As is typical, when the going gets tough you get going.....eventually you will be typing at yourself once you ignore everyone who defeats your beliefs in debate.
Look in the mirror at your teeth. If you still have any. Then look at your cat's and your dog's. That's empirical.
Teeth are empirical. And they are evidence of universal common descent. Good grief. You can believe whatever you want, but 'teeth!' is not evidence.. this is an argument of plausibility. If you squint hard enough, and believe real hard, you can 'see' evolution in teeth!
If one examines all the evidence and argument, the evidence of evolution in teeth becomes clear as day. If one decides to ignore alll other evidence and argument and just look at teeth, then that person is ignorant and not in a position to speak to evolution.
Regarding genetic diversity, and the DECREASE of available traits in the branches of a haplotree: This from a study about cats: The data can help scientists monitor genetic diversity and aid in conservation efforts, Waits says. Snow leopards have low levels of genetic diversity, the researchers found, nearly half that of the other big cat species. Low genetic diversity can be a sign that a species is heading toward extinction. Cats in general have low levels of diversity, says Marcella Kelly, a population ecologist at Virginia Tech. I get more worried if an animal has lost diversity recently, she says. The researchers have DNA of only one snow leopard, so they dont know whether the animals naturally have low levels or if their genetic diversity has taken a dive. source How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information? If the assumptions of common descent were true, there would be new traits and variation constantly added, and haplogroups becoming more diverse, instead of less.
They are, just at different speeds. And population bottlenecks happen, from disease, or climate, or from a small group splintering off. This isn't a mystery to the scientific world.
Why are you closing your eyes and mind to anatomy and morphology? It is because it dramatically overturns your own faulty hypotheses ?! Obviously so. Anyway it is time to put your spam onto the iggy list. Bye bye.
Still, no scientific evidence offered.. lots of assertions, and fallacies.. but no evidence. UCD is pseudoscience, used to prop up ideological beliefs. Darwinism and Marxism hatched at the same time, and the promoters of each were the same. Progressives, in America, the bolsheviks and communists everywhere, mid to late 19th century. Atheistic naturalism did not originate with Darwin and Marx, but has been preached constantly by True Believers in the collectivist/naturalist fantasies in the history of man. Socrates wrote of a naturalistic, atheistic belief system, which was a common belief among the intelligentsia, for 2000 years. Pasteur blew up their 'theory' of spontaneous generation (also, coincidentally, in the mid 19th century), but they had another waiting in the wings. Darwinism was hardly new, either, but an immediate replacement was needed to prop up the atheistic, naturalist belief. Thus was born the 'New! Improved!' Atheistic Naturalism, with real smart sounding 'science!' behind it. But if you strip away the assumptions, the plausibility conjectures, the assertions, and the obfuscating techno babble.. IOW, apply the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.. there is only a hollow shell of religious belief, in this absurd pretender of 'science!' And any analysis, examination, or questioning of the sacred tenets of this religion bring out the jihadists like cockroaches in a welfare queen's kitchen. "Kill the infidels!", the True Believers cry in unison, as they employ every fallacy known to man, to defend their cherished beliefs from Blasphemers. They won't use reason, facts, or science, since there is none, so fallacies will have to suffice. Every forum, every venue, and every 'debate' i have had with atheistic naturalists has gone this way, for almost 50 years. The irrational responses, the ridicule, the ad hom, the techno babble bluff.. the song remains the same: Science? Never. Fallacies? Always. SNFA This is a new acronym for debates with MADAs, and other True Believers in universal common descent. It is their MO, and fallacies are the only 'arguments' given.
I'll repeat perhaps the biggest conflict or inconsistency with the UCD theory: How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information? If the assumptions of common descent were true, there would be new traits and variation constantly added, and haplogroups becoming more diverse, instead of less.
New traits, mutations, and variants are constantly occurring in every creature on the planet. These are within the genome of the creatures and not visible to anyone in a short term and external observation but happen nevertheless. Your "Biggest inconsistency" is easily debunked every time a new flu shot is developed or antibiotic is found. Pick a new direction to spew ignorance toward as every single one you have thus far tried has failed miserably.
That's an easy one. If a species is dying off faster than mutation and natural selection can add more genetic information, then you end of with low levels of diversity.
