Jump to content

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory


Kevbo_Jones

Recommended Posts

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm

 

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

 

ScienceDaily (May 17, 2010) ? More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained beyond the scope of a formal test. Now, a Brandeis biochemist reports in Nature the results of the first large scale, quantitative test of the famous theory that underpins modern evolutionary biology.

 

The results of the study confirm that Darwin had it right all along. In his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, the British naturalist proposed that, "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form." Over the last century and a half, qualitative evidence for this theory has steadily grown, in the numerous, surprising transitional forms found in the fossil record, for example, and in the identification of sweeping fundamental biological similarities at the molecular level.

 

Still, rumblings among some evolutionary biologists have recently emerged questioning whether the evolutionary relationships among living organisms are best described by a single "family tree" or rather by multiple, interconnected trees -- a "web of life." Recent molecular evidence indicates that primordial life may have undergone rampant horizontal gene transfer, which occurs frequently today when single-celled organisms swap genes using mechanisms other than usual organismal reproduction. In that case, some scientists argue, early evolutionary relationships were web-like, making it possible that life sprang up independently from many ancestors.

 

According to biochemist Douglas Theobald, it doesn't really matter. "Let's say life originated independently multiple times, which UCA allows is possible," said Theobald. "If so, the theory holds that a bottleneck occurred in evolution, with descendants of only one of the independent origins surviving until the present. Alternatively, separate populations could have merged, by exchanging enough genes over time to become a single species that eventually was ancestral to us all. Either way, all of life would still be genetically related."

 

Harnessing powerful computational tools and applying Bayesian statistics, Theobald found that the evidence overwhelmingly supports UCA, regardless of horizontal gene transfer or multiple origins of life. Theobald said UCA is millions of times more probable than any theory of multiple independent ancestries.

 

"There have been major advances in biology over the last decade, with our ability to test Darwin's theory in a way never before possible," said Theobald. "The number of genetic sequences of individual organisms doubles every three years, and our computational power is much stronger now than it was even a few years ago."

 

While other scientists have previously examined common ancestry more narrowly, for example, among only vertebrates, Theobald is the first to formally test Darwin's theory across all three domains of life. The three domains include diverse life forms such as the Eukarya (organisms, including humans, yeast, and plants, whose cells have a DNA-containing nucleus) as well as Bacteria and Archaea (two distinct groups of unicellular microorganisms whose DNA floats around in the cell instead of in a nucleus).

 

Theobald studied a set of 23 universally conserved, essential proteins found in all known organisms. He chose to study four representative organisms from each of the three domains of life. For example, he researched the genetic links found among these proteins in archaeal microorganisms that produce marsh gas and methane in cows and the human gut; in fruit flies, humans, round worms, and baker's yeast; and in bacteria like E. coli and the pathogen that causes tuberculosis.

 

Theobald's study rests on several simple assumptions about how the diversity of modern proteins arose. First, he assumed that genetic copies of a protein can be multiplied during reproduction, such as when one parent gives a copy of one of their genes to several of their children. Second, he assumed that a process of replication and mutation over the eons may modify these proteins from their ancestral versions. These two factors, then, should have created the differences in the modern versions of these proteins we see throughout life today. Lastly, he assumed that genetic changes in one species don't affect mutations in another species -- for example, genetic mutations in kangaroos don't affect those in humans.

 

What Theobald did not assume, however, was how far back these processes go in linking organisms genealogically. It is clear, say, that these processes are able to link the shared proteins found in all humans to each other genetically. But do the processes in these assumptions link humans to other animals? Do these processes link animals to other eukaryotes? Do these processes link eukaryotes to the other domains of life, bacteria and archaea? The answer to each of these questions turns out to be a resounding yes.

 

Just what did this universal common ancestor look like and where did it live? Theobald's study doesn't answer this question. Nevertheless, he speculated, "to us, it would most likely look like some sort of froth, perhaps living at the edge of the ocean, or deep in the ocean on a geothermal vent. At the molecular level, I'm sure it would have looked as complex and beautiful as modern life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL..OK

 

Here is the highlight of what you posted. THis is the common response of all psudioscientists and it makes me laugh

 

Just what did this universal common ancestor "look like" and where did it live? "Theobald's study doesn't answer this question". Nevertheless, he "speculated", "to us, it would most likely look like some sort of froth, perhaps living at the edge of the ocean, or deep in the ocean on a geothermal vent. At the molecular level, I'm sure it would have looked as complex and beautiful as modern life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

 

 

Sorry Kevbo yet another unscintifically proven or untestable theory..lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related' date=' much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. [b']Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists.[/b] For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

 

Source of this copypasta? Also, note the text highlighted in bold - am I misinterpreting this or did you post copypasta that lends credibility to that which you try so hard to discredit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is when i shag my wife I'm actually committing incest and the same can be said when i shag my dog. Well thats another tick in the task book of life. Time to leave the UK and live the in the deep south where that stuff is actively encouraged....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is when i shag my wife I'm actually committing incest and the same can be said when i shag my dog. Well thats another tick in the task book of life. Time to leave the UK and live the in the deep south where that stuff is actively encouraged....

 

I thought the Welsh pioneered sheep f*cking & beastiality in general..? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is all crap.

 

come on... humans used to fight dinosaurs all the time. the fossils are 5000 years old max. I AINT NO MUNKEY!

 

god made me out of god clay.

 

(sarcasm)

 

evolution is... quite obviously fact. anyone believing in creationalism is insane. i would put them on the same level people believing in the anunaki and shape shifting aliens walking among us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is all crap.

