Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

The hecklers are afraid to submit their beliefs/opinions to scientific scrutiny.

Why do you keep lying? WWTD? Never mind, Trump WOULD lie to cover up his ignorance.

Came across this paper using complete mitochondrial genomes and all of the markers contained therein to assess Primate evolution.

A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
July 16, 2013

From the results and discussion:

We produced complete mt genome sequences from 32 primate individuals. From each individual, we obtained an average of 1508 tagged reads with an average length of 235 bp, yielding approximately 356 kb of sequence data corresponding to 21-fold coverage. All newly sequenced mt genomes had lengths typical for primates (16,280–16,936 bp; Table S1), but the GC-content varied largely among taxa (37.78–46.32%, Table S2, Figure S1). All newly generated mt genomes consisted of 22 tRNA genes, 2 rRNA genes, 13 protein-coding genes and the control region in the order typical for mammals. By combining the 32 newly generated data with 51 additional primate mt genomes, the dataset represents all 16 primate families, 57 of the 78 recognized genera and 78 of the 480 currently recognized species [31].​

They used 81 complete mitochondrial genomes from primates representing all 16 families. The descriptions of the genomic content represent all of the markers that one could hope for. The use of these markers allow for the tracing of the ancestry of all of the primate taxa used, as shown in this phylogenetic tree, and such trees are produced as the output of a rigorous analysis - the same sort employed in the Canid paper.

Note that this includes humans, Neanderthals, etc. This phylogenetic tree incorporates the tracing of mtDNA snps and other such markers. The shared ancestry of all Primates is thus proven.


I guess when your level of science understanding is equal to what high school kids write on Quora, we can't expect much from you, eh usfan?

 

[tas8831]

You merely accuse me of 'wrong!, by attacking straw men of your own construction, not any of my actual points.

"Eve gene"

'Nuff said, covfefe.

 

[tas8831]

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?

Asked and answered.

 

[tas8831]

This is your opinion. The term has been in use for over 30 years.

No, "Eve gene" has not been in use for 30 years.

And it is not a "marker", nor is it a "flag."

Those are YOUR fantasy-driven assertions.

Do you have no idea how childish and silly you look when you act this way?

Then, I forget that regressive indoctrinees see admitting stupid errors as a weakness or something.

Covfefe!

 

[tas8831]

You don't even fib very well - odd, seeing as how you have so much practice...

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.

Nothing to do with your points????

By date, oldest first:


Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Let's look at some facts:
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.​

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Here is a decent summary about mtDNA, and the 'Eve gene'.. the flag that indicates direct descendancy.​

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

We now know that all living humans have the same ancestral mother.. the Mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor. ..aka, mitochondrial Eve, or also called the 'eve gene'.​

Yup....

"Eve gene" had totally nothing at all to do with your points or your claims, just a term that popped up by accident or whatever excuse you will give...

Funny how your latest use actually implies that "Eve gene" is just mtDNA - you wrote that just today, well after I and others proved that it is stupid to claim that there is a thing called "Eve gene" that is a - how did you describe it initially? Ah yes:

"The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene."​

You also claimed initially that:

"Males don't have it, but all women do."​

Which you are now denying, crazily. I mean - it is like you don;t think we can actually look at your earlier posts or something...

And now, realizing how bombastically ignorant you've been all along, you are trying to blame US for "misinterpreting" your naive, uninformed assertions.


DEAR CREATIONISTS - PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT PRETENDER CLAIMING 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT..

 

[Polymath257]

@Jose Fly Has anyone been able to simulate the Cambrian explosion, or anything like it, with any combination of speciation models?

The biggest problem in such models would be considering rates of fossilization. The Cambrian 'explosion' such as it was, was primarily the shift to hard body parts, like shells and later skeletons. That drastically changed the rate of fossilization, even if populations and overall diversity weren't changed much.

Furthermore, we have fairly extensive records of pre-Cambrian life.

 

[tas8831]

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.

But you also claimed that there is this "flag" in mtDNA called the "Eve gene", so who cares what you 'dispute'? You can't grasp the science.

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.

"Telomere arm"???

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.

I presented Carnivores and Primates and you stupidly dismissed them due to your laughable belief in the "eve gene" not existing in other Primates.

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.

Not false at all, but how would you even know?

"Eve gene"....

 

[tas8831]

It has almost become TOO easy to find fatal flaws in usfan's "scientific" claims. He clearly thinks WAYYYYY too highly of his grasp of scientific issues.

"Eve gene"?

DNA analyses are totally different from gene analyses?

Wow...
Narcissism is a terrible thing ....


Fun stuff!

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Thanks!

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.

Sure, sounds interesting.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly Has anyone been able to simulate the Cambrian explosion, or anything like it, with any combination of speciation models?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[tas8831]

..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.

