Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Jose Fly]

False, from start to finish. None of that has anything to do with what I think I’ve been doing. Not even close.

Well then, all I can say is your behavior and posts in this thread make no sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's okay. I think I have a pretty good idea of what you've been up to in this thread.

From what I can tell, it looks to me like you had been lurking here, and in doing so, you noticed that usfan was getting some pretty harsh treatment from the "evolutionists". You also noticed that many of the "evolutionists" were gloating and mocking, and generally getting a little cocky. So you figured you'd jump in and shake us up a bit by posting some pretty bold anti-evolution assertions and challenging us to explain the science to you if we countered you. Whenever we were able to properly explain, you appeared to accept what we said only to post another bold anti-evolution assertion and start all over again.

IOW, you were like "Hmmmm.....these evolutionists are a bit full of themselves. Let's see if I can knock them down a size or two." So it's not so much that you're an anti-evolutionist; it's that you just see the situation as unfair.

All I can say to that is....well, yeah! It's also unfair between flat-earthers and round-earthers. That's just the way it is when one side has centuries worth of science and the other has little more than reflexive denial. Reality is harsh Jim...it doesn't care what you believe or want to be true.

The only thing I disagree with is that usfan is not getting harsh treatment from the "evolutionists". The "evolutionists" are responding to the lies and harsh treatment they are receiving and that response is of a scale to meet those lies and harsh treatment. That is how I see it from my perspective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Jose Fly I haven’t been thinking of anyone as “evolutionists.” I’m against that way of thinking, lumping people together in groups and categories according to what they believe and don’t believe.

I told you that what I’ve been saying about stigmatizing people is not about people’s reactions to the OP author.



Did you think that I was lying about that?

I’ll try to clarify what I said about evolution theory without a premise of common ancestry. It might already be happening some. In spite of the stigma on not believing in common ancestry, and lack of funding for research that isn’t based on that premise, some people will explore possibilities for explaining variations in fossils, similarities and differences between species, and whatever else evolution research tries to explain, without imagining that they all have a common ancestor, not in opposition to common ancestry theory but alongside of it and complementary to it. Eventually the stigma on non-CA research will fade away, and there will be more funding available for it. That diversification in theory and research will make evolution theory more fruitful and beneficial.

Common ancestry is an independent theory and not a premise.

 

[Jose Fly]

False.

Um...no. They most certainly did look into separate ancestry. They tested it against the data and found it to be completely lacking in explanatory power.

First of all, I’m not asking for anything. I was describing what I think will eventually happen, and which I think will be better for human progress. What they did was just the opposite of that.

Again, you're not making sense. You specifically said people should "explore the possibilities in theories of evolution in which all living creatures do not have a common ancestor."

Well, they have and found it worthless. Why do you think scientists should pursue it further?

I’m still grateful for all your help.

You're welcome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then what ARE you doing here?

My question exactly. When I asked it all I got was a statement that he did not want to discuss it on the the thread where I asked him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

False, from start to finish. None of that has anything to do with what I think I’ve been doing. Not even close.

Jim, I have been interested in what you seem to be so reluctant to discuss, but I have to say that what I have seen gives all the impression that Jose Fly is correct in his assessment of your actions. If he is wrong, then it must be the most incredible coincidence that your posts appear to present that image.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly I haven’t been thinking of anyone as “evolutionists.” I’m against that way of thinking, lumping people together in groups and categories according to what they believe and don’t believe.

I told you that what I’ve been saying about stigmatizing people is not about people’s reactions to the OP author.

Do you think people who believe the earth is flat should be thought of as "flat earthers"? Or people who think the holocaust didn't happen as "holocaust deniers"?

Are you the sort of person who thinks every idea and belief is equally worthy of respect?

Did you think that I was lying about that?

No.

I’ll try to clarify what I said about evolution theory without a premise of common ancestry. It might already be happening some. In spite of the stigma on not believing in common ancestry, and lack of funding for research that isn’t based on that premise, some people will explore possibilities for explaining variations in fossils, similarities and differences between species, and whatever else evolution research tries to explain, without imagining that they all have a common ancestor, not in opposition to common ancestry theory but alongside of it and complementary to it. Eventually the stigma on non-CA research will fade away, and there will be more funding available for it. That diversification in theory and research will make evolution theory more fruitful and beneficial.

IMO, that'll happen about the same time NASA starts using flat earth models in their work.

 

[Jose Fly]

This reaction of yours to what I said surprised and disappointed me.

Like I said, sometimes you just gotta own up to what you've said. I was hoping you'd have enough self-awareness to appreciate the situation.

