Yep. Heritable characteristics. One of the foundational facts of evolutionary theory. Not contradictory to it.
1 Like
Ha. You are so not up on things.
Bacteria used as examples of Universal common descent, must at some point be shown to be able to do more than replicate something other than more bacteria.
Isn’t that what we are talking about? Aren’t we talking about the different kinds of lifeforms sharing A COMMON ANCESTOR?
So, dredging up bacteria that are known to only replicate more bacteria, is not supplying any evidence for universal common ancestry.
Only that bacteria can adapt, AS THEY CONTINUE TO REPLICATE MORE BACTERIA.
Oh my! It’s the hilarious “with room to spare, inside a single coffin” quote by Lyall Watson from 1982. Forty-one years ago. It was a false statement even in Watson’s day. I’ve even seen creationists (e.g., Marvin Lubenow) list this fib in their compilations of self-sabotaging arguments creationists should not use.
I have no idea how many thousands of full and partial skeletons have been studied and published as evidence of human evolution but it is easy to understand why evolution deniers wish to promote the coffin myth.
I’m amazed that @rtmcdge wants to double-down on the silly “Dissent from Darwinism” petition with yet another Youtube video but it is helpful to see someone so determined to undermine their own position’s credibility.
2 Likes
You took a phone picture of your computer monitor? HIGH-IQ move. Positively surprised to see you haven’t got an open tab with pictures of Hunter Biden’s junk on there. I guess someone’s gotta break the mold.
2 Likes
Three points:
(1) when used as an example of evolution, no, they really don’t. But as evolution is the mode of generating common descent, it’s an important illustration.
(2) The only possible example of “universal common descent” is of course the example we’re living in. That is, it’s the only possible example unless you want to generate another. That would mean first extinguishing all but one of the existing life forms.
(3) But if you mean “common descent,” rather than “universal common descent,” as I suspect you do (though it is hazardous, I can see, to assume that you have any meanings in mind at all), then you can see easily enough that some ancient eubacteria are ancestral to some of the organelles in the eukaryotic cell. That makes them, by way of endosymbiosis, ancestors of all eukaryotes, including us. That isn’t an example of universal common descent because to do that you’ve got to go back to the split between eubacteria and archaea.
And if I recall right, Lyall Watson was one of those fellows of whom it was said that if you first gave him an enema, you could bury him, “with room to spare, inside a single matchbox.”
3 Likes
You mean you don’t know? After all those years of study?
Huh.
1 Like
Nobody thinks bacteria are an example of universal common descent. What they can be used for, is to demonstrate in a short amount of time, how divergence happens. Nobody thinks that proves all life is related. But it does prove that one ancestral population (or an individual) can give rise to two or more independent lineages that evolve and diverge from that ancestor.
The experiment Alan Fox linked shows evolution by natural selection, and divergence from a common ancestral population. It thus shows both gradual evolutionary change, adaptation, and divergence. It thus gives a concrete example of how common descent among different populations happen. Nobody claims that proves all life is related. There are other ways of inferring the common ancestry of all life. It revolves around comparing the predictions of hypotheses with data. Consilience of independent phylogenies is what shows all life is related.
Not necessary, no. We don’t have to show things occur to have other ways of knowing that they did. You yourself presumably agree with this, since you believe God supernaturally created the entire universe yet nobody was present to witness this. As such you must believe there is at least one other way of inferring past events besides directly re-creating them in the present.
An analogy to historical inference is forensic science, where investigators try to recreate how accidents or crimes took place without directly seeing them occur. Inference to the best explanation is a valid form of reasoning about the past. Hypotheses can predict patterns that can be compared to data.
1 Like
You failed to provide the evidence it was found to be a FIB. As I said, all you are into is making claims and denials, but not supporting them with empirical evidence.
The point is, most of the fossils, (if not all), found and submitted as the mythical “ancestors” of man, are not complete.
