Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

 

[ChristineM]

DNA

It does not lie, all cellular life has it.

It really doesnt matter what unproven arguments are put forward.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not a researcher but have some science education: calculus, physics, biology, chemistry.

Its the ever growing tree of life with billions of species, and there is a walking path between them all. I don't have machines that let me read DNA, but there is no clear demarcation allowing us to group the creatures into neat categories. The naming process tries to, but it can't. They are all related to each other. Add to that the observed mechanisms of differentiation and age of the Earth, and it seems obvious there is common descent.

 

[usfan]

DNA

It does not lie, all cellular life has it.

It really doesnt matter what unproven arguments are put forward.

I'm not a researcher but have some science education: calculus, physics, biology, chemistry.

Its the ever growing tree of life with billions of species, and there is a walking path between them all. I don't have machines that let me read DNA, but there is no clear demarcation allowing us to group the creatures into neat categories. The naming process tries to, but it can't. They are all related to each other. Add to that the observed mechanisms of differentiation and age of the Earth, and it seems obvious there is common descent.

Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.

Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent. Simple.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.

Its a web forum, and nobody has to accept evidence here. Every day people present evidence that is not accepted and is ignored. There's no point in pretending like this thread is an exception. The mods don't require evidence to be recognized. The site has no official position on which statements are true. Plus, online there are no books or almost no books.

 

[usfan]

Its a web forum, and nobody has to accept evidence here. Every day people present evidence that is not accepted and is ignored. There's no point in pretending like this thread is an exception. The mods don't require evidence to be recognized. The site has no official position on which statements are true. Plus, online there are no books or almost no books.

No problem. Anybody can assert whatever they like. I am only suggesting an evidence based look into this widely held belief..

 

[usfan]

..and, of course, if nobody has any evidence, or if they only wish to assert THEIR beliefs and ridicule other's, that is a common occurence in forums, too.

It is appropriate to debate common descent as a religious belief, because that is what it is.

 

[viole]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

Isn’t that obvious? The alternative would be that God is so obsessed with apes to create the whole Universe for them and to incarnate one third of Himself into one.

Which would be a bit odd

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

To discuss scientific evidence one must first understand what qualifies as scientific evidence.

@usfan , can you define scientific evidence in your own words?

 

[Brickjectivity]

No problem. Anybody can assert whatever they like. I am only suggesting an evidence based look into this widely held belief..

I can provide a link to something called the 'Catalogue of life' which is attempting to accumulate all of the information known about species on the planet. Currently it contains information about 1.8 million different species. This is enough to me to consider common descent as very likely.

Home | Catalogue of Life <-- that's evidence if evidence can be provided online.

 

[metis]

It's very difficult to cover what's asked in the OP because of two reasons: one, is that the evidence is so overwhelming that this evidence is often difficult to cover in the limited time and space we have here. And, two, when evidence has been previously presented on other such forums, all too often it virtually gets ignored or "explained away" by through "proofs" like "Joe Schmoe said this...".

I do tend to believe in some form of Divine Creation, and I am very confident based on overwhelming evidence that it involves the ToE, so I don't see them being opposites.

Gotta go for now, so to my fellow Americans, enjoy the 4th!

 

[exchemist]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

One item of evidence would be the development of embryos, for instance as outlined in this reference: Evolutionary Embryology - Developmental Biology - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[usfan]

I can provide a link to something called the 'Catalogue of life' which is attempting to accumulate all of the information known about species on the planet. Currently it contains information about 1.8 million different species. This is enough to me to consider common descent as very likely.

Home | Catalogue of Life <-- that's evidence if evidence can be provided online.

Well, sure. Anything can be looked up online, and opinions abound. There would not be much of a forum if we all did that, would there?

Is it verboten to discuss common descent here? Is it a sacred cow that should not be scrutinized scientifically? Is starting a scientific thread on common descent a bannable offense?

This is a religious forum, and common descent is a religious belief, with no real scientific evidence. Why not talk about that?

..unless, of course, someone can come up with ONE bit of evidence that corroborates the belief in common descent.. then, we could talk about the evidence.

