Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

OMIT right-wing incel whining

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

And simple questions he ran away from:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.
5. Define "evidence"

 

[tas8831]

Why do you always openly lie about others?

After we exposed his abject ignorance on the topics that he claimed 4 decades of study on, what else is there for the egotistical creationist Dunning-Kruger effect poster child to do BUT lie?

 

[tas8831]

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. There's no other way to put it....you're just wrong.

All those ad homs and poop-flinging! You should be ashamed of yourself for telling it like it is to the poor, frail little conservative creationist expert on all science!
Don't you understand that he spent 40 YEARS studying all science? That he claims to "know the material"?

How can such a fine example of Christian humility be wrong about anything?

On the other hand, he does dutifully avoid all this science...

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

And simple questions he ran away from:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.
5. Define "evidence"

 

[tas8831]

OMIT whining and incel-style dodging.

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

And simple questions he ran away from:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.
5. Define "evidence"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Its pathetic that you cannot follow the responses, but just attack with personal sniping..

You did not read the other poster's 'evidence?'


Ad hom.. it's all you have..

But i suppose it is to be expected. Those who wallow in e.coli rich environments end up with e.coli for brains..

Speaking of following responses, have you read this yet:

Once again, the statement he was specifically responding to was your assertion:

"They can only produce traits that are present in the parent stock."

Do you or do you not accept that the example given by JoseFly represents an example of a trait developing that didn't exist in the parent stock?

 

[tas8831]

Its pathetic that you cannot follow the responses

Says the fellow that thought Dan and I were referring to you when we mentioned the plagiarism of a creationist... Guilty conscience?
,

but just attack with personal sniping..

I thought you Trumpists liked 'telling it like it is'? Oh, right - Trumpists are girly-men that can dish it out but can't take it... never mind.


But it seems that so humble and super-self-educated a guy like you could just rise above it all and deal with the science.

But then I guess you'd have to admit how wrong your religious claims are...

Ad hom..

We all know that you don;t know what an ad hom is. But you do love your Dunning-Kruger:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."​

And this gem:

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."​

That is Trump-level dumb!

Oh - and you keep running away from actual science -


Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

And simple questions he ran away from:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.
5. Define "evidence"

And thanks for rating my thread debunking some really, really stupid creationist claims over here:

Is 'changing genome architecture' necessary for phenotypic change?

It IS funny how deep creationists are in the Dunning-Kruger effect swamp. Poor things - too ignorant to recognize their ignorance.

 

[usfan]

Do you or do you not accept that the example given by JoseFly represents an example of a trait developing that didn't exist in the parent stock?

I responded several times to his repeated question. Look it up, if it is important to you. But a flood of big fonts and shouting does not change the lame attempt to equate e.coli variation with, 'proof of common descent!' Perhaps you have wallowed in the e.coli culture for too long, and it has distorted your thinking process..

And to the other propagandists:

Volume and repetition does not equal reasoning or evidence. It is propaganda, repeating a lie loudly and often. I have rebutted the 'e.coli!', claim until blue in the face. You are resorting to propaganda techniques, since facts and reason have failed you. That is the MO of progressive indoctrinees.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I responded several times to his repeated question. Look it up, if it is important to you. But a flood of big fonts and shouting does not change the lame attempt to equate e.coli variation with, 'proof of common descent!'

Nobody ever did that; that's just a strawman. The E-coli is an example of evolution producing new traits that were not present in the parent population. Which is something you explicitly denied ever being observed.

Did you accept this? Yes or no?

 

[usfan]

Did you accept this? Yes or no?

..go back to wallowing in e.coli.. i don't have to play your silly game of demands, 'gotcha!' moments, and righteousness indignation..

You think i have to hop, every time you say, 'frog!'?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

..go back to wallowing in e.coli.. i don't have to play your silly game of demands, 'gotcha!' moments, and righteousness indignation..

You think i have to hop, every time you say, 'frog!'?

Wow.

Are you serious? You whine and whine about people being rude and abrasive, then, when asked a very, very straight-forward question in a manner that was never insulting or abrasive, you evade, evade, evade and then insult me. What a wonderful example of a complete inability to be honest.

You're not worth dealing with anymore. You are now on ignore.

 

[usfan]

Let's see.. this morning, the 'evidence' presented is
1. walls of cut & paste ad hom attacks, trying to poison the well, and ignoring my actual arguments.
2. Loudly repeated accusations, toward me, personally, with no rational or scientific based arguments.
3. Baiting for 'gotcha! phrases, to use in the straw man caricature the True Believers are constructing. Which one is the master?
4. The belief that volume, decibels, and indignation will somehow substitute for scientific methodology.
5. More fallacies than i can shake a stick at..

But the alleged 'scientific evidence for common descent?' Nowhere to be found. Just more of the same.. bluff, ridicule, straw men, and poisoning the well.

