must be testable on its own merits, not on the merits of another idea.

If people want to come up with ideas that tell a different tale than the theory of evolution does they are free to do so. ,But no one has managed to come up with a testable theory yet.

I will at times say that the theory of evolution is "proven", but I always use the condition that it is proven in the legal sense. That of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I will not say that it has been proven in a mathematical sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Ow man, this is too good....

So here's this guy posting a side by side comparision of human and chimp genomes, to counter your point about comparisions of humand and chimp genomes... and how do you react?

With accusations of "heckles" and "ad hom"


Good grief..........................................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These are not point by point rebuttals, but ad hominem smears, to demean me, in general.

Actually, those are quote mines that you cherry picked to argue a false accusation of ad hom.
Because literally none of these quotes were written as "the counterpoint" to whatever nonsense you were spewing.

When someone says "ow boy, someone needs some education on x" and then proceeds to educate and explain exactly why your statement was wrong, then no ad hom is present.

I'm a bit sensitive to this, since i get it in such volume.

No, you CLAIM it in such volume. You don't actually get it in such volume.
That you interpret every time someone disagrees with your nonsense and calls it out, as being an "ad hom" is YOUR problem.

I doubt many would put up with the barrage of hostility, over a scientific theory, that i endure here.

Yes, yes, playing the poor victim is step two in this process.

And I may abandon the thread altogether, if no scientific discussions are offered.

The thread is filled with scientific arguments. To bad you're missing them due to getting yourself worked up over nothing at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw this explanation for chromosome numbers, and thought others might find it informative. He is a definite proponent of common descent, but he explains dna fairly well.

Basics: How can chromosome numbers change? | ScienceBlogs

And BTW, i liked this guy's communication skills. Even though he misses some important things, he does explain the DNA pretty well.. in good layman terminology. Unfortunately, he glosses over some pretty important parts, like the splits & alleged rejoins at the centromere level. But the basic drawings of dna, & the explanations of the terms & definitions are pretty good. IMO, there is quite a bit of misunderstanding about genetics. It is not a 'lego block' of genes, assembled together to form different organisms. And, they don't randomly change, or split, or mutate into a new organism, or many of the things popularized in sci fi writings, movies, & imaginations. DNA is pretty tough. It makes high walls, so that an organism can ONLY be what its parents were. There is no 'hopeful monster' with genetics. The actual science, experiments, & conditions of the DNA make the ToE more implausible & fantastic every day.

Chromosome change is not that big of an issue. Horses and zebras have a large number of differences in chromosome numbers and yet they can interbreed. Horses have 62 chromosomes and zebras have from 32 to 46 depending upon species. Creationists will claim that they are the same "kind" since they can provide offspring.

Zebroid - Wikipedia

I would not hang your hat on the "chromosome numbers do not change" argument since that does not fly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ow man, this is too good....

So here's this guy posting a side by side comparision of human and chimp genomes, to counter your point about comparisions of humand and chimp genomes... and how do you react?

With accusations of "heckles" and "ad hom"


Good grief..........................................

Correcting our OP is an "ad hom". Very interesting definition

Ooops, I think that I just heckled.

 

[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.

Nothing even in your quote about a flag or a gene.

Desperate much?

 

[tas8831]

Chromosome change is not that big of an issue. Horses and zebras have a large number of differences in chromosome numbers and yet they can interbreed. Horses have 62 chromosomes and zebras have from 32 to 46 depending upon species. Creationists will claim that they are the same "kind" since they can provide offspring.

Zebroid - Wikipedia

I would not hang your hat on the "chromosome numbers do not change" argument since that does not fly.

I have also shown him the karyotypes of muntjacs, and he 'laughed'. He doesn't want to learn. He just wants to browbeat, like he does at home, I'd guess.

 

[tas8831]

Yep. Physics had the same problem with the Higg's boson, called the 'God particle'. And there is the common misunderstanding of the 'Big Bang' as a type of explosion.

I think we spend more time trying to explain these bad names than we would have if we kept things technical.

At least with the BB, that was a naysayer that coined the term as a perjorative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing even in your quote about a flag or a gene.

Desperate much?

I found that article as well, independent of him. I Google searched for "Eve gene" and that was the only one that came up that used that term. It is a blog and blogs are not necessarily the best sources. If you read it you will see that it also makes the error of calling Mitochondrial Eve the MRCA for humans.

 

[tas8831]

More fail...

My, my. The heckling has reached fever pitch.. all over the reference to the 'mitochondrial eve.'

