Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

@usfan I’m beginning to see what you’re talking about here. The more I read about evolution research, the more that some of it looks like an endless, desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship.

So you don't understand it, either?

You two are peas in a pod.

 

[tas8831]

Me too.. before studying the science with a jaundiced eye..

"The mtDNA, carries a flag in it from mother to daughter. It has ironically been called the 'Eve' gene."

 

[tas8831]

It seems that scientists believe the 'evolution' from apes (including chimps and other non-humans) to humans did not happen with two ape-like ancestors suddenly changing into unique beings, one male and one female. Is that how you understand the so-called evolving of humans from chimpanzees and other ape types? (Sorry, but don't know exact terminology now that the majority of scientists use.)
Not speaking of going back, but somehow the apes are not moving to another state with discernible evidence lately.

I suggest you start here:

Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[tas8831]

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.

What is comical to me is that Mr.Intellectual here is looking at a website set up to present basic info to students as the ultimate resource on evolution.

Try here, Genius:

Google Scholar

I'm betting you will be overwhelmed with so much that you cannot grasp that you will then claim it is all technobabble meant to obfuscate, just like your creationist pal did...

 

[tas8831]

Yes, and maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and pigs could fly if they really wanted to.

So sayeth the teachers assistant and computer programmer...

 

[tas8831]

Of course, I could just be misunderstanding what I’m seeing.

Given what you have written in just this thread, that is the most likely.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Yep. Do you think those ideas are still deserving of respect after they've been proven wrong?

 

[tas8831]

. Although -- as I see it -- God can override the law of gravity as it usually is.

Why do you see it that way?
How would God do this, and what is the evidence?

 

[tas8831]

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.

And I am seeing the egomania of a science novice unable to accept even the possibility that he is out of his league.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly @Dan From Smithville I’ve decided not to respond any more to personal questions and comments about me, except maybe sometimes to point out false statements about what I’m thinking. I’ll post links later to where I’ve discussed what I’m doing in these forums and why.

That's fine.

Now, how about we get back to the comments you made about the paper I posted where the researchers tested between separate ancestry and common ancestry? @usfan appears to have merely waved it away and exploited the crowd here to hide his dodge, so I'm hoping that you'll specify what in that paper caused you to denigrate their work.

 

[tas8831]

Not all scientists accept the present-day theory of evolution, including the Darwinian theory. Perhaps many do accept Darwin's theory, do you think so?

I am aware of a single non-creationist scientist that does not accept the concensts of Darwinian evolution. He has his own hypothesis and is mad that everyone did not reject Darwin and accept his alternate.
Beyond that, it is all religion.

 

[Jose Fly]

A better rule of thumb, is that groupthink loyalty speaks louder than reason.

Echo chambers of homogeneous belief is no indication of truth. Science and Reason are better tools of inquiry than hordes of bobbleheads nodding in unison.

How about addressing the fundamental error you made regarding THIS PAPER, i.e., your mistaken assertion that they assumed common ancestry (when the reality is that they tested for it)?

 

[tas8831]

I suppose eventually they'll figure out abiogenesis. (Yes, I laughed.)

I suppose one day a creationist can explain how Yahweh made bio-organic molecules from silicates (dust of the ground) by speaking. (yes, I laughed).

 

[Jose Fly]

I've heard that, too.
When I do, I like to mention the creationist Baraminology group, and how they use the same types of data, same programs, etc.

That requires a level of objective, nuanced thinking....something I just don't think most internet creationists are capable of.

 

[Jim]

That's fine.

Now, how about we get back to the comments you made about the paper I posted where the researchers tested between separate ancestry and common ancestry? @usfan appears to have merely waved it away and exploited the crowd here to hide his dodge, so I'm hoping that you'll specify what in that paper caused you to denigrate their work.

I already did that.

 

[tas8831]

On the other hand, apes are still apes and not on their way in any shape or form to either becoming human or another type. Maybe with another eye, etc. You know for its betterment perhaps?...But of course, apes are not people. again -- <smile> Well, there's more. But that they are said to share about 98% of their DNA does not prove that humans evolved from -- apes.

You claimed to have been an honor student, right? (yes, I laughed)

 

[YoursTrue]

You claimed to have been an honor student, right? (yes, I laughed)

I'm glad you laughed, I like to see people laugh sometimes. I'm not reading all explanations (not that much time), but do you have a reason you laughed or is it just funny?

 

[Jim]

That's fine.

Now, how about we get back to the comments you made about the paper I posted where the researchers tested between separate ancestry and common ancestry? ... I'm hoping that you'll specify what in that paper caused you to denigrate their work.

The italicized words in this post.

 

[YoursTrue]

I suppose one day a creationist can explain how Yahweh made bio-organic molecules from silicates (dust of the ground) by speaking. (yes, I laughed).

So again -- whatever did come from the soil? (laugh again...)

 

[YoursTrue]

I am aware of a single non-creationist scientist that does not accept the concensts of Darwinian evolution. He has his own hypothesis and is mad that everyone did not reject Darwin and accept his alternate.
Beyond that, it is all religion.

I don't know about that, but to you it's apparently a fact.