Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

Isn't that a matter of concern to you? Or do you only want to talk to people to whom credibility doesn't matter?

All i can do is respond to words on a screen. I cannot judge secret motives, or agendas. I can point out deflections, or logical fallacies, but i cannot force Reason, on the unreasonable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

To be fair, your grammar in that statement was a little confusing. It read:

"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."

The commas imply that the part in the middle is structured as a parenthetical statement, so it reads like what you're saying is "Also for parents to provide moral and spiritual training to their children (...) with church creeds and ideologies."

What you intended to say, I assume, would have been better communicated if you removed that second comma, so it reads:

"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]

typical creationist.

note my denial

 

[tas8831]

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

So what was the decree, mandate, or propaganda by which you rejected my Canid paper?
For your rejection was a mere assertion (dismissing the entire set of posts as 'too long' or whatever excuse you made at the time).

 

[tas8831]

note my denial

I note that you cannot explain the 'probability of a chemistry' as you asserted earlier, and tried to cover that up with admonishing me to watch a science program.
Typical.

 

[Thief]

I have heard somewhere......half of our genome is identical to plant life

anyone with a green thumb?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, the opposition to evolution in the world of science is limited to a handful of cranks.

And of course there is scientific evidence for evolution and common descent. The problem is that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence and refuse to learn. Your approach is similar to a person that has problems with adding denying calculus.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

In what way does the theory of evolution not count as a useful and widely used model?

 

[blü 2]

All i can do is respond to words on a screen. I cannot judge secret motives, or agendas. I can point out deflections, or logical fallacies, but i cannot force Reason, on the unreasonable.

But how are you to force reason on the reasonable, let alone the unreasonable, without making objectively true statements? Aren't they exactly what reason requires?

 

[tas8831]

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?

Yes. I mean my gosh - did you even do a cursory search for this before spouting off an opinion?

Here you go - paste this into your address bar:

model of speciation - Google Search

You see, in reality, things are not so cut and dried and black and white as non-biologists think it should be. Nature is messy, but with sufficient knowledge, we can draw some conclusions/make predictions.

And also I asked a serious question, based on your current run.

 

[tas8831]

No, the opposition to evolution in the world of science is limited to a handful of cranks.

And of course there is scientific evidence for evolution and common descent. The problem is that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence and refuse to learn. Your approach is similar to a person that has problems with adding denying calculus.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

And when evidence has been presented, it has been ignored, dismissed for being 'too long' or 'cut and pastes' or just dismissed for no reason at all. It is almost as if the request for evidence is disingenuous or something.

 

[tas8831]

I have heard somewhere......half of our genome is identical to plant life

Shouldn't you know? Superior science kid at 13 and all...

Animal and plant cells must do mostly the same stuff. I don't know if 50% is correct, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. And AI think "identical" is not the correct word to use - maybe 'we share 50% of our genes' would be a better way to state it.

 

[Thief]

Shouldn't you know? Superior science kid at 13 and all...

Animal and plant cells must do mostly the same stuff. I don't know if 50% is correct, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. And AI think "identical" is not the correct word to use - maybe 'we share 50% of our genes' would be a better way to state it.

so you might agree....

a pair of nuts from the same tree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And when evidence has been presented, it has been ignored, dismissed for being 'too long' or 'cut and pastes' or just dismissed for no reason at all. It is almost as if the request for evidence is disingenuous or something.

That is why I refused to give him examples of evidence a long time ago. I could see his strategy back then. He seems to know that understanding the concept of evidence would take away even his plausible deniability so he has to run from that discussion. Creationists appear to know deep down that they are wrong. Otherwise they would not use the dishonest debating techniques that they use.

I always find it ironic that creationists have to violate one of the Ten Commandments to keep their beliefs.

 

[Jim]

model of speciation - Google Search

I didn’t find any links in that list to any speciation model that is widely used, or that has been used for any practical purpose.

