The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ChristianPunk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,593 times Debate No: 62353
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will be arguing that the hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) is falsified.

According to the journal Nature,
    • UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past.(1)
However, I am defining UCA as the hypothesis that all known organisms, both living and extinct, terrestrial and non-terrestrial, are the genealogical descendant of a single organism.

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!

(1) http://www.nature.com...
ChristianPunk

Con

I accept. I will also ask that you don't define words for yourself, use a definition that if it's a scientific term, it's a definition scientists all recognize.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

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),
  • We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.

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),

  • Tree-thinking, the explanation of evolutionary events in the context of a tree, has inspired many philosophers and evolutionists.

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:

  • [P]hylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking.

According to an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS),

  • Molecular estimates of divergence times are[...] much more ancient than suggested by the fossil record[...]
  • DNA and protein age estimates of land plants, fungi, and animal phyla possibly appeared several hundred million years (Myr) older than indicated by paleontology.

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.

(2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

(3) http://www.pnas.org...

(4) http://www.biomedcentral.com...

ChristianPunk

Con

If we can define words as we please and not use the general meaning for a word like UCA (which has it's official definition and can have other definitions you can make up) , then I might as well define the word Chocolate to mean a red car. You can say, I see UCA as this, but don't use definition because that's saying "This is for a fact, what UCA is." So your just stating that the definition you provided is your OPINION.

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.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

As well as the evolution to the horse.

http://img.wonkette.com...

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.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://anthro.palomar.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • I would like to see the molecular and fossil evidence to disprove the tree of life.
See my sources.
  • If we can at least show one branch, we know it came from a tree.

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.

  • 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.

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.

  • Can you explain what Independent Data is?

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.

  • Alright after the refuting, I'm going to make my presentation now.

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.

  • We can also prove Common Ancestry with humans.

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.

ChristianPunk

Con

You can compare the parent relative branch to the species branch, but the point is you can trace a species' lineage to eventually find the different species, families and other parts of the classifications.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

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.

http://www.copykat.com...

(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.
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro



  • 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?


(5)




  • If you know of a place called Raising Canes, the place is known for their sauce.


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.



  • (The second recipe is one that my mom learned from the resteraunt in our town. It was basically ketchup, ranch and Tony Chachere's.)


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!)



  • Josephus was a forgery. Look it up.


YOU look it up. I'm too lazy.



  • I would like to point out that my opponent has not mentioned anything about the Gregor Mendel pea plant experiment


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.


(5) http://www.learner.org...


ChristianPunk

Con

That visual representation is what i'm seeing as a mocking satire. I'm talking about a legite tree of different types of creatures on it as well as bacteria and so on.

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.)
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • Note that Cane's sauce is not what's on the debate here.
I agree, there is absolutely no room for debate on that point. It tastes awful. Period.

  • I know not all creatures and bacteria were having sex with each other.
Please watch your language. Children visit this website.

  • There are asexual beings.

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.

  • Don't automatically assume UCA is falsified

Why not? You admitted just now that:

  • I can't answer the incest question

...which means the billion year interbreeding paradox remains unresolved and UCA is falsified. Thanks for this debate.

ChristianPunk

Con

I'm not even going to give a closing statement because I feel that my opponent has not taken this debate seriously and only challenged me to troll around. I seriously think I debated shockofgod.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Thanks bladerunner, but I didn't know ChristianPunk was younger than me?! I eventually figured he probably was though

His profile doesn't show his birthday

By the way you're right, my definition ended up not mattering, but the way I defined it could have made my case easier but it turned out to be irrelevant, like you said.

