Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

I don’t see the behavior that is sometimes associated with belief in common ancestry as a reason to stigmatize the belief itself. I think that would be just as harmful socially, and detrimental to human progress as stigmatizing any other view.

Nor do i. But perhaps i am more sensitive from bearing the brunt of relentless personal attacks, while trying to examine dry facts.

..whatever.. personal feelings, motives, and emotions are not relevant in a fact based, scientific discussion about a theory. I trade a few barbs with the hecklers, who outnumber me 30 to one, as a helpful poster noted.. (his statistical analysis was unverified! ..).

Yes, i use hard terms, in describing this pretentious "theory', because i AM a great believer and admirer of the Scientific Method. I hate to see it reduced to a propaganda meme, and twisted into a tactic of indoctrination. But this is exactly what has happened. This theory is not scrutinized as a scientific theory, but is defended (and promoted) with religious zeal. It is a religious belief, about the universe, and is NOT 'settled science!' like the pretenders and pseudo scientists say.
I can't really soft pedal this.. how can you? I can (and do) expose the religious nature of Universal Common Ancestry, and defend True Science. The implications of indoctrination and delusion are impossible to miss, and i can only hope that some will wake up to this deception.

Science and Reason are too important to let them be hijacked by ideologues, for propaganda purposes.

 

[usfan]

To the topic:

Flaws in the theory of Common Ancestry (CA):

1. It is based on a plausible assumption of common descent, from visual or structural similarity. Circular reasoning is its primary basis.
2. It has never been observed, just believed to have happened. All organisms can only vary within their genetic parameters (micro evolution).
3. It is based on a false equivalency. It is a flaw to assume accumulated change in an organism, when only the genetic options within the DNA are available. Micro does not equal macro.
4. There is no mechanism for 'creating' genetic information. Chromosomes, genes, traits.. can only come from the parent organism. There is nothing within the cell structure to 'create' diversity. It is either there, to be drawn from, or it is not.
5. Mutation is not a creative force for complexity. It is deleterious or barely survivable, at best. Calling a mutated gene a 'new gene!', is like wrecking your car, and calling it a 'new car!'
6. The reliance on fallacies.. ad hom, straw men, poisoning the well, equivocation, and others, exposes this 'theory' as a religious belief, not a scientifically valid theory.
7. Evidence for this belief cannot be defined or listed, in a rational way. Hysteria and indignation typifies the True Believers, not scientific rationalism.
8. The basic premise of common ancestry canmot be tested, repeated, or observed.. not from lack of trying. Thousands of experiments for over 100 years have attempted to substantiate and validate this theory. All have failed. The only scientific conclusion? Common Ancestry is not true. There is no evidence it can, or did, happen.

 

[usfan]

The story title was really Why Do Chimpanzees Throw Poop?

But the title I chose was more fun. And the story contains these excerpts:

Like simian Nolan Ryans, chimpanzees have garnered a reputation among the rest of the animal kingdom for their pitching prowess. Unfortunately, it’s not baseballs they’re tossing. Chimps have a habit of attacking bystanders by throwing their own feces, tossing poop around like relief pitchers at the bottom of the ninth.
...
If they throw an overhand turd, people will run.
...
The rocket-armed chimps were also typically better communicators within their social groups.

Another indication that hurling poop fastballs is for intellectuals: It might be premeditated.
...
Other chimps have been observed to poop in their hands and then wait for an annoying human to pass by.
...
If you happen to be among those observing chimps in a facility, bear in mind that they might get a little upset. And depending on their aim, so will you.

ROFL!!

I've been referencing poop throwing hominids, here, and this thread illustrates it very well! ;D

 

[Jim]

I can't really soft pedal this.. how can you?

Because I’m Tom Bombadil. The ring has no power over me. Watch this ... see? I can even wear it without disappearing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What might happen, and what I think would be best for human progress, would be that in spite of the stigma and lack of funding, some people will explore the possibilities in theories of evolution in which all living creatures do not have a common ancestor. Eventually the stigma will fade away, and the two ways of thinking will coexist, like what happened with the wave and particle models of light transmission.

You keep bringing up this false claim of stigma. You need to be able to support that. The people that are laughed at are those that oppose the concept and do not use the scientific method. Serious research against the idea would be welcome. But most creationist groups go so far as to require their workers to swear to not use the scientific method. That makes it very hard to take them seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is evidence for common descent, to you?


What else do you call someone who disruptes a scientific debate with personal attacks?

Logic? ROFL! You generally use fallacies, not reason, and cannot present a sound scientific case for your belief in common descent. I point this out, and you react with outrage and hostility.

