Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[ImmortalFlame]

An old 'proof!' of common descent was Neanderthal.. everybody 'knows!' that they prove the little progression that were shown us from infancy.

Many people still believe, falsely, that they were a 'subspecies!' of man, or a missing link..

for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language.

Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only "human" but also, it turns out, more 'modern' than scientists previously allowed. "In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will," says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. "They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought." Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals "were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished." source

Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.
Rethinking Neanderthals | Science | Smithsonian

Since drawing about 60% of neanderthal dna, a lot has been discovered about them.
They interbred with homo sapien. ~ 2 Billion people have neanderthal genes in them.. mostly european & asian. What does this tell us?
1. They were the same species. Separate species cannot interbreed.
2. They were merely a 'tribe' of humans that had unique physical features.. like many tribes today.
3. Their genetic 'line' can be traced. They did not evolve separately, nor were they a distinct hominid species. They just 'looked different' than whatever some arbitrary 'normal' 'homo sapiens' looked like. They were, in fact, just another tribe of human beings.

This was a problem for those in the evolution field.
"We were suspicious of the result," Reich says. "We found signals of mixture and then worked very hard to make them go away."
He tried for a year, to no avail. Finally, Reich and his colleagues had no choice but to conclude that Neanderthals had mated with humans. They estimated that the DNA of living Asians and Europeans was (on average) 2.5 percent Neanderthal. source

We are spoon fed these kinds of images from infancy..

They are the result of a creative mind, but not anything that can be called science. Evolutionists are so desperate to validate their 'theory' that they easily fall victim to any scammer or self seeking con man looking to make a name for himself. Instead of trying to force the data into the theory, why not try something novel? Use the scientific method. Let the data speak for itself, rather than distorting it into religious propaganda.

You do realize that everything you've written here lends absolutely no credibility to the conclusion you've formulated, right?

1) Neadnerthals were not, and are not, the only possible posited human ancestors. We have the transitional forms of hundreds of human ancestors whose ancestry to us is actually confirmed.
2) Neadnerthals position in human evolution, and whether they were a direct ancestor, or a separate species, or a sub-species of human was always debated.

So, what does this argument actually demonstrate? That neanderthals were more likely a sub-species who evolved out of common ancestry with humans, rather than humans evolving from them. Why do you think this is a problem for evolutionary theory?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

- e.coli have evolved to a different species, and created new traits

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anybody say it became a new species.
Not saying it didn't, frankly I don't know / remember. Just saying, didn't see anyone make that claim.

Perhaps this could be presented in a logical way, with the evidence used to support the belief in common descent. But since it is only asserted as a vague proof text, i can only dismiss it with my own assertion:

- e.coli are the same species, that have adapted to digest citrates
This is only evidence of micro, which is not in question. It does not indicate a change in the genomic architecture. It is not macro evolution.

You asked for evidence of the evolution of new traits that weren't present in ancestors.

I gave you the example of e-coli, which -under controlled conditions, so it's traceable- evolved the trait of being able to digest citrate. And the mutations that opened op this metabolic pathway have been identified as well. This trait was not present in the ancestral populations, nore did the other (genetically isolated) populations evolve this trait.

So, this is exactly an example of what you asked for.

Will you acknowledge it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look, i know that the typical, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war carries over in almost every thread..

"atheist vs christians"?

Are you not aware that a lot of evolutionary biologists are theists, christians in particular?
Did you notice the 4-minute video I posted with an excerpt of a lecture by Ken Miller where he explains how the human fused chromosome is evidence of common ancestry with the other great apes? Evolutionary biologist and devout catholic. Wrote a book called "Finding Darwin's God".

What are you talking about with your "atheism vs christians"?

even an allegedly SCIENTIFIC examination of evidence.

I haven't seen you examine any of the evidence that has been presented to you.

You bushed of all my posts, and many others, by (incorrectly) claiming ad hominims.
You brushed of Tas's post with reference to 6 science papers as "too long".

I didn't see you actually address the evidence presented.

But i request that such polemy be left at the door, and a rational, scientific examination of the actual evidence can take place. This is not about atheists and/or Christians.

Then stop making it about that. In none of the posts I wrote, or the posts by subduction zone, tas, or the others, have I seen anyone use his / her "atheism" as an argument in any way.

In fact, many of those posting evidence you asked for, were actually theists.

So really, I have no clue what you are on about. Instead, it seems yet another excuse to not having to deal with the actual evidence presented.

