Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[icehorse]

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.

Hey Jim,

I get the sense that you're unclear about how "science" works. There is no "consensus committee". It might be good for you to look into the process of how science moves forward in general.

 

[usfan]

The type of data used and the means of analysis employed have been BY YOU, so there is no denying the shared ancestry of human, chimps and other primates are demonstrated in this genetically evidenced descendency chart.

Ditch the snark, and so will i. Request a reset, and I'll examine your arguments.

1. Make a single point.
2. Support with links, quotes, studies, if desired.

Mocking my words, out of context, distorted for deception, is not a rational, scientific debate.

 

[Jim]

I have not finished reading everything, so you may have answered it already. But my question of the social issue that you see involved here may still remain unanswered.

I’m seeing it differently now. Part of it is people vilifying each other. Part of it is harmful forms of virtue signaling. Part of it is the possibilities that are being missed.

If you think about everything that grieves you about people blindly and stubbornly believing whatever is popular in their church faction, it might be similar to what grieves me about everything that people think they know, that they call “science” and “evidence based.”

Also, a lack of self awareness that stuns me.

 

[Jim]

Hey Jim,

I get the sense that you're unclear about how "science" works. There is no "consensus committee". It might be good for you to look into the process of how science moves forward in general.

Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

I cannot see how he expects anyone to believe that serious scientific debate is what he is doing. He has gotten serious scientific answers from numerous posters and runs from those, while utilizing the tactic of the repetition of false statements.

I am very unclear of what your view of evidence is and why you think that theories do not explain the evidence. The theories or models are not absolutes and are subject to revision based on the accumulation of new information. They are continually be tested. We do not use Darwin's original formulation of the theory of evolution, for instance. Since his original, population biology and genetics have become standing branches of science that have contributed to a synthesis and revision of the original Darwinian framework. Along with a vast amount of research results from even more numerous branches of science.

As a Christian, I find the historicity of the Bible to be fascinating, but hardly necessary to validate my belief. But arguments over biblical historicity and biological evolution are both based on models and the evidence that those models explain. What one accepts is based on the acceptance of the models and how useful their explanations are. But belief in the theological claims of the Bible are not based on evidence, but on faith. My belief is not built on a weak foundation of literal acceptance of Genesis when all the evidence is contrary to those claims. Some people demand that we ignore all of that evidence and explanations of it in favor of blindly accepting a literal view. For them, the stability of their faith demands that claims be turned into facts without benefit of sound reasons, models or evidence that doing so is required.

It is laudable that you are trying to establish a dialogue with the different sides of the discussion, but that is what everyone providing scientific explanations has been trying to do as well. Unfortunately, this has been thwarted and rejected at every turn with responses that are a relative fiction and bear no relation to what is actually occurring. That these fictionalized responses are continually repeated despite having no relationship to the posts they are a response to seems solely as an effort to establish their validity, not on evidence, but by continual repetition. Continually claiming to love, support and be all about science might be true, but when you see the repeated actions in response to attempts to actually discuss science, I have found no reason to believe those aforementioned claims.

 

[usfan]

Came across this paper using complete mitochondrial genomes and all of the markers contained therein to assess Primate evolution.

I'd love to have a civil, rational debate with you over this topic. But i won't do it if you insist on flooding every post with mocking, ridicule, misquotes, and other fallacies.

I think we could present a good debate over this subject.. you seem knowledgeable, and a civil discussion could be enlightening AND entertaining.

1. One point at a time, with evidence, points and counter points.
2. Rational summations that support each debater's premises.
3. Civil, scientific, and rational, without the emotional baggage of ad hom and hysteria.

..your call. I'm willing.

 

[tas8831]

Ditch the snark, and so will i. Request a reset, and I'll examine your arguments.

1. Make a single point.
2. Support with links, quotes, studies, if desired.

Mocking my words, out of context, distorted for deception, is not a rational, scientific debate.

They are not out of context.

Do you accept Scadding's position? His whole one?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m seeing it differently now. Part of it is people vilifying each other. Part of it is harmful forms of virtue signaling. Part of it is the possibilities that are being missed.

If you think about everything that grieves you about people blindly and stubbornly believing whatever is popular in their church faction, it might be similar to what grieves me about everything that people think they know, that they call “science” and “evidence based.”

I think that you have an idea that may be clouding your perception. Most of the claims about the author and the authors actions on this thread are not based on ideological differences, but the actions that the author regularly takes that are even in opposition to the authors stated claims and intents.

Genuine and valid criticism is dismissed as personal attack. Attempts to keep the thread on topic by the very people that have been requested to post here are continually derailed by the author. The author is more interested in preaching his personal political views, falsely portraying himself as a victim and vilifying anyone that disagrees with his agenda or points out what he is doing.

Posting this is not a personal attack. It is publicizing the accumulation of observations and they are not solely my observations. They reflect the independent observations of a growing number of participants here.

I would say that bank robbers have personal views and it may be of some value to establish a dialogue with them. But missing that they are criminals and what that means, while trying to establish a dialogue about those beliefs, would be ignoring some very important and very relevant points.

 

[tas8831]

I'd love to have a civil, rational debate with you over this topic. But i won't do it if you insist on flooding every post with mocking, ridicule, misquotes, and other fallacies.

I think we could present a good debate over this subject.. you seem knowledgeable, and a civil discussion could be enlightening AND entertaining.

1. One point at a time, with evidence, points and counter points.
2. Rational summations that support each debater's premises.
3. Civil, scientific, and rational, without the emotional baggage of ad hom and hysteria.

..your call. I'm willing.

