There Is Reasonable Cause To Doubt The Theory Of Common Descent

In my last round I cited a yeast study as proof for the next step in common descent. Here, I would like to say I agree with my opponent that they are still single cells acting together, but they are acting in unison and rely on each other. This acting in unison is seen in most cells when we consider the mitochondria. The mitochondria is extremely interesting as it has its own DNA apart from the cell nucleus. The fact that mitochondria has DNA does not make sense unless it is viewed from a common descent perspective.(1) So this working in unison is what I was referring to when I was talking about the next step in common descent. Interesting thing is my opponent says that yeast is likely to come from a multicellular life " Yeast is thought to have evolved (“devolved”) from multicellular life, so this is not evidence for Common Descent at all." If this is the case then surely evolution from single to multi cell is possible also and not such a far leap?Trilobites seem to be a closed case in this debate, and so this is no longer a reason to doubt common descent.My opponent has discredited the Nature citation to the Bonobo genome study by using this sentence. "two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions [of the Bonobo]” are 99% “identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome.” I will put the full sentence for clarity that the 99.9 % refers to the accuracy of the test of the two different alleles in the Bonobo and actually has nothing to do with the human genome accept that there is a 98.7 % match. "On average, the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi genome are approximately 99.9% identical to each other, 99.6% identical to corresponding sequences in the chimpanzee genome and 98.7% identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome." This was a full genome study this was not based on a single chromosome!My opponent also say his manuscript cited is more relevant as it was published later. This would be true if it was a genomic study and was not citing sources which were done years before the Bonbo study were published. Bonobo study (2012), opponent sources (2007, 2002, 2006). Again let me reiterate my opponents citation has nothing to do with a full genome study and the values it cites come from previously published papers. However, the manuscript my opponent cited shows common descent as I pointed out in the previous round. If anything, the fact that me and my opponent are arguing about 1 or 2 % genetic difference on 98 % is irrelevant as it is a far cry from the 66 to 76 % difference cited by my opponent in his round two argument.My opponent has stated that I did not contest his 10th citation. So I will say again like in my last round, this is not proof against common descent this is proof that more mutations occur that was previously thought. In my own words; "Great proof of the fact of common descent. In this paper the researchers say that the rate of evolution in humans and other species are actually underestimated. So what my opponent is claiming is proof against common descent is actually proof for common descent. The manuscript goes deeper into the reasons why the statistics calculated using the McDonald–Kreitman statistical tests are not to be trusted as they are underestimating adaptive evolution."My opponent claims I have misused his source by showing what Mullers ratchet actually means. Here is his quote :"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]”Here is the quote in full and I will let the readers decide if I misrepresented the manuscript or if we should realize it is a theoretical model which relies on premises as pointed out in my previous argument. "After compiling realistic values for the key parameters in human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) 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 – if accepted wisdom about mtDNA and Muller’s ratchet is correct. The resulting genomic decay paradox complements a similar threat from extinction due to mutation accumulation in nuclear DNA and suggests evaluation of unconventional explanations for long-term persistence. A substantial list of potential solutions is given, including compensatory back mutations, mutation rate heterogeneity and occasional recombination in mtDNA. Future work will have to explore which of these actually solves the paradox. Nonetheless, the results presented here provide yet another reason to minimize anthropogenic increase of mutation rates."My opponent agrees with me on epistatsis, and says “Which is exactly why slightly-deleterious mutations accumulate and cause the extinction of a species." This can be true but can also be false so I will push forward my last example and expand on it.Epistasis is when genes act in groups to either make a trait occur in an organism or not occur in an organism. For example the genes abcdefghijklmno should be present to cause disease x, however if any 1 gene (say c) is missing then disease x is not present. Additionally if any one gene is replaced by another gene (say q replaces h) then this is an adaptation and a benefit. Hence not all slightly deleterious mutations are harmful.In the final arguments my opponent has said that the paradox he has pointed out is indirect evidence against common descent. More importantly he goes on to say that Nanoarchaeum equitans is remarkable as "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." This makes no sense as I pointed out the case of Mitochondria earlier in this round, additionally Nanoarchaeum equitans is a parasite as I pointed out in the previous round and as such it needs a host. I believe I have shown that to doubt common descent requires some serious jumping through hoops when the simple answers are far more easier to understand. Over to the voters.(1) http://www.nature.com...