..too much e.coli on the brain, if you ask me..

 

[usfan]

Wow.

Are you serious? You whine and whine about people being rude and abrasive, then, when asked a very, very straight-forward question in a manner that was never insulting or abrasive, you evade, evade, evade and then insult me. What a wonderful example of a complete inability to be honest.
You're not worth dealing with anymore. You are now on ignore.

ROFL!!

I love the smell of hypocrisy and righteousness indignation in the morning..

All the **** you throw at me, for page after page, and you get all butt hurt over that post?

The hypocrisy reeks..

 

[Jose Fly]

That is no different than the e.coli study referenced earlier. If you want to believe this is 'proof of common descent!', go right ahead. But all it does is reveal the adaptability of e.coli, and bacteria in general. It is not 'gene creation!' There is no 'speciation!', and NO STRUCTURAL CHANGES to the genome. The e.coli remain rigidly e.coli. they do not 'evolve!', they just vary within their genetic parameters.

Well that's that. I can't refute such logic or indisputable facts.

Do you have memory issues? I ask in all seriousness, because I'm trying to figure out why you would respond that way when it's clearly matter of written record that I cited that experiment in response to your assertion "organisms...only produce traits that are present in the parent stock".

Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

After we exposed his abject ignorance on the topics that he claimed 4 decades of study on, what else is there for the egotistical creationist Dunning-Kruger effect poster child to do BUT lie?

That is why I do wish that others would point out that he does not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Even though it is a very easy concept to understand creationists cannot afford to understand the concept. If they did most of their arguments would not only be wrong, they would be obvious lies.

One of the reasons that scientific evidence has the definition that it does is because scientists are human too and will make the error of denying evidence. Too keep people honest only two questions need to be answered, is the concept falsifiable? Does the observation agree with the concept? If so then like it or not the observation is scientific evidence for the idea. So more for @usfan 's benefit than any one else:

"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."

I think the problem is that those that have no education in the sciences conflate evidence with "proof". As has to be pointed out again and again science does not "prove" anything. A least not in a mathematical sense. Just as in a legal trial it is the totality of the evidence that tells us whether an idea is likely to be correct or not. There is always a possibility that later evidence may show a concept to be wrong. but one has to work on the evidence that exists today.

Meanwhile I will turn the question around. Why is there no scientific evidence for creationism?

 

[usfan]

So, the strategy here seems to be, 'heckle and disrupt the thread with demeaning insinuations toward the OP, and ridicule him relentlessly until he runs crying from the forum'..

Any new 'evidence' for common descent? Is berating me 'evidence!' for this hare brained theory?

This is just a lame tactic for deluded propagandists, and their brainwashed dupes. You clods can't debate science.. i doubt you even understand the basic concepts of scientific methodology. You think 'science!' is memorized dogma from your professors, with NO QUESTIONING of the sacred tenets of the Faith.

Reason and critical thinking is a dying skill, in Progresso World. Memorized dogma and 'science by decree!' Is the new Proggyscience.

So hop along, little proggys. You are out of your element. This thread is about something foreign and horrible to your Indoctrination:
Facts and Reason. You can't deal with that, so stick with what you know: fallacies and heckling. You are very good at that.

 

[usfan]

I repeat:

Variability in bacteria, or any organism is NOT 'proof of common descent!' Rabbits are 'selected' by color in their habitat. But that is the simple variability of micro evolution, or common breeding, that has gone on for millennia , both naturally and man selected.

The wide range of dog breeds came from 'existing' traits, within the original parent stock. These traits were not 'created!' on the fly, but surfaced during the slot machine pull of traits handed down from the parent stock.

The earlier analysis of the canid study clearly expressed those factors, and left the uncomfortable Reality of no 'gene producing mechanism!' for common descent to run on. Without a mechanism for 'creating!', new genetic information, and ESPECIALLY the very complex traits found in advanced organisms, speculating, 'it just happened!' is a leap of faith. ..A religious declaration of belief. It has no scientific basis. No observable, repeatable studies, and no scientific methodology to support it.

Common Descent is a religious fantasy. It is not valid, scientifically, and has no evidence.

Don't believe me? Then show me. Provide this mysterious, secret 'evidence!', that proves common descent. If you can't do that One Simple Thing, why berate and ridicule me, as if it is all my fault?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, the strategy here seems to be, 'heckle and disrupt the thread with demeaning insinuations toward the OP, and ridicule him relentlessly until he runs crying from the forum'..

Any new 'evidence' for common descent? Is berating me 'evidence!' for this hare brained theory?

This is just a lame tactic for deluded propagandists, and their brainwashed dupes. You clods can't debate science.. i doubt you even understand the basic concepts of scientific methodology. You think 'science!' is memorized dogma from your professors, with NO QUESTIONING of the sacred tenets of the Faith.

