Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

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.

All I'm 'doing', is trying to have a discussion about common descent. The evidence, facts, and reasoning behind it, as a MAJOR belief in the public's perceptions.

Is it based on facts? Observable science? Sound reason and methodology?

Or is it based on Indoctrination? Propaganda? Fallacies?

Evidence is called for, in any scientific discipline. It is not unreasonable nor unscientific to critically examine the alleged 'facts' behind this popular belief.

If there is no compelling evidence, one can only conclude Indoctrination as the basis for this belief. If the belief in common descent is based on empirical evidence, then it should be easy to defend.

Hysteria, religious fervor, hostility, and dependence on fallacies indicate 'Indoctrination', as the basis for this belief. Calm, civil, rational delivery of facts would indicate 'science' and Reason.

 

[usfan]

I'm shocked that you got no response...

I'm shocked that you expect a response..

You want to try a scientific debate? What do you have to lose? Are you afraid i will refute the arguments your beliefs depend on?

You 'know!' i will just quote bible verses, and scream, 'God did it!!', so my arguments should be easy to refute.

Why are you afraid to engage me in rational, scientific debate?

 

[Jim]

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

Shooting blindfolded at a dartboard from six meters away.

Why would you want to know?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Shooting blindfolded at a dartboard from six meters away.

Why would you want to know?

Because you keep asking how we know that there is a consensus, but then rejecting any means by which we provide you with evidence of consensus.

So what does consensus look like to you?

 

[Jim]

All I'm 'doing', is trying to have a discussion about common descent.

Seriously? You expect me to believe that you really see that as a possibility? With whom? In my view, everything we say about the past is a model, and we don’t even understand what it is that we’re modeling. It’s the same issue for me as the historicity of the gospel stories What does it even mean to talk about what “really” happened? All we can do is try continually to improve the usefulness of the model for beneficial purposes. That’s the work of academic history. The closest thing I see to that, for the history of life on earth is paleontology. It isn’t about “truth” or “reality.” It’s outside the range of the usefulness of those concepts. If there are convergence from different angles, then we can think of the points of convergence as a kind of reality. The people who are best qualified for that might be paleontologists.

In that perspective, what you’re discussing here looks meaningless to me, if it’s only about whether or not humans and other species “really” do have common ancestors. Can you think of anything that could ever possibly convince you that it’s “true,” other than reports of eyewitnesses?

 

[Jim]

Because you keep asking how we know that there is a consensus, but then rejecting any means by which we provide you with evidence of consensus.

So what does consensus look like to you?

It looks to me like “scientific consensus” means that the person saying it doesn’t think that there’s any disagreement between people with science degrees, that needs to be considered,

 

[Jim]

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

When I asked why you would want to know, I meant, why would you want to know the opinions of a specific group?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It looks to me like “scientific consensus” means that the person saying it doesn’t think that there’s any disagreement between people with science degrees, that needs to be considered,

But that's not what they are saying. If they meant to say "there isn't any disagreement", then they would say that, and saying that there is "consensus" doesn't imply that either. What they are saying is "the vast majority of working scientists in this field agree" or "It is generally agreed upon by scientists and scientific organizations", which is true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When I asked why you would want to know, I meant, why would you want to know the opinions of a specific group?

You're the one asking how we know that there is a consensus.

And do you not think it is relevant, on specific issues, to know and understand the opinions of people who work in fields related to (or have devoted a lot of time time to) studying and understanding those specific fields?

Talking about science without taking into account the work and words of actual scientists and their findings is like trying to cook without ingredients. Sure, it would probably be less messy, but you'd end up just as hungry as you started.

 

[Jim]

Or is it based on Indoctrination? Propaganda? Fallacies?

If there is no compelling evidence, one can only conclude Indoctrination as the basis for this belief. If the belief in common descent is based on empirical evidence, then it should be easy to defend.

Hysteria, religious fervor, hostility, and dependence on fallacies indicate 'Indoctrination', as the basis for this belief. Calm, civil, rational delivery of facts would indicate 'science' and Reason.

