Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[ratiocinator]

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

The evidence from your posts is that you haven't read it, or anything like it, or, if you have, you didn't understand it.

The evidence over the last few pages here, where, for example, you've been given lots of information about how we know the age of the universe, and you've just ignored it and re-posted your misunderstandings, is that you simply aren't interested in science, just in making baseless assertions about it and falsely accusing others of what you are doing yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

What are you expecting? What do you mean complete in form?

Let us assume the ridiculous and a fossil of a half duck/half crocodile truly did exist. It would be complete in form, since its form would be half of one thing and half of another as the whole form.

Archaeopteryx is complete in form. That form is comprised of traits that are ancestral and traits that are derived.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Chance events guided by natural laws and conditions. But yes, missing traits or traits that are multiple are possible.

Where are you going with this?

 

[Jose Fly]

reading and comprehension are 2 different things.

So obviously you haven't read the full paper (otherwise why dodge the question) and it's quite clear you don't understand it either.

Can you define the data used? What was it, exactly?

As noted in the paper, they utilized genetic sequence data from multiple primate species, including humans.

That you don't know this further indicates that you haven't read the full paper.

Nobody has shown how this mysterious 'data!' does this

Completely wrong. The paper goes into great detail describing their methodologies and results, and how those results led to their conclusions.

If you'd read the full paper you would have known that.

or how it was juggled to arrive at such blatant, dogmatic assertions.

Given that you've not read the paper, your opinions about it are meaningless.

It is believed and asserted, nothing more. The science is hidden in innuendo and repeated techno babble insinuations, but there is nothing there.

Again, you are 100% completely wrong. The paper goes to great lengths to specify and describe the data that was used, the models they developed, the results of each model, and the conclusions they reached.

If what you said was true, the "methods" section of the paper would merely say "Because we say so" and nothing more. But you wouldn't know either way, since you've not read the paper.

You complain that i expose this, but you do not demonstrate with reason or compelling facts that this conclusion is necessitated by the facts. It is a vague extrapolation, based on flawed assumptions, innuendo, and plausibility. This is not compelling science. Only the gullible would fall for this pretension.

Again, your opinion of a paper that you've not read is meaningless.

all designed to deliver the desired results.

Again you level very serious accusations against authors of a paper that you've not read, yet you offer absolutely no evidence to back the accusation up. In my last post I challenged you to substantiate your accusation and you went out of your way to ignore it, thereby indicating that you cannot do so.

So clearly you feel no moral obligation to back up your accusations. That speaks for itself.

Yes, they are very forceful with their assertions. But their scientific methodology, facts, and data are not clear, nor do they compel their conclusions.

..as an extrapolated opinion, nothing more.
The data is vague. The statistical analysis is unclear and unspecified, only the conclusions are asserted with passion, to deceive the simple minded.

I suggest you actually read the paper.

You have NO PEER REVIEWS, of this 'study'. You cheer for it, kiss the hem of the robes of the authors, and are dazzled by the genius they present, but there are no critical or 3rd party reviews of this earth shaking study, that impresses you so much.
yes, that is the belief, repeated constantly, with no evidence.. except for this world changing study..

I'm not sure why you think having access to the pre-publication review process is so important. I mean, you didn't even bother to read the paper, so why would you need to read correspondence from the review process?

yes, that is the belief, repeated constantly, with no evidence

I described to you a single-clone experiment that I conducted myself where a population of E. coli evolved a new trait that wasn't present in the parent population (that's the point of using single-clone strains). You conflated that with me trying to say that was proof of common ancestry. Whether you did so out of dishonesty or ignorance, I cannot say.

But the point remains....populations evolving new traits that weren't present in the parental population is a directly observed fact. Now pay attention here....that's not being presented as evidence of common ancestry. Understand? There is a difference between "a population evolving a new trait" and "common ancestry".

..maybe you haven't read it. This assumption and goal is repeated, and their agenda is even clearer in their blog. Anti-God, knee jerk hostility toward 'Creationism!' .. is their clearly stated agenda.. so it is not surprising that their fellow ideologues would suspend any scientific scrutiny, and just bow in adulation to the edicts of their priests.

Again, your opinion of a paper you've not bothered to read is meaningless.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am really perplexed at the weight given this obscure, non-critically reviewed 'study' on statistics, and the weight given it.

I bet you're "perplexed", since you didn't bother to read it.

I request those who believe this paper is 'compelling evidence for common ancestry!', to be more specific.. define the methodology and the data used, to compel such a conclusion. Merely posting the author's conclusions, or linking to the study does not provide evidence. That is Bluff.. and Bleating.. and Belief.

All that information is in the paper. Why would anyone here need to repeat it? I mean....what do you think the "methods" section is, if not a thorough description of the methods they used to arrive at their conclusions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you think that you could make one post without making false accusations about others and deal with the evidence presented to you? Denying evidence is not dealing with it.

Have you ever seen any creationist do that? When was the last time you provided a scientific paper to a creationist and they responded with a comprehensive and detailed response that showed they not only read the paper, but fully understood it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I bet you're "perplexed", since you didn't bother to read it.


All that information is in the paper. Why would anyone here need to repeat it? I mean....what do you think the "methods" section is, if not a thorough description of the methods they used to arrive at their conclusions?

Your last two responses are examples of why I stopped giving evidence to @usfan a long time ago. At best he is terribly ignorant of all of the sciences and has a severe Dunning Kruger Effect that controls him. Or worse he could be a pathological liar. I would hope that it is the former since there is a very small chance that he could learn.

