Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

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.

It is just a propaganda meme..

'All really smart people believe in evolution!!'

It is not evidence of anything, except the efficacy of good propaganda.

It is a fallacy, at its core. ..an argument of presumed authority, when the actual specifics and scientific facts are ignored. Who needs facts, when you have this mysterious consensus of elites dictating what we should believe?

..and the progressive indoctrinees nod like bobbleheads, never questioning their Indoctrination..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for. I provided you with numerous scientific associations who stated their support for evolutionary theory, and a pew survey which says 97% of scientists accept that humans and other animals share common ancestry. There is no monolithic agency that decrees what the consensus on a specific issue is. What is it you expect to be provided with, exactly?

The best I've found since is this statement from the National Academy of Sciences:
"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."
SOURCE: Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Not sure if this is anything more like what you are looking for, though.

 

[icehorse]

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?

Isn't this easily searchable?

 

[Bear Wild]

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..

The study shows the difference in phenotypic expressions in breeding vs natural events. It also showed how powerful selection is on the appearance of the animal. Thus we see that there is common descent between dogs and wolves and how selection processes can make large changes in the phenotypic expression. So this is a piece of the large amount of evidence that has accumulated for common descent. There will never be a single study to do so. This is counter to comments you made previously about dogs and wolves. This is critical information about how rapid changes can occur in organism with selective processes thus in the fossil record we see change that occur faster than other times. Important understanding of genetic control of the appearance of organisms. Thus evidence for common descent.

 

[usfan]

So this is a piece of the large amount of evidence that has accumulated for common descent.

No, this is just variability within canids. It shows NO connection to any other phenotype. It is an extrapolation.. a leap of faith, to BELIEVE that variability within a genetic group equals macro evolution. It is a false equivalence, with no facts or observable data to support it. It is a religious belief, about the origins of organisms.

'We can breed different traits in dogs, therefore, Common Descent!'

That is an unevidenced assertion, with no evidence.

 

[Jim]

Isn't this easily searchable?

No. Have you tried it? Try to find a statement of what the scientific consensus is. If you find one, let me know. I see people denouncing people for rejecting the scientific consensus, but no one can tell me what the scientific consensus is, that they are allegedly rejecting. Someone gave me two links, but there was nothing in them stating what the scientific consensus is, that people are allegedly rejecting.

 

[usfan]

Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution

This quote is just an assertion, bluffing the assumption of common descent as 'fact!'

1. Post ONE bit of 'strong evidence!' for common descent, if it is so plainly obvious.
2. Define and demonstrate ONE mechanism for this phenomena that is not based on conjecture, plausibility, and assumption.

This is just more of the same.. bluff and assertion masquerading as 'science!' The propaganda is thorough and effective, and deluded bobbleheads nod in blind acquiescence to their puppet masters.

Don't agree? Then show me some evidence.. not dogmatic assertions of belief, not parroted dogma from authoritarian elites, but ACTUAL FACTS that common descent can even occur, much less did occur.

The mass delusion and folly in this generation would cause any Cosmic Watcher to shake their head in disbelief..

 

[icehorse]

No. Have you tried it? Try to find a statement of what the scientific consensus is. If you find one, let me know. I see people denouncing people for rejecting the scientific consensus, but no one can tell me what the scientific consensus is, that they are allegedly rejecting. Someone gave me two links, but there was nothing in them stating what the scientific consensus is, that people are allegedly rejecting.

I tried this search and got a lot of articles: "similarities in DNA across species"

 

[Jim]

This quote is just an assertion, bluffing the assumption of common descent as 'fact!'

1. Post ONE bit of 'strong evidence!' for common descent, if it is so plainly obvious.
2. Define and demonstrate ONE mechanism for this phenomena that is not based on conjecture, plausibility, and assumption.

This is just more of the same.. bluff and assertion masquerading as 'science!' The propaganda is thorough and effective, and deluded bobbleheads nod in blind acquiescence to their puppet masters.

Don't agree? Then show me some evidence.. not dogmatic assertions of belief, not parroted dogma from authoritarian elites, but ACTUAL FACTS that common descent can even occur, much less did occur.

The mass delusion and folly in this generation would cause any Cosmic Watcher to shake their head in disbelief..

I don’t think they have any clue of what they’re doing. I think that they are honestly baffled and bewildered by my questions, and I have no hope whatsoever of that changing any time in the near future. Layers and layers of smoke, dust and mirrors, and shifting meanings. Entire worlds of words in themselves, with no anchor in anything outside of them. If there is any red pill, I don’t have it, and I don’t know where to look for it. The only reason for my questions is to clarify and verify for myself what is happening.

