Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

So I was right. Pretend interest in a subject by creating a thread encouraging discussion of that subject. Pretend expertise in that subject, but fail to support the existence of that expertise. Do not discuss the subject of the thread, but attack people with serious interest in the subject. Make wild claims. Repeat those claims constantly. Bash every other poster at every possible opportunity. When those posters get tired of the nonsense, accuse them of having nothing and that they ran off, because they could not sustain an argument.

Where have I seen this done before?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you assert, without evidence. Can you back up that claim? What 'shared genetic traits!' You mean limbs? Heads? Eyes? This 'proves common descent!' to you?

I used scadding's ARGUMENTS.. not his authority. Unlike the irrational progressive indoctrinees here..
F*** scadding. I don't care what he believes. But his arguments on vestigiality are sound. Address them, if you want to refute the argument, instead of trying to discredit the source..

Bluff. You poo flinging hecklers won't touch scientific evidence with a 10 foot pole... oh, you may hide some vague innundo or allusion of something that 'sounds sciency!', in your floods of heckling and hateful personal attacks, but your evidence is pretty pathetic.. non existent, really


Hardly. I fling a little poo back at you every so often, but mostly just i expose you as unscientific propagandists and religious fanatics, defending your beliefs with jihadist zeal..

Well, golly gee. That's what I've been saying. They only vary, within the limits of their dna. Macro evolution is an unevidenced belief, and has NEVER been observed.

Projection. Just because you impotent 'debaters' don't know the facts, have no reasoning ability, and run on emotion and hysteria, does not indicate I'm lying. That is a false accusation and is exactly ad hominem.

Who cares? so are you going to produce EVIDENCE for your belief that 'Vestigiality!' somehow proves common descent? Or just assert it dogmatically?


Right. Project distort, and falsely accuse all you want. I have no illusions about the intellectual depth of the True Believers, here..

That's your schtick. I look at the evidence, and let people decide for themselves. You and your fanatical cronies are obsessed with 'winning!' or some other groupthink loyalty game. I deal in the facts of science and reason.. not something progressive indoctrinees are good with. You've got your memorized dogma, and facts, reason, and reality will not affect them.

/Yawn/..
Let me know if you get tired of flinging poo with your heckling, shrieking troup.. did you bring peanuts?

Your obsession with credentials is pathetic. I make arguments and deal in facts. You have ridicule, mocking, and fallacies. So how does that evidence your beliefs? Deflect with arguments of authority all you want.. you merely out yourself as a propagandist.

The irrational, unevidenced, unscientific hysteria from these pseudo science religious fanatics always amazes me..

Once again you demonstrate that you either do not understand the concept of scientific evidence or are lying One more time:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..you can beleve whatever you want. This is about evidence. Do you have ANY evidence that shows a verticle, structural change in the genome? Any mechanism that adds genes, chromosomes, or traits, that are not ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock?

Arguments of incredulity do not provide support for the belief in common descent.

Yes, we do. But first you must address your ignorance of what is and what is not scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, we do. But first you must address your ignorance of what is and what is not scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Careful, you will probably be accused of heckling and ad hominem attack with this highly controversial post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the OP opened the door to any topic being up for grabs, does anyone want to talk about cars?

My dad bought an MGA when I was a young driver. I ended up driving that more than anyone else in the family. It was a fun ride.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you'll just heckle now, with no pretense of 'science!'?

..just because i stick with the demands for evidence?

If you guys had any, why not present it? The e.coli study? Really? That 'proves common descent!', to you?


I don't think you guys want to debate science at all. You want to heckle and ridicule, but don't have a clue WHY you believe in common descent. You just do, because it was indoctrinated from infancy.

But if you want to look at the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, I'll do that. There's not much there, and it is mostly assumed and speculated, but if a fact and reason based discussion interests you, I'm game.

..but not a one way shooting arcade from religious fanatics..

Oh my!! There goes another irony meter. Once more you do not seem to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence nor will you even discuss your lack of understanding. It is really quite easy to understand:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

 

[usfan]

I would not have to learn to love passing gas

..you're not talking about your posts, are you?

..or maybe mine?
Lol!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My dad bought an MGA when I was a young driver. I ended up driving that more than anyone else in the family. It was a fun ride.

