Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! That was a nice surprise! If you would like me to give you links to where I’ve explained all that, let me know.

Please do.

 

[YoursTrue]

Was it taught as truth? How recently? Was it totally wrong?

Keep in mind, that Haeckel is incredibly familiar ground that you seem to want to tread on. The path you appear to be setting out on is well-worn. It is on heavy rotation on creationist stations.

I am simply saying that just because science says something is true (or now that I'm looking at it, does science really say something is true) does not make it so. Such as what was accepted as true by the theory of recapitulation. Yes, it was many years ago, but if you did not say it was so on a test, you got it wrong. I'm not arguing science. I am, however, saying as someone else said, and I repeat, just because humans (homo sapiens ) have dna that other forms of life have (such as grapes), does that mean evolution is true? Again -- no one has seen one form, species, kind--call it whatever you like--develop into another species, kind or form, have they? Humans remain humans even if they strangely and by genetic disposition, walk on arms and legs, as one group does somewhere. Well, strange probably to most of us who walk by nature on our legs and not arms and legs.

 

[Jim]

Aren't some ideas that have been respected proven to be "factually wrong"?

Yes, and many “factually wrong” ideas have turned out later to be “scientifically proven,” at least until some time in the future they become “unscientific.”

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you know that people used to think disease was sent to punish sin? Did you know that people used to think that pigeon blood could cure diseases? People where I grew up thought that snakes could grab their tails and form hoops so they could role down hill really fast. If you put your wart in stump water during the full moon, will it cure your warts? People believed for thousands of years that old straw and manure could turn into mice or rotting meat turned into flies. This was all truth at one time too.

I am not saying that some ideas have been put to the test and shown not to be true. Such as when maggots were believed to come spontaneously from meat. Yet -- science has not proven beyond a doubt IMO that evolution is the way all living matter came about (and I say IMO because I am sure that many believe science has proven beyond a doubt that evolution is true of all living matter, therefore I am not competing with them).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am simply saying that just because science says something is true (or now that I'm looking at it, does science really say something is true) does not make it so. Such as what was accepted as true by the theory of recapitulation. Yes, it was many years ago, but if you did not say it was so on a test, you got it wrong. I'm not arguing science. I am, however, saying as someone else said, and I repeat, just because humans (homo sapiens ) have dna that other forms of life have (such as grapes), does that mean evolution is true? Again -- no one has seen one form, species, kind--call it whatever you like--develop into another species, kind or form, have they? Humans remain humans even if they strangely and by genetic disposition, walk on arms and legs, as one group does somewhere. Well, strange probably to most of us who walk by nature on our legs and not arms and legs.

Science can never be proven and the built in provision of science is that conclusions are contingent on new information that might refute existing conclusions.

No one is claiming evolution or common descent based on the evidence of one comparison, study or discipline. All the evidence we have says the same thing. From all disciplines.

Speciation events have been observed.

I would point out that kind is very useless term in a scientific discussion and has no scientific definition.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the findings and conclusions of science, but most of the time it isn't legitimate skepticism that I encounter. It is preconceived notions that have no basis pitted against a straw man version of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and many “factually wrong” ideas have turned out later to be “scientifically proven,” at least until some time in the future they become “unscientific.”

Well, yes...and the barrier is still there. Which is one of the big questions. I say it softly. abiogenesis. And (not or) something from nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not saying that some ideas have been put to the test and shown not to be true. Such as when maggots were believed to come spontaneously from meat. Yet -- science has not proven beyond a doubt IMO that evolution is the way all living matter came about (and I say IMO because I am sure that many believe science has proven beyond a doubt that evolution is true of all living matter, therefore I am not competing with them).

We are at a point now where it would take some incredible evidence to overturn the theory of evolution. We are talking on the order of 20,000 studies being reported annually in the scientific literature. None have refuted evolution. Even among that teeny tiny minority of ID proponents, evolution is accepted by many. Michael Behe accepts evolution.

Basically, what I am seeing is a roundabout statement that no amount of evidence would convince you. That is all well and good. You can remain unconvinced. You can believe as you choose to and ignore or reject science. We have that freedom. However, it is a different story to take that as a message to preach in the public square. In the square, you need to support your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, yes...and the barrier is still there. Which is one of the big questions. I say it softly. abiogenesis. And (not or) something from nothing.

If I am reading this right, you need to adjust your definition of abiogenesis. It is not something from nothing. It is life from non-living chemistry in a very boiled down sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pigs would have to develop somehow by happenstance, wings strong enough to lift them up into the air. Or maybe they would develop wings by random mutation and their personal taste would push the mutated dna to continue developing. ? And not push them up into the air, maybe they just like wings.

It appears that you have the mistaken idea that evolution is random. It is not. But then there is no goal to it, except for one. Can you figure out what could be said to be the one goal of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aren't some ideas that have been respected proven to be "factually wrong"?

Of course. That is how science advances. But you really have no hope in that. The myths of Genesis were proven to be factually wrong more than a hundred years ago and it has only become clearer as we learn more how wrong those myths are.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science can never be proven and the built in provision of science is that conclusions are contingent on new information that might refute existing conclusions.

No one is claiming evolution or common descent based on the evidence of one comparison, study or discipline. All the evidence we have says the same thing. From all disciplines.

Speciation events have been observed.

I would point out that kind is very useless term in a scientific discussion and has no scientific definition.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the findings and conclusions of science, but most of the time it isn't legitimate skepticism that I encounter. It is preconceived notions that have no basis pitted against a straw man version of science.