 

[Jim]

I tried this search and got a lot of articles: "similarities in DNA across species"

So you’re saying that the scientific consensus on evolution, that people are allegedly rejecting, is “similarities in DNA across species?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don’t think they have any clue of what they’re doing. I think that they are honestly baffled and bewildered by my questions, and I have no hope whatsoever of that changing any time in the near future. Layers and layers of smoke, dust and mirrors, and shifting meanings. Entire worlds of words in themselves, with no anchor in anything outside of them. If there is any red pill, I don’t have it, and I don’t know where to look for it. The only reason for my questions is to clarify and verify for myself what is happening.

Rather than presuming our intent or insulting our intelligence, perhaps you could debate in good faith.

 

[Bear Wild]

No, this is just variability within canids. It shows NO connection to any other phenotype. It is an extrapolation.. a leap of faith, to BELIEVE that variability within a genetic group equals macro evolution. It is a false equivalence, with no facts or observable data to support it. It is a religious belief, about the origins of organisms.

'We can breed different traits in dogs, therefore, Common Descent!'

That is an unevidenced assertion, with no evidence.

You wanted one piece of evidence at a time to discuss its information and I gave you one without any commentary about you. I The genetic code did change in multiple aspects and was clearly presented in the evidence. The study is supportive. One piece of evidence which combined with others supports common descent.
You answer with "false equivalence" which it is not, "leap of faith" the study was well done to show that can lead to significant change. Then worst of all you call it a religious belief when it has nothing to do with religion. Finally you say no evidence which is also false. It is evidence which you reject because it does support evolution theory.

Now lets see your best evidence against common descent which explains the evidence. You have been given supporting evidence from many member. What is you scientific evidence against common descent.

 

[Jim]

@usfan Maybe what I’m doing is exploring how deep this rabbit hole goes.

 

[Jim]

Rather than presuming our intent or insulting our intelligence, perhaps you could debate in good faith.

There might be a misunderstanding. I’m not debating. I’m trying to find out what it is, that people are calling “scientific consensus, why they are calling it that, and what it has to do with creationism.

Rather than presuming our intent or insulting our intelligence, perhaps you could debate in good faith.

It has nothing to do with intent or intelligence.

 

[tas8831]

got an iq125?
and I've been doing this for a very long time

and probability and complexity have been demonstrated ……..a lot
try watching some science demos

you might learn something

Try putting up or shutting up for once.

We get it - you can't produce the probability or 'complexity' you heard about in a creationist youtube clip.

You are just

all
talk.

and

desperation

Put up or

Shut Up

 

[Polymath257]

There might be a misunderstanding. I’m not debating. I’m trying to find out what it is, that people are calling “scientific consensus, why they are calling it that, and what it has to do with creationism.

It has nothing to do with intent or intelligence.

Maybe the best way to find out the scientific consensus is to actually read science textbooks (which are based on that consensus) or look at survey papers in research journals.

Looking for polls or general descriptions is missing the point. Look at actual writings by people who are actual scientists or look at reports from scientific conferences.

 

[tas8831]

yeah....over the years
several demos have been presented

Gibberish.

Put up or shut up. You wrote:


"the probability of a chemistry of such complexity
and that chemistry having the 'will' to replicate
shows intent
and skill"


And have spent the last week running away from my simple request that you explain your assertion.

You clearly
cannot

do so

 

[tas8831]

the par sec to the sun varies

People should learn and understand their intellectual limits.

Parsec (one word):

The parsec (symbol: pc) is a unit of length used to measure large distances to astronomical objects outside the Solar System.

 

[tas8831]

And that is an unknown assumption. The logical, biological FACT, is that the variability we see, now, was ALREADY PRESENT, in the ancestral canid.

Please present the evidence for this supposed fact..

Second that request.

 

[Polymath257]

So you’re saying that the scientific consensus on evolution, that people are allegedly rejecting, is “similarities in DNA across species?

Well, for one, the scientific consensus rejects 'Intelligent Design':

List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - Wikipedia

It also endorses the teaching of evolution:
American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution

In terms of the *content* of the theory of evolution, we have the following recommendations for what to teach (the links go into much more detail):

AAAS Science Assessment ~ Topics ~ Evolution and Natural Selection