Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

What is so wrong with saying “I don’t know” or “We don’t know”, instead of speculating on things that we have no answers for?

You're the one objecting to the reality that no one on this earth has discovered a planet with any life other than this one. No green grass detected, no trees and no evolution discovered in any other planet.

 

[YoursTrue]

Only someone who haven’t study biology, or refuse to learn biology would say there are no evidences.

You are forgetting DNA, chromosomes and genes. Fossils are only for those who specialize in paleontology.

And unless you are talking about bacteria or Archaea, the more complex life take generations, thousands or tens of thousands of generations, to notice changes.

And the changes are tiny and incremental, so life cannot simply evolve from one species of one genus or one family into species of a different genus or different family.

Your statement “one life form evolved into another” only demonstrated that you really don’t understand evolution. It is a lot more complicated than your silly overly simplistic statement.

You cannot have cat give birth to a dog, or the other way around. That’s not how evolution work. It simply ignorant statement.

The fact is that fossils do not show micro evolution specimens that have been discovered. And yes, one 'form' is said to have eventually evolved into another. Simple or not, that's how it is summed up. Now you have me wondering -- just how related are cats and dogs? (According to the evolutionary scale, of course.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're the one objecting to the reality that no one on this earth has discovered a planet with any life other than this one. No green grass detected, no trees and no evolution discovered in any other planet.

That is a rather silly demand since there is no way for us to observe life on planets around another star system yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact is that fossils do not show micro evolution specimens that have been discovered. And yes, one 'form' is said to have eventually evolved into another. Simple or not, that's how it is summed up. Now you have me wondering -- just how related are cats and dogs? (According to the evolutionary scale, of course.)

Actually they do. You just don't know where to look. In chalk beds the "micro-evolution" of species such as graptolites and foraminifera can be directly observed.

And both cats and dogs fit into the classification of carnivora.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a rather silly demand since there is no way for us to observe life on planets around another star system yet.

What demand? Somehow I think you're getting mixed up here. I said that no scientist has discovered life on any other planet in any other solar system, even though they speculate with, as you say, no way to observe life on planets around another star system. If I said something else, I apologize, but that is what you seem to agree on, and I also agree. As I said, things are just right for life on this planet -- so many miles from the sun, water above in the form of clouds and moisture, and oceans. And as you say, "there is no way for us to observe life on planets around another star system," so figuring there could be is speculation. And figuring, of course, there might not be is also speculation. There is "no way" to observe if there is life outside this planet Earth, as you said. And, of course, if there were, and if evolution were the key, , you might wonder what would the evolution be? Worse than the planet Earth? Better than the planet Earth? The same?? Nah, I doubt it would be the same. Do you believe there is no intelligent design in evolution? If that is the case, I would say chances are -- whatever life may evolve somewhere else would be quite different.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually they do. You just don't know where to look. In chalk beds the "micro-evolution" of species such as graptolites and foraminifera can be directly observed.

And both cats and dogs fit into the classification of carnivora.

OK, cats and dogs fit into the same 'scientific' classification. I'll certainly look for the micro-evolution of graptolites, etc. But what about cats and dogs and carnivora? Are there fossils showing micro evolution there?

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually they do. You just don't know where to look. In chalk beds the "micro-evolution" of species such as graptolites and foraminifera can be directly observed.

And both cats and dogs fit into the classification of carnivora.

Um, how is micro evolution of graptolites ascertained? Graptolithina - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

What demand? Somehow I think you're getting mixed up here. I said that no scientist has discovered life on any other planet in any other solar system, even though they speculate with, as you say, no way to observe life on planets around another star system. If I said something else, I apologize, but that is what you seem to agree on, and I also agree. As I said, things are just right for life on this planet -- so many miles from the sun, water above in the form of clouds and moisture, and oceans. And as you say, "there is no way for us to observe life on planets around another star system," so figuring there could be is speculation. And figuring, of course, there might not be is also speculation. There is "no way" to observe if there is life outside this planet Earth, as you said. And, of course, if there were, and if evolution were the key, , you might wonder what would the evolution be? Worse than the planet Earth? Better than the planet Earth? The same?? Nah, I doubt it would be the same. Do you believe there is no intelligent design in evolution? If that is the case, I would say chances are -- whatever life may evolve somewhere else would be quite different.