 

come on... humans used to fight dinosaurs all the time. the fossils are 5000 years old max. I AINT NO MUNKEY!

 

god made me out of god clay.

 

(sarcasm)

 

evolution is... quite obviously fact. anyone believing in creationalism is insane. i would put them on the same level people believing in the anunaki and shape shifting aliens walking among us.

 

YOu say all that like you have great evidence to back it up. Psudoiscience cannot be used as evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fast, what is your personal take on the origins of life given the advances in microbiology in the last decde or so? It seems you are are a firm believer in evidence-based scientific theories and there have been some amazing discoveries at the cellular level in the past decade or so. Just wondering....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fast' date=' what is your personal take on the origins of life given the advances in microbiology in the last decde or so? It seems you are are a firm believer in evidence-based scientific theories and there have been some amazing discoveries at the cellular level in the past decade or so. Just wondering....[/quote']

 

Anything in particular?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

irreducibly complexity

 

Agreed, now given that what are your thoughts on how the Flagellum motor first came to be? If it is irreducibly complex, how can one account for it's existence? Evolutionary theory suggests that the motor in particular developed over time through random mutations but the problem is that one or more of the parts of the flagellum motor would of had to have served some other purpose in the cell prior to mutation. This is an aspect that I have a hard time understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their minds it is crediable even though they cannot test it:rolleyes:Sorda like the String Theory shoo

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

They can and have been testing it. I liter this forum pretty much every week with some other test or piece of evidence' date=' yet you still cling to your biblical creationism propeganda from i-love-jesus.com. Absolutely, postitively, clown shoes.

 

This is a direct quote from the site you posted earlier.

 

Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories

 

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

 

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

 

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

 

clown-shoes.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you be so blind, Fast? Why do you run and hide and discredit every study as "pseudoscience" when a scientific advancement is made? I've already pondered the possibility of a global creator. After pondering it for so long I was only steered away from the idea of a sole creator. It makes no sense. The idea is based upon a book written and edited by numerous people throughout history. At least with science comes hypotheses and experimentation. All you have is a book written by people identical to yourself regarding individual belief. And you only believe this because you were told to. I assume you were brought up in a religious background and never had the chance to question the belief system that was installed in you.

 

You always claim that all this "pseudoscience" has no proof. The only flaw with your statement is that these tests concerning evolution have been tested throughout time and we have made strong advancements that show replications in certain aspects of different organisms DNA structures. Evolution happens. Did we evolve from primates? We don't know yet, but we are trying to figure that out. All of your claims, on the other hand, cannot be tested or proven EVER. There isn't a shred of evidence to support claims of the bible because it is a fictional book - and there's no denying that.

 

I can't wait until they find the ironically named "God particle" and end the rise of the religious fanatics. And you know they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fast' date=' what is your personal take on the origins of life given the advances in microbiology in the last decde or so? It seems you are are a firm believer in evidence-based scientific theories and there have been some amazing discoveries at the cellular level in the past decade or so. Just wondering....[/quote']

 

Unless the science doesn't prove God, Fast claims it's pseudoscience.......it's embarassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much more proof people need. People theorized that biological processes, such as transcription of the genome and translation into an amino acid chain to create proteins were similar if not identical across almost all organisms. This genomic study offers concrete evidence that this is actually the case. They studied 23 essential proteins across the 3 domains of life. By doing this it takes us all the way back and creates the possibility of discovering a common ancestor for all life.

 

This is just the beginning. To call it pseudoscience seems like a coverall statement, kind of like using god as a universal answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know how much more proof people need. People theorized that biological processes' date=' such as transcription of the genome and translation into an amino acid chain to create proteins were similar if not identical across almost all organisms. This genomic study offers concrete evidence that this is actually the case. They studied 23 essential proteins across the 3 domains of life. By doing this it takes us all the way back and creates the possibility of discovering a common ancestor for all life.

 

This is just the beginning. [b']to call it pseudoscience seems like a coverall statement, kind of like using god as a universal answer[/b].

 

+832

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the science doesn't prove God' date=' Fast claims it's pseudoscience.......it's embarassing.[/quote']

 

This...

 

 

I wish everyone else saw his incredibly hypocritical statement in my other thread in reference to string theory. He used the opinion and article written by a physicist who opposes string theory, but also claims to have combated "psuedoscience" his entire career. The first psuedoscience listed in said article was INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This...

 

 

I wish everyone else saw his incredibly hypocritical statement in my other thread in reference to string theory. He used the opinion and article written by a physicist who opposes string theory' date=' but also claims to have combated "psuedoscience" his entire career. The first psuedoscience listed in said article was [b']INTELLIGENT DESIGN[/b].

 

Trying to convince someone of Fast's stature that the Bible is a fictional book that has misguided a massive population is like trying to choke out Fedor - it just isn't going to happen, not in this life time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hear Fast claim anything as "pseudoscience" is pretty much the largest example of the pot calling the kettle 'black', I've ever goddamn heard.....

 

The man bases his entire existence and rationale, on the grand-champion of pseudoscience (God)......it's so funny, I'm sh*tting tears.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hear Fast claim anything as "pseudoscience" is pretty much the largest example of the pot calling the kettle 'black'' date=' I've ever goddamn heard.....

 

The man bases his entire existence and rationale, on the grand-champion of pseudoscience (God)......it's so funny, I'm sh*tting tears.....[/quote']

 

I hope you jumped in the shower right away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...