Reason and critical thinking is a dying skill, in Progresso World. Memorized dogma and 'science by decree!' Is the new Proggyscience.

So hop along, little proggys. You are out of your element. This thread is about something foreign and horrible to your Indoctrination:
Facts and Reason. You can't deal with that, so stick with what you know: fallacies and heckling. You are very good at that.

You are the one that keeps the thread going off topic. Evidence has been presented. Your only answer was denial. You only demonstrate that at best that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. But then if you understood the concept you would have to admit that evidence has been presented and you have no response to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good. I get tired of self righteous, clueless f***ers pretending to have something profound and 'sciencey! to say, but can't grasp the simplest reasoning, and can't tell the difference between beliefs and facts.

All you hecklers do is ridicule and berate me, and pretend to be these scientific geniuses, when you've never met a fallacy you didn't like, and wouldn't know a chromosome from a metronome, if it bit you on the butt.

I think you are just frustrated because there is NOT, 'mountains of evidence!', for common descent, like you believe, but it is forced, contrived, and bluffed, and any rational person can see through it. So you lash out at me. How sweet.

You just regurgitated the same old, 'e.coli!' arguments, that i THOROUGHLY rebutted pages ago. Stomping your feet, and plugging your ears does not strengthen your e.coli arguments. They are still bluffs, filled with assumptions and speculations, and NOTHING that is evidence for common descent. Repeating the same, tired, debunked 'proofs!' is just propaganda.

So what's it going to be, in this thread? More heckling, snark, belittling, and science evasion, or an EXAMINATION of evidence for common descent? Page after page of well poisoning from propagandists, or a scientific analysis of evidence? Religious hysteria and righteous indignation, or a rational, civil debate over scientific theories?

Oh my! World class projection.

Now the latest response may have been a bit over the top, but you can't deny that you out of your way to earn such a response. If you acted civilly and honestly there would be no need for such responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I repeat:

Variability in bacteria, or any organism is NOT 'proof of common descent!' Rabbits are 'selected' by color in their habitat. But that is the simple variability of micro evolution, or common breeding, that has gone on for millennia , both naturally and man selected.

The wide range of dog breeds came from 'existing' traits, within the original parent stock. These traits were not 'created!' on the fly, but surfaced during the slot machine pull of traits handed down from the parent stock.

The earlier analysis of the canid study clearly expressed those factors, and left the uncomfortable Reality of no 'gene producing mechanism!' for common descent to run on. Without a mechanism for 'creating!', new genetic information, and ESPECIALLY the very complex traits found in advanced organisms, speculating, 'it just happened!' is a leap of faith. ..A religious declaration of belief. It has no scientific basis. No observable, repeatable studies, and no scientific methodology to support it.

Common Descent is a religious fantasy. It is not valid, scientifically, and has no evidence.

Don't believe me? Then show me. Provide this mysterious, secret 'evidence!', that proves common descent. If you can't do that One Simple Thing, why berate and ridicule me, as if it is all my fault?

You are the one that keeps mistaking evidence for proof. No one has claimed "proof" that is creationist strawman. Science is evidence based and I guess that I need to remind you that you demanded scientific evidence. The observed evolution, even if only in the lab, of bacteria is evidence for common descent since that sort of evolution is predicted by the theory. Again all you need to do is to ask yourself if the theory predicts such a result. If it does then it is evidence for the theory and like it or not evidence for common descent.

Also if you want to claim "existing traits" the burden of proof is upon you. I have not studied this topic myself but I would be willing to bet that the genome of dogs has genes that are not to be found in the genome of wolves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I repeat:

Variability in bacteria, or any organism is NOT 'proof of common descent!' Rabbits are 'selected' by color in their habitat. But that is the simple variability of micro evolution, or common breeding, that has gone on for millennia , both naturally and man selected.

The wide range of dog breeds came from 'existing' traits, within the original parent stock. These traits were not 'created!' on the fly, but surfaced during the slot machine pull of traits handed down from the parent stock.

The earlier analysis of the canid study clearly expressed those factors, and left the uncomfortable Reality of no 'gene producing mechanism!' for common descent to run on. Without a mechanism for 'creating!', new genetic information, and ESPECIALLY the very complex traits found in advanced organisms, speculating, 'it just happened!' is a leap of faith. ..A religious declaration of belief. It has no scientific basis. No observable, repeatable studies, and no scientific methodology to support it.

Common Descent is a religious fantasy. It is not valid, scientifically, and has no evidence.

Don't believe me? Then show me. Provide this mysterious, secret 'evidence!', that proves common descent. If you can't do that One Simple Thing, why berate and ridicule me, as if it is all my fault?

Correct, variability in bacteria is EVIDENCE FOR COMMON DESCENT. Like most creationists you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.