 

[usfan]

It's very difficult to cover what's asked in the OP because of two reasons: one, is that the evidence is so overwhelming that this evidence is often difficult to cover in the limited time and space we have here. And, two, when evidence has been previously presented on other such forums, all too often it virtually gets ignored or "explained away" by through "proofs" like "Joe Schmoe said this...".

Then how about we,

1. Present ONE bit of evidence for the theory of common descent?
2. Avoid fallacies, and stick with facts and reason?

Both of those can easily be avoided.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then how about we,

1. Present ONE bit of evidence for the theory of common descent?
2. Avoid fallacies, and stick with facts and reason?

Both of those can easily be avoided.

Once again, do you even think that you know what is and what is not scientific evidence?

And there are of course different levels of common descent. For example it is very obvious that you and your brothers and sisters share a common ancestor. I hope you can see that. But just for fun give me a quick yes.

 

[usfan]

One item of evidence, would be the development of embryos,

How? Explain, not just link to an assumed authority. I don't debate links, and can only deal with evidence provided.

I know this argument, i would just like it presented. I won't go through some link as a proxy, and rebut their points.

How does the 'development of embryos', evidence common descent?

 

[usfan]

Once again, do you even think that you know what is and what is not scientific evidence?

I prefer not to debate with those who rely heavily on ad hom and distortion.

If you have evidence, present it. If you just want to heckle and disrupt, fine. I can't stop you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is it verboten to discuss common descent here? Is it a sacred cow that should not be scrutinized scientifically? Is starting a scientific thread on common descent a bannable offense?

You might be surprised, since you are not staff, to know how many people have gotten warned or even banned by attempting to enforce a purely scientific environment. RF just isn't set up for scientific inquiry. We'd need a decider, someone with unquestionable judgment by all sides. In the real world the decider is Math, Physics, the whole competitive environment. We can't replace that. We allow this section of the forum as an outlet so that every theological thread doesn't turn into a discussion about creation/evolution. We don't let anyone win. If you start to win your argument you are probably breaking a forum rule to do it. Sorry.

 

[ChristineM]

Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.

Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent. Simple.

DNA is evidence, it is as specific as it gets. Sorry it you dont like it but that is really your problem, not mine?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is appropriate to debate common descent as a religious belief, because that is what it is.

Sorry, but evolutionary theory is settled science, and isn't going anywhere however threatening it is to actual religious beliefs like yours.

No, common descent is a scientific pronouncement - the result of applying reason to evidence. Creationism is a religious belief, and offers no evidence or valid arguments, just fallacious ones like the special pleading that a cell is too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, so lets propose an infinitely more complicated thing - a god, also said to be undesigned and uncreated - to explain the existence of the far simpler cell. Or that DNA looks like a program to somebody, therefore there must be an intelligent designer of it

The way we can tell which one is science is to see which one is useful. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Creationism can do none of those things and having no predictive power, can be used for nothing.That's all you really need to know about either subject. You don't need to know the science to know that it is correct, just that it works, and therefore must be correct in the main even if a few details are still being worked out. That's also how we know that the science and engineering that NASA brings to space travel is correct because it works. You don't need to know the calculus or the science behind the materials used to know that the people who do are correct by their success.

Furthermore, the science has already eliminated the Christian god from possibility. Even if the theory were falsified tomorrow by some finding that showed that evolution did not actually occur, what are you left with but that mountain of evidence suggesting evolution had occurred and that one finding confirming that it didn't? The old data that strongly suggested that life on earth - millions of pieces of evidence from multiple fields of science such as comparative anatomy and biochemistry, biogeography, genetics, and paleontology - that old data doesn't disappear.

It would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the new finding, and no other interpretation occurs to me than that an extremely powerful and deceptive agency intended for us to be deceived into believing that life had evolved on earth to the extent that it buried strata of life forms that never lived such that the most primitive appearing would be found deepest and with a combination of radionuclides that made them appear oldest, with progressively more modern forms appearing in shallower strata. And it went to the trouble of creating all of those nested hierarchies and inserting ERVs into genomes as part of the great deception, scattered the ring species to be found, and the like.

That pretty much eliminates the Christian god, who we are told wants to be believed in, obeyed, loved, and worshiped, not hide from us and deceive us with the evidence that we have that life evolved.

If you have an argument against the science, make it.