Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

You didn't answer my question. Again, do you think your opinions and evaluations of the work of evolutionary biologists are of any significance to anyone but yourself?

Its a stupid question..

How is ANYONE'S opinion of any significance to anyone?

Everybody believes something. You're entitled to your own beliefs.. just don't try to pass them as 'Scientific Fact!'

..or are you pretending that MY beliefs are stupid superstition, while YOURS are 'empirical reality!' ?

 

[usfan]

Any arguments or evidence for common descent?

Beliefs and assertions are fine, but we're examining the actual evidence for this theory.

I should summarize from time to time, as the topic gets buried under pages of fallacies, with little said relating to the subject.

 

[Jose Fly]

Its a stupid question.

There must be something to it, since you're working very hard to not answer it.

How is ANYONE'S opinion of any significance to anyone?

If a person is a prominent, well-regarded evolutionary biologist, their opinions on evolutionary biology will likely be significant. But as you admitted earlier, you are not an expert in evolutionary biology, which brings us back to the question....do you think your opinions and evaluations of the work of evolutionary biologists are of any significance to anyone but yourself?

Do you?

You're entitled to your own beliefs.. just don't try to pass them as 'Scientific Fact!'

But you admitted earlier that you're not an expert in evolutionary biology, so why should anyone do what you say when it comes to evolutionary biology?

Specifically, if evolutionary biologists feel that universal common descent is very well supported by a wealth of evidence, why should they pay heed to your demands on how they present it to the public?

or are you pretending that MY beliefs are stupid superstition, while YOURS are 'empirical reality!' ?

Not at all. I'm just trying to get you to answer a pretty simple question: Do you think your opinions and evaluations of the work of evolutionary biologists are of any significance to anyone but yourself?

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes, i clearly and consistently have ignored incivil, ad hom filled rants demeaning my person, even if they include some alleged 'scientific point!'

1. Make a single point
2. Support with evidence, reasoning, quotes, sources, studies.
3. Ditch the snippy, middle school girl cattiness that is inappropriate in a scientific discussion

I'll reply, and examine your evidence and arguments.

It is quite simple, and i have been consistent.

If your posts are just ad hom filled rants, demeaning me, poisoning the well, attacking straw men, or other fallacy filled responses, i can only conclude you do NOT want me to reply, but just want to pitch propaganda memes, with no possibility of rebuttal. You're afraid for me to examine your claims rationally, so are sure to include lots of heckling, so it won't happen.

That is the only logical conclusion i see, for the pages of heckling posts that do not make a scientific or logical case for the belief in common descent. You have no logic or scientific evidence, so must rely on fallacies.

Drowning my replies with pages of cut & paste text walls, ridicule, "gothcha!' quotes out of context, false accusations, lies, and distortions, only confirms the impression that you are propagandists, not scientific minded debaters.

I'm by myself, here, against hordes of zealous True Believers. I insist on a modicum of civility, in this discussion. I've bantered with the hecklers, some, but i don't want to see the thread dominated by bickering over religious opinions. Science is the topic, and i will keep pointing us back to it.

Ok lets try this again for the third time presenting just one scientific article for you .
Here is the article for you to review.
"A Simple Genetic Architecture Underlies Morphological Variation in Dogs"

here is the link.
www.journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451

Lets see what you can do.

 

[usfan]

Ok lets try this again for the third time presenting just one scientific article for you .
Here is the article for you to review.
"A Simple Genetic Architecture Underlies Morphological Variation in Dogs"

here is the link.
www.journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451

Lets see what you can do.

A link? With no point?

You have presented nothing.

1. Make your argument.
2. Back it with facts & sourced evidence, if you wish.

You think I'm going to sift through every link to try and figure out your argument?

..this is just a bluff.. you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and want someone else to debate me as your proxy..

No. I don't debate links. If you have a point or argument, make it. Posting a link is neither.

 

[usfan]

There must be something to it, since you're working very hard to not answer it.

I don't work hard, at all, to ignore stupid questions.

This is just a variation of argument of authority, and poison the well, combined. All you have are fallacies. Will you ever produce any evidence for your cherished beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't work hard, at all, to ignore stupid questions.

This is just a variation of argument of authority, and poison the well, combined. All you have are fallacies. Will you ever produce any evidence for your cherished beliefs?

Once again you demonstrate that you do not know how to apply logical fallacies. If that was the only well respected source that made the claim that @Jose Fly was talking about. He merely pointed out that an actual expert would be more likely to be correct.

