Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Neutral Name]

Your last sentence is the only appropriate response,
unless you care to add "put up or shut up, we aint
dancin' your jig."

Science and God are the same thing. People discover aspects of God. They only know what they know.Yet, they claim to have all of the answers. If they had nothing left to discover, we would never progress. Everyday there are new scientific discoveries. Some of those discoveries contradict past scientific "facts". They can prove some things but others are theories. For example, the big bang is erroneous. Where did the matter and energy come from for the big bang? What created it? Science has no answers for that. No scientist has ever tried to explain it. There are so many other mysteries which science has not yet answered. Scientists pretend to have all of the answers but they don't. They only know what they currently know. They will know more in the future. That is only logical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science and God are the same thing. People discover aspects of God. They only know what they know.Yet, they claim to have all of the answers. If they had nothing left to discover, we would never progress. Everyday there are new scientific discoveries. Some of those discoveries contradict past scientific "facts". They can prove some things but others are theories. For example, the big bang is erroneous. Where did the matter and energy come from for the big bang? What created it? Science has no answers for that. No scientist has ever tried to explain it. There are so many other mysteries which science has not yet answered. Scientists pretend to have all of the answers but they don't. They only know what they currently know. They will know more in the future. That is only logical.

What makes you think that there is no explanation? What makes you even think that there has to a be a god to make the universe? By any "logic" that says a god is needed to make the universe that same logic says that something is needed even more to make that god. Not understanding something does not make it "erroneous". The Big Bang is traceable back to a very small fraction of a second after the universe as we know it began. Where is it wrong?

EDIT: What does the Big Bang have to do with this thread? Shouldn't you have posted this elsewhere?

 

[usfan]

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

Like most progressive indoctrinees, you rely on fallacies and personal deflections, and wouldn't know scientific methodology if it stared you in the face.



VARIABILITY.. in ANYTHING, does not indicate common descent. That is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY, that indoctinees cling to. It is correlating horizontal adaptation, WITHIN an organism, to structural changes in the genome, that have NEVER been observed. It is only believed. And this unscientific, religious belief is loudly proclaimed as 'Settled Science!', until brainwashed bobbleheads surrender their reasoning abilities, and believe blindly whatever they are told.

They then lash out, with jihadist zeal, at anyone who dares question the sacred tenets of their faith. Science and facts are sacrificed on the Altar of Mandated Belief and religious conformity.

Show me the evidence. I already know you excel at fallacies, deflections, pompous sermonizing, and righteous indignation. But you have no facts. No reasoning. No Clue. You argue like a religious fanatic, with no concept of scientific methodology.

 

[usfan]

Here is the 'micro vs macro', false equivalence argument from post #88:

"Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change without of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but is believed as proven fact.

The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science.

The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major verticle changes in the genetic structure."

There have been no logical rebuttals, or evidence presented to refute this problem of false equivalency, just outrage and personal smears, to try to discredit me, personally. Definitional dodges, poisoning the well, straw man caricatures, and enough ad hominem to choke a horse. But EVIDENCE? The True Believers won't touch reason or evidence with a 10 foot pole..

'Micro = Macro!', is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY. they are 2 different things and cannot be correlated, except by faith. There is NO EVIDENCE, for this belief. It is assumed, conjectured, and believed.

Don't agree? Show me evidence, not assertions. Show me ONE example or experiment where new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome were observed. Make it a civil, rational, evidentiary based post, and i will reply in kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like most progressive indoctrinees, you rely on fallacies and personal deflections, and wouldn't know scientific methodology if it stared you in the face.



VARIABILITY.. in ANYTHING, does not indicate common descent. That is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY, that indoctinees cling to. It is correlating horizontal adaptation, WITHIN an organism, to structural changes in the genome, that have NEVER been observed. It is only believed. And this unscientific, religious belief is loudly proclaimed as 'Settled Science!', until brainwashed bobbleheads surrender their reasoning abilities, and believe blindly whatever they are told.

They then lash out, with jihadist zeal, at anyone who dares question the sacred tenets of their faith. Science and facts are sacrificed on the Altar of Mandated Belief and religious conformity.

