My understanding is that evolution occurs within populations, not individuals. But I will wait for a more complete answer from one of the many who are skilled in this field.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So if Common Descent is pretty much a genetic fact, when of modern man evolved from the hominids, would it be true that at one point, all mankind originated from a male and female both having the DNA of modern man?
So if Common Descent is pretty much a genetic fact, when of modern man evolved from the hominids, would it be true that at one point, all mankind originated from a male and female both having the DNA of modern man?
1. Common decent is not based on assumption. There are mountains of evidence to support this claim. Allow me to cite a couple of examples and then link you to a page for you to read the rest.
A. Human chromosome #2. "Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes".
B. 1971 Wall Lizard study. In 1971 5 pairs of Italian Wall Lizards were transported from one Croatian island in the Adriatic Sea to another island. In 2008, analysis of these Lizards was made. First the DNA sequences of the population of these wall lizards matched that of the original 5 pairs of Wall Lizards. Thus confirming they were descendants. What was discovered of these wall lizards is that they had different head morphology (Taller, longer, wider heads) and an increased bite force compared to the original 5 pairs. The change in head size correlated to it's diet change from insects to plants.
Another difference found between the two populations was the discovery, in the Mrčaru lizards, of cecal valves, which slow down food passage and provide fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to nutrients digestible by the lizards. Cecal valves are seen in less than 1% of all known species of scaled reptiles. It is a brand new feature not present in ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards.
Now I know the favorite argument from people opposing evolution is typically "Oh that is just adaptation! That is just 'mirco evolution'" (This may or not be the case with you, I don't know). But it would be like saying I can drive my car down the street but it's impossible to drive it across the country.
Here is the link for evidence that common decent is not an assumption, but a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent (All necessary citations located at the bottom of the link).
For example. Scientists were looking for the transitional link between fish and amphibian (Tiktaalik). Scientists used the theory of evolution to predict how old they thought the fossil might be and where they might find it. They knew from previous fossil finds that something like Tiktaalik would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago. The scientists also knew from previous research that the species would have been in freshwater. So they got out a geological map and looked for places that met these criteria. They settled on Ellesmere Island in Canada and after five years, they found this marvelous fossil.
That is how predictions in science are made. You make predictions based on the evidence available to you. The predictions have shown to be accurate over and over and over and over and over and over again with transitional fossils. Here is a link to a partial list of the transitions we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
4. Why isn't there any consideration at all to asking if abiogenesis even occurred? Ummm because we'd like to know the answer. We know how the origin of species worked, wouldn't we want to know how it all began? Would you rather them argue from ignorance and say something along the lines of "You know we really need to ask the question, did this even happen?
How is the question of common decent forbidden? You're welcome to question it but the evidence against you is overwhelming.
I see the problem quite clearly: you don't understand the predictions of common descent. Either that or you ignore them..
What predictions, the only principle evolution can legitimately claim as the basis for any predictions is the one it was established upon, random genetic mutations.
As the Thomas Paine quotes implies, Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them. Simply stated, since the reproductive process originates from the fusion of the motile gamete produced by the male with the nonmotile gamete of the female. The reproduction process of fertilization, unlike cell division which occurs numerously and frequently during the development of an organism, is a different matter in that it requires the fusion of two cells.
1. Required. The Fusion of two cells.
The nonmotile gamate produced by the female can not spontaneously mutate into the zygote.
The non-living cell, the egg, can not spontaneously emerge into the zygote necessary for the reproduction process to begin. Thus, the fusion of two cells is
a critical biological event that is required for fertilization in sexually reproducing organisms and for tissue organization during development.
But interestingly enough, the immaculate conception as interpreted by Modern theology in which a female conceived, thus produced a motile gamete absent of any source of insemination, is dismissed by scientism who dismiss the possibility of it being a random genetic mutation.
2. Restricted. Fusion of specific cells.
While the gamete of a female and the gamete of the male are necessary to produce the zygote, the fusion of gametes of human with the gametes of primates, either human male to primate female, or human female to primate mate. The fact this fusion can not occur presently, would indicate that it will not occur at any future time, and therefore did not occur at any time in the past.
Seems this tree doesn't bear any fruit of a tree yielding seed, yet the bonus question is "How many nerves are contained in the umbilical cord of the human fetus during its development in the womb and the umbilical cord of a primate during its development in the womb?
Evolution predicts both concordance and very specific kinds of discordance. Discordance found in close-lying branches of the tree is expected, because ILS is inevitable. Discordance found solely between widely separated terminal branches of the tree is not expected.
