Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problem with theories or models. They are important tools for discovery.

My problem is with pseudo scientists who PRETEND that a model or theory is 'settled science!', or Absolute Truth, when there is nothing compelling in the science to give it credence.

Once more it just be explained to you that just because you cannot understand the science or the evidence does not mean that there is nothing compelling. You do not even understand the cincept.if evidence. If you don't understand the basics you cannot understand why the evidence is compelling.

That does violence to the scientific method, and turns it into a tool of propaganda, by charlatans and ideologues, not sincere seekers of knowledge.

What 'beneficial uses!' does common ancestry have? None. There is nothing in that theory that has any benefit for humanity, and the assumptions they make are not even borne from reality. We cannot use genes from chimps or other 'common ancestors' in humans. Blood does not interchange. The genes are not interchangeable. Pigs hearts are a closer match, to fool the recipient, but even then it takes constant medication to keep the illusion alive, so that some parts can work.

If we were commonly descended, we would expect many exact matches, especially among the closer alleged 'relatives'. But reality belies the theory. Nothing in common ancestry has any value, or positive implication for humanity or society. In fact, the opposite has been the case. All social engineered societies, based on evolutionary theory, have been oppressive and genocidal. The quest for a 'New Man!' has justified all manner of atrocities, in the desire to help evolution along, to 'better' mankind.

The theory of common ancestry has been a negative in humanity, and provides justification for racial supremacy, genocide, eugenics, racial profiling, and elitist control. We have strayed from the ideals of Human Equality, Natural Law, Science and Reason, in favor of decrees and mandates from elites and superiors.

We are returning to the Dark Ages, with a New set of elites, based not on self appointed insight into the Divine, but self appointed insight into the new religion of elitism based on the pseudoscience of evolution.

And if you cannot understand the science you cannot understand the possible benefits from that science.

This was just another empty headed that that has nothing behind it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you don't know the facts yourself, but rely on a link to make your arguments?

..all the while dismissing my REAL, ORIGINAL arguments?

And you accuse me of pretending?

Since you refuse to address your ignorance of the concept of scientific evidence you lost the right to demand any. Also you really should not use the facepalm smiley since that generally applies to your posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen this before.. it is common knowledge in the field of cosmology.

But the dogmatic declarations are impossible to miss, for any skeptic, or someone not looking for confirmation of belief.

For example:
the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.


Right. They 'measured!' this dramatic early period, where everything exploded in 'in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second!' They only assert their theories as 'settled science!', to fool the gullible.
It evidently works.

I cannot see how any scientific minded, reasonable thinking person could buy all these bluffs and dogmatic assertions, with only allusions of 'absolute scientific proof!', of some mysterious data that only the high priests can interpret for us.

'Don't read the texts for yourselves! It will just confuse you. Take our word for it, and trust that we have Special Insight into these obscure mysteries, and will deliver the Truth, with no hidden agenda!'

..history repeating itself..

Assuming that others are ignorant and dishonest only because one is ignorant and dishonest is usually an error.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Minor changes? (Minor changes?) What minor changes?

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.

Again -- no matter what they come up with, so far I have not seen any fossil (including the type mentioned with a fossil) of "micro evolution." The fossils, it seems to me, are complete in form.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since you refuse to address your ignorance of the concept of scientific evidence you lost the right to demand any. Also you really should not use the facepalm smiley since that generally applies to your posts.

What evidence? The fossils that are complete in form and shape and then you say they are micro-evolved?

 

[ratiocinator]

The fossils, it seems to me, are complete in form.

What do you mean by "complete in form" and why would you expect evolution to produce anything that wasn't "complete in form"?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Entirely possible that some would be very different from the life we know? Since it all supposedly happened by chance, chances are that anything called life formed by evolution would be seriously different. Perhaps not evolving to beings with two eyes. I could go on, but I won't.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by "complete in form" and why would you expect evolution to produce anything that wasn't "complete in form"?

