Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

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.


"Telomere arm"???


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



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

"Eve gene"....

The telomere arm is what the chromosome uses to hug the eve gene.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ann Gibbons?

She is a staff wriiter for AAAS...

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.'

I initially missed the first part of your post, but I see you and I recognized his error about the same time. He saw the byline and assumed that it was a research report about work conducted by Ann Gibbons. I do not think he actually read it with any sense of comprehension and maybe just skimmed it for quote mines. Obviously, those that have actually studied and read science journals recognized his error right away. So much for 40 years of loving, reading and studying science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Cough, choke, hack.. Elsevier..

One of the advantages of working for a large company is that they shell out money for literature and search engines.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You didn’t define “evidence,” so I’ll use a definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and discuss the question of what points to common ancestors for humans and other species and/or to evolution theory. I’m not sure what you’re calling “the theory of evolution,” so for now I’ll consider it as some views about the history of life on earth that are currently the most popular among people with biology degrees.

First I want say that I consider the whole question of what is true and false in history, including natural history, as a false question with harmful consequences for society and for research. What I think matters is finding the best ways to develop and apply models of history, for the benefit of all people everywhere.

What I see pointing to common ancestry is simply the observation of similarities between species. From what I’ve seen, ever since common ancestry was first proposed as a possible explanation for similarities between species, more and more similarities have been found. One sign of good possibilities in a theory is that it explains things that it was not originally designed to explain. Other than similarities between species, I don’t know what there is, or ever could be, that would point to common ancestry between humans and other species. All I can think of would be findings in archaeology and paleontology connecting some reproductive dots from humans and from some other species, to a common ancestor.

Apart from common ancestry, it looks to me like everything else in evolution theory is either trying to explain variations in fossils over time, or trying to answer questions about differences between species that arise from imagining that they have common ancestors. What I see pointing to those theories is that they have been very useful for some beneficial purposes. On that topic I want to say that I don’t see endless, aimless, acrimonious debating about the theory across lines of prejudice, as a way of socializing and passing the time away; or stigmatizing people who don’t agree with the theory , as examples of beneficial uses of the theory.

Highly conserved developmental genes shared by the many diverse groups of organisms supports common ancestry. These genes are largely stable, since they operate on very basic functions, so changes acceptable to natural selection are trivial and few to none. Radical changes would be lethal. It would be of value knowing about these and how they interact for many reasons. I have previously explained some of this in pointing out that scientific discoveries often do not have immediate value in application.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You didn’t define “evidence,” so I’ll use a definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and discuss the question of what points to common ancestors for humans and other species and/or to evolution theory. I’m not sure what you’re calling “the theory of evolution,” so for now I’ll consider it as some views about the history of life on earth that are currently the most popular among people with biology degrees.

First I want say that I consider the whole question of what is true and false in history, including natural history, as a false question with harmful consequences for society and for research. What I think matters is finding the best ways to develop and apply models of history, for the benefit of all people everywhere.

What I see pointing to common ancestry is simply the observation of similarities between species. From what I’ve seen, ever since common ancestry was first proposed as a possible explanation for similarities between species, more and more similarities have been found. One sign of good possibilities in a theory is that it explains things that it was not originally designed to explain. Other than similarities between species, I don’t know what there is, or ever could be, that would point to common ancestry between humans and other species. All I can think of would be findings in archaeology and paleontology connecting some reproductive dots from humans and from some other species, to a common ancestor.

Apart from common ancestry, it looks to me like everything else in evolution theory is either trying to explain variations in fossils over time, or trying to answer questions about differences between species that arise from imagining that they have common ancestors. What I see pointing to those theories is that they have been very useful for some beneficial purposes. On that topic I want to say that I don’t see endless, aimless, acrimonious debating about the theory across lines of prejudice, as a way of socializing and passing the time away; or stigmatizing people who don’t agree with the theory , as examples of beneficial uses of the theory.

How should people that accept science respond to people that behave the way usfan does in his rejection of science? Is the response to the rejection of common descent or to the tactics employed to ridicule, avoid, and smear valid responses to unsupported claims against a valid and supported theory?

 

[Jim]

But you have mentioned unloving as if correcting someone's ignorance and obfuscation was somehow targeted anger and hatred.

Correcting misinformation, and denouncing harmful behavior, is not what I mean by “unloving.”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correcting misinformation, and denouncing harmful behavior, is not what I mean by “unloving.”