There are too many poo flinging hominids in this thread already. Some rational human beings would be a refreshing change..

No, that was an observation of your dishonesty and lack of education in this topic.

if you could discuss this seriously and honestly all of the so called "heckling" would end.

This is a serious question:


Can you be honest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only 'stigmatizing!' from me is inferred. I am exposing the 'theory' of common descent as an unscientific hoax.. a religious belief, masquerading as 'science'!

My comments are toward the THEORY, or concept of common descent, not those who believe it. I only address them if they attack me with ad hom grenades, and minimally at that.

Is scrutinizing the basis of this belief 'unloving!!?' How does debating a CONCEPT, turn into anthropomorphic projection? How are people personally offended, for scrutinizing a scientific theory? Cannot the scientific methodology for this theory be scrutinized, without True Believers screaming, 'Kill the blasphemer!'?

You cannot do that when you cannot approach the topic honestly.

Once again, can you be honest?

 

[ratiocinator]

It is based on a plausible assumption of common descent, from visual or structural similarity. Circular reasoning is its primary basis.

Simply untrue. There is no circular reasoning. For example, you could even ignore everything else and make the case from genetics alone.

All organisms can only vary within their genetic parameters (micro evolution).

Where is your evidence for this? What is the mechanism that limits variation?

It is a flaw to assume accumulated change in an organism, when only the genetic options within the DNA are available.

Simply untrue. Mutation plus natural selection provides new options for change.

There is no mechanism for 'creating' genetic information.

Simply untrue: mutation plus natural selection.

Mutation is not a creative force for complexity.

But mutation plus natural selection is.

The reliance on fallacies.. ad hom, straw men, poisoning the well, equivocation, and others, exposes this 'theory' as a religious belief, not a scientifically valid theory.

Simply untrue - there is no such reliance. This is a scientific theory.

Evidence for this belief cannot be defined or listed, in a rational way.

Of course it can: Evidence of common descent

 

[Polymath257]

I'm just going to focus on two points because they are the crucial ones here.

4. There is no mechanism for 'creating' genetic information. Chromosomes, genes, traits.. can only come from the parent organism. There is nothing within the cell structure to 'create' diversity. It is either there, to be drawn from, or it is not.
5. Mutation is not a creative force for complexity. It is deleterious or barely survivable, at best. Calling a mutated gene a 'new gene!', is like wrecking your car, and calling it a 'new car!'

And this is the fundamental place where you are getting things wrong. A mutation is simply a change in a gene: a change in the DNA that makes up the gene. We know of several mechanisms for producing such changes, from chemical, to radiation, to duplication, etc.

There is a mechanism in the cell for finding and correcting such changes, but that mechanism is very far from being perfect and changes do make it through.

The point is that not all mutations (changes in genes) are deleterious. And whether they are beneficial or deleterious is a matter of the environment they are exposed to NOT simply the nature of the mutation itself. So your description in 5 is faulty.

In fact, many changes in the DNA (the genes, in other words, mutations) have no effect or minimal effect. They can change the DNA code for one amino acid to the code for a similar one which does not affect the properties of the resulting protein. This is very, very common.

Second, a duplication of a gene is a type of mutation. And this can have beneficial or deleterious (or no) effects depending on the environment. Often, a duplicated gene means that more of the protein is produced that the gene codes for. Sometimes that is a good thing: the body can use more of it. Sometimes it is a bad thing: having too much can be bad. And sometimes it is neutral.

But, the fact that the gene has been duplicated means that *subsequent* changes (in later generations) are less likely to be deleterious because the original gene is still there and working. And *that* means there is now an increase of genetic information. This provides an increase of diversity.

Duplication and subsequent change is a very powerful method for producing new genetic information. And such changes happen in every individual in every generation. We *know* that each person has around 1-200 mutations (changes) that make their genes differ from either parent. This is a source for more diversity that you have not addressed.

So, to sum up:

1. Mutations *are* a source for diversity. Not all mutations are deleterious, contrary to your claims.

2. We know mutations happen in every generation and in every individual. So the genes of the parents *are not* the only ones available, contrary to your claims.

3. We have many mechanisms for new mutations being produced, contrary to your claims.

4. Having such beneficial or neutral mutations increases diversity since there are more variants of a particular gene. This is also contrary to your claims.

5. Not everybody has the same genes. And the genes for chimps overlap the genes for humans. So the genes are NOT 'completely different', contrary to your claims.

6. Genes do provide evidence for ancestry and decent. In particular, similarities between genes of different species can provide evidence of relatedness. This is contrary to your claims.

