There Is Reasonable Cause To Doubt The Theory Of Common Descent

1. It doesn't matter if it proves Natural Selection. I'm a firm believer in Natural Selection. My position is not that Natural Selection is false, nor am I arguing that Common Descent is false. I am only arguing that there exists at least one reasonable cause to doubt Common Descent. Con strawmans me here. He says that he isn't sure why the E. coli experiment proves Common Descent is false, but I never argued that it's proof, only reasonable cause to doubt. It also isn't relevant what the aim of the experiment is. That doesn't mean I can't use it as evidence for something it wasn't intended for. You provided a study that showed that yeast cells tend to clump together. You tried to use this as evidence for evolution of single cells into multi-cellular life, but it isn't so. Yeast is thought to have evolved (“devolved”) from multicellular life, so this is not evidence for Common Descent at all. It's only evidence that Yeast has retained features from it's ancestors. I'm going to spare you the trouble of bringing up the algae experiment, in which algae (which is not thought to have “devolved” from a multi-cellular ancestor, unlike Yeast) is also found to clump together when conditions promote it. Here it is (note that it clarifies that yeast had a multi-cellular ancestor): . http://www.newscientist.com... I know a bit about algae; I have a whole YouTube channel dedicated to microaquatic life (youtube. com/microgrammer) which I recorded myself. Here is one of my videos where I recorded colonial algae: www. youtube. com/watch? v=8NqyHXjAwkE Here is another video, this time of the far more interesting Volvox algae: www. youtube. com/watch? v=XqDjUl2uoeY Despite the fact that these algae, which are single-celled organisms, tend to form cool structures, at the end of the day, they are still single-celled organisms. They are just colonies. While cells of Volvox do establish themselves as either of 2 types (reproductive and non-reproductive) once arranged in a particular fashion in the spherical network, a certain property of the colony highlights the distinction between this form of cellular aggregation and a multi-celled organism: The multi-cellularity of the colony is unsustainable, as part of the life cycle of Volvox involves every single cell separating from one another. (The reproductive cells swim away and the non-reproductive cells just die. ) This algae, as cool as it is, is not evidence of Common Descent. 6. “This is a brilliant example of a creationist using a website and not bothering to actually read the relevant article. ” My opponent is extremely offensive here, basically accusing me of citing a source without reading it. But he's mistaken; I did read it. If anyone has trouble finding the quote I used, here it is directly from a free source: . http://www.readcube.com... “[. .. ] if my opponent had read his reference 6 he would have known that Profesor Bengston did not mention the word trilobite in the opinion piece. So this manuscript has been dishonestly used by my opponent to express a view that is not present. I ask that my opponent please clarify this deception to the voters in his response. ” If anyone is decieving the voters, it is my opponent. He's trying to convince you, the voter, that I misrepresented my source. I did not do any such thing. I am very aware that Profesor Bengston did not mention the word “trilobite” in his article. However, the reason that I used his paper to support my “trilobite” argument is because he implicitly referenced “trilobites” as close as one possibly can without actually saying the world “trilobite! ”: “If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over […] The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants” What animal is the most primitive known to date that also has “most of the attirbutes of [it's] modern descendants”? Trilobites, of course, which also “emerged out of the Precambrian [layer]”. If my intention really was to trick the voters into thinking that Professor Bengston mentioned the word “trilobite”, then why didn't I sneak in the world “trilobite” whenever I quoted Professor Bengston directly? “Regarding this nature paper maybe we should note that Professor Bengston was excited about the discovery reported (reported in the same issue of Nature) of the finding of a complete halkieriid fossil. He was excited as it helps to give a clearer picture of common descent. ” Halkieriid are thought to have evolved from trilobites (by evolutionists) since they are higher up in the cambrian layer. This does nothing to damage my argument. 7. Regarding Francis Hitchens, my opponent is right in this case. He has some really silly beliefs so I regret using him as a source. However, my trilobite argument still stands as he wasn't the only source I used. Having said all that, I'm going to drop the trilobite ancestor arguments since it seems that the general consensus is that a closely-related trilobite ancestor actually has been found. I spent a lot of time reading your sources (and others) but after feverishly googling for 2 hours, I couldn't come up with a convincing argument on this point. 8. “the data does show that 99 % of our genetic makeup is the same as Chimpanzees and Bonobos. “ I going to spare you the accusation of misrepresenation of your sources here, and assume that you simply misunderstood them. (even though you weren't so kind to me) Your Bonobo paper did not say that 99% of human genetic makeup was the same as Bonobos; it was only comparing a very small piece of the entire DNA of Bonobos to a small piece of “corresponding” DNA in humans. Here is the quote: “two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions [of the Bonobo]” are 99% “identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome. ” Your source which says that “Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA” is flat-out wrong. It's not even a peer-revied, scientific journal anyways. I'm going to have to point out that my source, which is newer than your bonobo source, and also is a scientific, peer-reviewed and accredeited journal, pointed out that research which concludes that humans share 99% of their DNA with these animals is way off: “It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical. ” (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) (it was received for peer review in February of 2012 according to PNAS. org; your bonobo paper, although published in 2012, was received by Nature in 2011, so my source is more recent) In reference to the quote from my source which I just posted, you said: “I should also add this is a statement with no proof of the claim. ” This makes it obvious that you haven't read my source: “One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (<three citations which my source uses as evidence>), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic. ” So not only does my source demonstrate that human DNA is not as similar as much research makes it out to be, measuring the similarity as a single percentage is overly simplistic and by extension, misleading. 9. “as I have shown above that we are genetically close to Bonobos and Chimpanzees. ” As I have just shown, that is an over simplicficatoin, and terefore misleading. 10. I used this source only to show the abundance of slightly-deleterious mutations. You haven't contested this. 11. You're right, I misinterpreted the author's question as being rhetorical when it wasn't. 12. I wasn't using this source as evidence against Common Descent. I only used it to back up my defintion of Genetic Linkage. 13. “I find that a surprisingly large range of biologically realistic parameter combinations would lead to the extinction of the human line over a period of 20 million years[. .. ] Future work will have to explore which of these actually solves the paradox [produced by Muller's Ratchet]” This quote from the source contradicts your claim that it “relies on a set of premises which are not happening in society” and “are only of interest theoretically”. 14. “I think my opponent needs to carefully understand epistasis to realize that one mutation does not mean death or improvement. ” I'm well aware of this, else I wouldn't be discussing slightly-deleterious mutations. “One mutation can mean nothing if not in association with other mutations. ” Which is exactly why slightly-deleterious mutations accumulate and cause the extinction of a species. 15. “This leads me to believe that the paradox has to do with gene size and not with common descent. Could my opponent elaborate on this point please, as it is clearly not obvious how his argument and this research are even related. ” The paradox is indirectly related to Common Descent because it has do with genes. “Please can my opponent clarify what is Nano. e? I believe my opponent could be referring to Nanoarchaeum equitans but this archaea is a parasite, and so that it needs a host to live is not remarkable and reason to doubt common descent. Like a virus some things need others to live. ” That fact that the organism with the smallest genomes requires another organism with a bigger genome to survive is, indeed, remarkable, for this demonstrates that the larger genomes couldn't have evolved from the smaller ones, since the smaller ones needed the bigger ones to live in the first place. That's the paradox.