Now, if you could show an example of that -- a specific ERV insertion at the identical genomic location in, say, one New World monkey and one great ape -- you would have pointed out a genuine inconsistency between the data and the theoretical expectation.
But you can't, because such inconsistencies don't occur. They don't occur even though there are far more available comparisons between distant branches than there are between neighboring branches, i.e. many more opportunities for discordance. Instead, we consistently find patterns that are consistent with common descent.
That's why your argument isn't worth taking seriously: it doesn't engage the actual scientific evidence for common descent.
Incorrect. The organization of primates into Old World monkeys, New World monkeys and great apes, in my example, was accomplished long before any genetic data at all was available.This would be a sound rebuttal if not for the fact that the organization of the 'close-lying branches' are formed in response to the discordant data itself.
Right -- exactly where we would expect to see it. Not where we don't expect to see it.Evolution Theory "resolves" this conundrum by following these mammal groups over "60 million years" down to the base of their supposed common ancestral tree and imagineering an incomplete lineage sorting event there.
I would be happy to admit it if it were true. It's false, however. If ERVs were distributed at random on branches, it would be quite impossible to produce consistent trees; there are far, far too many different ways to distribute them randomly. Instead, we see that the ERV insertions always obey the large scale structure of the tree.This is only possible because the Common Ancestry "Tree" is based on imaginary data points, is extremely plastic, and thus can be retro-fitted with all sorts of new modifications in order to accommodate discordant data found at the 'Tips' of the branches.
You should be able to admit this, sfs.
No, it wouldn't. The phylogenetic distance between the common ancestor of Old and New World monkeys is just too great for a polymorphic ERV insertion to have persisted in both lineages; that would not be a plausible explanation. This is where you always end up in defending your claims. When confronted with the fact that genetic data actually do follow evolutionary predictions, you retreat to imaginary claims about what imaginary biologists would do with imaginary data.Such a pattern would be resolved by positing incomplete lineage sorting events at the base of the New and Old World Monkey branches.
I'm not aware of any "party line" on ERVs, except that they're great evidence for common descent, which is correct. The only line I'm aware of from competent evolutionary biologists and geneticists is that ERVs should follow the predictions of common descent, which include the presence of ILS.And you avoided the uncomfortable admission that the Primate ERV patterns could, even by your standards, be in great disarray relative to they're current pattern, and still be accommodated by Evolution. The evolutionist party line is that the primate ERVs are precisely predicted by Common Descent. I'm sure you know that isn't true.
And I've explained that it would be impossible to do that.As I've explained, within the context of greater common ancestry of major animal groups, the "neighboring branches" are formulated ad-hoc based on the actual data found at "distant branches". When discordance is found between distant branches (actual observed animals), then the problem will inevitably be pushed back towards an imaginary event occurring at the supposed neighboring branches, where such animals are imagined to have been first "evolving" from their common ancestral populations.
I have no idea what argument you're trying to make here. Common descent is the basis for the prediction that ERV insertions should follow a nested hierarchical pattern, and that violations should be confined to neighboring branches.What predictions, the only principle evolution can legitimately claim as the basis for any predictions is the one it was established upon, random genetic mutations.
Incorrect. The organization of primates into Old World monkeys, New World monkeys and great apes, in my example, was accomplished long before any genetic data at all was available.
Right -- exactly where we would expect to see it. Not where we don't expect to see it.
I would be happy to admit it if it were true. It's false, however. If ERVs were distributed at random on branches, it would be quite impossible to produce consistent trees; there are far, far too many different ways to distribute them randomly. Instead, we see that the ERV insertions always obey the large scale structure of the tree.
No, it wouldn't. The phylogenetic distance between the common ancestor of Old and New World monkeys is just too great for a polymorphic ERV insertion to have persisted in both lineages; that would not be a plausible explanation. This is where you always end up in defending your claims. When confronted with the fact that genetic data actually do follow evolutionary predictions, you retreat to imaginary claims about what imaginary biologists would do with imaginary data.
What you should be doing is explain why the data fall into the patterns they do. Why do we never see ILS between distantly related single branches?
Why do ERV insertions usually follow a perfect tree, even when that tree was established on different grounds? For example, in the Lebedev paper on HERV-k insertions, all 14 insertions that they studied followed the same tree. Why? Common descent provides a clear explanation for that fact. Let's hear yours.