Show me the evidence. I already know you excel at fallacies, deflections, pompous sermonizing, and righteous indignation. But you have no facts. No reasoning. No Clue. You argue like a religious fanatic, with no concept of scientific methodology.

You are once again merely in denial. The fact that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence is probably at the root of your problem. If course your superstitious beliefs cause good old cog dis to strike whenever they are threatened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the 'micro vs macro', false equivalence argument from post #88:

"Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change without of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but is believed as proven fact.

The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science.

The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major verticle changes in the genetic structure."

There have been no logical rebuttals, or evidence presented to refute this problem of false equivalency, just outrage and personal smears, to try to discredit me, personally. Definitional dodges, poisoning the well, straw man caricatures, and enough ad hominem to choke a horse. But EVIDENCE? The True Believers won't touch reason or evidence with a 10 foot pole..

'Micro = Macro!', is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY. they are 2 different things and cannot be correlated, except by faith. There is NO EVIDENCE, for this belief. It is assumed, conjectured, and believed.

Don't agree? Show me evidence, not assertions. Show me ONE example or experiment where new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome were observed. Make it a civil, rational, evidentiary based post, and i will reply in kind.

Oh my! So many errors. I do not know where to start. The cognitive dissonance strong is with this one.

 

[Neutral Name]

What makes you think that there is no explanation? What makes you even think that there has to a be a god to make the universe? By any "logic" that says a god is needed to make the universe that same logic says that something is needed even more to make that god. Not understanding something does not make it "erroneous". The Big Bang is traceable back to a very small fraction of a second after the universe as we know it began. Where is it wrong?

EDIT: What does the Big Bang have to do with this thread? Shouldn't you have posted this elsewhere?

Yes, but my question is where did the energy and matter come from to begin with? What created it? It had to come from somewhere. It didn't create itself.

 

[tas8831]

Don't agree? Show me evidence, not assertions. Show me ONE example or experiment where new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome were observed. Make it a civil, rational, evidentiary based post, and i will reply in kind.

You have yet to explain, or provide a rationale, or give examples regarding this 'requirement' for "new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome " in order for 'macroevolution' (which you also have not defined) to have occurred.

Why are "new genes" required for macroevolution (as you define it)? And what is your evidence for this?

What are "structural changes in the genome" required? I have provided evidence that major structural differences in genome architecture can produce creatures with strikingly similar morphology that are interfertile - where is your evidence that such changes would be required?

New traits are a given, but that is easy - unless you have a unique definition for 'trait' as well?

 

[tas8831]

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..

The projection is simultaneously hilarious and pathetic.

The length those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect will go to avoid having to admit their lack of relevant knowledge....

 

[tas8831]

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.

That is what many of them do. It is a defense mechanism, I suppose, to keep their frail egos puffed up. But that coupled with their ever-present pretense to moral and ethical superiority and Christian humility is most... creationist...

 

[usfan]

Oh my! So many errors. I do not know where to start. The cognitive dissonance strong is with this one.

You have yet to explain, or provide a rationale, or give examples regarding this 'requirement' for "new genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome " in order for 'macroevolution' (which you also have not defined) to have occurred.

That is what many of them do. It is a defense mechanism, I suppose, to keep their frail egos puffed up. But that coupled with their ever-present pretense to moral and ethical superiority and Christian humility is most... creationist...

Deflect, dodge, and distract all you want. It is no substitute for reason or evidence.

Do you have evidence for macro evolution or not? Just 'bait and switch!', pretending that simple variability equals common descent?

Bluff is not an indication of 'scientific knowledge!' It exposes ignorance and blind faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deflect, dodge, and distract all you want. It is no substitute for reason or evidence.

Do you have evidence for macro evolution or not? Just 'bait and switch!', pretending that simple variability equals common descent?

Bluff is not an indication of 'scientific knowledge!' It exposes ignorance and blind faith.

Please, that is your sin. You love the Gish Gallop and false accusations. My one task has been to try to get you to understand the nature of evidence. The concept must scare the heck out of you since you continually run away from the topic.

It is hypocritical to demand evidence when you do not understand what is and what is not evidence in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but my question is where did the energy and matter come from to begin with? What created it? It had to come from somewhere. It didn't create itself.

