The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified
I will be arguing that the hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) is falsified.
According to the journal Nature,
Please use the comment section for discussion regarding the terms of this debate before accepting. First round is for acceptance only.
I welcome ChristianPunk to this debate!
Thanks for accepting, but I'll define words as I please, thank you very much. If there was a probem with my definition of UCA, I should have been informed in the comments before accepting, as I instructed before you clicked the accept button.
On to my arguments.
According to evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste(2),
By the tree of life, Bapteste is referring to UCA.
Not only is there no evidence at all of UCA, molecular and fossil evidence disprove it.
According to an article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology(4),
If UCA were true, the history of life could be explained by a tree of life, where a single root represents the Universal Common Ancestor, and phylogenetic analyses (analyses of lineages) would confirm the tree. However, the article ends up making the following blunt conclusion:
According to an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS),
This means that deriving a tree of life from molecular data resuts in a tree that branches off earlier (or lower) than a tree derived from fossil evidence. If UCA were true, trees of life derived from independent data would agree. However, they do not.
It is possible to reconcile these discrepancies by positing that the devil rearranged the fossils in order to confuse the academic community. He is, after all, a very mischievous little rascal (or so I've heard).
The other possibility is UCA is false. I think we can agree this is the more likely of the two explanations.
The fact that fossil and molecular evidence produce conflicting trees is not the only reason UCA is falsified. There's also the fact that UCA entails a lot of inbreeding for over a billion years. There's no way that would have worked out. When populations inbreed for long periods of time, they go extinct. They don't start a tree of life, evolve wings and fly.
UCA is falsified by molecular and fossil phylogenetic data, as well as the inbreeding problem.
Good luck to my opponent in his rebuttals.
I would like to see the molecular and fossil evidence to disprove the tree of life. If we can at least show one branch, we know it came from a tree. Such examples are the Whale and Dolphin sharing a common ancestor with Pakicetus.
As well as the evolution to the horse.
Another way to learn about these fossils being a part of the tree of life, is the biological classification of other species. This is where Kingdom, Genus and Species comes from. (1)
Classification gives us divisions over the types of families that each species belongs to based on the similarities and traits they have.
Now I'll just leave you to do the scientific evidence as to how molecular evidence disproves evolution.
Well this is interesting. Phylogenetic analyses does not support tree-thinking. I'll admit I have no clue what these terms are or if I am an expert in any of them. I do know that if we look at the whale and horse tree I showed, and keep going down, things eventually reach to them sharing so many ancestors, that it reaches to a single one in the end. This is just my theory. I don't claim to know the answers for 100% certainty, just like you shouldn't.
Can you explain what Independent Data is?
Alright after the refuting, I'm going to make my presentation now.
Why is UCA true? Simple, you observe life and it's similar characteristics that can lead to the ancestor. Darwin examined these on his trip to the Galapagos Islands when he studied 9 species of finches. UCA is like the Big Bang from how I see it. If you notice the universe is still expanding, then you know you can imagine the universe being rewound back to the time it started. This eventually lead to a small glowing star that gave birth to an expanding and beautiful universe. If one finch gave rise to 9 different species, then the finch could very well be a result of the same process. So we keep applying that to the finch and other species until we reach the common ancestor, which I haven't looked up or known if we even found the common ancestor.
We can also prove Common Ancestry with humans. You have a cousin. Bob or Joe or whoever. Who do you and your cousin have a common ancestor with? Think about it for a moment and you'll find that you share a common ancestor with one of your relatives.
Another way to understand evolution and common ancestry is Gregor Mendel, the man behind the pea plant experiments that showed heredity. To get a better visual, I will post this source, which is where some of my arguments stem from. (2)
Now Mendel crossed two different pea plants. One yellow, one green. Now the question is, what will happen? Surely out of the four, there's going to be a green right? It produced four yellow pea plants. When this happened, Mendel checked the results of when one of the yellow plants self pollinated and found that it produced 3 yellow and one green. So how was this explained? Inheritance. The dominant trait was the yellow, but while the recessive hidden green trait didn't appear in the yellow pea plants, the trait to cause green pea plants was still inside it's genes that could be passed down to the next generation.
So the conclusion, eventually, while two different people are different, one will be dominant and another will give a recessive trait. The recessive trait can become active later on, which can cause the species to look different. But apply what we know about early life and you'll see that they changed from the reproduction cycle as well as their adapting. Mutations is a topic I'll touch on later if I have time. But imagine that yellow and green plant chart in the source. Put a very old relative in that chart. And watch where the tree goes. Let' make another test. Mom and dad had 4 kids. Each got married. Two were males that had direct dominant traits, but the two daughters were married to a male of another family generation that looks different then them. So when they reproduce, the dominant trait is most likely going to come from somewhere and let's for the sake of the argument say the male has the dominant traits. The 4 new offspring has their new looks and features. This can go on until you meet Linda Rondhat who has a common ancestor named Balailaika Earnhardt with her sister or cousin.