Many are just from a tooth partial jaw bone, partial skull, nearly completely pulverized bones.
What do you take these scientists as? do you really think they would come out half steppinp.
Well, maybe so, since evolutionists do so all of the time with their myths.
But, not so with those who are demonstrating God’s Word is sound.
If we don’t know, well, find what we do know. Rather than tell a lie.
??? The purpose?
@rtmcdge I think the problem is that you have been studying apologetics and equating that with science. Apologetics is not science, I think you must understand the difference?
Here’s an example: Have you heard of Neil Shubin? He and other noted a gap in the fossil record between fish and land-walking tetrapods. Shubin and team hypothesized that fossil with transitional features between fish and tetrapods should exist. They searched geology records for rocks of the correct age and environment where such a creature might have lived. After several years of searching, they discovered a new type of fossil creature with the sort of transitional feature they predicted. We now know this fossil as Tiktaalik**.
This constitutes an experiment in paleontology based on a prediction from Common Descent evolution. First a hypothesis (what to find), then a prediction (where to find), then gathering data, and finally a confirmation of the hypothesis.
I could go on, mentioning lots of other predictions based on evolution, inventions and patents based on the theory, new medical treatments, and more. We could discuss if you like, but you ignored my previous effort to engage you on the subject. I see no need to spend time educating you if you won’t pay attention.
** I know AiG has articles claiming Tiktaalik is a fish which is true, but it is a fish with some features of a tetrapod, which meets the hypothesis.
2 Likes
To save space, presumably.
How about this one? You have bacteria inside every one of your cells, busy making the energy that keeps you alive. There’s some common descent for you.
3 Likes
I am also a fish, but have even more features of a tetrapod.
1 Like
I have long ago learned that submitting “The Bible says” as support for the Creation model, does not satisfy the scientific method.
Which is why, if you bother to read my posts, I didn’t say, “God did it”. I effectively demonstrated universal common descent has no empirical evidence supporting it.
Now, lets dissect your guff.
Ha. Come on. Where are you? Don’t you have the internet. Can’t you vet what you are about to supply to make sure you don’t end up with egg on your face?
First of all, remember you are claiming, it is a transitional fossil, right? But, do you have anything leading up to becoming what it is?
As it has already been observed, many of the fossils are found as though they materialized out of nothing as they are.
There are no transitional fossils leading up to your mythical transitional fossil.
It is, with its traits, without there being anything fossils looking as though they slowly evolved until Tiktaalik fossils were discovered.
Now to dismantle your speculation.
" The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. The study used CT scans to show Panderichthys apparently had a few well-defined radial bones in its pectoral fins. (Radial bones are found only in fish fins, but evolutionary paleontologists contend that radial bones are homologous to digits in tetrapod limbs.) When commenting on this new find, the paper’s lead author, Catherine A. Boisvert, boasted in an interview with The Scientist that “it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod.” Boisvert also praised her findings, stating: “The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik.”
Confident that Panderichthys fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik: The Scientist article stated, “Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well — although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other.” (emphasis added)
The “quality” of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see evolutionists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn’t dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.
Moreover, now that we have Panderichthys, evolutionists are openly admitting that the orientation of Tiktaalik‘s radials do “not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint.” That’s a good point, but it’s old news for readers of ENV: in August, I observed that Tiktaalik‘s radial bones could not be likened to tetrapod digits unless you “[d]ramatically repattern, reposition, and transform the existing radials by lining them up, separating them out.”"
Source: The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit “Quality” of Evolutionary Icon is “Poor” in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance (Updated) | Evolution News
Now, have you got something that looks like the one is slowly becoming more like the other?
No. You don’t.
Have you checked up on this speculation. Yes there are bacteria in us and on us, but inside our cells?
Are you sure? Because science contradicts you.
" mitochondria produce energy, "
Source: https://kera.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/tdc02.sci.life.cell.mitochondria/the-powerhouse-of-the-cell/
Now, there is some mythical speculation that our mitochondria evolved from bacteria.