 

[Thief]

I always find it ironic that creationists have to violate one of the Ten Commandments to keep their beliefs.

have you considered.....Moses
as he scribed the commandments with God looking over his shoulder

thou shalt not have false gods before thee

and in whose house was Moses raised?

thou shalt not kill

and why did Moses flee Egypt?

 

[Subduction Zone]

have you considered.....Moses
as he scribed the commandments with God looking over his shoulder

thou shalt not have false gods before thee

and in whose house was Moses raised?

thou shalt not kill

and why did Moses flee Egypt?

Why do you keep referring to mythical characters? Why not Spiderman? I like Spiderman.

 

[usfan]

So what was the decree, mandate, or propaganda by which you rejected my Canid paper?
For your rejection was a mere assertion (dismissing the entire set of posts as 'too long' or whatever excuse you made at the time).

No, it is your constant tactic as a heckler, that makes me skip over most of your posts, as you well know.

If you truly wanted to debate the science, you would post rational, civil posts, with points and evidence. But, since you primarily promote propaganda and heckling, i conclude you do not want to debate the science, but prefer propaganda.

1. Request a reset (if you are a typical heckler)
2. Make a single point/argument
3. Support it with a link, study, or quote, if you wish
4. Ditch the snark and ad hom

If not, continue your ridicule and fallacies, and I'll continue to ignore any points you have buried in them.

 

[usfan]

Otherwise they would not use the dishonest debating techniques that they use.

..yes, asking for evidence for a scientific theory is soooo.. dishonest..



You think false accusations provide evidence for common descent?

 

[tas8831]

So you assert, without evidence. Can you back up that claim? What 'shared genetic traits!' You mean limbs? Heads? Eyes?

Limbs are not genetic traits...

I used scadding's ARGUMENTS.. not his authority.

Ah - so you AGREE with Scadding that vestigial organs are actually good evidence for evolution if we only consider them as homologies, then - because that is his actual argument. You understand that, right? Surely you actually read his paper and did not just copy paste it from some YEC hack propagandist site?

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar infundamental structure, position, and embryonic development, but not necessarily in function.... While homologies between animal specles suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding. 1981​

Unlike the irrational progressive indoctrinees here..

Your projection is so precious and is almost as impressive as your unwarranted hubris.

F*** scadding. I don't care what he believes. But his arguments on vestigiality are sound.

OK:

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar infundamental structure, position, and embryonic development, but not necessarily in function.... While homologies between animal specles suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding. 1981​

I deal in the facts of science and reason.. not something progressive indoctrinees are good with. You've got your memorized dogma, and facts, reason, and reality will not affect them.

More projection - awesome.

Your obsession with credentials is pathetic.

So, you consider your boasting of 4 decades of study a 'credential'?

It is not an obsession, but it is informative.
For every David Levy, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of Ben Steins.

I make arguments and deal in facts.

So, it is a fact that your Canid paper used "markers" in mtGenomes that no other paper has used - even those using the ENTIRE mtGenome?
That is your argument, but it is hardly a fact.

You have ridicule, mocking, and fallacies.

You have projection, projection, Dunning-Kruger effect, and projection. Oh, and avoidance behavior.

So how does that evidence your beliefs? Deflect with arguments of authority all you want.. you merely out yourself as a propagandist.

How is wondering why you claimed repeatedly to have studied all this for 40 years an example of ME arguing from authority???:

Do you even read what you write?

The irrational, unevidenced, unscientific hysteria from these pseudo science religious fanatics always amazes me..

More projection.

The extent to which creationists will squirm and deflect and dodge and deny and play martyr to avoid having to admit error does not amaze me in the least - it is what I have come to expect.

Now please tell us all what "markers" were used in your Canid paper that were not used in any of the mitogenomic papers I have cited in this thread:

Genomic analyses reveal the influence of geographic origin, migration and hybridization on modern dog breed development

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ed-on-mitochondrial-DNA-genome_fig1_275026081

http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/Arnason2007.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790314000827