Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Bear Wild]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

To understand common decent one would have to review the accumulation of evidence and how it gives the only explanation without magical thinking. So lets start back to the beginning. The first evidence comes from genetic variation in a species. Do you disagree with the fact that there is variation in a given organism type with traits that give some organisms a greater advantage in particular environmental conditions? Yes the is a long ways off but you asked for one point at a time. So do you agree or disagree that not all individuals of a species are identical some with traits that give them an advantage over others in certain environmental conditions? We can proceed from there.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.

I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.

On that basis you must agree that the absence of any different anatomical features and similarity of form and function defines Bonobos, Chimps and Humans (as well as Orangs and Gorillas) as results of microevolutionary processes acting on a common ancestor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really.
A human designed program, gives out the desired results, and you claim objectivity.

/facepalm

There are no "desired" results, other then the desire to have accurate results.

The output of the algoritm is dependend on the input.
If the input weren't DNA string that exhibit the pattern of nested hierarchies, then the outcome wouldn't be reflecting a nested hierarchy.

But our collective DNA happens to reflect a nested hierarchy.

You can deny it if you want, like you so clearly do.

And if your objection to tests and experiments is going to be that "humans set them up / design them", then congratulations: you have just thrown all of science out the window.



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

I note, btw, that you asked for evidence and then upon receiving it, dismissed it with but a handwave and a oneliner, that wasn't even correct.


Go figure.

No, repeat a process that is allegedly happening, now.

You mean, the evolutionary process?
That's repeated with every single experiement, every single documented birth, every single agriculture program where people breed for specific traits.

But i'm sure you'll find another way to handwave that away with a false one-liner as well.

Show how you can get from amoeba to man, in as small or large of steps as you want.

1. mutate
2. survive
3. reproduce
4. repeat for some 700 million years

Bizarre. I have not jumped to any conclusions about YOUR beliefs, yet that is what you do exactly, with mine.

So, you're NOT a creationist?
Who you trying to fool, bro?

1. Divine Creation is not the topic, here.
2. Evidence for common descent, is.
3. Heckling and disruption are common practices, in hysterical religious comparison threads.

Attacking strawmen and handwaving evidence away, that you asked for yourself, is common practice in threads where creationists are "debating" established science like evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is more like parts of a car.

Perhaps, if the build of cars would expose nested hierarchies for their "blueprints" as well as traits, would reproduce with variation, would inherit the modified "blueprints" of their parents and were in competition with peers over limited resources.

But cars, off course, are nothing like that. So no, it's not "like that" at all.

Say that a chevy pickup with a 350 engine has mechanical problems. You cannot take a part from a ford to fix it. That 'species' of auto needs its own genetic type or structure. Now, if you have 2 chevy pickups, with different engines, some of their body or mechanical parts can interchange. That is like humans getting kidney transplants, or blood transfusions. But you cannot put monkey blood in a human, or vice versa. the parts are not interchangeable with the different models.

You are correct that you cross-species transplants mostly don't work.
You are utterly wrong about why that is the case.

There is a lot of confusion & misinformation about genetics floating around. Some people have a 'lego block' view of genetics.. like there is this big box of lego blocks. These are the genes, & they can be put together to make different objects. Juggle them around, & make something else. but this is not an accurate picture

Who are these people?

They have some similarities.. they are not exact matches.. but they are able to be genetically modified

Genes can be modified, ha?
Interesting. So class, what other ways do we know, by which genes can be modified?

But this takes intelligence, laboratory conditions, & repetition, to even make a viable hybrid.

To get to specific outcomes, yes.

Surely you are aware that mutation modifies genes as well?
And that those modifications in genotype can affect phenotype?
And this in turn can affect survival or reproductive chances of that individual?

So class, what do we call that in biology?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup.

Who claims one can?

That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE.

It's really not.

Similarity does not imply descendancy

But genetic nested hierarchies, do.

That is where the science of genetics has given us a more complete understanding of living things.

Yes. It has given us the confirmation that life shares ancestry.
DNA is the system of passing on AND modifying traits, that Darwin predicted to exist.

See, Darwin didn't actually know HOW this modification and inheritance of traits worked in terms of physical mechanics.