I’m still grateful for all your help. Your responses to my questions and comments were the most helpful of all. @Polymath257 , you helped a lot too. Thanks.

Glad it helped.

 

[Jose Fly]

The only thing I disagree with is that usfan is not getting harsh treatment from the "evolutionists". The "evolutionists" are responding to the lies and harsh treatment they are receiving and that response is of a scale to meet those lies and harsh treatment. That is how I see it from my perspective.

Good point. He's getting harsh treatment, but it's entirely deserved.

 

[Jim]

... what you seem to be so reluctant to discuss ...

False. I am not reluctant to discuss it I have discussed it, many times and many places in these forums. I’ve only said that I won’t discuss in this thread.

... but I have to say that what I have seen gives all the impression that Jose Fly is correct in his assessment of your actions. If he is wrong, then it must be the most incredible coincidence that your posts appear to present that image.

I’ve learned from experience that it’s worse than useless to try to communicate with anyone who thinks that I’m lying about what I’m thinking.

 

[Jim]

Do you think people who believe the earth is flat should be thought of as "flat earthers"?

No.

Or people who think the holocaust didn't happen as "holocaust deniers"?

No.

Are you the sort of person who thinks every idea and belief is equally worthy of respect?

I’m not sure I even know what you mean by that. I don’t think in those terms at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

False. I am not reluctant to discuss it I have discussed it, many times and many places in these forums. I’ve only said that I won’t discuss in this thread.

I’ve learned from experience that it’s worse than useless to try to communicate with anyone who thinks that I’m lying about what I’m thinking.

You told me that you did not want to discuss it on the thread we were on and I see that others are confused by an apparent lack of candor about your interests. So, it may only be partially false, but it is not entirely false. Wouldn't the use of incorrect be more appropriate, since boldly stating false, while accurate, has the connotation of redressing a prevarication?

That is the point. No one seems to know what you are thinking and you have not fully explained yourself despite the statements here. We are left with only the evidence to piece together and come up with a reasonable explanation. It is clear that we do not have all the evidence, but it has been asked for several times.

 

[Jim]

@Jose Fly @Dan From Smithville It looks to me like you’ve lost any interest in communicating with me that you might have had. I enjoyed it, or my illusion of it, while it lasted.

 

[Jose Fly]

No.

No.

Interesting.

I’m not sure I even know what you mean by that. I don’t think in those terms at all.

So you would agree that some ideas are just factually wrong and not worthy of respect?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

False. I am not reluctant to discuss it I have discussed it, many times and many places in these forums. I’ve only said that I won’t discuss in this thread.

I’ve learned from experience that it’s worse than useless to try to communicate with anyone who thinks that I’m lying about what I’m thinking.

If a man runs through your house in the middle of the night, there are many possible explanations for it that would demand a quick assessment and appropriate response.

It could be grandpa running to the bath room. It could be a criminal running from the police and seeking any means to avoid them. It could be a criminal there to commit a crime. It could be your neighbor come to warn you that a bear just broke in the back door. All we know is the evidence we have seen and a sketchy reference to something more.

 

[Jim]

If a man runs through your house in the middle of the night, there are many possible explanations for it that would demand a quick assessment and appropriate response.

It could be grandpa running to the bath room. It could be a criminal running from the police and seeking any means to avoid them. It could be a criminal there to commit a crime. It could be your neighbor come to warn you that a bear just broke in the back door. All we know is the evidence we have seen and a sketchy reference to something more.

Help yourself. Knock yourself out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Jose Fly @Dan From Smithville It looks to me like you’ve lost any interest in communicating with me that you might have had. I enjoyed it, or my illusion of it, while it lasted.

Of course, that is why we keep responding, asking questions and offering explanations. We are completely uninterested. Especially in what we have no idea about. You can see how little sense that might make to someone?

It is like you are tempting us with something and then refusing to provide it. Blaming us for why you aren't going to provide it either. Nice.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Help yourself. Knock yourself out.

That would not help if the guy was a criminal. Correction. It would help him.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly @Dan From Smithville It looks to me like you’ve lost any interest in communicating with me that you might have had. I enjoyed it, or my illusion of it, while it lasted.

I wouldn't say that. It's that I was getting frustrated with your seeming inability (or unwillingness) to maintain a consistent position through the discussion and how you seemed to not keep up with what you'd previously said.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Help yourself. Knock yourself out.

What I have gotten so far is that your interest goes beyond the specific questions of these threads. It is associated with how we respond to each other. How we question ourselves and the way we use words. You seem to feel you are onto something and it involves love of our fellow man. The rest is obscured by the coincidental similarities with other behaviors.