Here read this and then go back over the post that you did not understand and see if you can see your errror:

Appeal to Authority


And I did not even bother with the Poisoning the Well claim. Whenever you attempt to apply a logical fallacy you might as well admit that you are wrong since you screw those up almost every time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any arguments or evidence for common descent?

Beliefs and assertions are fine, but we're examining the actual evidence for this theory.

I should summarize from time to time, as the topic gets buried under pages of fallacies, with little said relating to the subject.

You have been given endless evidence. All you have is denial. At this point you are either lying or incredibly ignorant. And you appear to be rather frightened. You do not even appear to understand the concept of scientific evidence. You disqualified yourself from making demands a long time ago in my eyes. I only wish that others would point out that you do not understand the concept of evidence or are lying and first must demonstrate that you have learned what is and what is no evidence before supplying anything more to you.

 

[Jim]

It seems you're asking everyone else to do the heavy lifting here? The orientation of the OP feels a bit like sea-lioning to me, no?

But in an attempt to respond in good faith, from what I've heard many times, the more we study the genes of various species, the more we find them to be mostly similar.

If that's not sufficient I'd say that you can research it for yourself. I for one an happy to rely on scientific concensus.

How do you know what the scientific consensus is? Can you give me a link to where I can see what the scientific consensus is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know what the scientific consensus is? Can you give me a link to where I can see what the scientific consensus is?

If you don't want to accept the obvious you could always go to Google Scholar and see what the various articles on evolution say yourself.

 

[Jim]

If you don't want to accept the obvious you could always go to Google Scholar and see what the various articles on evolution say yourself.

Can you tell me what the scientific consensus is on evolution? The only statement that I’ve found of what the scientific consensus is, is that “evolution happened.” Is that what people here mean when they talk about the scientific consensus on evolution?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you tell me what the scientific consensus is on evolution? The only statement that I’ve found of what the scientific consensus is, is that “evolution happened.” Is that what people here mean when they talk about the scientific consensus on evolution?

The following conclusions are the current scientific consensus:
1) Evolution occurs (i.e, change an allele frequency in living populations results in changes over time).
2) This change is a result of genetic variation being acted upon by selective, environmental factors.
3) This process accounts for the diversity of current life on the planet.
4) All life shares common ancestry as a result of evolutionary change.

The above conclusions are what is generally being referred to when people talk about the "theory of evolution" rather than just "evolution".

SOURCES:
Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues
What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design

 

[usfan]

The following conclusions are the current scientific consensus:
1) Evolution occurs (i.e, change an allele frequency in living populations results in changes over time).
2) This change is a result of genetic variation being acted upon by selective, environmental factors.
3) This process accounts for the diversity of current life on the planet.
4) All life shares common ancestry as a result of evolutionary change.

The above conclusions are what is generally being referred to when people talk about the "theory of evolution" rather than just "evolution".

SOURCES:
Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues
What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design

The first link only asserts, 'All Scientists believe on evolution!!' There is no poll, questions, definition of what a 'scientist!' is, or any data. Just a glib assettion:

Two issues on which there is widespread agreement among scientists – evolution and climate change – divide the general public.

Scientific facts and methodology is not a democratic process. It is a logical and fact based process. Asserting beliefs, from those claiming the label of 'scientist!', is not a scientific, evidentiary based argument.

As to the 'Proofs!', that you list:

1. The evolution claimed is NOT, nor ever has been, observed. It is extrapolation of the observable changes WITHIN a genotype, and conjecturing that this can cross genetic boundaries to become a different genetic structure. It is an assumption based on a false equivalence. 'Allelle frequency!', is a techno babble bluff, that does not support the theory.
2. The leap from 'micro', simple variation within a genotype, to 'macro', major structural changes in the genome, is asserted, believed, and promoted with jihadist zeal. But it has NEVER been observed, or based on any scientific facts or studies. It is a religious belief, masquerading as 'science!', to fool the simple minded. It has been very successful in that.
3. So the belief is asserted, and pounded with constant propaganda from every state and progressive run institution. But it has no basis in fact or scientific methodology. It is a delusion, promoted by a religious ideology, to deceive the public about the nature of the universe.
4. ..believed and asserted, with no scientific evidence. Common descent is a religious belief, about origins and the nature of man and the universe. It has no scientific basis.

The second link is from the aclu.. a political activist organization steeped in leftist causes and progressive ideology. No thoughtful person could see that organization of lawyers as 'speaking!' for the scientific community. It is fitting that the progressive indoctrinees would see their dictates and proclamations as 'Empirical Science!', since the whole of State Sponsored, scientific methodology has become a political football, not a system of inquiry.

