Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Jim]

it is not "my game".

When I said “your game,” I meant the one that you’re playing, not that you are the only one playing it. I know that it’s a popular game in Internet discussions, but I’m not in it. My online games are WoW and some phone games.

 

[Subduction Zone]

there will never be....
a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment

science will take you to the point of decision

it will not give you the answer

substance does not create the spirit

Spirit first

Then since you cannot define your terms or provide evidence for your claims they are irrational beliefs.

The topic of this thread involves rational beliefs.

 

[Jim]

I’m not admitting that I was wrong. Do you think that I was? Would you like me to explain my reasoning?

you could try.

My question was, would you like me to? Are you honestly, sincerely interested in what I think about it? Please be honest with me.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly Reviewing your posts to me, I want to try to explain what I’ve been doing in this thread. I’m not trying to debate with anyone about anything, or to prove anything to anyone. I’m trying to have some friendly conversations with people on all sides. That includes saying what I think sometimes, about what people are saying, and sometimes asking questions to understand better what people are thinking and doing. Then when people post comments and questions about that, sometimes I respond to them to try to clarify what I’m saying and not saying. Sometimes when it looks to me like they’re misquoting me or misrepresenting what I said, I try to correct it.

That's fine. My purpose in this discussion with you is to correct some of the errors in your posts (e.g., that there are no useful models of speciation).

At this point it seems more likely to me that humans and other species have common ancestors, but in my view that is not proven by how many people with science degrees think that it’s true, by how useful it is to think of it that way, or by statements of professional associations about what should and should not be taught in public schools.

I can't recall anyone in this thread making that argument (evolutionary common ancestry is true because of who and how many say it is). Did someone make that argument to you?

It looks to me like there are no solid grounds for thinking that it actually did happen that way. I would agree though to consider it part of history if there’s enough agreement about that among paleontologists. I’m leaving “enough” undefined for now.

Um....not completely sure what you're saying there, so......

It looks to me like this whole debate is just a skirmish in the debating about what should and should not be taught in public schools.

In some respects, yeah. But there are other aspects to it too.

On that question, I agree with teaching evolution, and not creation, not because I think one is true and the other false. It’s because it looks to me like evolution theory is very useful and widely used in research and technology, and creation theory is not. I don’t see anyone even claiming that creation theory is useful and widely used in research and technology.

Okay, but I would think you'd appreciate how the fact that one is useful while the other isn't, is a good indication of which one is true.

It looks to me like the only reason for wanting creation to be taught is to counteract evolution theory being used in public education to discredit some religious beliefs. That might be happening, but I don’t see that as a reason for teaching creation. In one of my posts I discussed some ideas for what to do about that, if it is happening.

Okay.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you give me a specific example of a speciation model that is widely used, or that has been used for any practical purpose?

Allopatric speciation or geographic isolation. The Kaibab squirrel and the Abert squirrel on either side of the Grand Canyon are examples of this. As the canyon grew, it separated the ancestral population into two.

It is one of the classic examples I learned of in 9th or 10th grade. References are all over the internet, but here is one. This page includes examples and descriptions of other models of speciation too.

BIO 304. Ecology & Evolution: Macroevolution

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even as he dismisses actual scientific research because of all the "technobabble"....
It is.

Extremely weird, but not as unusual as I wish it were.

Delusional disorder is very common and widespread. Many are high functioning and able to keep their delusions under wraps in many public situations. I wish that were so here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@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.

Common ancestry is not a belief. It is a theory. DNA is the universal molecule of heredity. Highly conserved genes with developmental functions common to invertebrates and vertebrates. Shared characters and genotypes. Shared and divergent ERV's. Homologies. All of these are explained by a common ancestry.

 

[Jim]

That's fine. My purpose in this discussion with you is to correct some of the errors in your posts (e.g., that there are no useful models of speciation).

I see now that there might be @Subduction Zone gave me a good example. I haven’t verified that example for myself, but it’s enough for me not to say any more that I haven’t seen any practical applications. Also, I didn’t mean that I see no value at all in the models.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@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.

The question would also be which creation theory. Presumably all of those known would need to be taught side by side with evolution. That is going to run up against a lot of creationists of the Christian flavor. But if we were to do something as nonsensical as teach a religious view without evidence against evidence-based science in this country, it is going to have to be all of the religious views. No favoritism. No establishment.

Of course, it makes more sense to teach science in science classes and leave the religion in church. Of course, for a fee, I would be willing to visit churches and teach them science alongside their versions of creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see now that there might be @Subduction Zone gave me a good example. I haven’t verified that example for myself, but it’s enough for me not to say any more that I haven’t seen any practical applications. Also, I didn’t mean that I see no value at all in the models.

