Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Sep 30, 2018.

  1. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct, genetic information undergoes changes not just over generations, but even within individuals in one lifetime.

    If genetic information does not change..why are all individual of each species not exact clones of one another?

    And let's not forget about genetic drift, which isn't really even a biochemical mechanism, but merely a statistical mechanism. It can be a very powerful evolutionary force all by itself.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  2. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    16,090
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That deficit is a consequence of an egotistical investment in the idea that humans are merely new and improved simians, not of anything God did.
     
  3. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmm, no, that's not accurate either, for a couple of reasons:

    1) the investment would never have been made in the first place for most, if these people we're not compelled by the "appearance of fact" in question, and

    2) plenty of theists believe in both evolution and creation. They just point at evolution and say, "God(s) did that!"

    So, the question still stands: Why would God make it appear factual to so many people?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  4. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    16,090
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously they're not, since there is no such appearance without that investment.
    Let them advance the same idiotic arguments in my presence and they'll get the same treatment from yours truly.
     
  5. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What treatment is that? A little fit? Oh no! I weep for them and their families.

    I knew you wouldn't answer. What a sissy.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. primate

    primate Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    1. Yes a tail is a remnant. Look at newborns and later.
    2. Where is your retort about branchial clefts. It is a common neck mass presenting in children. Where did they come from?
    3. Species have had their entire genome sequenced some in contrast with alike species. Lupus familiaris as once considered a subspecies of Lupus Canis Canis as in Lupus Canis familiaris not Lupus familiaris. That's attributable to genome sequencing. Not saying genetic sequencing is the only way.
    4. If you had studied embryogenesis and comparative embryogenesis then you'd know what vestigal organs and structures are remnants. Since it's clear you've had no formal study then you should listen to those who have. We know where branchial clefts originate and how to diagnosis and treat. Children borne with tails require amputation.
     
  7. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Highly complex genetic structures exist, as well as simple ones.
    2. There is no mechanism defined or observed to explain a progression of complexity.. the adding of genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome.
    3. Cumulative, structural changes in the genetic structure is a belief. There is no hard science to corroborate this 'theory'.
    4. All living things stay strictly within the parameters of their genetic code. They do not flit about, adding genes, changing structure, or becoming completely different phylogenetic types. They can only vary within the confines of their DNA.
    5. Mutations & time do not provide the evidence for the alleged phenomena of increasing complexity & changes in the genetic structure.
     
  8. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That is exactly the argument given.

    If all that is being said is that organisms vary within their genetic parameters, then there is no debate. E coli is unique, in that it has a wide range of adaptability, but there is NO EVIDENCE that it came from some simpler (or complex) genetic structure.

    Here i address the e coli study that has been alluded to. Quotes from the study are italicized.

    genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature.

    Pathetically, i understand this.. being a bit of a science geek, & having followed with great interest this subject for decades. I take issue with the use of the terminology, 'evolution', as it seems to use circular reasoning.. using the premise (and terminology) to prove itself. If by 'genomic evolution' you merely mean minor changes in generations, or micro evolution, that is plainly obvious. But to correlate it with macro is still a false equivalence.

    Now, the study is claiming 'beneficial' mutations, among 'several lines of evidence. I am a bit confused about the statement above, which seems to conflict with the findings of the study:

    Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains.[5][19][20] Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame,only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.

    So there is a question about the results.. were 'almost all mutations beneficial'? Or were there 'only 10-20 beneficial mutations?

    That is a fine point, & may be due more to the writer, than the experiment itself.

    Ok lets go to the findings, & see what conclusions they compel.

    * Change in fitness.
    All populations showed a pattern of rapid increase in relative fitness during early generations, with this increase decelerating over time

    * defects in genome repair
    Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains

    * increase in cell size, & morphological change
    All twelve of the experimental populations show an increase in cell size concurrent with a decline in maximum population density, and in many of the populations, a more rounded cell shape

    * Polymorphism & phylogenetic comparison
    Two distinct variants, S and L, were identified in the population designated Ara-2 at 18,000 generations based on their formation of small and large colonies, respectively.[25] Clones of the S and L types could co-exist stably in co-culture with each other, indicating they occupied distinct niches in the population

    * Citrate usage
    The inability to grow aerobically on citrate, referred to as a Cit− phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species, and one that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. While Cit+ strains of E. coli have been isolated from environmental and agricultural samples, in every such case, the trait was found to be due to the presence of a plasmid containing a foreign citrate transporter.[32] A single, spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli was reported by Hall in 1982.[33] This mutant had been isolated during prolonged selection for growth on another novel substance in a growth broth that also contained citrate. Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene

    There is a bit more in this study, & lots of commentary about the findings. But the primary evidence being presented is the ability of e.coli 'to grow aerobically on citrate', when oxygen is present.

    Now, let us examine the claims that this is evidence for macro evolution, which predicts a structural change in the genome.

    Has there been a 'structural change' in the dna? No. This is still a strain of e.coli. It is not another, more advanced bacteria, but one of the simplest, most basic ones there is, & even over thousands of generations, it is still e.coli, with a few mutations & variations, perhaps, but genetically, morphologically, & phylogenetically, unchanged. It is just a different haplogroup from the same haplotree.

    Here are some other facts about this study.
    • E.coli is an asexual organism, able to reproduce by itself.
    • The study began in 1988, & by 2016 has increased to 66,000 generations.
    • E.coli has been found to be extremely adaptive, with ability to survive & adapt to many different conditions.
    • There are many criticisms of this study & its conclusions, among peer reviewed scientists.
    • This study provides no evidence for any structural changes in the genome.

