Here are some of the arguments given in support of the theory of universal common descent, aka the theory of evolution, from multiple threads in this forum. They span several years of posting. Some had links from scientific studies, others were asserted from memory. - e.coli have evolved to a different species - Neanderthal is a separate species - Horse tree is proof of evolution - Whales are common with equus and canadae and proves evolution - Vestigial organs prove we have evolved - the 'tail' in the embyo shows we came from a fish - archaeopteryx is a transitional species between bird & reptile - Time proves evolution. Given enough time, anything is possible - Fruit flies prove evolution Here is a summary of my responses. - e.coli are the same species, that have adapted to digest citrates - Neanderthal was a tribe of humans, & their dna is evident in living humans now. - The mtDNA in equus can be traced, & descendancy evidenced for some haplogroups, but many speculative 'horse ancestors' are just speculative. There is no evidence that they descended. That is believed, only. - Just because you can imagine a sequence of drawings, does not provide evidence that it happened. There is no evidence, genetic or otherwise, that whales are ascended or descended from equus or canidae. - Almost all of the original 86 vestigial organs listed in the 1800s have been proven to be necessary, important organs in the human anatomy. They are NOT vestigial, just assumed, wrongly. - It is not a tail. It is a developing embryo. Any imagined similarity to a tail is a 'looks like!' fallacy. - There are multiple, conflicting theories about archaeopteryx. It is impossible to make a definitive statement about this extinct creature, that has much more evidence of it being a bird with claws & feathers. ..like many living birds do. - Time has no mechanism to affect major changes in the genome. There is nothing evidenced to support this claim. It is a belief, not a scientifically evidenced theory. - Fruit flies, even after millions of generations, remain fruit flies. They are of the same genotype. These can be looked up if a refreshment is needed. I have pointed out what i consider to be the 'central flaw' of the theory of universal common descent. It is a false equivalency between horizontal variability, that is observed in living organisms, and the extrapolation of common descent. ..macro vs micro, as it is commonly presented. It is the ASSUMED ability of organisms to change outside of their genetic parameters. All scientific experimentation conflicts with this assumption, as organisms can only vary within their genetic haplotypes.. they do not change in their basic genetic structure, but are hard wired to produce only what their genes supply. In this thread, i repeat my challenge for scientific evidence, for this theory, which has become a belief.. an impassioned religious belief.. as evidenced by the zeal, indignation, and emotion that the Defenders of UCD employ in what should be a dispassionate examination of scientific evidence. I know this topic attracts hecklers, religious bigots, and unscientifically minded True Believers in a worldview. Those who only want to disrupt and oppose open inquiry should be ignored and/or reported, so a thoughtful, intelligent debate can occur. So, if you have evidence, arguments, or rational rebuttals for this subject, i would love to hear them, and debate the merits of this theory of origins.
Multiple errors and/or fallacies. Neanderthal genome is a one way street with no human genome in the Neanderthal and 99.7% identical with Homo sapiens. This contrasts with the chimpanzee 98.8%. Denisova hominin's mtDNA lineage predates the divergence of modern humans and Neanderthals and has more base pair differences than Homo Neanderthal which is roughly 1/6 different than H Sapiens. The fact we have both Neanderthal and Denisova genes of varying degrees is highly suggestive of interbreeding. There are different subspecies and species of E coli based on genome and other varying characteristics besides ability to digest citrates. The skeletal remains of Cetacea . including fossils is highly suggestive of evolution and not convergence. The same is true of Equus whose volume of remains is very numerous. Small horses did exist and they show evolution. There is no known use for brachial clefts in humans. Vestigal organs are highly correlative to evolution although not all are. just the vast majority is in H Sapiens. Nearly all embryos including H Sapiens goes thru the phyla. H Sapiens are born with tails albeit rare. Birds are avian dinosaurs so it isn't surprising to see anatomical features and feather in archaeopteryx. The rate of mutation of mtDNA can be estimated over time and time can be calculated using the other side of the equation. Fruit flies evolve their genome many which are reflected in morphology and do it over time. I suggest a study of the evolution of Homo as well as comparative anatomy and physiology, and comparative embryology. If you want to look at fruit flies and E coli do do but they won't add a great deal to the above texts.
