What debate? All of your "responses" have already been countered by science. All you are doing is repeating the same tired old arguments that have been disproved time and time again. By the way, calling people who disagree with you, names and threatened with being ignored or reported, is not a way to win supporters. However, for anyone who is really interested in evolution, pick up a biology book.
Quite a few are attacking the OP but he/she is right in that evolution has not been demonstrated in any of the organisms such as bacteria, fruit flies etc which have very short life cycles and have been subjected to different environmental lab conditions. This is a flaw in the theory of evolution.
I will point out that addressing the hominid, rather than the scientific principle, is an ad hom fallacy. 'To the man', rather than 'to the subject.' I can point this out from time to time, but i don't want to do this with every post. My education, motives, intelligence, hairstyle and blood type are not the subject, and any personal comments are just forum snark.. fun in regular political debates, but not appropriate in a scientific discussion. For a scientific minded person, those fallacies are seen as a lack of reason or valid arguments. They are desperate acts from a defeated debater. So, if you want to expose your own ignorance, desperation, close mindedness, and irrationality, by all means, use ad hom and other fallacies. But if you want to have a rational, scientific debate, stick with facts and reasoning. I won't keep harping on this, though it seems to be one of my most common responses in this forum! I would rather not, as it just disrupts the thread, and diverts attention from the topic. So how about it? Would you like to tackle the science behind this theory? Tackling me is easy.. I'm old and feeble.. but the evidence for your beliefs should be something you know about, right? Do you just believe this theory on faith? Show me the evidence. I've not shied away from any studies given, and those have been very few, over the years. I would think, that the claim of 'Science!', would mean you have empirical facts to back your belief in universal common descent. So why not present it? If it is so plainly obvious, as you claim, why not post ONE bit of evidence, from the 'mountains!' you believe are there? Are you a scientific minded person, or a True Believer in human superstition? Evidence for universal common descent. That is the challenge. That is what you should present.
DNA. Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is "massive" evidence of common descent of all life on Earth from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent I suggest that rather than expect us to provide you with thousands of pages that support this concept or the findings of people that spend lifetimes researching, you provide data that denies it that we might have something to argue against.
Since the thread is going to the dogs, and, since many posters are being dogmatic, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae.. What does man's best friend have to say about universal common descent? I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about dogs, & their genetic base. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/990.full This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics: 1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. the origin of the huge morphological diversity that led Darwin to his speculation remains largely unknown 2. All of the current variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old 3. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about. selection acts upon existing variability 4. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent, according to the time frame in the UCD model. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population 5. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity. The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various haplogroups. The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae, but the time frame is incompatible with the UCD model. You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA: From the link: "Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green." As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is PROVE descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. Canidae shows diversity and adaptability. There is no evidence they shared ancestry with felids, equids, or any other haplotype. We can follow the MICRO variations within canidae, but there is NOTHING to suggest they were once of a different genetic structure. Canids have always been canids, and always produce canids, though with reduced variability, as we reach the ends of the branches in their haplotree. I welcome any rebuttal, alternate conclusions, or additions to this study on canidae.
How about one page? Not 'massive!' ..not 'thousands!', but one? Your link is not evidence, it is a bluff. I know you believe very strongly in this theory.. do you have any facts to support those beliefs, or is it all on faith in people who have 'spent lifetimes researching it?'
Yes, the origin is largely unknown. Exactly like Darwin stated. Yep, ain't domestication grand? Of course it does. Yes remarkable, just like ancestral cat, cow, chicken et.al. populations. NONSENSE. The fact that humans can breed animals for desired outcomes is completely irrelevant to natural selection and natural genetic diversity over time. I can make a diamond in an hour in the lab, but it takes millions of years in nature. Huh? no evidence of shared ancestry? Yeah I guess all that shared DNA is evidence of miraculous creation An alternative conclusion - Logic is not your friend.