I have been thinking about that since you mentioned it. Is it within reason to ask if you have developed some empirical idea of love or are just using it conceptually. A love concept so to speak.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correcting misinformation, and denouncing harmful behavior, is not what I mean by “unloving.”

I suppose my question is, do you have a definition for love that you are using and, if so, how did you arrive at that definition.

 

[Jim]

Then it would be an hypothesis.

It was then. Now it’s a premise, an axiom, like saying that through any given point there is one and only one line parallel to a given line.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was then. Now it’s a premise, an axiom, like saying that through any given point there is one and only one line parallel to a given line.

No. It has been tested and developed into a theory arising from the evidence and explaining that evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was then. Now it’s a premise, an axiom, like saying that through any given point there is one and only one line parallel to a given line.

It is not self-evidently true. It is a theory supported by evidence. Are there multiple molecules of heredity? No. All life uses the same DNA. That is evidence supporting common descent. Is there morphological homology that can be traced in a phylogeny? Yes. Evidence supporting common descent. Are there chromosomal aberrations that can be used to demonstrate common descent. Yes. More evidence. Are there genetic elements that support common descent? ERV's are genetic elements that show relationships and commonality of descent. What about genetic homology? Yes, that too.

All of this is explained by a shared common ancestry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How should people that accept science respond to people that behave the way usfan does in his rejection of science? Is the response to the rejection of common descent or to the tactics employed to ridicule, avoid, and smear valid responses to unsupported claims against a valid and supported theory?

Since he will not respond to logic and evidence not much else is left. Of course then after going out of his way to earn what he calls "heckling" he will complain about that to no end. Is that not more than a little hypocritical?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since he will not respond to logic and evidence not much else is left. Of course then after going out of his way to earn what he calls "heckling" he will complain about that to no end. Is that not more than a little hypocritical?

Except the heckling that was initially complained about was actually posters pointing out the flaws in how the rejection of a scientific theory was being carried out. The only real heckling is not coming from everyone else on this thread but is directed towards them.

It hypocrisy on a large geometric scale.

 

[usfan]

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.

I will review this study, as a request from you. The poster who originally quoted it has chosen the heckling, ad hom route, which compels me to ignore any rational points.

..for example:

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.

1. I'm obviously vilified here for challenging the belief in common ancestry.
2. I did not, nor ever have, presented myself as an 'expert!', in anything. That is the schtick of you and your poo flinging troup.
3. My posts demonstrate clear understanding of the subject, which enrsges the True Believers. They expect me to be intimidated by their bullying and personal attacks, and run away crying.
4. My beliefs, sexual preference, hat size, education, worldview, age, background, or heritage are not the topic. Those are ad hominem deflections.
5. I deal in facts and reason, and this enrages the jihadists, who attack me with religious zeal.
6. My 'Errors!' are accused, not evidenced with facts. Very little scientific rebuttals or fact based debate has taken place, here.
7. I 'Refuse!!' .. to pretend a civil, rational discussion with hysterical hecklers. I offer a scientific, rational, civil, fact based debate on a major belief in origins. Make rational points, devoid of snark and jeering, I'll reply. Mock and focus on me, I'll point it out, return fire, or ignore it.

Your first reply in this thread was to offer a private discussion, which i declined. This is a public forum for group discussion about topics of interest in a forum labeled 'Religious Forums'.

You then seemed to bow out, noting the difficulty in communicating in a chaotic environment, but ironically, keep returning to add to the chaos.

But you seem to prefer the chaotic environment. That's hardly surprising, as other creationists before you have exploited it to their advantage and you appear to be no different. Oh well....a few years from now no one will even remember this thread existed and all your bluster will have been in vain.

That's why he refused my offer. If he accepted, his primary defense mechanism will be taken away.

Now, you seem to have joined with the hecklers, and focus your attention on me, personally, instead of the topic.

..but i will examine this link, as a favor to poly, who has attempted to keep the discussion topical.

 

[usfan]

Here's the 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."

This is a statistical study, not a laboratory experiment. But I'll look at the claims, and offer my analysis.

The summary in the abstract is the conclusion of the writers, in this computer model. Is it compelled by the evidence? That's for the reader to judge.

From the abstract:
While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism.