I grew up with big American cars that ate gas like it was never going to go away. Among the cars we had were a 1969 Plymouth Fury, 1968, 1969, and 1971 Dodge Chargers and a 1974 Dodge Challenger. All V8's, but a couple had surprisingly good gas mileage for all that.

I wish I had been able to keep one or two of those. Those cheap old Dodges sell for big bucks now days.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My dad bought an MGA when I was a young driver. I ended up driving that more than anyone else in the family. It was a fun ride.

Some of those little sports cars were fun to drive. That MGA is a really good looking car too. They appear to command some high resale prices these days too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Projection. Just because you impotent 'debaters' don't know the facts, have no reasoning ability, and run on emotion and hysteria, does not indicate I'm lying. That is a false accusation and is exactly ad hominem.

Now this is a lie. You have continually demonstrated that you do not understand what an ad hom is. You have been corrected ad nauseum with various links that show your errors. The only one making false accusations is you.

Who cares? so are you going to produce EVIDENCE for your belief that 'Vestigiality!' somehow proves common descent? Or just assert it dogmatically?

The point is that you used a bogus source and quote mined to boot. That to is a almost always a form of lying. And yes once you learn what evidence is we can discuss the evidence for vestigiality. My prediction is that you will continue to run away.

Right. Project distort, and falsely accuse all you want. I have no illusions about the intellectual depth of the True Believers, here..

Please, avoid personal attacks and lies about the posts of others.

That's your schtick. I look at the evidence, and let people decide for themselves. You and your fanatical cronies are obsessed with 'winning!' or some other groupthink loyalty game. I deal in the facts of science and reason.. not something progressive indoctrinees are good with. You've got your memorized dogma, and facts, reason, and reality will not affect them.

And ocne again you demonstrate continually a lack of understanding of the very concept that this thread is supposed to be based upon.

/Yawn/..
Let me know if you get tired of flinging poo with your heckling, shrieking troup.. did you bring peanuts?

Your obsession with credentials is pathetic. I make arguments and deal in facts. You have ridicule, mocking, and fallacies. So how does that evidence your beliefs? Deflect with arguments of authority all you want.. you merely out yourself as a propagandist.

The irrational, unevidenced, unscientific hysteria from these pseudo science religious fanatics always amazes me..

One more time, you are the one with unevidenced claims. You do not know what is and what is not scientific evidence. The quote you keep avoiding:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

And if that is too long for you simply ask yourself two questions. Is the concept testable? Does the presented observations agree with the concept?

If the answer is yes then it is by definition scientific evidence for that concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I grew up with big American cars that ate gas like it was never going to go away. Among the cars we had were a 1969 Plymouth Fury, 1968, 1969, and 1971 Dodge Chargers and a 1974 Dodge Challenger. All V8's, but a couple had surprisingly good gas mileage for all that.

I wish I had been able to keep one or two of those. Those cheap old Dodges sell for big bucks now days.

Collectible cars tend to be the ones that the present generation that is coming into their prime earning capabilities grew up with. Which ironically makes 70's and 80's vehicles rather hot today. People want to relive their youth and often do so through the old cars that they buy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Collectible cars tend to be the ones that the present generation that is coming into their prime earning capabilities grew up with. Which ironically makes 70's and 80's vehicles rather hot today. People want to relive their youth and often do so through the old cars that they buy.

Yes and the prices, as we have noted, reflect that.

I was looking at some pictures of MGA's. They really were very nice looking cars and not so common to see these days either.

 

[Jose Fly]

..you can beleve whatever you want. This is about evidence. Do you have ANY evidence that shows a verticle, structural change in the genome? Any mechanism that adds genes, chromosomes, or traits, that are not ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock?

Arguments of incredulity do not provide support for the belief in common descent.

You didn't answer either of the questions I asked you. Again...

If you truly believe "new genetic information" cannot come about via natural means, where exactly do you believe it does come from? Do you believe God personally and deliberately created every individual gene in existence?

Do you really believe no genomes have ever changed at any point in the entire history of life on earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and the prices, as we have noted, reflect that.

I was looking at some pictures of MGA's. They really were very nice looking cars and not so common to see these days either.

My Dad's was very similar to this:

1962 red MGA Mk II. I think that the interior was more of a red leather.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My Dad's was very similar to this:

1962 red MGA Mk II. I think that the interior was more of a red leather.

