Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[ImmortalFlame]

@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.

Theories are based on evidence. They have to have evidence to support them and actually have to be testable in order to be considered scientific theories.

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.

Please quote one person here who uses evolution, or science in general, to denounce religious beliefs. I doubt that there are many.

 

[Thief]

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

a gov survey test went through my school many moons ago

my science score came back...…...superior

I was 13

I've gotten a LOT better since then

how are YOU doing

 

[tas8831]

a gov survey test went through my school many moons ago

my science score came back...…...superior

#21 in 'THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED'

I was 13

I've gotten a LOT better since then

No, you really haven't.

Still unable to explain your claim re: probability.

If you are really so smart and sciency, then it seems it should be an easy task for you to explain it.

But, you prefer to dodge and distract, just like most other creationists.

 

[tas8831]

When this finally ends, you'll have made absolutely no difference to evolutionary biology and will have reinforced many negative stereotypes about creationists.

Exactly.
One has to wonder about the psychology of such folk - do they REALLY think that they, and they alone - layfolk with no actual science background - have discovered evolution's Achilles' heel?
And when even simple definitions of terms are beyond their ability to grasp, that they have superior scientific knowledge?
The hubris, the pride, the lack of self-awareness, the unwarranted condescension premised on their documentable ignorance.... It is SO common in creationists so as to almost define them as a group.

 

[tas8831]

This isn't my first rodeo. Ive been debating origins for over 40 years.

And learned nothing. Says much...

Ok. This is your belief, that the existence of DNA, somehow proves common descent.

Cool strawman!

I guess that is about all you have.

 

[Thief]

#21 in 'THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED'

No, you really haven't.

Still unable to explain your claim re: probability.

If you are really so smart and sciency, then it seems it should be an easy task for you to explain it.

But, you prefer to dodge and distract, just like most other creationists.

your denial is noted for what it is worth

and I am not the typical creationist

 

[tas8831]

@usfan 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.

So you don't do science, either,

Here is some courtroom drama for you to ponder - your buddy dodged and dismissed this because in his supposed 40 years of doing this he never learned any science.

Starts here:
Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Plus it shot down his narrative, and the ego wouoldn't allow that...

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.

Would you also have them teach about the errors of their religious patriarchs and pastors? Or would they get a pass?

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.

Right, because modern church creeds and ideologies are so wholesome and moral.
Prosperity Gospel?
Hatred of people not like yourself?
Twice-divorced, serial philanderer/adulterer, greedy and selfish Donald Trump is a great Christian savior?
Great creeds and ideologies there...

Funny thing about erroneous theories - as technologies and communication have advanced, fewer and fewer theories and "popular views" are being overturned, yet grotesque religious creeds and ideologies stay the same, regardless.

 

[tas8831]

your denial is noted for what it is worth

and I am not the typical creationist

Actually, you are, in terms of discussion. You make grand assertions, then hide behind a silly, idiosyncratic posting style to avoid explaining yourself.

 

[Thief]

Actually, you are, in terms of discussion. You make grand assertions, then hide behind a silly, idiosyncratic posting style to avoid explaining yourself.

all of my posting are self explanatory

your denial is noted

 

[tas8831]

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

Most telling that this was completely ignored by superior science guy...

 

[Thief]

There never were only two people

I agree

 

[Jim]

Right, because modern church creeds and ideologies are so wholesome and moral.

I was saying for parents not to teach children their church creeds and ideologies.

 

[usfan]

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

..interesting off topic reply..

But this thread is about evidence for common descent, not comparative religion.

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

So you assert, without evidence.

You think posting a graphic chart, showing the BELIEVED and ASSUMED tenets of common descent is evidence?

You think declaring, 'this has evidence!', is somehow, actual evidence?

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

It is evidence of plausibility, and the efficacy of propaganda.

Creationism is a pseudo scientific belief that arose as a reaction against the theory of evolution

You have it backwards. When the naturalistic belief of origins, that was the standard for over 2000 years, was debunked by Pasteur, Darwin was there, with a new one, to rid humanity of that pesky God, Who might have expectations for His creation. Thus 'spontaneous generation!', gave way to 'common descent!', and a new, safe belief system was born, to escape the uncomfortable prospect of a Divine Creator.

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?

You think you are the first person to deflect with ad hominem replies? You think directing your 'arguments', toward my motives, beliefs, and psychosis somehow provides evidence for common descent?

And finally, are you aware that pretty much everyone in this thread is laughing at you?

Laugh away. This is an evidentiary based thread, not a mocking and ridicule one.. though progressive indoctrinees can only do the ridicule, it seems. That is kind of sad, really..

You think this comment provides evidence for common descent?

