Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Polymath257]

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?

A quick google scholar search gives the following:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...arine-orders/A6C7BA0BBD638ECFB2DA91AD655468A2

"This model appears to describe adequately the “explosive” diversification of known metazoan orders across the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary, suggesting that no special event, other than the initial appearance of Metazoa, is necessary to explain this phenomenon."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215000744
Here we reveal the dynamics of the earliest diverse skeletal metazoan communities known, the early Cambrian (Tommotian–Atdabanian) archaeocyathan sponge reefs, over a period of 20 million years from their first appearance ~ 535 million years ago (Ma) until the first mass extinction event ~ 512 Ma."

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.33.031504.103001

"The increase in disparity (the origin of the phyla) and diversity are best understood as being the result of the interplay of the combinatorial bilaterian developmental system and the increase in the number of needs the first bilaterians had to meet as complex ecological interactions developed. "

Diversity partitioning during the Cambrian radiation

"Using a comprehensive database and sampling standardization, we dissect global diversity patterns. The trajectories of within-community, between-community, and global diversity during the main phase of the Cambrian radiation revealed a low-competition model,"

Does that help?

 

[Polymath257]

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."​

And this is a good example of a scientific paper testing for common descent and determining it is a better explanation of the data than is separate ancestry.

@usfan : care to comment on the details of this paper? It seems to provide exactly what you have been asking for: evidence of common ancestry of humans and other primates.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ann Gibbons is a qualified scientist and a correspondent for the journal Science. She did not do a study of mitochondria, mitochondrial DNA or work on a molecular clock. Siting an article she wrote as a correspondent is not citing work that she carried out.

Mitochondria were first described by Carl Benda and 1898. Margit and Sylvan Nass first discovered mitochondrial DNA in 1963. Maternal inheritance was observed in a number of different species or hybrids (mule, rat, mouse, toad, fruit fly) in the 1970's.

Mitochondria, mtDNA and maternal inheritance were not first discovered in the 1980's as has been erroneously reported elsewhere in this thread.

The mtDNA show inheritance and common descent regardless of which molecular clock is followed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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..........................................

False accusations to boot.

 

[tas8831]

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?

Has anyone tried to simulate a super nova?

Has anyone tried to simulate the 1906 San Francisco earthquake?

Has anyone tried to simulate the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo?

Has anyone tried to simulate creation by a deity?

 

[tas8831]

A quick google scholar search gives the following:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...arine-orders/A6C7BA0BBD638ECFB2DA91AD655468A2

"This model appears to describe adequately the “explosive” diversification of known metazoan orders across the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary, suggesting that no special event, other than the initial appearance of Metazoa, is necessary to explain this phenomenon."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215000744
Here we reveal the dynamics of the earliest diverse skeletal metazoan communities known, the early Cambrian (Tommotian–Atdabanian) archaeocyathan sponge reefs, over a period of 20 million years from their first appearance ~ 535 million years ago (Ma) until the first mass extinction event ~ 512 Ma."

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.33.031504.103001

"The increase in disparity (the origin of the phyla) and diversity are best understood as being the result of the interplay of the combinatorial bilaterian developmental system and the increase in the number of needs the first bilaterians had to meet as complex ecological interactions developed. "

Diversity partitioning during the Cambrian radiation

"Using a comprehensive database and sampling standardization, we dissect global diversity patterns. The trajectories of within-community, between-community, and global diversity during the main phase of the Cambrian radiation revealed a low-competition model,"

Does that help?

Golly - it is almost as if the only people that know how to look things up on the intertubes are non-creationists.

Might explain some things, I suppose...

 

[tas8831]

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..........................................

That is what pretenders do when they discover that their browbeating, which totally worked on the teenagers at their church, doesn't work on people that have actual educations and experience in the fields they makes things up about.

 

[tas8831]

False accusations to boot.

What else has he got at this point?
Not that it helps his position at all, but his ego apparently needs the boost.

"Eve gene"....

This thread alone has given me like 15 awesome 'look how uninformed and desperate these folks are' phrases for my archives. Comedy gold!

 

[Polymath257]

Golly - it is almost as if the only people that know how to look things up on the intertubes are non-creationists.

Might explain some things, I suppose...

Well, let's face it. Using Google Scholar instead of Google increases the quality of the results by quite a bit.