Let's look at these one at a time.. even though I already addressed neanderthal in other threads, I'll do it again. 1. Neanderthal ancestry shows up in the mtDNA of human beings. Many human haplogroups carry the neanderthal 'marker', indicating descent. 3. The mtDNA marker is ONLY passed on by the mother to daughter, and reveals the ability to interbreed.. a definition of 'species', and obviously of the same haplotype. 4. Neanderthal mtDNA shows the same descendancy as other human tribes. Therefore, as any geneticist would conclude, neanderthal was NOT a transitional species but a clearly human one. They were a tribe of humans, and could interbreed with us now. The previous theories about Neanderthal have been debunked by genetic research, which provides hard evidence for their classification. Speculation has given way to scientific facts, as they should. Therefore, neanderthal is not an example of universal common descent, or even a link in human descent. That was the belief for over 100 yrs, but it has been updated with new information. Percentage of perceived similarity is a meaningless statistic, and like most of this sort, are made up with flawed assumptions and unscientific taxonomic perceptions. Your rebuttal lacks hard data or fact based reasoning. You seem to be behind on the genetic information about neanderthal and the mtDNA marker. You can try to refute this with factual research, if you wish, but you will only discover that the evidence does not support neanderthal as evidence of universal common descent. I'll address some of your other points, but i ask that you update your information from centuries old talking points, to hard data. Otherwise, it seems like a bluff, not a scientific based discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW Systematic Classification of Life 34 Videos Last updated on 08/28/2018 Usfan, either educate yourself or move on. If you want to believe in ancient fairy tales and deny science, fine, be that way. But don't pretend you have some kind of informed argument to make on the topic of evolution by natural selection, because you don't.
This is a fallacy, with no facts or arguments. Insults and ad hom are a poor substitute for reason, in a science subforum. If you're not interested in this debate, don't participate. But how does heckling the other posters have any positive contribution? All i can do is point back to the topic, and report any hecklers, which i prefer not to do.
The argument given to me, several times, is a study on e coli, where they adapted to digest citrates. This was trumpeted as, 'Proof of Evolution!', so i went through the study and showed that it was NOT proof of anything, except the ability of certain organisms to adapt to a wide range of conditions. The organisms were still e coli, and there was no verticle change in their genetic architecture. They were in the same haplo tree, and did not evolve up or down into anything else. IOW, it is NOT 'Proof!' of universal common descent, but is simple variability. The adaptability of e coli is somewhat unique.. not all organisms have this ability. But no matter how they adapt, they are still e coli, in their genetic haplogroup.
I told you there was no H Sapiens genome in H Neanderthalis. The evidence does highly suggest interbreeding resulting in less than 5% H Neanderthal genome in human DNA. But that doesn't make them the same species. It doesn't even mean there could be fertile offspring from a Sapiens/Neanderthal cross. Ergaster could have interbreed with an out of Africa species and produced Neanderthal dna in the Sapiens bloodline. Your argument that species can't interbreed with another is false. Horses and zebra can interbreed. Donkeys and horses do and produce mules.
E coli is generally serotyped but phylogenies rest within. E coli diverged with salmonella about 110mya. There are five major species. Occasionally a species mutates to be aerobic which is direct evidence of evolution.
Yep, close evolutionary cousins can and will, sometimes with human assistance, cross-breed. It works in those cases because their respective genomes have not changed too radically for them to be able to combine and produce some sort of viable offspring, although it does seem to lead to sterility in many cases. Seems like the creationist will typically just fall back on insisting that they are "both still ____" (falling back on archetypes) and will not give it further thought. Of course, you have to wonder what they would say to other such examples that are too far removed to interbreed at all but are clearly still pretty closely related - are they also the same "kind"? Are raccoons still the same "kind" as bears, for instance, or are we to assume that they are magically different because they (probably) can't interbreed today? Then I suppose their genetic similarity would have to be due to "common designer, blah blah blah, stop questioning God." People like that feel compelled to debate evolution when they are much more concerned with denying it than understanding it in the first place because it nags at them. It gnaws at their unreasonable, non-fact-based religious forced belief in the supernatural, so they externalize that inner struggle by arguing with anyone who will listen to them and bother putting up an argument. They're trying to convince themselves by convincing others and gaining affirmation.
Horse and zebra are in the same genetic haplotree. They have become reproductively isolated, but are not that different, genetically. The genetic evidence suggests they descended from the same equid ancestor, with donkeys. This is observable variation, but is not evidence of a jump into a different genetic architecture. IOW, there is clear evidence of ancestry within much of equus,but there is NOTHING to suggest a jump to canidae or felidae. Same with humans. Assigning arbitrary 'subspecies!' labels to what is genetically a haplogroup, is spin, not science. Neanderthal had the same ancestry as africans, eskimos, pygmies, northern Europeans, and every other haplogroup from the human genetic tree. That their mtDNA is still visible in some current people groups demonstrates that they could interbreed, and were as human as any other tribe of humans. The branches of the human ancestry tree begins with a female genetic marker, and ALL living humans are descended from her. We did not evolve seperately, as was previously believed, but scattered on the planet over years, and settled into the various haplogroups we see today .. from geographic and reproductive isolation.. neanderthal was just one of those tribes. The genome of neanderthal has the same structure, chromosome number, and gene makeup as all other humans. They are no more a missing link than a tribe in Indonesia, Europe, the Americas, or Africa. Their genetic makeup is human, not part human.. not subhuman.. but fully human. Those are the genetic facts, and only dogmatic belief stands in the way. Percentage of similarity varies with modern humans.. that is a meaningless statistic, and is used to obfuscate.