No growth between forms. Any fossils I've seen or heard about are complete in form just like the unicell that supposedly popped up out of the water and became "alive" from non-living matter, so it is said. Although that was conjecture, however, these conjectured organisms (the unicell and likely in the minds of the evolutionists) were complete, needing nothing but, of course, the elements around them to survive. Since these organisms were complete and completely formed as they emerged, there is no evidence of micro-evolution. The items I saw in the fossilized pictures on wikipedia were complete. Meaning -- no vestige of emerging parts moving from one thing to another.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by "complete in form" and why would you expect evolution to produce anything that wasn't "complete in form"?

I sure don't know what the equation you put in your post means, perhaps you'd like to kindly explain that instead of telling me how ill-informed I am?

 

[usfan]

Somebody has gone to a deal of effort to write a reasonable introduction with a good amount of detail - are you afraid to try to understand it? Too lazy to read it?

You seem to be impossible to reason with. When people provide you with brief descriptions you either ignore them, or accuse them of just making assertions - and when you're given detailed references you refuse to read them or respond to the details.

You haven't made any. All you've done is posted ill-informed nonsense about assumptions that you (falsely) claim have been made.

I read it. ..as i have read and reviewed many links given in lieu of reasoned arguments from most of the True Believers here.

My impression is that most of you are clueless about the actual facts and scientific methodology, so rely on bluff, posting links to make your points for you.

..that you reply with accusations and ad hom only confirms that impression.

Have you presented arguments or facts to support your belief in common ancestry? No. Just deflect with claims that you already have given 'all this evidence!', when in fact you have nothing.. just personal snipes to hide your Intellectual impotence.

Show me. Make a list of the summary evidence YOU have personally provided, with your points and reasoning displayed. I do that often, on this thread.

If not, your accusations are false and pejorative.. a fallacy to mask your ignorance of the topic.

 

[YoursTrue]

You haven't learned the abiogenesis idea. From your posts, it's more appropriate to say you've been exposed to one concept of abiogenesis.



Just keep in mind that currently there are many different "paths" abiogenesis could have taken. Possibly even multiple paths.




ETA: I just read your post...



You definitely haven't learned the abiogenesis idea. Maybe you need to look at Szostak's videos more carefully and really try to understand.

In the future I'll rephrase, yes, I have seen one possibility or conjecture of Dr. Szostak as to how life supposedly emerged from chemicals.
Yet nothing to corroborate that. Do you believe life came about by chance from the chemical mix, fusion, whatever you want to cal it?
And yes, I'm not even speaking of the formation of the universe, only the idea that life on earth from nonliving matter by chance meetup of chemicals. Which certainly does involve and impact on the process of mindless evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I read it. ..as i have read and reviewed many links given in lieu of reasoned arguments from most of the True Believers here.

My impression is that most of you are clueless about the actual facts and scientific methodology, so rely on bluff, posting links to make your points for you.

..that you reply with accusations and ad hom only confirms that impression.

Have you presented arguments or facts to support your belief in common ancestry? No. Just deflect with claims that you already have given 'all this evidence!', when in fact you have nothing.. just personal snipes to hide your Intellectual impotence.

Show me. Make a list of the summary evidence YOU have personally provided, with your points and reasoning displayed. I do that often, on this thread.

If not, your accusations are false and pejorative.. a fallacy to mask your ignorance of the topic.

Even that tree has changed over time, so it would be kind of nice to have a somewhat simple and definitive explanation from those who believe in, espouse, promote, proclaim, declare evolution as true, rather than the proclamation that non-believers of evolution are ignorant, dumb, and so forth.

 

[usfan]

Assuming that others are ignorant and dishonest only because one is ignorant and dishonest is usually an error.

You would know..
..that is one of your favorite and common tactics.. accusations of 'lies!' & 'Ignorance!'

When Bluff, Belittling, Bullying, and Belief is hurled at me constantly, with little to no substance (other than an occasional link to argue by proxy!), ignorance of the topic is a rational conclusion.

It's ok.. most people ARE ignorant of the science behind common ancestry. They trust in 'experts!' and their Indoctrination...and, when pressed to explain their beliefs, or the actual science behind them, they stoop to Belittling and Bluff.. with the occasion Bleating.

..as is continually on display, here.

The hard core propagandists.. the Dedicated True Believers, with jihadist zeal for their faith, add Bullying, vicious reviling, distortions, poisoning the well, and every imagined fallacy out there. Anything but facts and science.