 

[Jose Fly]

And this is a good example of a scientific paper testing for common descent and determining it is a better explanation of the data than is separate ancestry.

And what stood out to me was how their model didn't assume that sequence similarity = common descent. That's quite a feat IMO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What else has he got at this point?
Not that it helps his position at all, but his ego apparently needs the boost.

"Eve gene"....

This thread alone has given me like 15 awesome 'look how uninformed and desperate these folks are' phrases for my archives. Comedy gold!

It is like watching a bound and gagged person start a gunfight with the Marine Corp. That he bound and gagged himself makes it even funnier.

 

[Polymath257]

Has anyone tried to simulate a super nova?

Oh, yes. The models are actually quite detailed at this point. A quick google scholar search will give some amazing information about neutrinos.

Has anyone tried to simulate the 1906 San Francisco earthquake?

Once again, yes, quite a few. Again google scholar is quite nice.

Has anyone tried to simulate the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo?

Mostly concerning the release of aerosols, but yes.

Has anyone tried to simulate creation by a deity?

Funny, for some reason that one seems to be missing. I wonder why?

 

[tas8831]

And what stood out to me was how their model didn't assume that sequence similarity = common descent. That's quite a feat IMO.

What strikes me about DNA analyses in general - which creationists generally deny for no actual reason - is that in NO such anaylses are there any real 'taxonomic' or genetic reasons that DNA should produce outcomes that, golly, look an awful lot like what we would expect if evolution occurred... Unless, you know, evolution did occur.

That these analyses DO pretty much match what we expect should give creationists pause, but it doesn't.

 

[tas8831]

Oh, yes. The models are actually quite detailed at this point. A quick google scholar search will give some amazing information about neutrinos.



Once again, yes, quite a few. Again google scholar is quite nice.


Mostly concerning the release of aerosols, but yes.



Funny, for some reason that one seems to be missing. I wonder why?

For some reason, I don't think Jim meant models when he asked about simulation.... But maybe I am just jaded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, let's face it. Using Google Scholar instead of Google increases the quality of the results by quite a bit.

Yes, but the constant running into paywalls is a bit frustrating for those that do not have access to college library. I know that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, but I wish that at least older articles that could be said to have been "paid for" were free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What strikes me about DNA analyses in general - which creationists generally deny for no actual reason - is that in NO such anaylses are there any real 'taxonomic' or genetic reasons that DNA should produce outcomes that, golly, look an awful lot like what we would expect if evolution occurred... Unless, you know, evolution did occur.

That these analyses DO pretty much match what we expect should give creationists pause, but it doesn't.

And this is exactly why creationists have to refuse to understand the concept of scientific evidence. It has what seems to be a deceptively low hurdle. Yet creationists cannot cross it. All that evidence has to do is to support (or oppose) a concept that is testable to be scientific evidence. Strangely enough that with such low qualifications for an observation to be considered evidence that creationists cannot find any.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but the constant running into paywalls is a bit frustrating for those that do not have access to college library. I know that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, but I wish that at least older articles that could be said to have been "paid for" were free.

I agree. If I am on campus or use the university VPN, I can get by many of them, but far from all of them.

Let's face it. Most of the journals are paid for by university library subscriptions and *those* are much more expensive than they need to be. There are some publishers that are worse than others (cough, cough Springer).

 

[tas8831]

I agree. If I am on campus or use the university VPN, I can get by many of them, but far from all of them.

Let's face it. Most of the journals are paid for by university library subscriptions and *those* are much more expensive than they need to be. There are some publishers that are worse than others (cough, cough Springer).

Cough, choke, hack.. Elsevier..

 

[Jose Fly]

What strikes me about DNA analyses in general - which creationists generally deny for no actual reason - is that in NO such anaylses are there any real 'taxonomic' or genetic reasons that DNA should produce outcomes that, golly, look an awful lot like what we would expect if evolution occurred... Unless, you know, evolution did occur.

That these analyses DO pretty much match what we expect should give creationists pause, but it doesn't.

The only explanation I've ever seen from any creationist on these sorts of results basically amounts to a conspiracy theory....something like "Of course evolutionists get results that support evolution...that's what the whole process is set up to do!"

Of course most creationists just ignore the results completely. Much safer that way.

 

[Jim]

@Jose Fly @Polymath257 Thank you for your thoughtful and generous responses to my questions and comments. You’ve been very helpful.