I'm not aware of any "party line" on ERVs, except that they're great evidence for common descent, which is correct. The only line I'm aware of from competent evolutionary biologists and geneticists is that ERVs should follow the predictions of common descent, which include the presence of ILS.
There was no consensus about the organization of placental mammals before that study. But you already know this, since you're quoting from the Churakov study: "However, pure sequence-based molecular attempts to resolve the basal origin of placental mammals have so far resulted only in apparently conflicting hypotheses."And placental mammals were organized into different groups long before the 2009 Churakov study referenced in the OP. That did not affect researchers ability to concoct imaginary events at the imaginary base of their trees to explain away discordant data.
You seem to be confused about a basic point here. The deep branches of the placental mammal tree are close neighbors to one another, just as the branches of humans, chimps and gorillas are. It doesn't matter when the branches start: if they're close together, they can experience ILS. What cannot happen is for ILS to occur between distant terminal branches.You're in the awkward position of suggesting a discordance between primate branches would be irreconcilable, when the same type of discordance between significantly more distanced branches (placental mammals) is already accepted by evolutionists.
Just because you cannot understand a distinction does not mean that it is made up. There's nothing imaginary or ad hoc about the fact that every New World monkey branch is closer to every other NWM branch than it is to any OWM branch. That's the phylogeny, and that's not flexible. So you still have the challenge of explaining why ERV insertions are never shared between one OWM and one NWM monkey, and not by any other species. I've told you the evolutionary explanation for that fact. I'm still waiting to hear yours. What is it?As I've explained repeatedly, this is a made-up distinction on your part. Discordance identified at distant branches is automatically shifted to imagined ILS events occurring at imagined neighboring branches.
And placental mammals were organized into different groups long before the 2009 Churakov study referenced in the OP. That did not affect researchers ability to concoct imaginary events at the imaginary base of their trees to explain away discordant data.
Dodging.
It's "where you expect to see it", because that's where researchers have to assume it exists ad-hoc, i.e. in imaginary, highly re-arrangeable common ancestral nodes.
The tree is imaginary and has little to no actual structure. As I've demonstrated.
And you always make this claim, but can never back it up.
You're in the awkward position of suggesting a discordance between primate branches would be irreconcilable, when the same type of discordance between significantly more distanced branches (placental mammals) is already accepted by evolutionists.
This is why your claim continues to fall flat.
As I've explained repeatedly, this is a made-up distinction on your part. Discordance identified at distant branches is automatically shifted to imagined ILS events occurring at imagined neighboring branches.
And "Common Descent" also provides a "clear explanation" for why they wouldn't. (incomplete lineage sorting) That is the awkward truth that you keep shying away from because it reveals the impotence of the theory to make actual predictions.
Then argue it instead of asserting it.
I don't think whatever you say, you will get the evolutionists to admit that there might be an alternative explanation to life's secrets because that would, as one evolutionist frankly admitted, allow a Divine foot in the door.
You think incorrectly here. Almost all Christians who are also biologists -- including me -- accept evolution. We accept it because it works as a scientific explanation.I don't think whatever you say, you will get the evolutionists to admit that there might be an alternative explanation to life's secrets because that would, as one evolutionist frankly admitted, allow a Divine foot in the door.
Having looked at some of these threads and posted in a few myself, I am so glad I'm not a scientist and just accept what God, common sense and personal observation tells me - that 1) The universe did not form on its own but was created by God (from nothing, nothing comes); 2) Life did not start on its own from lifeless chemicals (statistical probability well and truly rules that out I understand); 3) So-called macro evolution did not happen, nor is it happening today (I've yet to see an explanation in layman's terms for how a reptile could turn into a bird for example, but I fully appreciate how animals/humans can change within limits in order to be better suited to their environment, e.g., dark-skinned humans thriving in sunnier climates). I don't think whatever you say, you will get the evolutionists to admit that there might be an alternative explanation to life's secrets because that would, as one evolutionist frankly admitted, allow a Divine foot in the door.
You think incorrectly here. Almost all Christians who are also biologists -- including me -- accept evolution. We accept it because it works as a scientific explanation.
Actually, "macroevolution" is a term used in science, although not very often. I've seen it used by a paleontologist to mean large-scale evolution over tens of millions of years. More commonly it's used by evolutionary biologists to distinguish evolution above the level of speciation from within-species evolution, where everything can be explained in terms of population genetics. Some theorists have argued that some processes occur at the macroevolutionary level that are absent in microevolution (in addition to the accumulation of microevolutionary change, of course). Larry Moran has a good essay on the subject.3. Macro evolution isn't even a term used in science. If 'micro evolution' happens then 'macro evolution' happens as well. You just don't live long enough to see it. Using this argument is like saying you could drive your car down the street to your friends house but it's impossible to drive across the country.