But, this is a myth. Okay, a speculation. But, it is unsubstantiated.
" The story that mitochondria evolved from the alphaproteobacteria lineage has been told with great conviction. Consider the Michael Gray 2012 paper which boldly begins with the unambiguous truth claim that “Viewed through the lens of the genome it contains, the mitochondrion is of unquestioned bacterial ancestry, originating from within the bacterial phylum α-Proteobacteria (Alphaproteobacteria).”
There was no question about it. Gray was following classic evolutionary thinking: similarities mandate common origin. That is the common descent model. Evolutionists say that once one looks at biology through the lens of common descent everything falls into place.
Except that it doesn’t. Over and over evolutionists have to rewrite their theory. Similarities once thought to have arisen from a common ancestor turn out to contradict the common descent model. Evolutionists are left having to say the similarities must have arisen independently.
And big differences, once thought to show up only in distant species, keep on showing up in allied species.
Biology, it turns out, is full of one-offs, special cases, and anomalies. The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work.
Now, a new paper in Nature has shown that the mitochondria and alphaproteobacteria don’t line up the way originally thought. That “unquestioned bacterial ancestry” turns out to be, err, wrong.
The paper finds that mitochondria did not evolve from the currently hypothesized alphaproteobacterial ancestor, or from “any other currently recognized alphaproteobacterial lineage.”
The paper does, however, make a rather startling claim. The authors write:
[O]ur analyses indicate that mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage that branched off before the divergence of all sampled alphaproteobacteria."
Source: Rewrite the Textbooks (Again): Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up | Evolution News
You seem to confuse demonstration with mere assertion.
No, the paper you link says mitochondria have bacterial ancestors, but that according to their phylogeny they just branch off before alphaproteobacteria.
Edit: Incidentally the claims of that paper have been disputed by other authors:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1239-x
Rather, our analyses indicate that mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage that branched off before the divergence of all sampled alphaproteobacteria.
Proteobacteria as opposed to alpha-proteobacteria, are still bacteria. The clade proteobacteria contains the clade alphaproteobacteria.
Nice own goal there.
You have confused “This distant relative is most closely related to person X instead of person Y” with “This person is not related to us at all.” The paper is saying the former, not the latter.
It would help greatly if you could read for comprehension.
2 Likes
Now you have to learn that submitting “Some random creationist says” doesn’t satisfy the scientific method either.
That’s the typical creationist tactic. Show them a transitional fossil and they ask for the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils. This is a Zeno’s paradox of evolution, and it’s equally fallacious. And then you go on to cite two more transitional fossils, Panderichthys and Acanthostega (which is not quite a tetrapod but an transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods). That’s irony for you.
In what way? The sole scientific paper you cite just says that mitochondria are alpha proteobacteria outside the alpha proteobacteria they sampled, but still closest to that group. Now think of the creationist explanation for that, whatever it might be. Why would God create all these separate “kinds” each with organelles that have their own genomes, with those organelles physically resembling bacteria and their genomes physically resembling bacterial genomes? How weird would that be?
3 Likes
You have the burden of proof backwards. Where is your evidence that what Lyall Watson said was true?
1 Like
No, here are your “mere assertions”
That mitochondria evolved from bacteria.
The research you are saying and claiming to be disputed, is not research from the camp of those who accept the Creation model.
And I don’t understand how it is you try to forget the speculation is in dispute itself.
First, please try to remember, it is a premise set forth to try and give flight to the speculation of universal common descent.
Those that accept without reason, universal common descent, need to explain away the fact that cells appear to be designed. They appear to be irreducibly complex.
Meaning, the cells is as formed to be a cell as an egg is formed to be an egg. They have a factory. An egg could not be an egg without the parts that make the egg an egg.
And cells do not have any other explanation to their formations, other than that of other cells. And those cells are part and partial of already existing organisms.