Though I realize this may be an exercise in futility I am going to try to get you to understand why Universal Common Decent is accepted by everyone that looks into it. The fundamental building block of every living thing we humans have ever noted is DNA, without dispute or exception. Looking at what DNA is and how it functions has shown similarities between all life that indicates the molecule is the same in everything at the fundamental level (the molecule is mostly the same). Close study of the "Code" of DNA has shown us that the pieces that make it up (Chromosomes) often change (Mutation) through environmental stimulus over time and these changes accumulate. Said changed chromosomes become part of the DNA which makes up the offspring of the initial creature and the process is repeated continuously. This is where time lines come into play, it can take many generations of these changes to be even remotely noted in any offspring if at all but the change is nevertheless within the DNA. On occasion large scale environmental events or predation can create adversity in a species and IF the changes in DNA in an offspring allow it to survive it will pass on these "traits" when it also reproduces....usually with a mate that also had beneficial survival genetics. This takes place in every living thing from plants to humans, frogs to birds. All of these living creatures have much the same DNA base and 100% the same ways of mutation and reproduction because they all originated from the same thing a very long time ago.
That is fine, as an assertion, but what do we observe? 1. Lower levels of diversity tend to spell extinction of a particular haplogroup. 2. As the tips of a haplotree extend, the diversity decreases. 3. Some low diversity organisms, like sharks and cockroaches, continue for extended generations, with mimimal changes in their levels of diversity. 4. There is no evidence, of increasing genetic information, in any isolated haplogroup. They either have the traits needed to survive, or they don't. 5. Mutation is not a mechanism for structural genetic change. There is no evidence of mutation 'creating' new phylogenetic species. 6. Natural selection is only observed at the micro level, and is assumed or extrapolated at the macro level. 7. Macro 'natural selection', IS 'universal common descent'. It is not a mechanism for it. Rephrasing the theory as 'proof!' of itself is circular reasoning. If anyone wishes to refute these points, please provide evidence. I can only address evidence, not assertions or fallacies. If you are on ignore, i cannot see your replies. If you want to reengage me in this debate, contact me for a reset. Otherwise, my points stand, unrefuted.
Great Post usfan has put up NO science and .... refuted NO science. He just (here and elsewhere on the board) rues the failing of Christianity and the Rise of 'Atheistic Naturalism' (aka logic, Reason, and... Science) More Evidence of Common Descent: Trans-species Polymorphisms http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/09/trans-species-polymorphisms.html ....It is less widely known that this high degree of Genetic Overlap also exists between many species that are nonetheless distinct morphologically, physiologically, and behaviorally (Frost, 2011). This is especially so with young sibling species. Such species differ only over a small fraction of the genome—at those genes where a certain variant is adaptive in one species but not in the other. Elsewhere, over most of the genome, the same variant works just fine in both species, either because the gene itself is of little or no value or because certain body functions are pretty much the same in a wide range of organisms. With time, and reproductive isolation, two sibling species will gradually lose this genetic overlap, as a result of random mutations here and there over the entire genome. The two species will be less and less alike even at “junk genes” of little value. Even so, some overlap will remain. It’s not just that we see the same gene in distantly related species. We also see the same gene with the same set of alleles—a trans-species polymorphism. (Klein et al., 1998. ) A good example is the ABO blood group system. On the basis of that gene marker, I probably have more in common with certain apes than I do with some of my readers. Such polymorphisms have in fact persisted for millions of years across multiple speciation events."..." Have another Nice Page. `
Great, you give me 7 things that I have to prove when you had asked for this: Yep, keep moving that goalpost.
Good dodge. I refuted your assertion, and repeated the question. Merely asserting 'natural selection!' is circular reasoning, and 'mutations!' is another unevidenced assertion. I responded to your unbased assertions, and expanded upon it. The goalposts have not moved. You are just going the wrong direction! Evidence, is the challenge, not empty assertions.
Simple...the new information often provides no advantage and, in fact, provides a disdvantage. So this new information usually does not take hold in a population. That's the case for most new genetic information. This is not a mystery to scientists. You are scratching your head in disbelief at a puzzle solved by acientists 150 years ago, with their solution confirmed by genetic 50+ years ago. 7th graders write reports on this topic using 30 minutes of research on wikipedia.
Once you concede 6 above, your game is over. The only addition needed is time. If you don't think so, you need to identify some sort of barrier that allows change, but only little bits of change. And, even in 6 you use this "observed" thing as a method of requiring that ALL allowed evidence be limited to the length of a study in a laboratory - your desperate and absolutely unacceptable attempt to ignore all other evidence. But, even THAT doesn't work for you, as people have posted new species arising even within such ridiculous constraints.
Well, you have to demonstrate that there is enough time. But the best argument I know against universal common descent (and one I thought up myself) is the fact that the Universal Genetic Code is not in fact universal. There are codons which code for different amino acids in some organisms.
If a mutation occurred that changed the coding of a codon the organism would die because the proteins that used that codon wouldn't be properly manufactured.
Perhaps it is a separate creation event. Some people think all DNA is alien dna. Ever hear of panspermia? I hadn't heard of frameshift mutation. It is apparently dreadful when it occurs but recoding a codon would be much, much worse as it has a global effect. It would be like if a cosmic ray damaged your computers CPU and an "add" instruction became an "xor".