That is all I will post for now.
Nonsense. You're basically saying that if I can trace my lineage back through my parents and grandparents, that alone proves I can trace my lineage back to a bacterium. That's point being contested, and you'll have to do better than assert "we know it came from a tree."
It doesn't matter if whales and dolphins share a common ancestor, or if horses evolved from non-horses. That's a branch, not a tree.
Another way to learn about these fossils being a part of the tree of life, is the biological classification of other species.
Taxonomy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Classifications don't prove UCA anymore than me drawing a tree of life with midgets at the bottom and me at the top prove that I evolved from midgets.
Phylogenetic analysis is the study of genealogical relationships between organisms. When my study said that phylogenetic analyses don't support tree-thinking, it meant that the lineages of organisms don't all connect to the same root. If UCA were true, all lineages would connect at the same root. But they don't, so UCA is falsified.
Independent data is data derived independently from other data. For example, scientists constructed a family tree based on fossil data. They also constructed a family tree based on molecular data. This resulted in 2 different family trees, each one independent of the other.
If someone were to construct a single tree based on both molecular and fossil evidence, the tree would be dependent on both the fossil and also the molecular evidence. You wouldn't be able to say the tree was independent of the molecular data, or the fossil data, since it was dependent on both of them.
Another example would be if I said Jesus existed, and as proof I quoted the Bible. You might demand that I provide independent data to confirm Jesus' existence. To provide independent data, I would have to cite a different source that wasn't the Bible, such as the historian Josephus, saying Jesus existed.
You haven't actually done any refuting. You've got to rebut my point about inconsistencies between fossil and molecular trees, and the billion-year inbreeding problem.
It doesn't matter. I'm not arguing against Human Common Ancestry. I'm arguing against Universal Common Ancestry.
My opponent has not refuted either one of my points. UCA is still falsified.
Biological Classifications (Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Genus, Family, Species, etc.) is showing what categories an animal belongs to based on their features and structures. I'm going to leave a couple of links to a random Order and a random Class. Start from there and look into members belonging in the group to make distinctions as well as the year span each one appeared in.
I would like to see a visual representation from my opponent by the way. I want to see the visual representation of the evidence of lineages with no connections to the original root?
Yes they are two different trees, but doesn't mean they aren't related at all. Fossils deal with bones and molecules deal with molecules. So the trees are similar, except the ingredients are different. If you know of a place called Raising Canes, the place is known for their sauce. Some people make the sauce differently. Some use a traditional form of ingredients, but others use a more southern approach to make the sauce. Different ingredients, but the outcome is the same. Might be a bad analogy, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.
(The second recipe is one that my mom learned from the resteraunt in our town. It was basically ketchup, ranch and Tony Chachere's.)
Your Josephus has been refuted several times. Josephus was a forgery. Look it up. Josephus was also living at least a 100 years after Christ died. You could look up writings by the Jewish Philosopher named Philo. He lived during the times of Christ and didn't write a single word about him. At least people like Aristotle wrote about Socrates. People didn't start talking about Jesus until years after his death. So your Josephus would have clarified your bible on Jesus, but we already know it's a forgery.
Human ancestry mixes with horse ancestry and so on. All leading to Universal.
I would like to point out that my opponent has not mentioned anything about the Gregor Mendel pea plant experiment when he discovered heredity (genetic makeup) and alleles. So I would advise at least mentioning it or you just admit you don't know what to say to this part of my argument. Cuz that was at least an important part, if not half of my argument.
You know how when you boil a pot of crawfish, there's a few that are black or blue and when you crack 'em open, they look rotten? If you know of what I'm talking about, imagine crushing up a bunch of those rotten crawfish in a bowl until it's a nice and mushy. That's what Raising Canes' sauce tastes like.
I hope it's better than the one they serve at Raising Canes here in the south. It sure sounds delicious though (I love Tony Chachere's!)
YOU look it up. I'm too lazy.
I would like to point out that my opponent has done a miserable job at rebutting my tree of life argument, and hasn't even attempted to solve the billion year incest paradox. UCA remains falsified. Good luck to my opponent in his next turn.
Note that Cane's sauce is not what's on the debate here. I was making an analogy.
-__- really? Your too lazy? Then why did you take the time to ask me for a debate anyways.
The tree of life has been explained to you by biological classifications and the fossil records by me. I can't answer the incest question, but I know not all creatures and bacteria were having sex with each other. There are asexual beings. Not the asexual people who have no romantic attraction at all, but the kind that can have sex with itself and reproduce by itself. There are certain species of fish that can do this. Don't automatically assume UCA is falsified until the end of the debate (which you can do now if you haven't been convinced.)
They're called angels, and they have nothing to do with the topic at hand so I don't know why you even brought them up.
Why not? You admitted just now that:
...which means the billion year interbreeding paradox remains unresolved and UCA is falsified. Thanks for this debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|