“,Although uncovering the generic organizing principles of cellular networks is fundamental to our understanding of the cell as a system, it also needs to develop relevance for the experimental biologist, helping to elucidate the role of individual molecules in various cellular processes. A highly modular structure is a fundamental design attribute. Biology is full of examples of modularity. Instead of chance and randomness, we have found a high degree of internal order that governs the cell’s molecular organization.
Sci-Hub | Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization | 10.1038/nrg1272”;
"Graham Cairns-Smith: Fine-tuning in living systems: early evolution and the unity of biochemistry 11 November 2003
We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms within which much of the machinery now found in all forms of life on Earth was already essentially fixed and, as part of that, hooked on today’s so-called ‘molecules of life’. This machinery is enormously sophisticated, depending for its operation on many collaborating parts. The multiple collaboration provides an explanation for why the present system is so frozen now and has been for so long. So we are left wondering how the whole DNA/RNA/protein control system, on which evolution now so utterly depends, could itself have evolved.
It is hard to see primitive geochemical processes maintaining the clean supplies of nucleotides required for the replication of molecules like RNA. Nucleotides are not easy to make, as organic chemists know, and as is evidenced by the long pathways to nucleotides within biochemistry today.
Fine-tuning in living systems: early evolution and the unity of biochemistry | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core";
"Graham Cairns-Smith: Fine-tuning in living systems: early evolution and the unity of biochemistry 11 November 2003
We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms within which much of the machinery now found in all forms of life on Earth was already essentially fixed and, as part of that, hooked on today’s so-called ‘molecules of life’. This machinery is enormously sophisticated, depending for its operation on many collaborating parts. The multiple collaboration provides an explanation for why the present system is so frozen now and has been for so long. So we are left wondering how the whole DNA/RNA/protein control system, on which evolution now so utterly depends, could itself have evolved.
It is hard to see primitive geochemical processes maintaining the clean supplies of nucleotides required for the replication of molecules like RNA. Nucleotides are not easy to make, as organic chemists know, and as is evidenced by the long pathways to nucleotides within biochemistry today.
Fine-tuning in living systems: early evolution and the unity of biochemistry | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core";
“Martina Preiner: The Future of Origin of Life Research: Bridging Decades-Old Divisions 2020 Feb 26
The emergence of metabolism and inherited information as complex systems was most likely interdependent and simultaneous. This directly leads to the fundamental question of how and when metabolism and information storage became linked. Nature’s elegant solution is the genetic code, the origin of which remains a true enigma. The question of which class of biomolecules initiated the OoL is a loaded question. All known living cells contain DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, coenzymes, and other metabolites—and the earliest cells as those known on Earth would have had to fulfill these minimal cell requirements. There is a strong argument to be made for the emergence of essential biomolecules to have been (at least to some extent) contemporaneous and interdependent. Cells are not mere collections of their chemical components, but highly dynamic, complex systems with multiple interlocked processes involving those components.
The Future of Origin of Life Research: Bridging Decades-Old Divisions - PMC”;
" Jim Bendewald Irreducible Complexity SEPTEMBER 21, 2019
The cell is the ultimate example of irreducible complexity. My book Evolution Shot Full of Holes with co-author Frank Sherwin, contains a chapter on the topic of the origin of life. [/size]The cell is an interdependent functional city. We state, “The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.” The notion of the theoretical first cell arising by natural causes is a perfect example of irreducibly complexity. Life cannot exist without many numerous interdependent complex systems, each irreducibly complex on their own, working together to bring about a grand pageant for life to exist.
Irreducible Complexity - Evidence Press"
Source: Abiogenesis: The cell is irreducibly complex
There are a few more quotes demonstrating the irreducibility of the cell.
And you have nothing but speculations to explain what universal common descent can not explain.
@rtmcdge, since nothing else seems to be working, let’s take this back a few steps. What is your purpose in coming here?