7. When the methods used to discover Mitochondrial Eve are used for large populations including other primates, we find a larger descent tree showing humans derived from other primates. If you don't like the primate descent trees, then you have to reject Mitochindrial Eve to be consistent.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wouldn’t be trying to convince you, or to substantiate it. I would only be trying to explain how it looks to me. I might be seeing it all wrong. I wouldn’t want to do it in this thread.

That's okay. I think I have a pretty good idea of what you've been up to in this thread.

From what I can tell, it looks to me like you had been lurking here, and in doing so, you noticed that usfan was getting some pretty harsh treatment from the "evolutionists". You also noticed that many of the "evolutionists" were gloating and mocking, and generally getting a little cocky. So you figured you'd jump in and shake us up a bit by posting some pretty bold anti-evolution assertions and challenging us to explain the science to you if we countered you. Whenever we were able to properly explain, you appeared to accept what we said only to post another bold anti-evolution assertion and start all over again.

IOW, you were like "Hmmmm.....these evolutionists are a bit full of themselves. Let's see if I can knock them down a size or two." So it's not so much that you're an anti-evolutionist; it's that you just see the situation as unfair.

All I can say to that is....well, yeah! It's also unfair between flat-earthers and round-earthers. That's just the way it is when one side has centuries worth of science and the other has little more than reflexive denial. Reality is harsh Jim...it doesn't care what you believe or want to be true.

 

[Jose Fly]

I did as you requested, and examined the study linked to.

How did you find this computer model on statistics compelling evidence for common descent?

Because it specifically tested separate ancestry against common ancestry, and the results were....

"Acceptance of SA means believing a chance occurrence less likely than correctly identifying an atom from the universe 32 times in succession has occurred, which is truly overwhelming evidence against SA in favor of CA among primate families."​

Was my rebuttal off base? Were my points flawed?

Yes, very much so. I pointed that out earlier and you appear to have ignored it.

 

[Jose Fly]

What might happen, and what I think would be best for human progress, would be that in spite of the stigma and lack of funding, some people will explore the possibilities in theories of evolution in which all living creatures do not have a common ancestor. Eventually the stigma will fade away, and the two ways of thinking will coexist, like what happened with the wave and particle models of light transmission.

You see Jim, this is why people get ridiculed. Here you are lamenting that no one is exploring even the possibility of separate ancestry, just one day after you referred to the Larget et al. paper as "a desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship", even though they did exactly what you're asking for! They tested separate ancestry against common ancestry, and...well, let's just let them speak to their own results...

"Acceptance of SA means believing a chance occurrence less likely than correctly identifying an atom from the universe 32 times in succession has occurred, which is truly overwhelming evidence against SA in favor of CA among primate families."​

I hope you appreciate how what you've done here practically invites ridicule. Sometimes Jim you have to own your own behaviors and just accept the consequences.

 

[Jim]

That's okay. I think I have a pretty good idea of what you've been up to in this thread.

From what I can tell, it looks to me like you had been lurking here, and in doing so, you noticed that usfan was getting some pretty harsh treatment from the "evolutionists". You also noticed that many of the "evolutionists" were gloating and mocking, and generally getting a little cocky. So you figured you'd jump in and shake us up a bit by posting some pretty bold anti-evolution assertions and challenging us to explain the science to you if we countered you. Whenever we were able to properly explain, you appeared to accept what we said only to post another bold anti-evolution assertion and start all over again.

IOW, you were like "Hmmmm.....these evolutionists are a bit full of themselves. Let's see if I can knock them down a size or two." So it's not so much that you're an anti-evolutionist; it's that you just see the situation as unfair.

False, from start to finish. None of that has anything to do with what I think I’ve been doing. Not even close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False, from start to finish. None of that has anything to do with what I think I’ve been doing. Not even close.

Then what ARE you doing here?

 

[Jim]

even though they did exactly what you're asking for!

False. First of all, I’m not asking for anything. I was describing what I think will eventually happen, and which I think will be better for human progress. What they did was just the opposite of that.

I’m still grateful for all your help.

 

[Bear Wild]

ROFL!!

I've been referencing poop throwing hominids, here, and this thread illustrates it very well! ;D

So you have been referencing yourself, I have only seen you figuratively throw insults when you are losing the argument. So you do not have any scientific information to throw into the argument so you resort to throwing other things.