Clearly I am not a scientist. In the past I believed everything teachers taught me (especially because I wanted to pass a test, or actually believed they were telling me the truth and had nothing to compare it with). But here is a question for you, wanting to know your comment. The soil is said by those who know more about this than I do that "Plants get minerals from soil. Most of the minerals in a human diet come from eating plants and animals or from drinking water. ... The five major minerals in the human body are calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and magnesium. All of the remaining elements in a human body are called "trace elements". I have no reason not to believe that. Maybe it will be proven wrong, frankly I doubt it will be proven wrong but I don't know that for a fact or truth that it will be proven wrong.
So as I am thinking about this, or reading about this, I wonder (and this is my question to you as I surely don't really know the answer) -- is there any soil that does not contain minerals like that? I don't think this is getting off the subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

It appears that you have the mistaken idea that evolution is random. It is not. But then there is no goal to it, except for one. Can you figure out what could be said to be the one goal of evolution?

Evolution has a goal???? That is my first question to you.

 

[Jim]

... does science really say something is true)

Languages evolve, words change meanings, and dictionaries do not always record what words most often mean in practice in media stories and mock debating in forums. In media stories, and mock debating in forums, it looks to me like what people call “science” is most often whatever their faction is calling “science.” That is sometimes validated by citing faction-approved stories about the views of people with science degrees, sometimes written by authors with no training or experience in the field of study that they’re writing about. In that sense of the word “science,” yes, “science” really does say something is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has a goal???? That is my first question to you.

There could be said to be one goal to it. Do you know what it is?

 

[YoursTrue]

Languages evolve, words change meanings, and dictionaries do not always record what words most often mean in practice in media stories and mock debating in forums. In media stories, and mock debating in forums, it looks to me like what people call “science” is most often whatever their faction is calling “science.” That is sometimes validated by citing faction-approved stories about the views of people with science degrees, sometimes written by authors with no training or experience in the field of study that they’re writing about. In that sense of the word “science,” yes, “science” really does say something is true.

So again, going back to the Recapitulation theory, when it was taught as truth it wasn't really the whole truth and nothing but? Also, now that I'm looking at it, school children were taught as if it were beyond doubt that Pluto was a planet, now they are not. Realizing that 'things' change (not calling them facts or truth), clearly what has been taught as true and sure may not be really true and sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Languages evolve, words change meanings, and dictionaries do not always record what words most often mean in practice in media stories and mock debating in forums. In media stories, and mock debating in forums, it looks to me like what people call “science” is most often whatever their faction is calling “science.” That is sometimes validated by citing faction-approved stories about the views of people with science degrees, sometimes written by authors with no training or experience in the field of study that they’re writing about. In that sense of the word “science,” yes, “science” really does say something is true.

That many people get what "science" is wrong does not take away from its credibility. Just remember to take new findings reported in the popular media with a huge grain of salt. The popular media gets science wrong far too often. Even "science" magazines will make errors. Try to go to the experts on the subjects if you are not sure.

But evolution has been around long enough so that even the popular media gets most of it right. You are simply not going to find any serious opposition to the idea just as you are not going to find any serious opposition to gravity. There may be discussion about the details, but the basic idea is beyond "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[YoursTrue]

There could be said to be one goal to it. Do you know what it is?

One goal to evolution? Either evolution has a goal (which more or less makes it mindful) or it does not (which makes it mindless). So you tell me what you believe is the goal of evolution, as if it has a goal. And I can only guess at what you might believe is the one "goal" of evolution. But I probably won't phrase it correctly, so you go ahead. I didn't look it up, so I'll wait on you. And it's getting late, so maybe later I can see your answer as to what you say is the goal of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again, going back to the Recapitulation theory, when it was taught as truth it wasn't really the whole truth and nothing but? Also, now that I'm looking at it, school children were taught as if it were beyond doubt that Pluto was a planet, now they are not. Realizing that 'things' change (not calling them facts or truth), clearly what has been taught as true and sure may not be really true and sure.

Now I seriously doubt any of your claims since "Recapitulation theory" has been abandoned for over 100 years. It has not been taught in schools. It may be brought up as part of the history of evolution but no one seriously teaches it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One goal to evolution? Either evolution has a goal (which more or less makes it mindful) or it does not (which makes it mindless). So you tell me what you believe is the goal of evolution, as if it has a goal. And I can only guess at what you might believe is the one "goal" of evolution. But I probably won't phrase it correctly, so you go ahead. I didn't look it up, so I'll wait on you. And it's getting late, so maybe later I can see your answer as to what you say is the goal of evolution.

Nope, a mind is not needed for a goal.

The only thing that could be counted as a goal for evolution is survival.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Clearly I am not a scientist. In the past I believed everything teachers taught me (especially because I wanted to pass a test, or actually believed they were telling me the truth and had nothing to compare it with). But here is a question for you, wanting to know your comment. The soil is said by those who know more about this than I do that "Plants get minerals from soil. Most of the minerals in a human diet come from eating plants and animals or from drinking water. ... The five major minerals in the human body are calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and magnesium. All of the remaining elements in a human body are called "trace elements". I have no reason not to believe that. Maybe it will be proven wrong, frankly I doubt it will be proven wrong but I don't know that for a fact or truth that it will be proven wrong.
So as I am thinking about this, or reading about this, I wonder (and this is my question to you as I surely don't really know the answer) -- is there any soil that does not contain minerals like that? I don't think this is getting off the subject.

I am not a soil scientist, nor even a geologist, so I do not know soils that well. I do know that soils can be categorized based on the geology of the areas in which they form. Some can be without some of the minerals you mention, or have varying percentages of those minerals. Some have more minerals than you mentioned. I believe the rain forest soils of South America are heavy in aluminum minerals.

Also, the different layers of soil can have different mineral profiles with some being absent or highly reduced in quantity and proportion depending on the layer.

It is a fact that the composition of the human body includes an assortment of minerals with some being much more common than others. Deficiencies in those minerals can lead to disease.