And you've been WRONG all along!
Way to try to engage in historical revisionism!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Let's look at some facts:
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.
​

There we have 2 acts of stupidity/lies* the very first time you got around to "naming" this marker you kept blabbering like a fool about.

Only so many ways to interpret that "fact", so-called -

You thought until yesterday that males do not have mitochondria;

You thought until yesterday that males do not have the "Eve gene", despite claiming now to understand that "Eve gene" is just a moron's way to refer to the mitoGenome;

Which is it, superstar?



*I find my characterization harsh yet defensible, for how else to characterize claims made by a person that has, on multiple occasions, claimed to have studied/debated all this for 40 years; who has on at least 4 occasions re-posted the DNA organization picture and deigned to imply that only he understands it all, claiming that there seems a lot of misunderstandings about genetics...

 

[tas8831]

More from Gibbons (the study referenced above):

Ann Gibbons?

She is a staff wriiter for AAAS...

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

You mean like how the Hebrew tribal deity breathed into dust of the ground and a fully formed adult human male popped out some 6000 years ago?

Yeah, I would spend more time questioning THAT if I were you, seeing as how all of your posts in the last 24-48 hours have been nothing but revisionism and face-saving,m having had your ignorance truly and unequivocally exposed - this time, re: your primary 'argument.'

 

[Jose Fly]

However useful and plausible the premise of common ancestry might be, I don’t see that as a reason to impose it on models of natural history. Or rather, I don’t see that as a reason for vilifying people, and depreciating their character and capacities, if they don’t believe it.

If you're talking about the OP author, the vilification isn't because he denies common ancestry. Rather, it's because immediately after presenting himself as some sort of expert on evolutionary biology, his posts demonstrated that he is actually extremely ignorant of that subject. And not only does he refuse/reject any attempt to correct his errors, he actually doubles down on his ignorance and claims that it's really everyone else who doesn't know what they're talking about.

IOW, it's not his beliefs that are being ridiculed, it's his behavior.

 

[Jim]

... even if populations and overall diversity weren't changed much.

Maybe I misunderstood what I read. I thought that “explosion” was referring to a multiplication of species in a magnitude and a time frame that required some rethinking about evolution models.

 

[Jim]

If you're talking about the OP author ...

I’m not.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe I misunderstood what I read. I thought that “explosion” was referring to a multiplication of species in a time frame that required some rethinking about evolution models.

Well, originally we didn't have many pre-cambrain fossils, so the vast increase of *fossilization* looked like a huge increase in the number and variety of species. There *was* an increase of variety, but at the level we expect when a new niche is opened up. No rethinking of evolution has been required.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Want to bet that before yesterday, his response would have been:

"Chimps don't have the Eve gene!"

His is a pretty common tactic among barely scientifically literate creationists - they will accept standard phylogenetic/population genetics techniques and outcomes only up to the point that they would find themselves accepting larger-scale evolution, then, for no scientific reason that they can articulate, they just draw a line and say "No further!".
Even the 'professional' creationists do this. About 15 years ago, I read some papers in CRSQ about 'baraminology' - creationist systematics. First, they stated outright that they used Scripture as their ultimate authority, so anything that did not look like it would be cool with bible tales, they would reject.
Besides that, they were using DNA sequence data, karyotype data, etc., and analyzing it using standard phylogenetics software packages. They were getting the same arrangements actual scientists got, right up until humans grouped with chimps - they then, "knowing" that chimps and humans are totally unrelated, used the genetic distance between chimps and humans derived from their dataset as a 'yardstick' to assess common ancestry. Basically, they declared that any pair of critters had to have a smaller genetic distance to be related.
This, of course, basically un-did most of their previous analyses, and so they opted to employ absurd, cherry-picked criteria to get what they wanted - things like whether to not they lived in built homes, whether or not they formed monogamous pair bonds, etc.
Sad, desperate stuff.

ala "Eve gene"...

 

[Jim]

No rethinking of evolution has been required.

I didn’t mean questioning the idea of models explaining the variations in fossils over time. I meant rethinking how to model them. Are you saying that there hasn’t been any discussion of revising the models, to account for the Cambrian explosion? However that may be, has anyone even tried to simulate the Cambrian explosion, or anything like it?

 

[Jose Fly]

The only reason I can see for presuming common descent is because no one has any better idea.

No, it's because it's useful and generates tangible results. For example, common descent is the framework under which comparative genomics is conducted and is one of the primary means of discerning genetic function.

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?

It's not a question of what can or can't be imagined, it's simply about what's most accurate. For example, specific to the question of human/primate common ancestry, some scientists ran two different scenarios through some statistical modeling, and here's what they found (LINK)....

"We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species."​

 

[Jose Fly]

I’m not.

Oh....then I guess I'm not sure who you were talking about.