At this point all that we have is largely speculation. Objecting to that is rather foolish.

And there is no evidence of intelligent design in evolution. If anything it is the other way around. And a rational person does not believe in concepts not supported by evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, how is micro evolution of graptolites ascertained? Graptolithina - Wikipedia

By minor changes in fossilized forms. What would you expect?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So this earth then, so far as scientists have seen


Why is the question silly? Scientists are entertaining the question, aren't they? And some evidently speculate that life could be even better somewhere (having evolved, of course).

Let me ask you, have we found life anywhere but here?

At first I thought it was silly, based on the fact that the only planet where we know there is life, is this one. But then I wondered if you were using that question to go somewhere.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So this earth then, so far as scientists have seen


Why is the question silly? Scientists are entertaining the question, aren't they? And some evidently speculate that life could be even better somewhere (having evolved, of course).

I wasn't intending it to be crass or anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Where did the tree come from? Well, some come from seeds. Where did the seed come from? Uh, well, class that's a bit ponderous. But here is a modern explanation--(etc.)

Exactly. But you would not necessarily use your example for evolution. That would be reproduction, but it is in the right direction.

It would be more like, what do these fossils tell us. Why do we find only bacteria in rocks of this age? As you move forward in time with more recent strata, what do we observe? Or you could teach them about antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria. One important point to teach would be about populations and what that means. Things like that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I completely agree with you. usfan has only one agenda and that is to preach beliefs and falsely discredit what is presented. Usfan has been on a mission to denounce evolution for years by his own posting in the beginning. He feeds on any challenge by ridiculing scientific ideas with his twisted view that only he understands science when he clearly does not believe in science itself.

He does not like atheists, scientists, science, Democrats, liberals, progressives, free thought, evidence, and reason so far as I have seen. I am sure the list is much longer, but that is all I have observed. These are all demonized regularly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I completely agree with you. usfan has only one agenda and that is to preach beliefs and falsely discredit what is presented. Usfan has been on a mission to denounce evolution for years by his own posting in the beginning. He feeds on any challenge by ridiculing scientific ideas with his twisted view that only he understands science when he clearly does not believe in science itself.

I think that @tas8831 is correct. Correct all the disinformation, misrepresentation, deceit, comedy of errors, and so forth, but that does not require engagement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Amazing, isn't it?

And yet, he will call US names and insult US and pretend to be "science minded" and to have studied and debated all this for 40 years...

One has to wonder what goes though their heads. Do they try to impress layfolk in their congregations, or their families, or something? And what happens when those people see how incredibly clueless he is?

I don't know about him, but I used to be in this for the chicks, but then I lost interest in embryology and moved into entomology.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wasn't intending it to be crass or anything.

I frankly didn't think you were intending to be crass. Whether I believe in life somewhere else is not the point. I merely pointed out that some scientists not only speculate that there could be life which evolved in the universe, unseen and unknown as it is, but more than that by saying it could be better than the life we now know. My thought is if there IS life evolved somewhere else, it could have evolved into something very very very different from this life. Very different. And evidently some object to my mentioning the rather perfect position the sun and moon are from the earth for life to exist here. Just by chance -- evolution started from that little unicell coming out of the water bearing the marks of life and not mere chemical matter. Amazing. Apparently if there was no abiogenesis -- no evolution -- there would be no life. Just that little cell coming up out of the water. Just amazing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am only learning what some scientists say might have happened. So I learned the "abiogenesis" idea from Dr. Szostak, who speculated that a unicellular organism with a shape, I suppose, popped up from a chemical and not biological basis (in the water of sorts). And, of course, you can't have evolution without abiogenesis, can you?