1. The prejudicial bias is clearly stated in the opening paragraph. Common Descent is assumed as 'settled science!'
2. 'Statistical methods', have received criticism, for the very reason mentioned, and this statistical analysis is no different. "..take sequence similarity as evidence for common ancestry while ignoring other potential biological causes of similarity.."
3. 'Sequence similarity' (looks like!) , is a subjective, argument of plausibility. Because of similarity of design, materials, and construction, a conclusion of 'common descent!', is asserted. This is no different than drawing a phylogenetic tree and declaring it as evidence.

So right off, the premise is based on an assumption of common descent. The deck is stacked to deliver the desired results, which is what you get in a computer model.

The conclusion and belief in common descent is asserted often, but the 'evidence' is vague, and only alluded to. Most people seem to be dazzled by their conclusions and forceful assertions, not any empirical evidence.

The most compelling among these objections was that the results of the tests are a trivial consequence of significant similarity among the sequences.

This criticism of another statistical analysis applies equally to this one. How is 'similarity!' of construction or design an indication of common ancestry?

All that is being done here, is taking the building blocks of life.. ALL LIFE.. amino acids, etc, and declaring this lowest common denominator as 'proof of evolution!' This was the earliest argument from Darwin.. similarity of appearance (looks like!) morphology, and arbitrary taxonomic classifications make it seem plausible.

But this is not evidence. It is speculation. It is a belief, repeated as a plausibility until it is accepted as 'settled science'.

..the community remains without a thoroughly convincing statistical method to demonstrate universal CA, whether among all domains of life or for more specific sets of species.

And i see nothing in this study to refute this observation of statistical analysis. Assumptions are made, between chimp and humans, the same as the previous computer models.

The data from the earlier, criticized study appears to be based on:
..used as evidence the highly unlikely topological agreement among the most-parsimonious trees for five separate proteins sampled from the same taxa..

So there were 5 seperate proteins, analyzed for similarity, then plugged into a computer model to calculate the odds of this happening, if you assume common descent.

This computer model is based on another study of primates.. animals assumed to be descended from a common ancestor.

A recent publication (Perelman et al. 2011) contains a molecular phylogeny of primates created using 54 nuclear genes and 191 taxa including 186 primate taxa from an alignment of 34,941 base pairs that the authors reduced from a larger alignment after discarding sites with great alignment uncertainty. Sequence data included roughly equal amounts of coding and noncoding sites, mostly from autosomal regions of the genomes, but with a few thousand sites from both X and Y chromosomes. No taxon was sampled for all 54 genes (humans are the most sampled with 53 genes) and many taxa have long stretches of missing data.

Everything is based on the ASSUMPTION of common descent. The cherry picked samples, the molecular structures, assumed to be related, then coming up with the 'odds', that this is what happened.

..it becomes reasonable to ask the specific question of how strongly molecular sequence data support the inference that the human species shares CA with other primates.

..reasonable, indeed. It is even more reasonable to ask how any statistical or visual 'similarity!' can infer common descent..

That is the crux of this study. It is a computer model, using sampled proteins from chimps and humans, and comparing their structure. Descendancy is assumed, and a calculation is contrived to arrive at a number..

The significance of this number can only be described as 'a trivial consequence of similarity'.

Hopefully, the grant money was good, and the conclusions seem to impress those who already believe strongly in common descent, but i see no evidence of ancestry, other than the age old argument of similarity. Putting a statistical number, from a human programmed computer model, is not a compelling scientific study, to support common descent.

 

[Polymath257]

It was then. Now it’s a premise, an axiom, like saying that through any given point there is one and only one line parallel to a given line.

I really, really shouldn't do this, but don't forget non-Euclidean geometry.

 

[Jim]

@Jose Fly I thought that all my questions were answered, but now I have some new ones. At first it seemed reasonable to me to me to think of common ancestry as an explanation for similarities between species, but the more I thought about that, the less sense it made. One of the similarities between animal species is that they are composed of atoms containing electrons, and protons, but I wouldn’t try to explain that by saying that they have common ancestors. Why couldn’t the similarities simply be a result of the nature of evolutionary processes?

 

[Jim]

I really, really shouldn't do this, but don't forget non-Euclidean geometry.

Exactly. Precisely. That was my whole point.

 

[Jim]

@usfan I’m beginning to see what you’re talking about here. The more I read about evolution research, the more that some of it looks like an endless, desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship.

 

[metis]

@usfan I’m beginning to see what you’re talking about here. The more I read about evolution research, the more that some of it looks like an endless, desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship.

That's really not how it works as any intentional falsification of the data is basically the "kiss of death" in science. Interpretations may vary, but falsifications are not tolerated.