Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

@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.

Projection is cool.

 

[Jim]

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.

False. The polls that I’ve seen did not show how many scientists agree that humans and other species have a common ancestor. That question was not asked.

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) ...

False. None of the statements that I was linked to said anything about common ancestry.

... and therefore it all should be taught in public schools.

Agreed. That was the whole point of all the statements, that evolution should be taught in the public schools, and creationism should not. I agree with that.

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) ...

False. It might be true that a vast majority of the world's scientists agree that common descent is real (humans included), but that conclusion can not be reasonably drawn from the polls, or from the statements of professional associations.

.., and those concepts should be taught in schools.

The polls did not ask that question. It’s true that the statements from professional associations all agree that evolution should be taught in public schools, and creationism should not. I agree with that.

 

[Jim]

The vast majority of the world's scientists ...

The surveys did not sample the views of the world’s scientists. 9,998 of the members of an American professional association were invited to respond to a questionnaire, in a context of furious debating about what should be taught in public schools. About one out of four of those members agreed to respond. In that context, they were given a choice between these two responses:
- Human beings and other living things have evolved over time.
- Human beings and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

The statements from professional associations are all from American Associations, and they are all political statements opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools, not statements about common ancestors.

 

[Jim]

@usfan It looks to me like evolution theory does not include any useful or widely used model of how new species have evolved. I don’t see that as a reason not to teach evolution theory, or as a reason to teach creation theory, in public schools. I agree with teaching evolution theory, and not creation theory.

It might be true that most people with science degrees think that humans and other species have common ancestors, I don’t think that has anything to do with whether it’s true or not.

 

[blü 2]

Ok. This is your belief, that the existence of DNA, somehow proves common descent.
My rebuttal: It does not. That is an asserted belief, with no evidence.

So you define 'truth' as 'what I Iike'?

If not, what test do you in fact use to decide whether any particular statement is true or not?

 

[Jim]

@usfan A possible disagreement between us is that I don’t see it as a question of proof or evidence at all. Natural selection and common ancestry are models, not true or false but only more or less useful, depending on how they are used and what they are used for. It looks to me like natural selection is very useful and widely used, and should be taught in public schools. I don’t think that’s true of creation theories. It looks to me like the only reason for people wanting creation theories to be taught is to counteract the use of common ancestry beliefs for anti-religious purposes. My way of counteracting that would not be to try to have creation taught in public schools, or to fight against or even denounce common ancestry beliefs. It would be for parents to teach their children about the use of models in the advancement of knowledge, and how wrong some of the most popular views of people with science degrees have been, repeatedly, in the past. Also for parents to provide moral and spiritual training to their children, and not cloud their minds and turn them away from God, with church creeds and ideologies.

 

[Thief]

The scientific method has a "put up or shut up" nature to it.

no

It's more like.....what are the possibilities
and then discuss what can be accepted

and this thread should be a good example of that

Man is a creature quite different than the rest of the life on this planet

it is then argued we have a common descent...….that is obvious

what is not obvious...…
WHAT sent Man in this direction we now journey

the garden event was a redirection

God did it

 

[Jim]

@usfan Also I think that in using the word “evidence,” you are helping to perpetuate the anti-religious use of that word, in the idea that science is about finding evidence.

 

[Jim]

God did it

According to a Pew survey, the weighted percentage of a partly self-selected sample of working American Ph.D. biomedical scientists who agree with you, that God did it, is at least 6%, and possibly 99%. Only rather than saying “God did it,” I would say “God is doing it.” He is not only the Creator but also the Sustainer, of all existence.

 

[Thief]

common consensus
compared to common descent

I think.....God did it

I do believe in evolution
but God tweaks His creation as He sees fit

see garden event ….Genesis

 

[Jim]

common consensus
compared to common descent

I think.....God did it

I do believe in evolution
but God tweaks His creation as He sees fit

see garden event ….Genesis

I’m not sure if you got my point, that according to that Pew survey, a weighted percentage of at least 6%, and possibly 99%, of the sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists agreed that God did it.

 

[Thief]

I’m not sure if you got my point, that according to that poll, a weighted percentage of at least 6%, and possibly 99%, of the sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists agree that God did it.

I seem to be on your side of the fence?

 

[Jim]

I seem to be on your side of the fence?

That might not be possible. I’m on my own side, against everyone else.

 

[Thief]

That might not be possible. I’m on my own side, against everyone else.

we might well be of common descent

 

[Subduction Zone]

no

It's more like.....what are the possibilities
and then discuss what can be accepted

and this thread should be a good example of that

Man is a creature quite different than the rest of the life on this planet

it is then argued we have a common descent...….that is obvious

what is not obvious...…
WHAT sent Man in this direction we now journey

the garden event was a redirection

God did it

I see that you do not understand.

If a person wants to claim to have evidence for a claim and tries to say that it is scientific then he must follow the scientific method and as I said and as you rudely ignored before he can even claim to have evidence he needs to formulate a testable hypothesis. This is the "put up or shut up" of science. If you are not willing to properly test your idea then you cannot claim that it is scientific. By definition scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. And by that definition endless evidence has been given for universal descent. The OP only had denial.

And "the garden event" is a myth. It never happened. There never were only two people

 

[Thief]

If a person wants to claim to have evidence for a claim and tries to say that it is scientific then he must follow the scientific method and as I said

no
there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or a repeatable experiment

all you CAN do is THINK about it

science will take you to a point of decision

then you have to think about it

no one is going to hand you......your evidence

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not sure if you got my point, that according to that Pew survey, a weighted percentage of at least 6%, and possibly 99%, of the sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists agreed that God did it.

Where on Earth did you get that rather crazy claim from? You appear to be badly misinterpreting what you read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no
there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or a repeatable experiment

all you CAN do is THINK about it

science will take you to a point of decision

then you have to think about it

no one is going to hand you......your evidence

So you do not understand the scientific method. Do you want to go over that first?

 

[Jim]

@usfan It looks self-defeating to me for you to be using the word “evidence.” The kinds of research and associated theories that facilitate human progress are not about finding evidence to validate some views. The theories are models, and that has nothing to do with evidence. It looks to me like the idea of evidence has been borrowed from courtroom dramas and detective novels for the sole purpose of using it in campaigns of denunciation against religious beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Your language in that post was clearly intended to insult and ridicule people who are trying to explain something to you. Do not pretend your language was neutral when you know that; it's dishonest.

People are making honest attempts to answer your inquiries and are dealing with you in good faith, but this post indicates that you are not willing to show them the same respect. Please engage in respectful dialogue, not snide insinuations.