Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

Any arguments or evidence for common descent?

"And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed."

 

[Polymath257]

"And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed."

Looks like pretty solid evidence for 'common descent' to me.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Why fib and fabricate? Do you think your Yahweh will find this favorable?

"gothcha!' quotes out of context

More false witness - it is almost a habit with you.


That your own ignorant assertions make you look like a fool is YOUR problem, not anyone else's. Had you any humility or integrity at all, you would take the time to investigate why it is that at the forums you go on, NOBODY agrees with you, EVERYONE with scientific knowledge tells you you are wrong, but you just keep re-asserting the same simpleton's gibberish, playing martyr all the while.

NONE of the quotes that make you look ignorant are out of context. Not one.


What possible 'context' rescues this laughably stupid claim of yours:

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

How can you not see the sheer silliness of that?

Show me the context that rescues that - here, I will show it to you:

This was presented earlier, and i touched on it, but since the 'looks like!' morphology is one of the main arguments for common descent, it deserves another look.​

1. It is primarily circular reasoning. 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.
2. "Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes. Certain haplogroups, like canidae, mentioned earler, HAVE the evidence of descendancy. But to extrapolate that to all living things is flawed. It is not the case. There is NO GENETIC EVIDENCE of descendancy in cross genetic architectures. There is real genetic evidence of descendancy within canidae, felidae, equus, etc, but nothing to suggest any of them came from, or are becoming, something else. The 'high genetic walls,' that the hecklers love to ridicule, PREVENT any departure from the parent architecture. That is repeatable, observable, scientific FACT.​

I won't even bother pointing out the naive, uninformed gibberish about genetic walls, and descendancy in cross genetic architectures and such.


And how about this gem?

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

What possible context saves that???

No, that is not what a haplotype is.

"A haplotype is a group of genes within an organism that was inherited together from a single parent. The word "haplotype" is derived from the word "haploid," which describes cells with only one set of chromosomes, and from the word "genotype," which refers to the genetic makeup of an organism. A haplotype can describe a pair of genes inherited together from one parent on one chromosome, or it can describe all of the genes on a chromosome that were inherited together from a single parent. This group of genes was inherited together because of genetic linkage, or the phenomenon by which genes that are close to each other on the same chromosome are often inherited together. In addition, the term "haplotype" can also refer to the inheritance of a cluster of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are variations at single positions in the DNA sequence among individuals."



NONE of your dopey claims that I have dutifully exposed as nonsense were out of context, and your inability to demonstrate them as such is just icing on the cake.
A sensible person would, upon being shown that even the basic definitions of terms you use are in error, step back and do a little self-assessment. But not that Great Creationist Arbiter of All Science by virtue of 'studying it all for 40 years'... apparently between pounding nails into roofs...

I'm by myself, here, against hordes of zealous True Believers.

LOL!

Oh, you poor thing! Precious martyr for the Cause! What cause, I cannot tell....

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 are lying and projecting again. You also misused the term "ad hominem".

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.

Nope, you already lost the debate. You do not get to demand anything until you demonstrate that you understand the concept of scientific evidence. Acting like a coward and a bully will get you nowhere.

and I need to remind you once again that you do not understand logical fallacies either.

 

[tas8831]

SNIP heckling, insults, dodging, etc.

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.

And what of fascist mandates premised on cherry-picked aspects of ancient middle eastern mysticism?

Mandates that include believing without evidence that a single middle eastern deity created a fully formed adult human male from dust via speaking?

What is that dopey saying about motes and beams and all that, superstar?

 

[tas8831]

One will note that you are afraid to produce an adult, scientific discussion in which you explain and provide an evidence-based rationale for not accepting mtDNA phylogenies such as this:

"And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed."

"The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy..."
"You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA"
"As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line."

 

[tas8831]

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]

And simple questions:

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Creationism is a pseudo scientific belief that arose as a reaction against the theory of evolution. Prior to the theory most Christians believed the creation myth of Genesis, but they did not try to apply any science to it.

One of the reasons that there is such a strong consensus behind evolution is due to the fact that there is no scientific concept in competition with it. Seriously, creationists do not even try to make a scientific argument for their strange beliefs.

 

[Jim]

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

I tried this search and got a lot of articles: "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

Thank you, all of you, for your efforts. I think now that I might have found what I’ve been looking for. Part of my communication problem here might be my background in math and computer programming.

Sometimes campaigns for creation models to be taught in public schools have tried to use disagreements between scientists about evolution theory as an argument. Saying that there’s a consensus might be a way of saying that those disagreements don’t need to be considered. I disagree with that, but I have a reason of my own for thinking that evolution models should be taught in schools, and creation models should not. It’s simply that evolution models are part of the common ground in some some sciences, and creation models are not.

 

[Jose Fly]

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?

So you are completely refusing to answer the question, no matter what.

That says quite a lot.

I wonder too....do you think you're the first internet creationist to go through this whole spiel? Do you think you're the first creationist to go into a message board and start a thread wherein you challenge all the "evolutionists" to "show me the evidence for macroevolution/common descent", and then get laughed at as you ignore much of what's presented to you and make up goofy reasons to waive away the rest?

Are you aware that in the end, this thread will disappear and never be read or looked at again? Are you aware of how that means this whole thing was effectively meaningless?