The discovery of DNA answered that question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

'Chromosome fusion' is not the mechanism you hope for, as it does not account for the more critical differences in the genes

It doesn't have to.
It only needs to account for chromosomes that have telomeres in the middle instead of only at the endings.

Chimps have 48. Humans have 46.
The chimp chromosomes 2 and 13 are "missing" in humans.
Chimps don't have chromosomes with telomeres in the middle.
Humans have one.
If the human chromosome is split at the telomere, we get 2 chromosomes with only telomeres at the endings.
If we compare those 2 with chimp chromosomes, we find matches with...... chimp chromosome 2 and 13. The two we humans are "missing".


That's the data that chromosomal fusion accounts for.
All the rest is just strawmen. Nobosy claims that this mutation is what "created the human species", as you like to repeat ad nauseum.

Merely fusing chromosomes does not change the genes

Indeed. Instead, it just fuses chromosomes.

THAT is the central problem, to account for the variation (or lack thereof) within the chromosome pairs..

No. The problem is you insisting on being ignorant.
People have been correcting your strawmen since the beginning of the thread and you don't seem to be budging. You're still here, repeating your same false claims while the falsehoods thereof have already been brought to your attention.

You insist on arguing strawmen even after people have pointed out to you that they are strawmen.

So, what's that about?

Your eye color, skin, hair, height, features, even intelligence, are products of your genetics.. handed down to you by your parents.

Yes. And your parents added their own variation / mutations to those genes. Then you added your variation / mutations to your genetics and those will be passed on to your off spring. That off spring will also add its own variations / mutations and those (along with yours and those from your parents) will then again be past on to its off spring.

And in doing so, as generations pass, the off spring's genetics will be exceedingly different from a reference generation in the past.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+....+1 = huge number.

You understand how accumulation works, right?

There is no provision for adding or changing features that your parents did not already possess

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

12 isolated populations of E-coli.
Generation 0 was the same for all 12.
Ancestral generations were not capable of metabolising citrate.
One day, suddenly a population explosion in one of the populations.
Upon investigation, mutations have been identified that allowed for new matebolic pathways in that population, wich allowed e-coli to suddenly metabolise citrate. None of the other populations can do this, neither can the ancestors.

So in other words, off spring gained a trait that ancestors (and peers) didn't have.


You may enter denial mode again now.

So the assumption that genes can just flit about, or change randomly, or be created on the fly, is absurd, & has no scientific basis.

So you've never heared of mutations?

Because that's exactly what mutations do.......................................................
Radomly modify genetics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, up to now, i have,

1. Phylogenetic tree/nested hierarchies/morphological similarities
2. Chromosomal fusion/split

I've replied to each.

Off course, your replies consisted of nothing more then handwaving and strawmen, but whatever.

Is there anything else?

There's loads else. But it seems an exercise in futility to present evidence to someone who clearly isn't interested in honest evaluation thereof and only in dismissing it with handwaving and strawmen....

I think it's kind of funny (and sad) though, that someone thinks they can erase 200 years of rigorous research with only a handwave and one liner.

Of course, everyone can believe whatever they wish

You clearly do anyway.

I am merely providing a critical examination of the most widely held belief in origins, at this time.

No, you're not....
You're presenting faith based objections to strawmen and pretending as if they are valid objections to a science as established as evolutionary biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're not interested in a debate about common descent?

There is no debate. The debate took place little over 150 years ago. Your side lost. And all data/discoveries that surfaced since then, only further established the science of evolution.

In any case....

Just gonna leave this one here for your enjoyment:

 

[usfan]

I would be willing to go over some of the main lines of evidence supporting universal common ancestry with you, but my preference is to do so in the one-on-one forum rather than in this thread. That way we can have a focused discussion without unnecessary distractions.

If that's agreeable, we can start tomorrow. And fyi, I expect it to take at least a week or so to cover all the material.

To understand common decent one would have to review the accumulation of evidence and how it gives the only explanation without magical thinking. So lets start back to the beginning. The first evidence comes from genetic variation in a species. Do you disagree with the fact that there is variation in a given organism type with traits that give some organisms a greater advantage in particular environmental conditions? Yes the is a long ways off but you asked for one point at a time. So do you agree or disagree that not all individuals of a species are identical some with traits that give them an advantage over others in certain environmental conditions? We can proceed from there.