You keep hurling these false accusations. Your words are neither misquoted nor out of context. I include them because those are the supporting quotes you supplied for your canid paper - a paper that employed the exact same methods and type of data that the papers I have presented used.

Your dismissal of them is irrational and unscientific.

 

[usfan]

You keep hurling these false accusations. Your words are neither misquoted nor out of context. I include them because those are the supporting quotes you supplied for your canid paper - a paper that employed the exact same methods and type of data that the papers I have presented used.
Your dismissal of them is irrational and unscientific.

Ok. Thanks anyway..

 

[tas8831]

I'd love to have a civil, rational debate with you over this topic.

Came across this paper using complete mitochondrial genomes and all of the markers contained therein to assess Primate evolution.

A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
July 16, 2013

From the results and discussion:

We produced complete mt genome sequences from 32 primate individuals. From each individual, we obtained an average of 1508 tagged reads with an average length of 235 bp, yielding approximately 356 kb of sequence data corresponding to 21-fold coverage. All newly sequenced mt genomes had lengths typical for primates (16,280–16,936 bp; Table S1), but the GC-content varied largely among taxa (37.78–46.32%, Table S2, Figure S1). All newly generated mt genomes consisted of 22 tRNA genes, 2 rRNA genes, 13 protein-coding genes and the control region in the order typical for mammals. By combining the 32 newly generated data with 51 additional primate mt genomes, the dataset represents all 16 primate families, 57 of the 78 recognized genera and 78 of the 480 currently recognized species [31].​

They used 81 complete mitochondrial genomes from primates representing all 16 families. The descriptions of the genomic content represent all of the markers that one could hope for. The use of these markers allow for the tracing of the ancestry of all of the primate taxa used, as shown in this phylogenetic tree, and such trees are produced as the output of a rigorous analysis - the same sort employed in the Canid paper.

Note that this includes humans, Neanderthals, etc. This phylogenetic tree incorporates the tracing of mtDNA snps and other such markers. The shared ancestry of all Primates is thus proven.

The type of data used and the means of analysis employed have been BY YOU, so there is no denying the shared ancestry of human, chimps and other primates.


1 point.

1 source.

Explanation provided.

 

[tas8831]

Ok. Thanks anyway..

You inability to support your false accusations is noted.

 

[tas8831]

Also, a lack of self awareness that stuns me.

Cool projection, bro.

 

[Jim]

@Dan From Smithville That you would stoop so low as to try to vilify me for my friendly discussions with @usfan is an example of the social problem that I’m talking about, and brings back some clarity in my mind about it. It’s my bedtime. I’ll be back tomorrow.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Considering that you met the demand for a scientific response to his undefended claims, I am shocked too. Of course, I am unfamiliar with the debating standards of fascist pseudoscience. Perhaps this is typical.

 

[usfan]

You inability to support your false accusations is noted.

Do not presume that because i banter, some, with the hecklers, i take them seriously.

I will debate this topic in a civil, scientific manner. But i will ignore the posters who demonstrate they are here as propagandists and disrupters.

Is there nobody here who will take the challenge for a rational debate on this topic?

 

[tas8831]

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

It was my first post in this thread. I provided a preamble and made a single point:

OK. Here is my case, along with the evidence (hate to be the broken record):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:​

This was followed by 6 partial abstracts or quotes from 6 cited papers,laying out this clear linear progression, and ended with my single "point":

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Came across this paper using complete mitochondrial genomes and all of the markers contained therein to assess Primate evolution.

A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
July 16, 2013

From the results and discussion:

We produced complete mt genome sequences from 32 primate individuals. From each individual, we obtained an average of 1508 tagged reads with an average length of 235 bp, yielding approximately 356 kb of sequence data corresponding to 21-fold coverage. All newly sequenced mt genomes had lengths typical for primates (16,280–16,936 bp; Table S1), but the GC-content varied largely among taxa (37.78–46.32%, Table S2, Figure S1). All newly generated mt genomes consisted of 22 tRNA genes, 2 rRNA genes, 13 protein-coding genes and the control region in the order typical for mammals. By combining the 32 newly generated data with 51 additional primate mt genomes, the dataset represents all 16 primate families, 57 of the 78 recognized genera and 78 of the 480 currently recognized species [31].​

They used 81 complete mitochondrial genomes from primates representing all 16 families. The descriptions of the genomic content represent all of the markers that one could hope for. The use of these markers allow for the tracing of the ancestry of all of the primate taxa used, as shown in this phylogenetic tree, and such trees are produced as the output of a rigorous analysis - the same sort employed in the Canid paper.

Note that this includes humans, Neanderthals, etc. This phylogenetic tree incorporates the tracing of mtDNA snps and other such markers. The shared ancestry of all Primates is thus proven.

The type of data used and the means of analysis employed have been BY YOU, so there is no denying the shared ancestry of human, chimps and other primates.


1 point.

1 source.

Explanation provided.

I wonder why he keeps running from this and hurling false accusations, blindly, over his shoulder? I have seen that everyone is willing for him to stop all the snark, false accusations, logical fallacies and personal attacks so that we can get to the scientific debate, but he just does not seem to want do that.

If I did not know that he was a building contractor with 40 years of experience in science, I would say that he was trying to build up a false narrative rather than an actual discussion.

 

[tas8831]

I will debate this topic in a civil, scientific manner. But i will ignore the posters who demonstrate they are here as propagandists and disrupters

You will also hurl false accusations to hide your embarrassment and make excuses to avoid more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville That you would stoop so low as to try to vilify me for my friendly discussions with @usfan is an example of the social problem that I’m talking about, and brings back some clarity in my mind about it. It’s my bedtime. I’ll be back tomorrow.

I have not vilified you. You just vilified me.