Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Jim]

There has been only one person on this thread that has been persistently claiming his religious and political views are science.

I didn’t say “religious and political views.” I said “beliefs.” By “beliefs” I mean what people think they know. The matrix that I was talking about, in my post to @usfan , is a matrix of people using the word “science” to validate to themselves and others what they think they know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Sort of both. Theories explain the evidence. They are also used to make predictions that we will find certain evidence. Tiktaalik was found based on predictions of the theory of evolution and data about geology and paleontology. Shubin and his group did not just pick a place on a map and randomly start looking. They chose strata of a specific age.

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.

What I see is the creation of a climate of deceit designed to harass, vilify and assault anyone with a position that is not his, while avoiding what is the claimed intent of this thread.

What social problem do you see? I appreciate your inquisitive approach, but I think you have missed a lot of the tactics that have been used to avoid any real discussion here. The only people I see trying to discuss the OP are those that are continually attacked for providing evidence and following the requests of the OP.

I am a little concerned that you may be seeing a few superficial similarities and missing the underlying theme of anti-science and poor attempts at political bullying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn’t say “religious and political views.” I said “beliefs.” By “beliefs” I mean what people think they know. The matrix that I was talking about, in my post to @usfan , is a matrix of people using the word “science” to validate to themselves and others what they think they know.

I said it. Those are beliefs. People do think they know them. I am not saying that religion and politics are the only areas of belief. I was just using them as primary examples of belief that is being used here in opposition to the scientific evidence that is being provided.

What I see is people that are following the request of the OP and being vilified for doing so.

 

[Jim]

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?

I didn’t say “religious and political views.” I said “beliefs.” By “beliefs” I mean what people think they know. The matrix that I was talking about, in my post to @usfan , is a matrix of people using the word “science” to validate to themselves and others what they think they know. It’s so intertwined with satisfying psychological and social needs that it’s extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone to escape from it without first learning better ways to satisfy their psychological and social needs.

Which do you choose? Do you want the blue pill now, or the red pill?

(Sorry for the accidental repetition)

 

[Jim]

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.

Would you like me to explain my reasoning?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn’t say “religious and political views.” I said “beliefs.” By “beliefs” I mean what people think they know. The matrix that I was talking about, in my post to @usfan , is a matrix of people using the word “science” to validate to themselves and others what they think they know. It’s so intertwined with satisfying psychological and social needs that it’s extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone to escape from it without first learning better ways to satisfy their psychological and social needs.

Which do you choose? Do you want the blue pill now, or the red pill?

(Sorry for the accidental repetition)

What do you mean by the blue pill or the red pill?

It may take a little time, but if you look back through this thread, most of what you claim are people trying to satisfy some psychological and social need is really one person.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would you like me to explain my reasoning?

I would. I am lost as how you came up with a potential possibility of 99% accepting theistic evolution.

 

[Jim]

What social problem do you see?

Again, is that a rhetorical question, or are you genuinely interested in what I think about it? Red pill or blue pill?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would you like me to explain my reasoning?

Jim, before we go on, I just wanted to say that I believe that you are trying to understand. I appreciate that interest. Would it be incorrect to say that you seem to favor the underdog and have identified a person on here that you think is the underdog? I would caution you that, just because someone is aligned against a group consensus, does not necessarily make them the underdog. In this case, I would call the underdog here, that group consensus.

They are under attack for presenting valid arguments and the evidence to support those arguments. That attack has nothing to do with what they have presented either. Other than your questions that go deeper than the scope of the OP, there has been no serious discussion from those opposed to common descent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, is that a rhetorical question, or are you genuinely interested in what I think about it? Red pill or blue pill?

It was a serious question.

 

[Jim]

Jim, before we go on, I just wanted to say that I believe that you are trying to understand. I appreciate that interest. Would it be incorrect to say that you seem to favor the underdog and have identified a person on here that you think is the underdog?

Yes, that would be incorrect. I’m trying to have friendly conversations with people on all sides, for some reasons that I’ve explained elsewhere. It has nothing to do with anyone being an underdog.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

In a response to that, icehorse said:

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.

One response was this:

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.

Do you not understand that those four statements I listed are part of evolutionary theory, and all of my links specified support for evolutionary theory?

Again, I asked what you would accept if you were unwilling to accept what I already gave you, and you didn't respond. I already explained that there is no monolithic entity that decrees what the "consensus" is - it is purely a matter of looking at what various scientific organizations accept as worthy of study. They don't generally have to put out statements like "We accept that common ancestry is true" any more than they have to put out statements like "We accept that the earth's elliptical orbit around the sun is true".

If you're not willing to accept a poll which states that 97% of scientists accept evolutionary theory, the statements of dozens of scientific organizations in support of the theory, and the NAS stating that evolutionary theory is nearly universally accepted as indication of conensus, the question still stands: what on earth are you willing to accept?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, that would be incorrect. I’m trying to have friendly conversations with people on all sides, for some reasons that I’ve explained elsewhere. It has nothing to do with anyone being an underdog.