It is an observable trait of variability in almost all living things. The fallacy arises when trying to equate simple variability to universal common descent. That is a false equivalence, with no scientific evidence. Micro evolution is an observable, repeatable, scientific based phenomenon. Macro evolution is a speculative, imaginary postulate. There is no scientific data to corroborate this theory.
As a reminder, this is not an 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war thread, but a scientific examination of the evidence for universal common descent. Ad hom, insults, off topic defections, and heckling are not appropriate here. I will ignore the hecklers, or report them. Let's be rational and scientific in this thread, ok? Fair enough? ..and a long cut & paste, with some included snark doesn't fool anyone.
most all you wrote is wrong. I don't see your being able to debate these topics with so little formal training. To one point horses, zebra, donkeys, and wild ass are different species within the same family. Sheep (Ovis) 54 and goat (Capra) 60 can produce hybrids but most are stillborn.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens) Remove the ad hom, and present evidence, and i will be happy to debate the topic. 'Species', is a vague and moving goal post. Genetics has more scientific data than arbitrary, 'looks like' classifications. I have attempted many scientific threads, over the years, and most of them degenerate into 'atheist vs Christian!', flame wars. Hecklers and disrupters will not allow a reasoned, intelligent discussion, but disrupt with antifa like tactics. I would like to avoid that here, and keep the discussion civil & rational. Is that too much to ask?
That is the central flaw of universal common descent, that i repeated in the OP. It is a false equivalence, correlating observed variability (micro, horizontal) with major changes in the genetic structure (macro, vertical). The belief is that small, micro changes in organisms can 'add up', or accumulate into macro, vertical changes in the genome. But this ignores the observable science of breeding and genetics, that forbids such structural changes in the DNA. Organisms can only vary within their existing genetic parameters. They do not 'create" new genes on the fly, but merely die, if they do not have the traits built in to adapt. That is what we observe in breeding, and natural selection. Organisms LOSE variability as they are bred for certain characteristics.
Remove the ad hom, and debate the science, if you dare. Your bluster and religious deflections are only for disruption. Facts, reason, and scientific methodology are the tools, here, not heckling, assertions, and insults.
When a population divides they will naturally evolve in different ways. Over time, they will no longer be able to successfully interbreed and change will continue. There isn't any limit other than time. You haven't shown anything that could possibly deny how evolution works.
When? How about if? Can you demonstrate or observe this claim? Yes, you describe the THEORY, but you have no evidence that it happens, has happened, or is even possible. This is a thread for evidence, not assertions. We already know the claims of the theory, how about scientific evidence that it can happen? Time is irrelevant without a mechanism of making structural changes in the genome. The only evidence of change is micro.. horizontal changes within the haplotree of an organism. Certain equids became reproductively isolated, and narrowed into limited variables in their respective haplogroups. They share the mtDNA marker that indicates descent. They are the tips of the branches of the haplotree. Some dead ended, and those traits are no longer around. The same with man. The various races and geographically isolated haplogroups all descended from the same human ancestor. The variability that was in the earliest ancestors was spread about as humans migrated throughout the world. They became isolated with certain morphological features, but not to the point of reproductive isolation. Canidae is similar. Lots of diversity, but few instances of reproductive isolation. They are related, because you can trace the mtDNA marker in them. Within humans, canidae, and equidae, there is ample evidence of ancestry AND diversity, but NO evidence that they came from another organism, or are becoming something else, with a different genetic structure. The canid line has remained canids, and only produces more canids, with fewer diversions from the narrower gene pool to draw from. The genes from apes are completely different, and have little crossover ability for humans. Pigs are used in genetic research for humans, because they are more similar, and can fool the host more often.
I think you need to read the entry for evolution that WIKI provides. And, I think you need to remember that the cases where major differentiation has happens usually require more than a human lifetime and many generations of the life forms in question. Thus, scientists do watch such change where they can maintain larger populations that rapidly reproduce. Also, remember that you are free to come up with a superior theory. You could be FAMOUS!
Its amazing that there are plenty of evolution deniers in the general population and only a tiny tiny fraction of the scientific community (people who's job it is to know stuff). Considering that the ToE has been around for 150 years or so and has been ripped apart and put back together thousands of times, and yet there has not been a single credible scientific rebuttal of it. If anything there is a long list of charlatans attempting to rebut it and getting absolutely murdered by words and facts from them that knows. That and countless predicted observations in support of the theory render this "anti evolution argument" more of a faith based conspiracy theory. I bet there is an incredibly high intersection between anti evolutionists and anti vaxxers.
I am not trained as a scientist, however I understand that evolution is the only explanation for which there is any evidence. I have asked several times for a competing theory with absolutely no response. Perhaps Usfan you can provide an alternative theory.