I like the lines and the wheels pair well with the styling. It is a very beautiful car. I do not know much about the performance of the MGA. Any reflections? Now I do not want any ad hominem banter or personal attacks. Just the facts. I am only here to discuss the facts. No ad hominem banter or personal attacks from the peanut gallery. If you will tell me the facts about this car I would be willing to discuss it. LOL!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like the lines and the wheels pair well with the styling. It is a very beautiful car. I do not know much about the performance of the MGA. Any reflections? Now I do not want any ad hominem banter or personal attacks. Just the facts. I am only here to discuss the facts. No ad hominem banter or personal attacks from the peanut gallery. If you will tell me the facts about this car I would be willing to discuss it. LOL!

It had only about 100 hp but since it was so light it had some giddyup. Cornered very nicely too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It had only about 100 hp but since it was so light it had some giddyup. Cornered very nicely too.

I was just reading a bit about it. Under 2,000 pounds, so 100 horse would make it pretty quick. I had a Neon for a while that had 132 horsepower, but it well outweighed the MGA. I would imagine performance might still be better with the MGA and I doubt the Neon would compare on the handling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just reading a bit about it. Under 2,000 pounds, so 100 horse would make it pretty quick. I had a Neon for a while that had 132 horsepower, but it well outweighed the MGA. I would imagine performance might still be better with the MGA and I doubt the Neon would compare on the handling.

It was a fun ride. Not very safe by today's standards. It had seat belts. I don't know how effective they would have been. But you could open the door, which worked on a cable, no handle, and touch the ground. No exterior door knob if you look at it To get in with the top up and the windows shut you would simply slide the window and reach inside.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was a fun ride. Not very safe by today's standards. It had seat belts. I don't know how effective they would have been. But you could open the door, which worked on a cable, no handle, and touch the ground. No exterior door knob if you look at it To get in with the top up and the windows shut you would simply slide the window and reach inside.

Probably no comparison on safety with a more modern car. Though it looks like the MGA had four wheel disk brakes, so with right tires, it should stop pretty well. Hit something and the seat belts would probably sever your spine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you assert, without evidence. Can you back up that claim? What 'shared genetic traits!' You mean limbs? Heads? Eyes? This 'proves common descent!' to you?

You don't know that "genetic traits" means traits inherited through genes?

I used scadding's ARGUMENTS.. not his authority. Unlike the irrational progressive indoctrinees here..

Um, no. You didn't present his argument, just a small fraction of his conclusion. And I never said it was an argument from authority, I said (and demonstrated) that it was a quotemine.

F*** scadding. I don't care what he believes.

Then why did you quote him?

But his arguments on vestigiality are sound. Address them, if you want to refute the argument, instead of trying to discredit the source..

Which argument of his do you want to address? The one where he agrees that vestigial organs do represent evidence of common descent?

Bluff. You poo flinging hecklers won't touch scientific evidence with a 10 foot pole... oh, you may hide some vague innundo or allusion of something that 'sounds sciency!', in your floods of heckling and hateful personal attacks, but your evidence is pretty pathetic.. non existent, really

I've presented dozens of scientific sources. Why have you not commented on them?

Hardly. I fling a little poo back at you every so often, but mostly just i expose you as unscientific propagandists and religious fanatics, defending your beliefs with jihadist zeal..

That sounds very much like the heckling, emotion-driven, unscientific argument you accuse your detractors of.

Well, golly gee. That's what I've been saying. They only vary, within the limits of their dna. Macro evolution is an unevidenced belief, and has NEVER been observed.

I've already provided multiple sources of observed macro-evolution. Here they are again:
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Projection. Just because you impotent 'debaters' don't know the facts, have no reasoning ability, and run on emotion and hysteria, does not indicate I'm lying. That is a false accusation and is exactly ad hominem.

No, the fact that you lied means that you're lying. And to accuse someone of lying is not an ad hominem. Once again, please try to learn what constitutes an ad hominem.

Who cares? so are you going to produce EVIDENCE for your belief that 'Vestigiality!' somehow proves common descent? Or just assert it dogmatically?

Oh look, another lie. Please present one example of someone in this thread claiming that vestigiality "proves common descent".