I see. I was curious and trying to make sense of your efforts. I see nothing wrong with having friendly conversations with people of opposing views. But in this case, it is my opinion that it amounts to trying to have a friendly conversation with someone who is trying to hold the rest of the group hostage.

 

[Jim]

I see. I was curious and trying to make sense of your efforts. I see nothing wrong with having friendly conversations with people of opposing views. But in this case, it is my opinion that it amounts to trying to have a friendly conversation with someone who is trying to hold the rest of the group hostage.

Hostage? Do you think that there are people posting in this thread who are not posting voluntarily? What do you think anyone would lose by ignoring this thread, or what loss do you think that would be to anyone else?

 

[Jim]

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.

Would you like me to explain my reasoning?

I would. I am lost as how you came up with a potential possibility of 99% accepting theistic evolution.

First I want to say that I consider opinion polls worse than useless as a way of knowing what anyone thinks about anything. I think that not only are they not designed for that purpose, they are actually designed to misinform us, to serve factional interests on all sides. The only reason I’m discussing Pew polls is because those are the sources that people gave me for what they were saying about the views of scientists. For me the population that the poll percentages represent is purely fictitious. I’m discussing what the poll results tell us about that fictitious population.

The tell us that when that fictitious population was required to choose between “Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection,” and “A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today,” 6% of them chose the second answer. It doesn’t seem plausible to me that 6% of working Ph. D. biomedical scientists think that humans and other living things have not evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection. It seems more plausible to me that when people who agree with both answers were faced with the requirement to choose only one of them, they did so, rather than refusing to answer. The poll results don’t tell us, or even give us any way to guess, how many would choose both answers if they could. Personally I don’t think that it would be all of them, but the poll results don’t eliminate that possibility, unless you want to claim that 6% of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists think that humans and other living things have not evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection.

 

[usfan]

Its difficult to keep a running list of any actual evidence presented, with the pages of heckling and hysterical deflections from the True Believers, who seem unable to examine, critically, the basic premise of common descent. Occasionally i list a summary of points, and we are due for that again, as we are departing from a scientific examination of evidence, and devolving into religious fervor.

Some of the earlier arguments presented, with my summation rebuttal:

1. Canidae.
Canids remain canids, with a wide range of morphological (looks like) variability. But they are all descended from the same parent stock, as evidenced by the mtDNA, they are able to breed, and they share the same genomic architecture. There does seem to be some variations in chromosome numbers, but the basic genetic architecture.. the core haplogroup that they all came from.. is traceable and evidenced through genetic analysis. But there is NO EVIDENCE that they are 'evolving' to or from another phylogenetic structure. Their ancestors were canids. Their descendants are, and forever will be, canids. There is nothing evidentiary to suggest otherwise.

2. Phylogenetic Tree.
This is a graphical illustration of the BELIEF in common descent. It does not provide any evidence FOR the belief, just illustrates it with plausibility and speculation. There is no evidence that evolutionary changes at the genomic level are even possible. That is conjecture and imagination, not observable, repeatable scientific methodology. It is circular reasoning. It is drawing an imagined 'tree', and using that imaginary design as proof of itself.

3. Vestigiality.
The irrational, circular conclusion that unknown organs are 'vestigial', or remnants of a previous incarnation. I examined this argument in greater detail in post #402.

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding

4. Time and Mutation.
Greater detail in post #401.
"No structural changes in a genome have ever been observed, so time is suggested as a system of change. But time has no mechanism of change. It is a passive factor, that only supports degradation, as entropy returns all matter and energy to simpler forms."
"Mutations happen all the time. They are almost always deleterious, with negative consequences for the organism. A few are neutral, but there is no scientific way that structural changes in the genome can be explained by mutation."

5. E.coli study.
This study has been presented several times. It is supposed to prove that traits are 'created' on the fly, by organisms adapting to changes in their environment. It is not a speciation event. That claim is refuted by the scientists who did the study. The study also denies any knowledge of a specific gene, either changing or created to digest citrates. That is merely hypothesized. I examined this study in specific detail back in post #250. There is nothing here. It is ASSERTED and ALLEGED by others, that this 'proves evolution!', but the ones doing the study make no such claim, and close examination reveals that the claim of 'proof of evolution!', is a deceptive lie. It is not evidence of common descent at all. No genes were identified as 'new!', no speciation took place. The organism in the study is still e.coli, with the same genetic architecture, drawing from the same gene pool.

from the study:
Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene.