I still have problems with it, macro, that is. As far as I can tell, there has been an assumption made, a reasonable one of course, that micro evolution over great periods of time, using random mutations and natural selection, yields macro evolution. I have never seen enough hard evidence for this. I do see lots of assumptions involved though. I accept evolution though, but IMO, I just don't know if the materialists are correct in their scheme of explanations. I tend to lean towards a "creativity" involved, from self organizing organisms. And not pure chance. Some guiding factor not recognized by materialistic evolutionary biologists. And I am not talking about some anthropocentric god up in the sky either. So no, I do not think the materialists are even close to having it figured out. I think their materialistic mindset inhibits them, and agree with the biologist Sheldrake on this issue. Of course materialists scoff at him, but his credentials are very good as is his education and accomplishments in the field of biology. And no one here could hang with him on such a discussion, IMO. About evidence.
I have sometimes wondered if DNA itself is programmed for optimum survivability, Totally off the wall idea, but I think its as good a wild arsed speculation as any other "creative" idea. Operating on a unseen quantum level perhaps that is so far below our awareness. The issues of macro vs micro evolution are still wide open in terms of observational evidence, but that is why its still called the Theory and not the Law of evolution.
@usfan define macro and micro evolution and address how inheritable characteristics are passed from one generation to another. How do these change over time and relate that to changes in traits, surviving, and morphology. Then define speciation and how it relates to evolution. You can even use C familiaris as an example. Since you wanted to discuss Canidae then explain how C familiaris reached North America then how the Inuit dog persists (or doesn't). Tell us about the Carolina Dog or American Dingo and discuss its genetic origins and speciation of this animal. How are wolves and dogs related? In Central America there is a snake with variation in colors. That species is separated by a mountain range and now it appears there are two species even if closely related. How did this happen? Assume (correctly) there are enough genetic changes between the two they are different species. Why is it important to recognize species that evolve into differing species? Use Tyrannosauroidea as examples.
Regarding the lifespan of DNA: for DNA, the lifespan depends on the conditions under which it has been preserved. Put DNA in a warm, well lit hydrous (watery) environment and it will hydrolyze (split up) much more quickly than being preserved at minus 100 degrees C in the dark. But one thing is certain: DNA cannot last for millions of years. However, we do find DNA traces in dinosaur fossils. This is puzzling based on what we know about the half-life of DNA. We have calculated an optimum half-life of DNA to be about 500 years (give or take a few decades). What this means is that x grams of fresh DNA will degrade to x/2 grams after 500 years. Then x/4 g after 1,000 years, and so on. It doesn’t take too many consecutive half-lives before we are beyond the detection limits of our analytical equipment. After twenty half-lives (only 10,000 years) the amount of DNA left would be (1/2)20or 9.5 x 10 -7 of the original concentration of DNA. As the DNA degrades it leaves a variety of by-products, including some very disagreeable molecules. One of them is called cadaverine, and another putrescine. You get the idea. Added to that ideal estimate, we must add that it is likely that DNA’s half-life is very much less than 500 years, given the ubiquitous microorganism presence, enzymes released during decomposition of the dead organism, and very fast hydrolysis reactions.source The notion that you can follow some DNA that has been floating around in space for millions of years, then suddenly springs to life when it hits a primordial soup with optimal conditions for life, makes great sci fi, but it is not scientifically valid. We cannot create anything that resembles life, under perfect laboratory conditions. The complexity of living things far exceeds the beliefs from 19th century science, yet those ancient beliefs still make up the status quo of scientific opinion. Why is that?
? I made my points about canidae, using a fairly recent study of mapped genome sequences. I do not see the facts around canidae supporting universal common descent, but conflicting with it. The distinction between micro and macro is a common descriptor, even among evolutionists. Micro is the observed variability within a phylogenetic domain, haplotree, etc, while macro is the assumed, projected accumulation of micro changes into macro changes in the genetic structure. I clarify that often, in this thread. The rest is speculation, and is not evidence for universal common descent. This thread is an examination of this theory, not a comparison of all origins beliefs or myths. If you have facts or reasoning that supports the theory of universal common descent, based on your answers to these questions, by all means, present them. Otherwise, this seems like a deflection from the topic.