So many straw men, false accusations, and disinformation about it.. good fuel for the hecklers, i guess..

I shouldn't be surprised thst progressive indoctrinees don't understand what the 'mitochondrial eve' marker is about. I take for granted, and assume (falsely), that the devotees in common descent are up on the latest genetic research.. from the 80s..

This from wiki:

In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently livinghumans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.
...
The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve. This led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic.
...
By 1985, data from the mtDNA of 145 women of different populations, and of two cell lines, HeLa and GM 3043, derived from a Black American and a !Kungrespectively, was available. After more than 40 revisions of the draft, the manuscript was submitted to Nature in late 1985 or early 1986[14] and published on 1 January 1987. The published conclusion was that all current human mtDNA originated from a single population from Africa, at the time dated to between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago.
...
Cann, Stoneking and Wilson did not use the term "Mitochondrial Eve" or even the name "Eve" in their original paper; it appears to originate with a 1987 article in Science by Roger Lewin, headlined "The Unmasking of Mitochondrial Eve."[17] The biblical connotation was very clear from the start. The accompanying research news in Nature had the title "Out of the garden of Eden."[18] Wilson himself preferred the term "Lucky Mother" [19] and thought the use of the name Eve "regrettable."[17][20] But the concept of Eve caught on with the public and was repeated in a Newsweek cover story (11 January 1988 issue featured a depiction of Adam and Eve on the cover, with the title "The Search for Adam and Eve"),[21] and a cover story in Time on 26 January 1987.[22]
... end of wiki quote

I find it most bizarre, in that i referenced a commonly known term in human genetics.. the discovery of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor, and it becomes fodder for all manner of heckling, jeering, and straw men creation.

If anyone wants to debate or discuss the mt-MRCA, i would be happy to do so. The significance of this discovery has many implications for older theories of origins, dating, and has many other connotations as well. I have been very i trigued, for decades, over the continued discoveries about the mt-MRCA in several studies, and referenced it earlier in the canid study, that used to get more attention, but has been upstaged by Mitochondrial Eve.

Perhaps soon i will expand upon the significance of the mt-MRCA, and some of the implications and different theories it has debunked and spawned. But for now, i will return the floor to the hecklers, who seem to be having a lot of fun with this catch phrase.

So none of the brilliant evolutionists here were familiar with the mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor, that has been talked about in genetics for nearly 40 years? You think i just made this up? ROFL!!

I'm fascinated how slow the information that refutes a pop belief gets through to the indoctrinees. They still believe the programming from whatever institution created them, and dutifully parrot the Approved Scientific Narrative, that they have been taught. Updated information about the mt-MRCA, neanderthal, vestigiality, and a host of other beliefs are buried in 19th century science.. they can quote Darwin as a proof text, but are not current on the actual science.

My bad.. i should not assume the posters here would be up to date with recent genetic discoveries. I'll try to clarify early on, to avoid misunderstandings. I need to realized the low bar of understanding I'm dealing with.

..but then that would ruin their fun! Carry on.. back to the jeering and ridicule!

All those backflips and distortions and condescension and namecalling, and the best you could do was bold a statement that undermines your laughably inept "Eve gene":

"all current human mtDNA originated from a single population from Africa, at the time dated to between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago."

I don't think you are clever enough to see that you undermined your whole grade-school 'Eve gene' , 'flag', gene', garbage that you've been peddling.


Regressive indoctrinees are so dopey...

 

[tas8831]

My central argument in this thread has been genetic

No, your central argument has been some dopey nonsense about a "flag", a "marker" a "gene" called the "Eve gene" that no other creatures but humans have.

It took 60 pages of posts before you finally came out and named this "flag" as the "Eve gene" - which is in reality, according even to your own link, the mitochondrial genome, and NOT a specific gene or 'flag' or 'marker.'

And being a regressive righty "Christian", you cannot bring yourself to admit how stupid you've been, and are now trying to pretend that you knew it all along.

How Trumpian. How creationist of you.

 

[tas8831]

2. A 'flag', or correlation was discovered, showing descendancy from mother to daughter.

This one will not quit, will it?

WHAT FLAG????

Let me guess - the "Eve gene"????

 

[tas8831]

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.

TRANSLATION:

Since you, too, have repeatedly demonstrated my ignorance and Dunning-Kruger issues, I'm gonna ignore you so I can continue to pretend that I am totally smart!

Covfefe "Eve gene" marker!!​