From that It looks to me like you consider it on topic in this thread to discuss the psychology and sociology of people believing in common descent. I think that might be very complex, and there might never be any end to finding explanations for it. I’m more interested in trying to help change change popular attitudes and behavior, but finding explanations can be part of that, so I’ll say what I think about it. I think that it’s all virtue signaling. Even when the words “science” and “evidence” are used to stigmatize people, the reason for that is to send out virtue signals. Also, it looks to me like part of what makes it all possible is cognitive dissonance. Also, the abandonment of spiritual and moral training of children by our generation, yours and mine. I saw friends of mine bragging that they were not going to provide any moral or spiritual training for their children.

I think that another part of it is that public education trains us to believe whatever we read in our textbooks and whatever our teachers tell us, and that transfers to whatever sources are approved by a person’s faction.

 

[Polymath257]

When I asked why you would want to know, I meant, why would you want to know the opinions of a specific group?

Well, it seems to me that the opinions of those who are qualified to make judgments about a topic are a reasonable way to learn about a topic. In the case of evolution, those biologists that study the way species can change over time would be the target group.

 

[tas8831]

Do you think that 6% of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists think that evolution does not happen through natural causes?

"at least 6%, and possibly 99%, of the sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists agreed that God did it."

 

[Jim]

And do you not think it is relevant, on specific issues, to know and understand the opinions of people who work in fields related to (or have devoted a lot of time time to) studying and understanding those specific fields?

I do think that it’s relevant. What I think is not relevant is how many people with science degrees agree with any particular view.

 

[tas8831]

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

I gave you a link to a simple Google search with volumes of information - Jose provided a series of examples.

You are not a serious discussant, you just like the attention.

 

[Jim]

Well, it seems to me that the opinions of those who are qualified to make judgments about a topic are a reasonable way to learn about a topic. In the case of evolution, those biologists that study the way species can change over time would be the target group.

I agree. I’ve never doubted or questioned that. All my questioning has been about what people were saying about how many people with science degrees agree with them.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree. I’ve never doubted or questioned that. All my questioning has been about what people were saying about how many people with science degrees agree with them.

I am more interested in how many people who are active researchers agree with them. Merely having a degree is a weak filter.

And the agreements on what should be taught are a decent description of the consensus of those in the appropriate organizations (for example, the AAAS). Did you look at my links for the recommendations of the AAAS on what should be taught? Did you notice that it includes common descent?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Disagree with the example. Evolution began with this hypothesis, but it didn't stop testing it or finding new examples. It continued to find other signs of evolution in the migrations of animals, in the rock stata and other areas where long periods of time could be measured. It didn't simply stick with the hypothesis, so its not using a false equivalence.

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.

All really dedicated, highly trained, proven honest Scientists believe in some form of evolution. The amount of effort it takes to become good at calculations should not be undervalued. It takes a lot of curiosity, a lot of practice. For so many hundreds of thousands of people to say that they agree with ToE is a very strong statement, especially the ones who have put their reputations on the line to do so. There are many such 'Martyrs' in Science. They aren't just kissing butt.

'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.

I agree that would be a terrible argument. It is a bad argument. I wouldn't like it if a student was told "Evolution is a fact, so just accept it." That's not cool. That was what the USSR did, and it was a bad thing. In a debate context it is Ok provided that it is part of a debate. There's nothing wrong with using it as a debate claim. In a school, no, but the students should be taught enough facts to make the connection for themselves. I'm absolutely in favor of them learning about it, just short of saying "Its a fact, so confess it or get a lower grade."

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.

The variety is enormous, and the critters vary spectrally fromn butterfly to human. That's evidence not circular reasoning.

 

[tas8831]

Why are you afraid to engage me in rational, scientific debate?

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:

"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​

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

Primate phylogenetic relationships and divergence dates inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes - ScienceDirect

Why are you afraid to engage me in rational, scientific debate?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

You are taking this way to literally. It was metaphorical.

I have lost nothing by ignoring the author of the thread. But I would not be conversing with you, if I had ignored the thread. I would not have learned of some useful scientific information and some solid arguments that support the theory of common descent if I had ignored it.

 

[tas8831]

Cool projection, broflake, but not much beyond that...

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.

False.

Linnaeus produced the taxonomic nomenclature we still use today. He was a creationist.

Evolution is true because of the evidence - multiple, independent lines of evidence - that it happened.

The truth about evolution
September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is noconspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.​

~Todd Wood, PhD (biochem), creationist, baraminologist

Take heed.