Decrees from elites, is how progressive indoctrinees see 'science!' Facts, reasoning, and practical observation means nothing, without the official decrees from the High Priests of Progressivism.

Science is the casualty in this return to the dark ages. Critical thinking, skepticism, science and logic are sacrificed on the altar of progressive mandates.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I assume USfan is still responding to my posts, despite knowing he is on ignore, and I also assume his post is nothing but strawmen and personal attacks.

Anyone care to let me know how right I am?

 

[usfan]

I assume USfan is still responding to my posts, despite knowing he is on ignore, and I also assume his post is nothing but strawmen and personal attacks.

Anyone care to let me know how right I am?

I did not know you were ignoring me.. you posted something in an active thread, and i replied. I have no control over who or what you ignore, to keep your beliefs intact.

..but it is a good strategy! echo chambers of affirmation of belief are better than considering alternate views.. better to keep the mind closed, and the beliefs intact, than upset them with conflicting facts.

 

[usfan]

Ok lets try this again for the third time presenting just one scientific article for you .
Here is the article for you to review.
"A Simple Genetic Architecture Underlies Morphological Variation in Dogs"

here is the link.
www.journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451

Lets see what you can do.

I read through this study, and see no claims of 'common descent!' in it. In fact, they present the 'recent' observation of variability.

Note this excerpt:
we find that across dog breeds, a small number of quantitative trait loci (≤3) explain the majority of phenotypic variation for most of the traits we studied. In addition, many genomic regions show signatures of recent selection, with most of the highly differentiated regions being associated with breed-defining traits such as body size, coat characteristics, and ear floppiness.

They do not pitch the dogma of 'thousands and millions of years!', but have to conclude that the variety of canid morphology is based on existing genes.. a handful of traits that can be traced backward to a 'recent' ancestor.

You posted this link hoping it would provide evidence for your belief in common descent?

Did you even bother reading it?

All this study does is parse out a handful of genes that affect the morphology (looks) within canidae. They have no evidence that they were 'created!' by mutation, or alien seeding.

..and you guys mock me..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you tell me what the scientific consensus is on evolution? The only statement that I’ve found of what the scientific consensus is, is that “evolution happened.” Is that what people here mean when they talk about the scientific consensus on evolution?

You have already been told the scientific consensus on it. Perhaps you are not asking your question properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assume USfan is still responding to my posts, despite knowing he is on ignore, and I also assume his post is nothing but strawmen and personal attacks.

Anyone care to let me know how right I am?

Pretty much all that he has. He also still refuses to even discuss the nature of evidence. He knows that would be the demise of his argument.

 

[Jim]

The following conclusions are the current scientific consensus:
1) Evolution occurs (i.e, change an allele frequency in living populations results in changes over time).
2) This change is a result of genetic variation being acted upon by selective, environmental factors.
3) This process accounts for the diversity of current life on the planet.
4) All life shares common ancestry as a result of evolutionary change.

The above conclusions are what is generally being referred to when people talk about the "theory of evolution" rather than just "evolution".

SOURCES:
Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues
What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design

The first link was from a Pew opinion poll. All it says about scientific consensus is that some people think that scientists generally agree that “humans have evolved over time,” and some people don’t think that.

The second link has statements from various professional associations about the teaching of evolution in public schools, and does not specify what the scientific consensus is.

I did a Web search for each of those four statements, and got zero results for all of them. I’m asking for a link to where I can see a statement of what the scientific consensus is.

 

[usfan]

Pretty much all that he has. He also still refuses to even discuss the nature of evidence. He knows that would be the demise of his argument.

I only 'Refuse!!', to debate with hecklers who rely on fallacies for their 'arguments'.

I'll toss a few of your ad hom grenades back, every now and then, but i mostly ignore your childish, unscientific antics.

..funny how the hecklers see themselves as beacons of science and reason..

You want a scientific debate? Show me.

1. Regular hecklers (like you) will have to request a reset, for me to consider their posts.
2. Post a single point or argument, that you believe supports common descent.
3. Post a link, quote, or study that supports your argument, if desired.
4. I will examine and reply.
5. Inclusions of snippy, catty, or demeaning, unscientific comments will invalidate your post, and expose you as a heckler.

These are my terms for discussion. Outnumbered by hordes of hysterical fanatics, it is the only solution i see to have a civil, scientific based discussion.

You can debate the science and facts, if you dare, or hide behind a barrage of fallacies and heckling. Your call.