I actually don't even think my arguments about fossil and molecular data 'falsify' UCA, technically, but I hadn't realized that until after this debate... lucky for me Con never pointed that out xD

I do think the inbreeding problem does, though, even though it was really simple, in the absence of any evidence or arguments to the contrary lol hey what can I say

Thanks for the RFD and yes glad we can agree tony chachere's is amazing
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Once I actually read the whole thing, it didn't need as long an RFD as I thought.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/2:

First, I apparently somehow did get the "As always, happy to clarify this RFD" bit in at the end. So it's going here. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

Second, a point of order:

I found Pro's definition abusive, and though as a voter I tend to give the instigator a good deal of latitude, in this case I don't care for the definition (that he never really even used in terms of the parts that were contentious), nor do I appreciate his response to Con.

Pro: UCA HAS a definition. Making up your own--appending to it "non-terrestrial" is both unfair and disingenuous in this context. At least your definition spoke of "all known organisms", which by necessity given that there are no known non-terrestrial organisms means terrestrial only. You never even mentioned non-terrestrial organisms, so I don't see why you felt the need to ADD that so unnecessarily to the definition. Was it the beginnings of trollery? I don't think so--but neither do I think it was fair or proper for you to define it as you did.

Con COULD have objected in the comments, and that's generally the preference, but in this case I don't think that he's in the wrong to object in the debate to your definition.

I'm not awarding conduct for it, specifically BECAUSE I'm accepting Con's definition over yours, Pro. Otherwise I would be tempted.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/2:

Phew. That was long, and harsh. Especially given the score I'm awarding.

Pro brought up an alleged discrepancy between fossil data and molecular data. He also noted an "inbreeding" problem.

Con...never really addressed these points. No offense Con, but you seemed somewhat out of your depth. You did bring up some of the basics of UCA, 'tis true, but you really needed to address the substance of PRO'S arguments. When Con says "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 knew that this probably wasn't going to go well for Con.

I do think that Pro sorta...stopped trying when Con clearly wasn't going to be able to rebut the points that Pro had made about UCA. A little trolly, but, to be fair to Pro, he had actually made his case and it had gone unrebutted. As annoyed as I was as a voter about the definition thing, I can't manage to get too annoyed at the sauce analogy trolling.

I think we can all agree, though, Pro, Con, and voters alike, that Tony Chachere's is AWESOME.

Con, I think you put forth a good effort. You just needed to do some research, I think, to rebut Pro's points, rather than ignoring them and trying for your own constructive. Pro had the BoP on falsification, and presented things he claimed did the falsifying--they're the crux of the debate.

Pro, You raised some good points. I'm not going to do Con's work for him and show the rebuttals--after all, you may make this debate again. If I can offer the following suggestions: Don't play games with definitions like that, and try to be a bit more charitable, especially to people younger than you.

In the end, arguments to Pro. No other points awarded.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Hmm I'll try to remember!
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
If I haven't voted for this by Sunday, can one of you send me a PM? It's gonna need a long RFD.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You are not taking into account the flood and words. Thereis a hypotheses that thwere was an ice canopy surrounding the earth. And when the fountains of the deep destroyed that protection and our bodies were then subject to all kinds of destructive rays from the sun.

God says that life and death are in the power of the tongue. Man did not know death words like we speak today. All he knew were life words from God.It took a while for man to live less than 100 years.
Posted by ChristianPunk 2 years ago
ChristianPunk
Probably not common, but adding numbers are.

Another idea is that back then, a month was considered a year by some people. So they did that when it came to ages. So if people thought that the passing of a month was equal to a year, than birthdays came to about once a month for them. But if you divide 969 by 12 (the amount of months per year), you'll find a reasonable age of at least 80 years old. However, this is unlikely.

Now unless you can show things like he was 98 or 97 before reaching this age, then you can prove that even scripture says he was legite when it came to age.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
So howcome Methuselah lived to 969 years? It was common to add the number 9 too?
Posted by ChristianPunk 2 years ago
ChristianPunk
Like I mentioned, poetry isn't always literal.

Also, from what I read from theologians, adding a zero to somebody's age was common. It wasn't that one was really 900 years old, but they were 90. Adding the extra zero is giving somebody a sign of respect to how wise and smart they are.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
GarretKadeDupreChristianPunkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.