Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Thief]

how about we pick up where …….plants stop being plants
and one of them eats the other

 

[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 am not even sure what specifically this is in response to. Why separate your response from what you are claiming is vilification of you?

 

[usfan]

Nevermind. You guys make your tactics and preferences clear.

..just don't expect a rational, civil reply, to irrational, incivil posts..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

how about we pick up where …….plants stop being plants
and one of them eats the other

Plants are not some sedate, quiescent, passive ornamentation in the environment. They are aggressive, living things. While they may not eat each other like a lion eating a gazelle, they did not evolve to the party unarmed.

 

[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 think that overlooking what is going on instead of following the evidence is a social problem. That one seeks to resolve perceived social issues by establishing a dialogue with different sides does not make one immune to confirmation bias.

 

[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.”

Also, a lack of self awareness that stuns me.

I see this as vilification too, but I have been trying to discuss these things with you. You are basically dismissing sound arguments based on scientific principles and evidence as mere opinion. I think you are missing the facts of what is actually going on in this thread.

Right here you are accusing me of religious persecution and that is not the case and never has been. I could care less about the religious ideologies of the person making false claims about science and have not given any reason to conclude otherwise, yet here you are, claiming it anyway.

 

[Thief]

Plants are not some sedate, quiescent, passive ornamentation in the environment. They are aggressive, living things. While they may not eat each other like a lion eating a gazelle, they did not evolve to the party unarmed.

yeah...…

however....at some point
they stopped trying to out grow each other for territory

at some point.....
one of them consumed the other

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nevermind. You guys make your tactics and preferences clear.

..just don't expect a rational, civil reply, to irrational, incivil posts..

yeah...…

however....at some point
they stopped trying to out grow each other for territory

at some point.....
one of them consumed the other

At some point animals and plants diverged from a common ancestor. Animals did not evolve from a plant ancestor. There is no biochemical, genetic or fossil evidence to support that idea. For instance plants possess chloroplasts that are not found in animals. The mutualism between these two organisms--ancestral eukaryote and the bacteria becoming the chloroplast--that lead to plants, occurred subsequent to the divergence of the eukaryote lines leading to plants and animals.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Yep, that's why I posted info to descriptions of the various speciation types, but also examples of where they've been observed to occur.

 

[Thief]

There is no biochemical, genetic or fossil evidence to support that idea.

I don't recall the science program at the moment....

but it was noted......half of our genetics.....
are held in common with plants

the program did not demonstrate the gene map

that likely would have taken a while

 

[Thief]

btw …...we still eat plants

there is of course a chemistry they have.....and we need

 

[Jose Fly]

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

I think @icehorse made a very good point. Very few people have the ability or inclination to research every scientific issue to the point where they can decide what's accurate based solely on the data. Most folks are just going to go with what the experts have concluded and leave it at that. And that's entirely reasonable....I'm sure we all do that to some degree.

So I think there's a bit of a nuance to what icehorse was saying. It wasn't so much "scientists all agree that evolution/common descent is true, therefore it is true" in a dogmatic way, as much as "scientists all agree that evolution/common descent is true and since they're the experts, I figure they must know what they're talking about and I have no reason to disagree".

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 think most of us have figured out that you were looking for very precise, specific statements and instead you found the surveys to be more generalized. All I can say to that is, I can understand why the pollsters went with more general statements rather than trying to formulate extremely specific questions with specific terminology. Having conducted similar surveys, I know how frustrating and tedious it can get when you try and make these things too precise. Far better to keep things broad.

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.

And that's pretty accurate.

 

[Bear Wild]

btw …...we still eat plants

there is of course a chemistry they have.....and we need

Yes they are called carbohydrates, lipids and proteins.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't recall the science program at the moment....

but it was noted......half of our genetics.....
are held in common with plants

the program did not demonstrate the gene map

that likely would have taken a while

That commonality of genetics is evidence for descent from a common ancestor. We share something like 39% of our genome with a banana plant. Some of us may have more of a connection to the banana plant than others.

The ancestor of animals and plants diverged a long time ago, after the emergence of Eukaryota. Hence the shared portions of the genome that reflect that common ancestry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

btw …...we still eat plants

there is of course a chemistry they have.....and we need

Much of the evidence seems to indicate that we should be eating more plants than animals. But even I have my bias and affinities that can run contrary to valid evidence and conclusions.