First off not knowing what started the universe does not refute the Big Bang. Second physicists have measured the total energy of the universe. And as closely as can be measured the energy is zero. That actually means that the universe could have "created itself" without breaking any of the laws of physics.

Have you watched the lecture A Universe From Nothing? It is about an hour long, but it gets the basic idea across very well.

 

[Neutral Name]

First off not knowing what started the universe does not refute the Big Bang. Second physicists have measured the total energy of the universe. And as closely as can be measured the energy is zero. That actually means that the universe could have "created itself" without breaking any of the laws of physics.

Have you watched the lecture A Universe From Nothing? It is about an hour long, but it gets the basic idea across very well.

Nothing can create itself except organic organisms. That's basic science.

 

[metis]

Nothing can create itself except organic organisms. That's basic science.

Not necessarily as all the components of organic molecules are inorganic. Carbon, for example, is obviously inorganic, and yet it is a basic component in living organisms.

Now, don't get me wrong, as I have no idea how life first started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing can create itself except organic organisms. That's basic science.

Where did you ever learn that? It really is not "basic science".

 

[Bear Wild]

Nothing can create itself except organic organisms. That's basic science.

Are prions actually organisms? They create themselves.

 

[Bear Wild]

Deflect, dodge, and distract all you want. It is no substitute for reason or evidence.

Do you have evidence for macro evolution or not? Just 'bait and switch!', pretending that simple variability equals common descent?

Bluff is not an indication of 'scientific knowledge!' It exposes ignorance and blind faith.

The terms micro and macro evolution are descriptors and are not about the mechanisms. Yes we have evidence for major changes as the accumulation of small changes over time. Thus if what described as micro evolution occurs then macro evolution occurs. The terms inappropriately divide the single process driving changes over time. The fossil evidence gives the evidence of progressive change and the development of types of organisms. The genetics show how even rapid changes can occur with phenotypic portions of the DNA. Comparison of the different phyla genetics supports what we see in the fossil evidence. Embryology associated with some important segments of the DNA explain how minimal changes in the DNA can create major difference in the development and appearance. Just look at how one or two changes in the foxp2 gene create major changes in the organism or the homeobox genes.
There is not one part of the study of evolution that supports common descent there are multiple aspects of evolutionary theory that support each other and the understanding of common decent. I have mention a few. Each could be discussed at length.
Your argument has no support. None. Just your opinion which unfortunately blinds you from reality does not allow you to see how it all fits together no matter how much you are given and the members of this forum have given you so much which you do not appreciate .
Using the words micro and macro as an argument shows ignorance of the real processes of evolution. That ignorance you posses can be corrected by listening to those helping you to understand. Ignoring all that has been presented only continues the ignorance. You have to want to learn which will not happen as long as your mind is closed.

 

[Darkstorn]

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'..

Uh. You're the one employing this strategy against everyone. Hypocrite. Several people have literally used the ignore feature on you after your hostility. Even this very post i'm quoting makes this opening statement seem highly hypocritical.

I'll bold all the examples i'm going to use:

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.

About 90% of your post is you doing what you accuse others of doing to you, of which i've seen exactly zero times so far. So, you're delusional in addition to being a massive lying piece of hypocrite. Not a SINGLE person has been as hostile as you have been on average.

"You can't deal with that, so stick with what you know: fallacies and heckling. You are very good at that." - Famous last words

 

[Neutral Name]

Are prions actually organisms? They create themselves.

I assume that you are not speaking of comblike plates for feeding on planktonic crustaceans but of human and other organism prion virus diseases.

Prion Diseases | CDC
"The functions of these normal prion proteins are still not completely understood."

It is interesting that you chose something very rare. I applaud you for this. You are causing me to have to think.

Could they not possibly be a dna or rna mutations due to species mutations, not a disease, per se?

Where did viruses come from?
I would say that this shows that prions are not necessarily organisms but genomic changes to organisms.

Are Viruses Living?
Virues are not living organisms.

To me, prions are similar to brain plaques. There are other than organic organisms which cause diseases and mutations in organisms including human beings. I would consider prions to be such things.

Is there anything I overlooked here?