Why is that? Sheldrake explains it very well. It would be worth your time to read this free online book. He goes into the philosophy and history of "why is that?" https://eduardolbm.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/the-science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake.pdf
When will your peer-reviewed, scientific research paper be published? When will you be entering into debate with top billogists at unviersities and conventions? Keep us posted...
Please post reason, studies, or evidence for this theory. Mocking and snark is not 'scientific evidence!'
An immaculate 'creation' event wouldn't leave vestigal organs/etc. It's just more evidence of common descent..messy and ongoing trial and error mutation/incrementalism. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2 Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality... [.......] Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy ........these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one. Confirmation: There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside... Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes.... [.......] The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth). Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted(Notes). These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death[footnotes] Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..." Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)... [.......]
I needed to see your definitions. I use taxa or species for the distinction of microevolution. You can find evidence of micro to macroevolution in the functioning of proteins across taxa. The information you dispute is out there but a multidisciplinary approach is best in finding it and recognizing it when you see it. That doesn't even bring into the arena changes in the fossil record. This is why I brought up Tyrannosauroidea although Ceratopsians work. Or you could look at horse evolution for macroevolution.
Ah, yes.. i see, said the blind cave dwelling salamander.. Like i said in the OP, vestigiality is a 'proof of evolution!' that i have covered before. But since it has not come up in this thread, and since i am desperate to have a fact based, empirical discussion on this topic, i will address this. This is NOT, however, the way a debate operates. You have merely posted a cut & paste, with no arguments of your own, and no points made. In essence, i am debating Douglas Theobald. I'm pretty sure this is against forum rules. There are a lot of assumptions, calling something 'vestigial!' It is based mostly on a 'looks like!' fallacy of plausibility, not anything evidentiary or experimental. Its also a bit outdated, as few evolutionists crow about vestigial organs much, anymore. It was a popular 'proof!' in the 19th century, when they didn't know what the organs were for... Vestigial organs: These are organs or conditions that do not seem to have a current function, and are explained as a 'leftover' from a previous incarnation. I think this old notion of vestigiality was debunked decades ago, but is still used as an 'argument' for evolution. The perception is often slow to catch up with the facts. "The 'vestigial organ' argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn't identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science. "Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding (University of Guelph, 175f.) Here is a brief clip from wiki about vestigiality: In 1893, Robert Wiedersheim published The Structure of Man, a book on human anatomy and its relevance to man's evolutionary history. This book contained a list of 86 human organs that he considered vestigial, or as Wiedersheim himself explained: "Organs having become wholly or in part functionless, some appearing in the Embryo alone, others present during Life constantly or inconstantly. For the greater part Organs which may be rightly termed Vestigial."[3] His list of supposedly vestigial organs included many of the examples on this page as well as others then mistakenly believed to be purely vestigial, such as the pineal gland, the thymus gland, and the pituitary gland. Some of these organs that had lost their obvious, original functions later turned out to have retained functions that had gone unrecognized before the discovery of hormones or many of the functions and tissues of the immune system' Many of the favorite 19th century arguments for evolution have been debunked by science, yet the beliefs and perceptions remain strong. Neanderthal, vestigial organs, and other common beliefs about origins have been refuted by genetics and observational science. To assume vestigiality based on assumptions of descent, and a plausible 'looks like!' speculation makes interesting science fiction, but it is poor science.. just opinions or beliefs asserted without evidence. The term 'vestigial' itself is circular reasoning, using an assumption of common descent to prove common descent. Something vestigial, by definition, is a useless appendage that is left over from a previous evolutionary incarnation. But it is more accurate to say that if a function is unknown, why must you assume vestigiality? Scadding's argument above addresses this directly. These are projections.. opinions about some organ that the observer does not know the function of, or has a 'looks like!' plausibility of fitting the definition of 'vestigial'. This is not evidence. It is belief.
Seriously? A full cut & paste from wiki? 1. It's against forum rules to post long cut & pastes, as a substitute for your own reasoning. 2. I don't debate links. You can support a claim, or source a quote, or back up your arguments with a link, but not ONLY links or cut & paste. 3. Obfuscation seems to be the goal, by overwhelming the thread with pages of cut & paste, instead of specific points and arguments for others to address. 4. It is up to you to make your own arguments, not paste something for others to sift through, to see if or how it applies. 5. It implies ignorance of a subject, if you cannot express your beliefs/opinions in your own words, but rely COMPLETELY on a link. This is not evidence. It is bluff or propaganda, posting pages of cut & paste with no points being made.