 

[Bear Wild]

Nevermind. You guys make your tactics and preferences clear.

..just don't expect a rational, civil reply, to irrational, incivil posts..

There are times I think that most of us who are interested in any subject become passionate about what we believe and statements may seem strong but overall everyone on this subject is very civil and open to different ideas as well as willing to consider any new evidence This thread started very civil with presentations of evidence which you asked for. The first change to irrational and uncivil responcses actually came from you.

"Is it verboten to discuss common descent here? Is it a sacred cow that should not be scrutinized scientifically? Is starting a scientific thread on common descent a bannable offense? "

"I prefer not to debate with those who rely heavily on ad hom and distortion."

So you actually started the stronger statements and reactionary commentary which progressively increased as you ignored the evidence. Your tactics are clear as well as your preferences. You answered with your opinion.

So up to this point there have been multiple presentations of evidence (not opinion) which could be discussed with you answering with? Opinion unsupported or ignoring the evidence outright.

 

[Polymath257]

yeah...…

however....at some point
they stopped trying to out grow each other for territory

at some point.....
one of them consumed the other

Nope. The stage at which plants and animals diverged as still single celled. So there was no 'trying to outgrow' before 'consuming each other'.

I'm also curious where fungi fit into your scheme......

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my, once again a demonstration of incompetence when it comes to logical fallacies:

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.

Actually this has been shown to be wrong both here and elsewhere on this forum. There are observations of mutations leading to "large changes in the genetic structure". You need more than a denial. It has been observed, and it can be tested. Just because you don't know how to test an idea does not mean that it has not been tested. It is not a false equivalence since you cannot show when or how evolution stops. You lose since the evidence all agrees that no sign of such a limit can be found.

• 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.

But people do not just claim that. It has been demonstrated that evolution is supported by all of the authorities. There are two versions of this fallacy and you screwed the pooch on both of them. The most obvious version is the Appeal to False Authority. That is where one says "My friend told me how to fix my car, He should know, he is a DOCTOR after all". Just because your friend has some expertise in one area does not mean that he has them in all.

The second version is the Appeal to Authority. That is when a debate relies on the claims of one authority. That is not the case here. We have endless authorities which support our claims with scientific evidence. You have no scientific evidence to the contrary. And scientific evidence is what this thread is about. You put it in the title:

Appeal to Authority

• '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.

Now this is an open lie since that was never the claim. The claim is that of the people that study this and understand it almost everyone agrees with it. The percentage that dispute it is far less than the percentage of seriously mentally ill people. I am not saying that the people that oppose it are necessarily crazy, but one should ponder that fact.

• 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.

Again no one has claimed this. This is a creationist red herring based upon a mischaracterization of the theory of evolution. They have to ignore the role that selection plays to make this claim. With selection a limited number of monkeys has reproduced all of the works of Shakespeare. Your argument fails since it is based upon a lie.

• 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.

The only that appears to be guilty of that is you. You keep calling corrections and observations "ad hominem". You do not understand this fallacy and that has been well proven throughout this thread.

• 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.

Again that is your tactic. People have presented evidence. You have at best demonstrated that you do not understand the concept and you are afraid to discuss it.

• 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

Again, no one has claimed this.

• 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.

• No, that is not the argument made. The fact that you must lie about the arguments that others use does not bode well for you.

• 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.

Again, where has that ever been done by your opponents? You seem to be pulling logical fallacies out of your hind end without anything to back them up.

• 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.

• Once again, where? If you want to make these claims you need to show that someone has done so. Now correlation can be evidence. But then you do not understand what is and what is not scientific evidence. Evidence alone is not proof. It is the body of evidence that is considered to be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

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.

Since all of your so called logical fallacies are either lies, fallacies that you are guilty of, or simply claims that you cannot back up you failed again.

One more time I invite you to discuss the nature of evidence. That way you will not make so many errors. If you actually do understand the nature of evidence (which I sincerely doubt) the discussion will take almost no time at all. What do you have to lose (except the debate of course, but then you lost that a long time ago).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gotta laugh....


hehehehehehehe

Because all you have are irrational thoughts and it is futile to try to get you to reason rationally? I guess if that is what gets you off have a ball.

 

[tas8831]

I don't recall the science program at the moment....

but it was noted......half of our genetics.....
are held in common with plants

the program did not demonstrate the gene map

that likely would have taken a while

So what?

Your 'science program' education only works on those less informed than you.