So if you are out there @usfan I am still willing to go over the basics with you and then we can go over the evidence. Until you demonstrate an understanding of the basics there is no point in supplying you with evidence that you will either deny, ignore, or lie about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you ever seen any creationist do that? When was the last time you provided a scientific paper to a creationist and they responded with a comprehensive and detailed response that showed they not only read the paper, but fully understood it?

I have had, but only a couple of times, when creationists at least tried to learn what is and what is not evidence. But when it became obvious to them that the definition of scientific evidence, not "my definition" but one that can be found from quite a few sources meant that there was undeniable evidence for the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution they all bailed.

Lucky for us that our OP has roped himself in with a title that he chose and cannot change.

 

[Jose Fly]

What 'beneficial uses!' does common ancestry have? None. There is nothing in that theory that has any benefit for humanity,

Completely wrong. The framework of common ancestry is used to discern genetic function.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

"Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy...Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature."​

Bigger picture-wise, the field of comparative genomics is based on evolutionary relationships. It's how they know what sequences to compare, what to look for, and how to interpret the results.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your last two responses are examples of why I stopped giving evidence to @usfan a long time ago. At best he is terribly ignorant of all of the sciences and has a severe Dunning Kruger Effect that controls him. Or worse he could be a pathological liar. I would hope that it is the former since there is a very small chance that he could learn.

I go back and forth. Sometimes I'm in the "why bother" camp, other times I'm in the "this is fascinating to watch" camp. And other times I have one foot in each.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Completely wrong. The framework of common ancestry is used to discern genetic function.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

"Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy...Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature."​

Bigger picture-wise, the field of comparative genomics is based on evolutionary relationships. It's how they know what sequences to compare, what to look for, and how to interpret the results.

To be fair that knowledge is of no use to the average person. And I can see how the ignorant would challenge the usefulness of it. But in the same sense a person has no need of Newtonian Gravity, much less the gravity of Relativity. The most that one would need for well over 90% and probably 99% of the populace is a knowledge of Galileo's gravity. He derived the formulas D = (1/2)gt^2. But for one class we had to do a gravity survey and to truly understand what one was doing and how to interpret the results a rather good knowledge of F = GMm/r^2 and the calculus to apply it was necessary.

I do get riled a bit by people who think that knowledge is worthless just because they do not know how to apply it. Just think of the obvious material goods that we could not have if that attitude was applied universally. We could not be discussing this right now since obviously the quantum effects that rule transistors is "worthless knowledge".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I go back and forth. Sometimes I'm in the "why bother" camp, other times I'm in the "this is fascinating to watch" camp. And other times I have one foot in each.

Sometimes the debating is entertaining and sometimes I either have to relearn things I used to know but lost due to non-use or I even get to learn something new. I seriously doubt if you can help those that refuse to learn.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have had, but only a couple of times, when creationists at least tried to learn what is and what is not evidence. But when it became obvious to them that the definition of scientific evidence, not "my definition" but one that can be found from quite a few sources meant that there was undeniable evidence for the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution they all bailed.

Exactly....they get to a certain point where it starts to get uncomfortable, and they run. It can be fascinating to watch at times.

Lucky for us that our OP has roped himself in with a title that he chose and cannot change.

I keep wondering if he actually thinks he's doing well here. If he does...then......wow.

 

[Jose Fly]

To be fair that knowledge is of no use to the average person.

Sure it is. They may not realize it specifically, but it's most certainly a benefit to know what various genetic sequences do and how they do it. Most people probably don't know exactly what their medication does or how the research behind it was conducted. But that doesn't mean it's of no use to them.

And I can see how the ignorant would challenge the usefulness of it.

Not in any meaningful way. What are they going to say? "Knowing what genetic sequences do and how they do it isn't useful information"?

I do get riled a bit by people who think that knowledge is worthless just because they do not know how to apply it. Just think of the obvious material goods that we could not have if that attitude was applied universally. We could not be discussing this right now since obviously the quantum effects that rule transistors is "worthless knowledge".

Well, I'm not too concerned about anyone who is of the mindset "If I don't know how to apply X, then no one does".

 

[Polymath257]

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.

What else do you expect? At each and every stage, we *expect* the animal to be 'complete in form'. It has to survive in some environment after all.

 

[Polymath257]

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

You can ignore the article, but it summarized the evidence. yes, it bases its analysis of what had previously been concluded, but the evidence in that article also substantiates those conclusions.

 

[Polymath257]

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

The evidence is the detailed angular distribution of the fluctuations in the CMBR. Now, to understand that evidence and why it supports the age conclusions requires a LOT more work. And, unless you understand the basics of differential geometry, you won't be able to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is the detailed angular distribution of the fluctuations in the CMBR. Now, to understand that evidence and why it supports the age conclusions requires a LOT more work. And, unless you understand the basics of differential geometry, you won't be able to do so.

Math? Math is for sissies

 

[ecco]

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.

You made a lot of posts ostensibly asking questions about abiogenesis and evolution. You try, a little, to convey that you are actually interested in learning, but it has become obvious that that is probably not the case. "Mindless Evolution"? That's right out of the Creationists playbook.

So, let's flip things around a little. How about you tell us how you account for man's existence on earth.

 

[tas8831]

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?

Yes, of course we can.
Evolution is about origin of SPECIES, not origin of life.
Evolution is consistent with abiogenesis, but it is not dependent upon it.

That is a YEC canard, not to be believed.