And finally, are you aware that pretty much everyone in this thread is laughing at you? I mean, if your goal was to somehow make a dent in evolutionary biology and strike a blow for creationism, you've accomplished the exact opposite. When this finally ends, you'll have made absolutely no difference to evolutionary biology and will have reinforced many negative stereotypes about creationists.

So from my perspective.....well done!

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you, all of you, for your efforts. I think now that I might have found what I’ve been looking for. Part of my communication problem here might be my background in math and computer programming.

I'm guessing that is NOT the problem since I have a similar background (PhD in math, run Linux system for math dept). It's more likely the problem is the *lack* of background in biology.

Think of it like this. The acceptance of the Axiom of Choice is pretty much universal among working mathematicians. Finding an actual statement saying that would be much more difficult. You can look at books on axiomatic set theory, but then the question is whether those amount to the 'consensus'.

 

[Thief]

a fully formed adult human male from dust

yes you are

oh....you are male?.....right?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

I didn't even do that. I simply asked @usfan whether he thought his views on evolutionary biology mattered to anyone other than himself. The fact that he completely refuses to answer is a good indication that he knows the answer is "no, his opinions on evolutionary biology only matter to himself", but is too afraid to admit it.

Heck, I'm a biologist but since I don't specialize in evolutionary biology, I know my opinions on evolutionary biology are only really meaningful to me. That that's such a hard thing for usfan to admit is very revealing.

 

[Jim]

@usfan I might have found what I was looking for in my questions about scientific consensus. I think now that saying there’s a scientific consensus on evolution might be a way of saying that the disagreements between scientists about evolution don’t need to be considered, in deciding whether or not creation models should be taught in the schools. That way of thinking appalls me, but for reasons of my own I think that evolution models should be taught in schools, and creation models should not, except possibly in cultural diversity and comparative religion contexts.

 

[Polymath257]

@usfan I might have found what I was looking for in my questions about scientific consensus. I think now that saying there’s a scientific consensus on evolution might be a way of saying that the disagreements between scientists about evolution don’t need to be considered, in deciding whether or not creation models should be taught in the schools. That way of thinking appalls me, but for reasons of my own I think that evolution models should be taught in schools, and creation models should not, except possibly in cultural diversity and comparative religion contexts.

I agree that the 'disagreements between scientists about evolution don’t need to be considered, in deciding whether or not creation models should be taught in the schools'. Those disagreements are completely irrelevant to creationism. Furthermore, creationism should not be taught in schools any more than flat-earthism should be and for basically the same reason: neither are anywhere close to the scientific consensus.

 

[tas8831]

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...

Had you considered the possibility that most see your posts annoying, self-serving, and off topic?

 

[Jim]

@usfan People who grew up inside that matrix might not be able to think outside of it any more than a fish can breath out of water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, all of you, for your efforts. I think now that I might have found what I’ve been looking for. Part of my communication problem here might be my background in math and computer programming.

Sometimes campaigns for creation models to be taught in public schools have tried to use disagreements between scientists about evolution theory as an argument. Saying that there’s a consensus might be a way of saying that those disagreements don’t need to be considered. I disagree with that, but I have a reason of my own for thinking that evolution models should be taught in schools, and creation models should not. It’s simply that evolution models are part of the common ground in some some sciences, and creation models are not.

There is some disagreement of how evolution happened. That is how the science advances. But there is no real opposition to the concept.

The scientific method has a "put up or shut up" nature to it. If one follows it one must be willing to risk being proven wrong. One of the very early steps in the process is to formulate a testable hypothesis. If one's idea cannot be shown to be incorrect, even if it is, then that is not a scientific hypothesis. It enters the realm of "not even wrong". It is a worthless idea scientifically. So called creation scientists tend to be a rather cowardly bunch. They do not form their beliefs into testable hypotheses. I suppose being continually shot down can have that effect.

When it comes to an idea that claims to be scientific there is one question that you need to ask to determine if that is the case:

What reasonable test could show this idea to be wrong?

There are many such tests for evolution. I do not know of any reasonable test for creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Pretty simple really. As you've been shown, every single survey/poll that looks into the opinions of scientists (and some polls specifically look at just those who work in the life sciences) on evolution and creationism effectively returns the same results, i.e., that the vast majority of scientists agree that evolution happens, common descent is real, and humans share a common ancestry with other primates. Now you may quibble over how some of the questions were phrased and you may feel that some of the surveys didn't include some of the types of theistic evolution that you would've liked to see, and while those may be valid questions, they certainly don't rise to the point where it calls into question the primary conclusions.

Then we look at the set of official statements from scientific organizations on the matter, and what we see confirms the conclusions of the surveys/polls. Every single scientific organization that's gone on record has made their position on evolution abundantly clear.....it happens, common ancestry is real (including humans), and therefore it all should be taught in public schools.

Then we look at the professional literature and again, what we find confirms what we've learned from the surveys/polls and official statements. There are no papers questioning whether evolution occurs, common descent is real, or humans share a common ancestry with other primates. There are some papers that explore different ways in which some of those things occurred, but none questioning whether or not they did.

Finally, we can look around to see if in light of all the above, there are groups of scientists going out of their way to go on the record to note that they do not agree with the primary conclusions. Looking around, we don't see any.

So, the summary conclusion we can reasonably draw from all that is clear. The vast majority of the world's scientists agree that evolution occurs, common descent is real (humans included), and those concepts should be taught in schools.