You tease me, in the bolded above, with hints at some secret evidence you are privy to. If you believe you have some valid studies, arguments, or facts that support this theory, why not post them for examination? All i see here is innuendo, implied evidence, and hearsay. Assertions are fine, for declaring beliefs, but as scientific evidence it does not hold up, because they cannot be scrutinized. How can i address these implied evidences? I can only dismiss them as unbased assertions.
Scadding's paper was published in a minor, eclectic journal and refuted soon after it initially came out.
As well as Evidences of Evolution, talkorigins has Pages and Pages devoted to Debunking all of the Dishonest Quote Mines of Creationist Clown websites. If you Google the quotes or their variants, you will usually get 50 Wacky religious websites, but also find the TalkOrigins debunking of it... usually on page one.. especially if you also add talkorigins to the search. Partial list of debunked Quote Mine/quotes https://www.google.com/search?q=quo...rome..69i57.7750j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of ... - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.htmlOct 31, 2006 - Anti-evolutionists often present numerous quotes on evolution as evidence that evolution is wrong, immoral, or not science. The quote mine .. Quote Mine Project - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/evolution.htmlThe Quote Mine Project is a response to the creationist tactic of quoting scientists as "evidence" against evolution. It is a group effort of many participants of the ... Quote Mine Project: Contents - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.htmA large group of quotes used by creationist are examined by the participants of the talk.originsnewsgroup. Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes - Talk Origin www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.htmlnoted in the Introduction, our intent was to continue to add to our collection of quote mines. This is the first such addition and no fitter subject could be chosen ... Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/Jones_reply_up_01.html A large group of quotes used by creationist are examined by the participants of the talk.originsnewsgroup. Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous" - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html A large group of quotes used by creationist are examined by the participants of the talk.originsnewsgroup. Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html by L Or - Related articles s noted in the Introduction, our intent was to continue to add to our collection of quote mines. This is the third such addition and includes assorted quote mines ... Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated ... - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.htmls noted in the Introduction, our intent was to continue to add to our collection of quote mines. This is the second such addition and it primarily concerns one of, ... Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps" - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.htmlA large group of quotes used by creationist are examined by the participants of the talk.originsnewsgroup. Quote Mine Project: Geologic Column Quotes - Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html s noted in the Introduction, our intent was to continue to add to our collection of quote mines. This is the fourth such addition and it primarily concerns an area of ...
Ok, we've got some poison the well, ad hom, straw men, false accusation, and some other fallacies, but what about evidence? I did not need Scadding's lengthy quote, which i privided in context, and i have not relied on arguments or links, or opinions of others to frame my points or rebuttals. These are arguments of incredulity, and the obvious bias of the talk.origins faq is not valid, though the True Believers quote and link to them like a religious proof text. I debated on talk.origins when it was a usenet group, and it is primarily a propaganda site for the BELIEF in universal common descent. They use every fallacy available, including the newer antifa like tactics of shouting down any who disagree with their narrow opinions. It is primarilt ideological.. religious.. in its scope, though masked very well in pseudoscientific terms. 'Quote mining?' Really? That is an absurd rebuttal, smacking of desperation and deflection, to mask the impotence of the evidence being presented. Instead of scouring the internet for cutesy terms of dismissal, why not present some evidence for this theory you believe in so passionately? Vestigiality? That is your best shot? A circularly arrived at conclusion based on 'looks like!' plausibility and 19th century assertions? If you think bashing Scaddings is a rational rebuttal to these points, then i despair for Science in this generation.
Flooding the thread with pages of cut & paste propaganda is a deflection. If you have no evidence, or cannot discuss this topic intelligently, you should not post. Hysterical claims of conspiracy are not scientific arguments. This seems more like an antifa like tactic of disruption, to shout down those you disagree with, but cannot answer logically.