No, I don't find there to be a conflict. My faith is a commitment, but that commitment has to be informed by my best understanding of what reality is really like, or what's the point? And science is a great way to get a handle what some parts of reality, at least, are like.I have always wanted to ask a couple questions to a Christian who works in the Biology field.
Do you ever find it difficult to think objectively when it comes to answering questions about the natural world? I imagine your faith is important to you. Do you have to put it aside when a difficult question arises? I hope this is a fair question to be asking.
Not really my field. I believe it would have to be a fresh-water hydrothermal vent for the chemistry to work. My impression is that they have found a number of chemical processes that work in a vent-like environment, and that could be crucial to the origin of life, but that there is still no overall, consistent model that works. So somewhere between mere speculation and a well-formed hypothesis.Also do you have any thoughts of opinions on the oceans hydrothermal vents hypothesis? I don't know much about the study. Is it a strong hypothesis or just speculation at this point?
And you accuse me of Gish Gallop? Now you're shotgunning the usual evolutionist canards in rapid succession. Since you've predictably decided to ignore the OP and my questions, I suppose I will briefly address these points.
Chromosome 2, (even granting you that the evolutionists' questionable interpretations of this genomic region are correct), is much more likely explained by a fusion event occurring in a past Human lineage which originally had 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is no need to invoke a mysterious evolutionary event from ape-like creatures.
If you followed the study of the Italian Wall Lizards (Podarcis Sicula) more closely, instead of the evolutionist hype, you would learn that the data suggests these changes are plastic. Researchers moved the lizards back to an insect diet and observed some of the anatomical changes, such as the cecal valves, begin to immediately revert. Thus it is far more likely that the genetic information for such adaptations were already present in the lizards, and were simply expressed when induced by different environmental stimuli. (phenotypic plasticity)
Vervust 2010
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20504228
Or wait... maybe a bunch of DNA copying errors fixated to form highly complex and novel stomach anatomy in only 30 or so years... Yea that must be it.
Nope, sadly, this is just another example of evolutionists grossly misinterpreting the data in order to sell another "evolution in action" fairytale.
A wikipedia link awards you no points.
If the discovery of Tiktaalik was a successful evolutionary prediction than the discovery of the Polish Trackways (an animal with far more advanced tetrapod features than Tiktaalik placed nearly '20 million years' earlier) was a failed evolutionary prediction. Even from an evolutionists' point of view, the data would infer that "tetrapod evolution" took place long before the arrival of Tiktaalik.
Either evolutionists are predicting that fish-tetrapod transition occurred in the rock layers occupied by Tiktaalik or they're not. Sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Tiktaalik is just one more example of evolutionists' over-selling their case to an unsuspecting public.
Nearly all of the evolutionists "evidence" has this shady, ambiguous quality to it. You guys are grasping at straws.
Yes, a true scientist would ask that question. It may reveal very useful information on the limitations of natural forms to give rise to complexity. But as I said, such a scientific question is forbidden in mainstream academics. One may only ask HOW, but never IF abiogenesis occurred. One is simply not permitted to follow the data towards the possibility that natural abiogenesis cannot occur. That hypothesis is a blasphemy to the overarching evolutionary creation narrative and will quickly lead to excommunication.
It is interesting that you find such a simple and rational question so outrageous. It goes to show how much ideology drives the evolutionary community.
Yes, it's so overwhelming that you've been unable to demonstrate a single piece of evidence for it in your lengthy post that set out to do just that.
No, I don't find there to be a conflict. My faith is a commitment, but that commitment has to be informed by my best understanding of what reality is really like, or what's the point? And science is a great way to get a handle what some parts of reality, at least, are like.
Not really my field. I believe it would have to be a fresh-water hydrothermal vent for the chemistry to work. My impression is that they have found a number of chemical processes that work in a vent-like environment, and that could be crucial to the origin of life, but that there is still no overall, consistent model that works. So somewhere between mere speculation and a well-formed hypothesis.
2. Can you prove this. Statistical probability is an argument from incredulity "I can't comprehend how this is possible, therefore God did it" There are over 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. If life formed here, it is entirely possible it formed somewhere else. Probability says it's unlikely you can roll 6 on a die 10 times in a row but if you do it over 100 billion times over 14 billion years, it's likely you will roll a 6 ten times in a row several times.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?