Yes, thanks. Good replies, which i will return to address. Time is a problem, today, but i will get back to you.

 

[usfan]

..oh, and thanks for the snarky, heckling posts, too. You really demonstrate scientific objectivity with those replies!

You might even have a valid point buried in there, but I'm not going to scientifically debate under those conditions.. just a disclaimer..

One point of evidence, or rational argument for common descent: I will examine and rebut it.

Barrages of ad hom, straw men, mocking: i will ignore it, or occasionally point out the religious, unscientific nature of those responses.

Your call.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..oh, and thanks for the snarky, heckling posts, too. You really demonstrate scientific objectivity with those replies!

You might even have a valid point buried in there, but I'm not going to scientifically debate under those conditions.. just a disclaimer..

One point of evidence, or rational argument for common descent: I will examine and rebut it.

Barrages of ad hom, straw men, mocking: i will ignore it, or occasionally point out the religious, unscientific nature of those responses.

Your call.

ps: if that post is talking about me, I can safely inform you that not a single post of me in this thread is invoking ad hominims. Each and every one is directly addressing your arguments. But it's become quite clear by now that you'll just accuse people of ad hom every time they disagree with you and actually dare to justify their disagreement and expose your strawmen and misunderstandings. And no, that's not an ad hom either - it's just an observation.


If you disagree and think I DID use ad homs, then I invite you to quote them, point them out and explain how they are ad homs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One point of evidence, or rational argument for common descent: I will examine and rebut it.

Doesn't this statement somewhat undermine the notion that you are going to honestly examine the evidence, if you already presume you're going to rebut the evidence before it's even been presented?

 

[Kk4mds]

Evolution is not a “thing”. It is an explanation of observable phenomena. Like any other scientific theory in that it’s based on empirical evidence, deductive reasoning, it predicts future findings, it is scientifically useful for further research, it suggests further research, and it is testable to determine if it’s invalid in whole or in part. The one thing that it does not do is to deny the existence of G-d.

The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints. ~ Robert L. Dorit

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Also, I feel the need to post this for all of our benefits:

What constitutes an ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument is an argument that uses unrelated personal attacks, remarks or characterizations instead of addressing a specific argument. For example:

"Jeffrey Example argues that cats are better than dogs because they are cleaner and require less maintenance. However, Jeffrey Example is an unemployed person who regularly picks his nose, so I think it is unwise to consider his arguments worthy of rational consideration."

It is fallacious specifically because the personal remark is not related to the claim, as in the above whereby a person's employment status and personal habits are used specifically to discredit Jeffrey as a person rather than discredit his actual argument - which may well have merit, even if Jeffrey is unemployed or picks his nose. What's important is that the remarks are made specifically as a way to avoid addressing the argument, by discrediting the person rather than the argument.

In other words, simply stating "Jeffrey is unemployed and picks their nose" is not an ad hominem in and of itself. In fact, it may actually be relevant if the discussion or point up for debate is about Jeffrey's employment status of personal hygiene. In those contexts, bringing up these issues is not an ad hominem.

Making a personal remark or judgement, therefore, is not necessarily an ad hominem - regardless of whether the remark is considered insulting or derisory by the subject, as the accusation may in fact be demonstrated by the argument being presented, and the accuser may not actually be using the remarks instead of rational argument or as a means of discrediting the individual instead of addressing a specific argument.

Please note this and carefully consider whether the post that you're reading fits into one of these categories:

1) Individual makes personal judgements or remarks but does not use them instead of rational argument, rather in addition to it = NOT AD HOMINEM.
2) Individual makes personal judgements or remarks but justifies them by the context of the debate or their relation to the subject being debated = NOT AD HOMINEM.
3) Individual makes personal judgements or remarks as an attempt to specifically discredit an unrelated point or argument that has been made = AD HOMINEM.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, thanks. Good replies, which i will return to address. Time is a problem, today, but i will get back to you.