What do the 4 B practitioners have in common?

Bobbleheads, each and every one.

Their critical thinking skills are dead, and they leap into the abyss of Blind Faith. 'Science!' is just a propaganda meme.. a meaningless word with no substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Minor changes? (Minor changes?) What minor changes?

Again -- no matter what they come up with, so far I have not seen any fossil (including the type mentioned with a fossil) of "micro evolution." The fossils, it seems to me, are complete in form.

Please try not to use the idiotic "complete in form" line. What else would you expect for any life that ever existed. And for graptolite minor changes they could be like some mentioned here:

Evolutionary changes in graptolite sicula

or as this article on foraminifera discusses:

The evolution of early Foraminifera

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence? The fossils that are complete in form and shape and then you say they are micro-evolved?

Again, please do not use that meaningless garbage phrase. It only demonstrates a lack of understanding of how evolution works.

 

[usfan]

Once more it just be explained to you that just because you cannot understand the science or the evidence does not mean that there is nothing compelling. You do not even understand the cincept.if evidence. If you don't understand the basics you cannot understand why the evidence is compelling.

What 'explaining!'? What 'evidence!'?

More Bluff, from the religion of the 4 B's?

All you pseudo science pretenders have done is post links, because you don't know the facts, and just trust in your High Priests to tell you what to believe.

Where have you made ANY points of reason, or facts, or arguments to support your belief in common descent? You have posted perhaps HUNDREDS of reviling, demeaning smears toward your ideological enemies, but nothing to evidence your belief in common ancestry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would know..
..that is one of your favorite and common tactics.. accusations of 'lies!' & 'Ignorance!'

When Bluff, Belittling, Bullying, and Belief is hurled at me constantly, with little to no substance (other than an occasional link to argue by proxy!), ignorance of the topic is a rational conclusion.

It's ok.. most people ARE ignorant of the science behind common ancestry. They trust in 'experts!' and their Indoctrination...and, when pressed to explain their beliefs, or the actual science behind them, they stoop to Belittling and Bluff.. with the occasion Bleating.

..as is continually on display, here.

The hard core propagandists.. the Dedicated True Believers, with jihadist zeal for their faith, add Bullying, vicious reviling, distortions, poisoning the well, and every imagined fallacy out there. Anything but facts and science.

What do the 4 B practitioners have in common?

Bobbleheads, each and every one.

Their critical thinking skills are dead, and they leap into the abyss of Blind Faith. 'Science!' is just a propaganda meme.. a meaningless word with no substance.

More lies and false accusations. How do you expect anyone to treat you politely when that is all That you have. Pointing out your dishonesty is not bullying. It is not bluster. It is not any of the B's. It is simply an attempt to get you to debate properly.

Once again I offer to discuss the concept that is currently beyond your ken, that of scientific evidence with you. Do you remember your false accusation of "my defnition".

 

[Subduction Zone]

What 'explaining!'? What 'evidence!'?

More Bluff, from the religion of the 4 B's?

All you pseudo science pretenders have done is post links, because you don't know the facts, and just trust in your High Priests to tell you what to believe.

Where have you made ANY points of reason, or facts, or arguments to support your belief in common descent? You have posted perhaps HUNDREDS of reviling, demeaning smears toward your ideological enemies, but nothing to evidence your belief in common ancestry.

Can you try to debate honestly without lying about others?

 

[ratiocinator]

No growth between forms. Any fossils I've seen or heard about are complete in form...

And if there ever was something that wasn't, it would disprove evolution.

...just like the unicell that supposedly popped up out of the water and became "alive" from non-living matter, so it is said.

Nobody thinks this a complete cell "popped up out of the water".

Meaning -- no vestige of emerging parts moving from one thing to another.

Again, this would disprove evolution.

So, either you have not bothered to learn anything about evolution before criticising it, or you've got what you think you know about it from a dishonest source.

 

[ratiocinator]

I sure don't know what the equation you put in your post means, perhaps you'd like to kindly explain that instead of telling me how ill-informed I am?

It's the axiom of infinity from Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. I'll explain in more detail but it's a bit of a derail here.