So, there is NO EVIDENCE of 'new!' genes, just common adaptation. It is like the moths on trees.. dark ones get 'selected' to survive, and the traits that already exist are selected, either naturally or by human engineering. This is evidence of normal adaptation, or micro evolution, which is not disputed by anyone. But it does not evidence or support the LEAP to macro evolution, or a vertical change in the genetic structure.. adding genes, chromosomes, etc. No study has EVER OBSERVED any such genomic changes in the parent architecture. The BELIEF that organisms can add, subtract, create, or conjure up 'new!' genetic information is unsupported by scientific observation.

The central flaw, that carries through in all the arguments FOR common descent, is the false equivalency between micro and macro, evolution

..between variability WITHIN a genotype, and structural changes in the genome. That is assumed and believed, without evidence.

I detailed this problem in post #89. I'll quote some of that here, for the summation.

"Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but believed as proven fact.

The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science."

This covers most of the evidence or arguments presented, up to now.. and i do not include the ad hom, heckling, well poisoning, ridicule, and poo flinging as 'evidence!' FOR common descent. It is merely evidence of religious fervor.

Are there any more? Any studies, arguments, or observations that support the theory of common descent?

I'll can list some fallacies given, too, and maybe will, in another post. But this is just a summary of some of the arguments given here.

 

[Jim]

I see. I was curious and trying to make sense of your efforts. I see nothing wrong with having friendly conversations with people of opposing views. But in this case, it is my opinion that it amounts to trying to have a friendly conversation with someone who is trying to hold the rest of the group hostage.

I don’t see any victims here, but I will say that agreeing with some things that @usfan is saying doesn’t mean that I’m endorsing what he’s doing.

 

[usfan]

My challenge remains:

Show me ONE bit of actual scientific evidence that supports common descent. If it is 'settled science!', like many believe, this should be easy. There should be no need for ridicule, indignation, personal attacks, and fallacious deflections, since the FACTS all support your belief, right?

You should have NOTHING to fear from me, since i will just quote bible verses and scream about God, right? My education, psychosis, sexual preference, and hat size are irrelevant, as we are examining the facts, not beliefs.

So what do you think? Can you make a reasoned argument for this scientific theory? I get it that a large segment of the population BELIEVE in it, but is that belief based on evidence, or institutional Indoctrination?

Can you ditch the fallacies and examine the facts and reasoning in an intelligent, systematic manner?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First I want to say that I consider opinion polls worse than useless as a way of knowing what anyone thinks about anything. I think that not only are they not designed for that purpose, they are actually designed to misinform us, to serve factional interests on all sides. The only reason I’m discussing Pew polls is because those are the sources that people gave me for what they were saying about the views of scientists. For me the population that the poll percentages represent is purely fictitious. I’m discussing what the poll results tell us about that fictitious population.

So what methodology do you propose in order to ascertain the opinions of a specific group is more reliable?

The tell us that when that fictitious population was required to choose between “Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection,” and “A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today,” 6% of them chose the second answer. It doesn’t seem plausible to me that 6% of working Ph. D. biomedical scientists think that humans and other living things have not evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection. It seems more plausible to me that when people who agree with both answers were faced with the requirement to choose only one of them, they did so, rather than refusing to answer. The poll results don’t tell us, or even give us any way to guess, how many would choose both answers if they could. Personally I don’t think that it would be all of them, but the poll results don’t eliminate that possibility, unless you want to claim that 6% of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists think that humans and other living things have not evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection.

The distinction made by the questions is the one between theistic and non-theistic evolution - I.E, the scientists who believe that evolution is in some way guided by intelligence, and those who do not. I don't think it's fair to categorize that 6% as not believing in biological evolution by natural selection; they may simply believe that natural selection is the mechanism used by intelligence in the process. But the distinction is still useful to delineate between those who believe a God or God-like entity is explicitly involved in the process versus those who do not. For clarity, I do not believe this necessarily makes anyone outside of the 6% atheists, or even people who explicitly believe that God is NOT involved in the process of evolution - just that they do not believe that God is explicitly involved in the process.

I would agree that it's a largely meaningless distinction if simply trying to ascertain whether or not the individuals accept biological evolution (if God does exist, their influence on the Universe may be indistinguishable from nature), but as the poll was specifically conducted for the purposes of providing information regarding the evolution vs. creationism debate, it's still a relevant subset to take account of.

 

[usfan]

Here are some common fallacies given, in lieu of scientific facts or evidence:

• False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.

• Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.

• 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.

• The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.

• Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.

• Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments. 'You've been given mountains of evidence, that you ignore!,' is a favorite with this one, when it is clear that no facts or arguments were given. It is bluff.

• Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi

• Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.

• Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.

• Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like!) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

There are others.. poisoning the well, straw men, and other fallacious tactics are used, INSTEAD of rational argument.

Can common descent even be debated without these fallacies constantly coming up? I have not observed this as possible. It seems to me that the Main Arguments FOR common descent are based entirely on fallacies.