That's fine. When you make a decision on my offer, let me know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's give this a try. Here is an example of scientific evidence for human evolution:

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

So what do we have here? We have a series of hominid skull fossils have been found. They are fossils, that makes them by definition empirical evidence. They have been dated also by applying other empirical evidence. Please not that I have not claimed yet why they are evidence for the theory of evolution. At this point they are just evidence. Now one needs to look at the theory of evolution and what it predicts. As you hopefully know it predicts that any fossils found would show a slow but observable change over time and that is what we see. minor changes of increasing brain volume, changing features until what we call modern human is the result. At this point they are evidence for human evolution. Now you may deny the evidence but without a valid scientific reason for rejecting the evidence would only make you a science denier. Just in case you forgot what scientific evidence is here is a link to my post where I explained that for you:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

 

[Dan From Smithville]

View attachment 30729



ps: if that post is talking about me, I can safely inform you that not a single post of me in this thread is invoking ad hominims. Each and every one is directly addressing your arguments. But it's become quite clear by now that you'll just accuse people of ad hom every time they disagree with you and actually dare to justify their disagreement and expose your strawmen and misunderstandings. And no, that's not an ad hom either - it's just an observation.


If you disagree and think I DID use ad homs, then I invite you to quote them, point them out and explain how they are ad homs.

He is batch processing all the posts he cannot or does not want to address and using wild claims of logical fallacies as his reason. It is his crutch letting him walk away from those tough questions. The impression I get is that he recognizes more science than he lets on, otherwise he would not know which points and questions to avoid. He also seems to be aware of how he has constructed this thread to get others to do the work and pass off his burden of proof.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Doesn't this statement somewhat undermine the notion that you are going to honestly examine the evidence, if you already presume you're going to rebut the evidence before it's even been presented?

I agree with you. Another observation of the contradictions underlying the declared intent of this thread.

 

[usfan]

To understand common decent one would have to review the accumulation of evidence and how it gives the only explanation without magical thinking. So lets start back to the beginning. The first evidence comes from genetic variation in a species. Do you disagree with the fact that there is variation in a given organism type with traits that give some organisms a greater advantage in particular environmental conditions? Yes the is a long ways off but you asked for one point at a time. So do you agree or disagree that not all individuals of a species are identical some with traits that give them an advantage over others in certain environmental conditions? We can proceed from there.

I'm fine with adaptation, variation, 'micro', or whatever labels are preferred. That is observable, repeatable science. It has been used for thousands of years in breeding and hybridization.
There is abundant evidence that shows living things varying within their genetic parameters.

Where it gets troublesome, is in EXTRAPOLATING the variations within a haplogroup into a distinctly different haplogroup. That is NOT observed, cannot be repeated, and is merely a belief. It does not happen naturally, neither can we force it under laboratory conditions.

So in essence, we have to delineate between 'micro', which is observed variation, and 'macro', that is presumed, from cumulative changes.

But none of the changes in a micro, horizontal variance modify the basic architecture of the genome. They do not add traits, chromosome pairs, or any genotypic movement in a verticle, structural way.

Adding traits, making new genes, increasing complexity.. none of these can be observed, repeated, or tested. It is ASSUMED, based only on plausibility and 'looks like!' morphology.

But please, present your arguments and evidence, for what you believe to be observed changes in the genomic architecture.

 

[usfan]

I would be willing to go over some of the main lines of evidence supporting universal common ancestry with you, but my preference is to do so in the one-on-one forum rather than in this thread. That way we can have a focused discussion without unnecessary distractions.
If that's agreeable, we can start tomorrow. And fyi, I expect it to take at least a week or so to cover all the material.

Yes, it is difficult to have a rational, scientific discussion with hecklers and disrupters about. But that is part of it. You will have the advantage of raucous cheering, 'likes' on your posts, etc, while i will have boos, mocking, and cat calls..

Still, this is public forum, and a public debate, and i have waded in here boldly with a premise. I prefer to continue this venture, for a while.

I am not looking for instruction. I know the material. I am challenging the status quo of belief in this theory, that has become a religion in the modern culture. Memorized dogma, not scientific methodology, have been the tools of indoctrinating this belief into a gullible populace.

It is a simple request:

Evidence for common descent.

Is it compelling? Or flawed? Anyone want to look?