An understanding of the underlying genetics and regulation that occurs with speciation would be invaluable in plant and animal breeding and medicine. It is often difficult to predict if and where some basic biological knowledge may have a practical application.

In many ways, genetic modification of crop plants is a practical application to the problems with rampant use of agriculture chemicals identified in Rachel Carson's book 'Silent Spring'. However, that book came out in 1962 and the first widespread commercial release of genetically modified crops that lead to a massive reduction in pesticide use, did not occur until 1996. And this commercial release was built on previous research that goes back decades.

In the late 19th Century and the early part of the 20th Century, there was a lot of observational work conducted on insects, especially those known to be pests of important crops. It was decades before some of this work had any practical application. Even now, there are highly cited papers on the observed biology of some species, like the boll weevil for instance, that are 100 years old. While there has been more recent work, these papers remain important windows into the basic biology of some species. The practical utility of that work has only been put to use in the last 25 or 30 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Me too, but what do us scientists know. I think we should check with building contractors for the real story on this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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



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...



LOL!

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

He is one who is strong with the false witness.

I like this post and it made me laugh with you at the same time.

 

[Jim]

I can't recall anyone in this thread making that argument (evolutionary common ancestry is true because of who and how many say it is). Did someone make that argument to you?

I’ve seen “scientific consensus” used many times as a reason for believing what people are saying about evolution, climate change, or some other current issue. My questions about scientific consensus started when I saw a response from icehorse to this question.

Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent.

In a response to that, icehorse said:

I for one an happy to rely on scientific concensus.

I disagree with that way of thinking, but I’ve been curious about this “scientific consensus” joker card that people sometimes throw onto the table. How does something get to be called “scientific consensus,” and in the case of evolution, what precisely does it say? I asked for a source so I could find out more about it.

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?

One response was this:

The following conclusions are the current scientific consensus:
1) Evolution occurs (i.e, change an allele frequency in living populations results in changes over time).
2) This change is a result of genetic variation being acted upon by selective, environmental factors.
3) This process accounts for the diversity of current life on the planet.
4) All life shares common ancestry as a result of evolutionary change.

The above conclusions are what is generally being referred to when people talk about the "theory of evolution" rather than just "evolution".

SOURCES:
Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues
What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design

I didn’t find any of those four statements listed as the scientific consensus by ImmortalFlame, in those words, in any of those sources. I did a Web search on each of those statements, and got zero results on all of them. After being sent repeatedly on wild goose chases, to a Pew poll, to Wikipedia and to statements from professional associations about what should and should not be taught in public schools, I concluded that “scientific consensus” just means that a person thinks that there aren’t any disagreements between people with science degrees, that need to be considered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@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.

The disagreements between scientists involving evolution are over the details like mode and what is happening on a genetic level and not whether the theory is valid. Creationists will often turn to these disagreements as evidence that even scientists are opposed to the theory, but that is a deceit. A false equivalence.

There is no practical, valid or reasonable way to teach religion in a science class. There is no reason to at all that I can think of.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@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.

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you think he is a rogue computer program like a virus?

 

[Jim]

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you think he is a rogue computer program like a virus?

I was talking about the matrix of people calling their beliefs “science.”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@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.

What is it that theories are supposed to explain if it is not the evidence?

I disagree. What I have been seeing from usfan is a religious attack on science. I am uncertain about which religion, but it is some kind of creationism mixed with fascism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was talking about the matrix of people calling their beliefs “science.”

There has been only one person on this thread that has been persistently claiming his religious and political views are science. Can you have a matrix of one?

 

[Jim]

What is it that theories are supposed to explain if it is not the evidence?

That looks like a rhetorical question to me. Are you really asking, and are you really interested in what I think about it?

What I have been seeing from usfan is a religious attack on science. I am uncertain about which religion, but it is some kind of creationism mixed with fascism.

What it looks like to me is sidewalk preaching about a social problem. I think that I’m seeing the same problem that he’s seeing. He might be trying to lay some groundwork for promoting some religion, but maybe not. Maybe all he wants to do in this thread is preach about the social problem that he and I are seeing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

View attachment 31644

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but the consensus of the entire group and a subset of that group was greater than 98% acceptance of evolution. Of that consensus within the subset, there were 6% that accepted evolution and further believed that it was guided by God. Among that subset, there was also a 92% consensus that it was due to natural processes alone.

Within that subset, the 99% would be those that accepted the first point and these were further broken down as I have outlined above. That 99% accept theistic evolution is not indicated by the survey results.