    I like this study. I am intrigued by the findings about e.coli, & its amazing adaptability to its environment. It is similar to the shark, in its longevity & ability to live in whatever environmental variables come its way.

    But, for those who think this study provide evidence for the ToE, you are greatly mistaken. It does not. It merely illustrates the adaptability of e.coli.

    The claim of 'new speciation' is only an arbitrary definition, not anything compelled by any changes in the morphology or genetic structure of the organism. To claim this is 'real evolution!' is absurd. It is obviously just adaptation, & only demonstrates the viability & adaptability of this particular organism. Some organisms do NOT have this capability, but die under unfriendly conditions. So this phenomenon does not apply universally, as would be expected if this were a mechanism for macro evolution, but is unique to e.coli.

    Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event" by pointing out that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation since in their 2008 paper they said "that becoming Cit+ was only a first step on the road to possible speciation", and thus did not propose that the Cit+ mutants were a different species, but that speciation might be an eventual consequence of the trait's evolution

    So the claim of 'new speciation!' is not even claimed by Lenski, the one doing the study, even though hordes of eager Believers cling to it as 'scientific proof!' Of UCD.
     
  9. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time.
    https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 8:15 AM
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am sorry to have to ignore people in this thread. But to have a rational, evidentiary based discussion necessitates ignoring hecklers and disrupters. The problem arises when the hecklers outnumber the debaters! ;)

    I will explain my policy for debating, here, and the reasons for putting someone on ignore.

    1. My goal here is intelligent, rational debate, not reality show hysteria.
    2. Facts, scientific evidence, and reason are the tools in this debate, not mocking, ridicule, and fallacies.
    3. I may point out the disruptive, unscientific responses, but getting baited into personal bickering only disrupts the thread.
    4. After repeated warnings of off topic or fallacious deflections, i will put the poster on ignore.

    Here are the posters currently on ignore.
    Derideo_Te
    Mamasaid
    Taxonomy26
    tecoyah
    primate
    rahl
    I will be happy to take any off ignore, if you wish to engage in rational, scientific debate. Message me and I'll be glad to try again.
     
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,167
    Likes Received:
    5,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As every debate I take part in involves myself being rational and fact based in my replies and the data I provide as can be attested to and verified by anyone who bothers to review my history, Clearly the issue here is your own interpretation of these things and how you view "science" I do not assume whether this is due to purposeful ignorance or some other reasoning but, attempting to debase those doing exactly what you claim to want in debate is disingenuous. The "Ignore" function does not make a debate forum better but instead stifles what it is meant to accomplish....that said I do not mind being ignored in this case.
     
    Cosmo and DarkDaimon like this.
  12. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are closer but you missed my point again! In the OP you claimed that evolutionists use the e coli experiment to claim the evolution of a new species. That is not how we use the experiment and instead we use it to argue that natural selection and mutations can result in the evolution of complex new abilities. Whether this argument is actually true is a whole other issue and something you tried to focus on right here. I just want you to understand right now that the e coli experiment isn't being used by evolutionists to try to prove specification.

    Your biggest flaw with evolution isn't that your logic and reasoning is lacking. You have plenty of that as we can see from this post. The problem is that you inherently misunderstand the intended reasons behind major evolutionist arguments and what they are trying to show. That is why I am only trying to correct your understanding of how evolutionists are using the Lenski experiment and not your arguments against it.

    Again, are we on the same page as to how evolutionists are using the Lenski experiment? I better not hear you repeating the claim they use the experiment to try to prove speciation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 10:33 AM
  13. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you put everyone that disagrees with you on ignore, why bother going on a debate site to debate? Just go onto a Creationist site and agree with everyone else on there.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  14. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not have a rational debate? With points, arguments, and reasoning?

    I have no problem with disagreement, or even different beliefs. My problems with many of the posters on ignore is heckling, ad hom, hostile polemy, and ridicule, instead of factual, evidentiary based arguments.

    Your phony caricature of my posts is beneath you, as a rational, scientific minded person. Why stoop to ad hom and distortions about me, in a scientific debate? Does that not seem to be an irrational response? ..Bordering on religious zeal, instead of logical, empirical debate?
     
  15. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    16,090
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Bad try. :wink:
     
  16. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    If your assumptions were true, you would be correct. But evolutionists here (and even those connected with the study) absolutely correlated this e coli study to 'speciation!' and 'Proof of evolution!'

    From the peer review discussion, about the study:
    Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event"..

    Some believed this to be a speciation event, aka macro evolution. But the reasoning and the evidence does not compel that conclusion. It is only an opinion.

    Why are people using this study as 'proof!', if all they mean is normal variability? We all agree on micro evolution, but it does not compel a conclusion of macro. It would not even come up. But the fact that it has, in almost every UCD thread, shows that the believers in UCD consider it to be evidence.

    If you don't, fine. We have no disagreement here. I am rebutting the claim that this study on e coli is evidence of universal common descent .
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 11:42 AM
  17. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 11:57 AM
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    21,751
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's absolutely hilarious that you would point to an argument that clearly states EVOLUTION as the fundamental basis.

    So, which is it, Fan?

    Is your argument garbage?

    Or, is evolution a theory so well accepted that it forms the very basis for such science as you cite?
     
    DarkDaimon and Cosmo like this.
  19. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you missed the point. The appendix is not conclusively a vestigial organ, as you claimed. It is NOT evidence for UCD. It has a plausible biological function that we are becoming aware of. Old assumptions and assertions of 'vestigiality!' give way to more compete understanding of our biology.

    ..evidently not enough to lay aside the old 'proofs!', which are clung to with religious loyalty..
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 3:29 PM
  20. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    False. It is a vestigial organ.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018 at 3:49 PM

Share This Page