Sure you can have evolution without abiogenesis. In order to have evolution, you need living things that reproduce, have variation and that variation is heritable. That life could come about by any origin. It could be derived from divine creation. Many might doubt this, but since we do not know how life originated, it is still on the table. I favor a natural process, but divine creation of some sort would fit with my belief system.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I frankly didn't think you were intending to be crass. Whether I believe in life somewhere else is not the point. I merely pointed out that some scientists not only speculate that there could be life which evolved in the universe, unseen and unknown as it is, but more than that by saying it could be better than the life we now know. My thought is if there IS life evolved somewhere else, it could have evolved into something very very very different from this life. Very different. And evidently some object to my mentioning the rather perfect position the sun and moon are from the earth for life to exist here. Just by chance -- evolution started from that little unicell coming out of the water bearing the marks of life and not mere chemical matter. Amazing. Apparently if there was no abiogenesis -- no evolution -- there would be no life. Just that little cell coming up out of the water. Just amazing.

I do not know all the potential forms of living types that could arise, so it would be entirely possible that some would be very different from the life we know. Just look at the life we have on this planet and how it varies just within in the range that we see. We have single cell life both prokaryotic (to use the old term) and eukaryotic. We have plants and animals that are very different from each other. In the phylum Arthropoda, we have a million strange little beasts that are nothing like us. Bed bugs for instance reproduce by traumatic insemination, where the male thrusts his aedeagus (penis analog in insects) through the abdominal wall of the female. How alien and bizarre is that?

Life on this planet is based on carbon, but as I understand it, given the right conditions, life could potentially be based on silicone. But there are other points where differences could arise that would lead to radical departures from what we are familiar with. Different conditions could drive life in a myriad number of different directions.

See my previous post about original life and evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you don't think it's speculation to decide that one life form evolved into another. Despite lack of evidence except fossils with fully formed specimens.

It isn't a decision, like people had list and bunch of atheists decided evolution was the one they liked the best and everyone else is going to have to get used to it. Though, I think that is how a lot of creationists think it happened.

Most of the scientists that provided the foundation for the study and theory of evolution were theists of some sort. Many scientists today are theists. Regardless, the theory developed as an explanation for the evidence that is observed. Since belief could be anything, there is no way to explain the physical world based on belief so that it is meaningful, useful, observable and testable. The best natural explanation is evolution. Beyond that, people are free to believe as they choose.

The scientific output on studies of evolution is more than 20,000 publications annually and this is not counting books, popular accounts, news articles and so forth. There is no lack of evidence to support evolution. Any of us here could start listing evidence that supports evolution and, even together, we would not cover a significant portion of it, if we spent half the day doing it. The evidence can be found in paleonology with fossils, geology with strata, genetics with genes, genomics, population biology, embryology and developmental biology, molecular biology, entomology, ecology, taxonomy and systematics, physiology, botany, and even physics and chemistry. And this is just a surface representation. There are fossils, homology of structure, homology of chromosomes, homology of genes, mutations, the development of resistance, observed speciation, chromosome fusions, and on and on and on.

 

[gnostic]

You're the one objecting to the reality that no one on this earth has discovered a planet with any life other than this one. No green grass detected, no trees and no evolution discovered in any other planet.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying.

I am not saying there are no life on other planets. There are billions of planet in the Milky Way alone, but we have only been capable to observe handful of these planets, but only through optical telescopes and radio telescopes, but these images cannot tell us one way or the other if there are any life there.

I am only saying we haven’t discover any, so far, due to the limitations of technology. That’s our current reality.

Until there are some real discoveries, we cannot make claim of something being true or false before the discovery. Any premature claims are just pure speculation.

The only interstellar space travel to other star systems come from science fiction novels, movies and tv shows, and we are no where near to do such space travel.