Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Jose Fly]

This is starting to look comical to me. Confirmation bias written all over it, in big, bold letters.

Evidence for evolution


Saying, in the same paragraph, that those four conditions are required for life to exist, and that they are evidence of all living creatures having the same ancestor.

There's no specific reason why all life has to use the exact same nucleotides, amino acids, transcription/translation processes, etc. For example, there are lots of amino acids, yet all life on earth uses the same subset.

I suggest you also look into ubiquitous genes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say you said either chimps or humans have stopped evolving. Is there any evidence that chimps or humans are evolving? Start with chimps, please, they're ostensibly older in species than humans, so have a longer time perhaps to evolve. Is there any evidence chimps are evolving?

Yes there is evidence that they are still evolving. They have not gone extinct.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, when you deny scientific findings without any logic or reason that makes one a science denier.

The term 'science denier' does not stand up to facts. For instance, it would be denying science to say that humans do not have bones, or that the moon is 10 miles away.

 

[Jim]

No, I'm saying that the understanding of common ancestry explains differences as well as similarities between taxa. For example, it explains why whales and sharks have very different anatomies for swimming and breathing, even though they both occupy the same environment. Another example is the anatomical differences between birds and bats.

Okay. I can see some possibilities in that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes there is evidence that they are still evolving. They have not gone extinct.

That's proof that they are still evolving?
OK, now if you were on the stage, or in a classroom, I'd laugh at that remark. I laugh easily sometimes. So let's go over this again -- the fact that chimps stay chimps with no evidence of them moving into another life form of sorts, and humans stay humans (same idea) and have not gone extinct but there is no evidence of them moving into another type of life form is to you proof that they're still evolving?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term 'science denier' does not stand up to facts. For instance, it would be denying science to say that humans do not have bones, or that the moon is 10 miles away.

and it is denying science by trying to deny evolution. There is at least as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity.


It appears from your example that you would call a denier of gravity a denier of science. You should strive to be consistent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, now if you were on the stage, or in a classroom, I'd laugh at that remark. I laugh easily sometimes. So let's go over this again -- the fact that chimps stay chimps with no evidence of them moving into another life form of sorts, and humans stay humans (same idea) and have not gone extinct but there is no evidence of them moving into another type of life form is to you proof that they're still evolving?

That would not be wise. A person that is acting rather poorly should not laugh at his own ignorance. At this point you should be trying to learn. Your poorly asked questions put your knowledge at not even a high school level.

Again, please drop the change of kind strawman.

You ducked this very serious question:

Are you a vertebrate?

 

[YoursTrue]

and it is denying science by trying to deny evolution. There is at least as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity.

It appears from your example that you would call a denier of gravity a denier of science. You should strive to be consistent.[/QUOTE]
I accept gravity as a scientific concept and fact, have no quibble with it. Although -- as I see it -- God can override the law of gravity as it usually is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. I can see some possibilities in that.

You should also realize that those that oppose evolution cannot come up with an alternate explanation. In the world of the sciences if one cannot even form a testable hypothesis then that person has nothing.

 

[Jose Fly]

“While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism ... We present a new statistical framework to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry that avoids this pitfall.

????? Sorry, you completely lost me.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would not be wise. A person that is acting rather poorly should not laugh at his own ignorance. At this point you should be trying to learn. Your poorly asked questions put your knowledge at not even a high school level.

Again, please drop the change of kind strawman.

You ducked this very serious question:

Are you a vertebrate?

According to that classification, yes, I would say yes, I am.

 

[Jim]

What I’m seeing now is a system of smoke and revolving mirrors to use evolution theory as a Trojan horse to stigmatize anyone who doesn’t believe that all living creatures have a common living ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept gravity as a scientific concept and fact, have no quibble with it. Although -- as I see it -- God can override the law of gravity as it usually is.

is
Then by the same standard you should accept evolution. There are countless Christians that accept evolution. One does not need to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would not be wise. A person that is acting rather poorly should not laugh at his own ignorance. At this point you should be trying to learn. Your poorly asked questions put your knowledge at not even a high school level.

Again, please drop the change of kind strawman.

You ducked this very serious question:

Are you a vertebrate?

I must go back to the idea that chimps are currently staying as chimps. They've been around supposedly for many, many years. Yet still stay as chimps with no discernible change, sorry if I don't use your terminology.

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay. I can see some possibilities in that.

It's more than a possibility; common ancestry explains the data extremely well. Why else would whales and dolphins breathe via a modified terrestrial anatomy (blowholes and lungs) while sharks use gills?

 

[YoursTrue]

What I’m seeing now is a system of smoke and revolving mirrors to use evolution theory as a Trojan horse to stigmatize anyone who doesn’t believe that all living creatures have a common living ancestor.

You got it. Bravo! And -- that's what they evidently do to scientists who turn away from the Darwinian model(s) of evolution, as if it all came about by chance of burgeoning genomes making changes in life forms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to that classification, yes, I would say yes, I am.

And you are still a tetrapod (four limbed) and still a mammal and still an ape.

Strangely some deniers of science think that it is an insult to claim that they are apes when it would be an insult to claim otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You got it. Bravo! And -- that's what they evidently do to scientists who turn away from the Darwinian model(s) of evolution, as if it all came about by chance of burgeoning genomes making changes in life forms.

oh my! You really need to learn the basics of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

What I’m seeing now is a system of smoke and revolving mirrors to use evolution theory as a Trojan horse to stigmatize anyone who doesn’t believe that all living creatures have a common living ancestor.

Er um.....what?

 

[Jim]

????? Sorry, you completely lost me.

That’s okay. I want to say again that I’m grateful for your thoughtful and generous responses to my questions and comments. This turned out to be a lot more educational and fun for me than I would have thought.