I think that evolution models should be taught in schools, and creation models should not, except possibly in cultural diversity and comparative religion contexts.

Sociological opinions are very diverse, but do not provide evidence for common descent.

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.

Yes, there are many beliefs about what dogma should be indoctrinated into our youth. Progressivism is winning, in this ideological conflict. ..but this is only evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda. It does not support common descent.

There is some disagreement of how evolution happened.

Or if it happened. That is the topic, here. Got any evidence? Or just asserted beliefs?

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?

I made no such definition.

'Truth', that can be tested by scientific methodology, has observable, repeatable, testable methods to support an hypothesis.

Assertions and belief have no such methodology, but rely on mandates, decrees, and propaganda.

 

[tas8831]

all of my posting are self explanatory

Yes - they explain that you are out of your depth in even the most cursory scientific discussions.

your denial is noted

Goodie - my evidence-based denial that you are a science genius is noted.

If you were not out of your depth, your "explanation" for your mere assertions about 'probability of a chemistry' would not have been to watch a science show.

You wrote (starting here):

the probability of a chemistry of such complexity
and that chemistry having the 'will' to replicate

shows intent
and skill​

I ask you to explain:

"But since you mention probability, show your work."​

You replied:

"try not taking a breath

and see whose will is stronger"​

Wow, totally on topic. I clarify:

"And still waiting for your probability of DNA replication or whatever you thought to mention with respect to probability."​

You replied:

"your denial is noted

and yea......the science programs I watch are interesting"​

I replied:

Denial?

How am I denying anything when all I did was ask you to support your assertion?

"First, explain how you derived the "probability" , and how you determined the level of "complexity."

if you cannot do that, then you are tossing out terms that you think are impressive."

Are you really this incapable of understanding and supporting your own claims?​

And your amazing smartest-13-year old answer was:

if you really want to learn.....
find any science program on probability​

CONCLUSION:

You just can't explain your position and your ego disallows an acknowledgement of such.
I.e., typical creationist.

Done with this one.

 

[tas8831]

I was saying for parents not to teach children their church creeds and ideologies.

Ah, so you were - my mistake.

I retract that part, but note that you deigned only to address that.
Interesting.

 

[tas8831]

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

So you assert, without evidence.

Did you really not recognize your own words?

No, the evidence is in the paper. You merely assert there is none. I expand on this in this thread:

mitochondrial genetic markers used for Primate descendency chart

Lots of mtGenome evidence there - way more than in the Canid paper that you accept without question for some reason.

The SAME evidence, the SAME sorts of analyses that were done in the Canid paper that you accepted.

What "markers" in the mtGenome were used in the Canid paper? You keep mentioning them, but the paper does not actually discuss such things - please explain.

You think posting a graphic chart, showing the BELIEVED and ASSUMED tenets of common descent is evidence?

I guess you missed the previous time I posted that "chart" along with an explanation.
Not that it matters - I presented a more recent Canid paper, using more mtGenome data that undermined the implications of your favorite Canid paper, and you ignored/dismissed that, too.

Then I also presented papers showing Canids to be related to other Carnivores and mammals using mitogenomic data - yeah, you ignored all that, too. And Primates, as well. All ignored/dismissed.

You think declaring, 'this has evidence!', is somehow, actual evidence?

No, I think quoting your assertions referencing a different "chart" would be instructional for you, but I guess not.
I have presented WAY more evidence in this thread than you have, but you just ignore/dismiss it all with no real rationale or explanation.

I mean, you have yet to explain why YOUR Canid paper was so great, whereas MY Canid/Carnivore/Primate papers, using the same type of data, same type of analyses of your paper, are to be rejected. Seems rather... scripted.

 

[tas8831]

@usfan It looks to me like evolution theory does not include any useful or widely used model of how new species have evolved.

Curious - what made you think that you would be able to produce any meaningful, informed discussion on this subject?

 

[tas8831]

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.

Didn't you say you have a background in math or something?

6%.... 99% ... could go either way!

 

[blü 2]

I made no such definition.

My express point was that indeed you didn't, and my implicit point was that you need such a definition.

'Truth', that can be tested by scientific methodology, has observable, repeatable, testable methods to support an hypothesis.

Along those lines, yes. Roughly put, a statement that is an accurate statement about reality is true.

Assertions and belief have no such methodology, but rely on mandates, decrees, and propaganda.

And have no credibility. Isn't that a matter of concern to you? Or do you only want to talk to people to whom credibility doesn't matter?

 

[Jim]

@usfan It looks to me like evolution theory does not include any useful or widely used model of how new species have evolved.

Curious - what made you think that you would be able to produce any meaningful, informed discussion on this subject?

Are you disagreeing with what I said? Do you think that there is a useful and widely used model of how new species have evolved?