 

[Bear Wild]

To the topic:

Flaws in the theory of Common Ancestry (CA):

1. It is based on a plausible assumption of common descent, from visual or structural similarity. Circular reasoning is its primary basis.
2. It has never been observed, just believed to have happened. All organisms can only vary within their genetic parameters (micro evolution).
3. It is based on a false equivalency. It is a flaw to assume accumulated change in an organism, when only the genetic options within the DNA are available. Micro does not equal macro.
4. There is no mechanism for 'creating' genetic information. Chromosomes, genes, traits.. can only come from the parent organism. There is nothing within the cell structure to 'create' diversity. It is either there, to be drawn from, or it is not.
5. Mutation is not a creative force for complexity. It is deleterious or barely survivable, at best. Calling a mutated gene a 'new gene!', is like wrecking your car, and calling it a 'new car!'
6. The reliance on fallacies.. ad hom, straw men, poisoning the well, equivocation, and others, exposes this 'theory' as a religious belief, not a scientifically valid theory.
7. Evidence for this belief cannot be defined or listed, in a rational way. Hysteria and indignation typifies the True Believers, not scientific rationalism.
8. The basic premise of common ancestry canmot be tested, repeated, or observed.. not from lack of trying. Thousands of experiments for over 100 years have attempted to substantiate and validate this theory. All have failed. The only scientific conclusion? Common Ancestry is not true. There is no evidence it can, or did, happen.

As usual you are given evidence and you return with opinion. Your opinion bot based on scientific evidence which you say you want to discuss. So where is your evidence?

 

[Jim]

@Jose Fly I haven’t been thinking of anyone as “evolutionists.” I’m against that way of thinking, lumping people together in groups and categories according to what they believe and don’t believe.

I told you that what I’ve been saying about stigmatizing people is not about people’s reactions to the OP author.

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 ...

I’m not.

Did you think that I was lying about that?

I’ll try to clarify what I said about evolution theory without a premise of common ancestry. It might already be happening some. In spite of the stigma on not believing in common ancestry, and lack of funding for research that isn’t based on that premise, some people will explore possibilities for explaining variations in fossils, similarities and differences between species, and whatever else evolution research tries to explain, without imagining that they all have a common ancestor, not in opposition to common ancestry theory but alongside of it and complementary to it. Eventually the stigma on non-CA research will fade away, and there will be more funding available for it. That diversification in theory and research will make evolution theory more fruitful and beneficial.

 

[Jim]

What might happen, and what I think would be best for human progress, would be that in spite of the stigma and lack of funding, some people will explore the possibilities in theories of evolution in which all living creatures do not have a common ancestor. Eventually the stigma will fade away, and the two ways of thinking will coexist, like what happened with the wave and particle models of light transmission.

You see Jim, this is why people get ridiculed. Here you are lamenting that no one is exploring even the possibility of separate ancestry, just one day after you referred to the Larget et al. paper as "a desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship", even though they did exactly what you're asking for! They tested separate ancestry against common ancestry, and...well, let's just let them speak to their own results...

"Acceptance of SA means believing a chance occurrence less likely than correctly identifying an atom from the universe 32 times in succession has occurred, which is truly overwhelming evidence against SA in favor of CA among primate families."​

I hope you appreciate how what you've done here practically invites ridicule. Sometimes Jim you have to own your own behaviors and just accept the consequences.

This reaction of yours to what I said surprised and disappointed me.

I’m still grateful for all your help. Your responses to my questions and comments were the most helpful of all. @Polymath257 , you helped a lot too. Thanks.

 

[Bear Wild]

@Jose Fly

I’ll try to clarify what I said about evolution theory without a premise of common ancestry. It might already be happening some. In spite of the stigma on not believing in common ancestry, and lack of funding for research that isn’t based on that premise, some people will explore possibilities for explaining variations in fossils, similarities and differences between species, and whatever else evolution research tries to explain, without imagining that they all have a common ancestor, not in opposition to common ancestry theory but alongside of it and complementary to it. Eventually the stigma on non-CA research will fade away, and there will be more funding available for it. That diversification in theory and research will make evolution theory more fruitful and beneficial.

Science is supposed to question all theories including common ancestry. Just consider the idea of Pangea. When first proposed it was rejected not fitting into the geologic theories of its time but with building evidence the theory of continental drift developed and now supported by significant evidence. Or look at the current questions about climate change which has been challenged by some scientists despite the reality that is occurring. Evolutionary theory has been questioned and challenged since its first proposal. If evidence to counter it is truly present then it will be found but as of today over 200 years after it has been proposed and so many who have challenged it the evidence is stronger now for common descent than ever and the evidence crosses over many fields of biology including ecology, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy and physiology as well as the study of geology.