Snarky inclusions will make me skip over everything else. Post EVIDENCE, not religious bigotry, and we can talk about it.

Please point out example posts from this thread where people are posting "religious bigotry" instead of the evidence you asked for.

I'm bored to tears with the phony flame wars, and prefer to discuss the science here.

Then do so. I presented you with phylogenetic trees, an explanation of how micro inevitably turns macro, with practical examples of new traits evolving, ... You have yet to properly address them with anything more then denial and handwaving.

Or adress the science papers tas posted.

Take your pick. There's enough posts in this thread to choose from.
I don't even want you to reply to this post. I agree, let's discuss just the science.

So focus on the science. Go back into the thread and actually properly address the points raised.

Perhaps another thread can be started to fire up the rousing polemy about religious beliefs.

Again, it seems to me that you are the one who's bringing this up.
I was fine just discussing evolution and the evidence for common ancestry.

But you insist on making it personal and then like to complain about it....

So yeah.... not really sure what to do now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

..just a few of the objective, scientific based replies, from some of the True Believers.

They overwhelm me, in this thread, and while i usually return a few quips, which is the norm for forum debates, i haven't here as much, because it detracts from the topic..

And, of course, because I'm a little uncomfortable with all this homoerotic attention. Sure, I'll banter a bit, swap snippy remarks, and trade barbs, but once it starts getting hot & heavy, the obsession with me, personally, becomes awkward. I don't really swing that way.

Maybe i seem masochistic, for enduring the hate streams of ad hom and ridicule, but really, I'm just amused a bit, and fairly patient. I am not really wanting to be the object of homoerotic fantasies. I had hoped for a scientific discussion about common descent..

My observations and conclusions are valid. Look at all the questions I have asked that you have ignored. You had plenty of time to make this lengthy and distorted opinion, but not one minute to answer a single question from me or address the many points and questions of others.

The time you wasted on this post and the lack of response to anything else confirms the observations and conclusions you misrepresent here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Most of the problems with the belief in common descent are due to a faulty understanding of genetics. I mentioned that earlier, & gave a short clarification, but obviously more is needed.

We do not, even now understand all the nuances and hows and whys in genetics.. it is a new science, with clarifications happening all the time.

I think an understanding of some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change.

For example: equidae

We have evidence that the equid line has changed chromosome numbers. It is theorized that at some point, a chromosome pair detached at the centromere, & reattached at a telomere, presumably at the fertilized egg level. We have mtDNA to indicate actual descendancy, but the chromosome pairs are different. But, under further examination, the structure of the chromosome 'arms' are the same, just rearranged at the centromere/telomere level.

This is not absolutely proven fact, but is merely a theory for HOW the equid line changed at the chromosomal level. it does fit with the more empirical evidence of mtDNA descendancy, however, so it is a pretty good theory. But, we do not see the same thing with canids.. some, but not as much. Nor do we see it with hominids, especially humans. So a particular trait from one genotype does not mean it can be universally applied to ALL genotypes. Each genomic structure is different, with different rules governing their propagation.

Also, as i noted in the earlier post, the number of chromosomes is not an indicator of ancestry.

Here are some chromosome pairs numbers from wiki:
Fennec fox Animals Vulpes zerda 64
Horse Animals Equus ferus caballus 64
Spotted skunk Animals Spilogale x 64
Mule Animals 63 semi-infertile
Donkey Animals Equus africanus asinus 62

We have mtDNA evidence that asinus & caballus are related. But there is nothing to indicate any genetic relationship with the fox or skunk. So the mere number of chromosomes is not a significant indicator, but the GENETIC structure in it, is. Both the asinus & caballus are from the same root haplogroup.. they are descended from the same ancestor. Their genetic STRUCTURE is the same. the fox & skunk are not. They are a different genotype, from a different haplogroup.

So it is not the number of chromosomes, but their structure, that is the indicator of ancestry.

Does that help any?

Within this word salad, the take home message I got is that foxes and skunks are not mammals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An old 'proof!' of common descent was Neanderthal.. everybody 'knows!' that they prove the little progression that were shown us from infancy.

Many people still believe, falsely, that they were a 'subspecies!' of man, or a missing link..

for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language.

Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only "human" but also, it turns out, more 'modern' than scientists previously allowed. "In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will," says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. "They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought." Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals "were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished." source

Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.
Rethinking Neanderthals | Science | Smithsonian

Since drawing about 60% of neanderthal dna, a lot has been discovered about them.
They interbred with homo sapien. ~ 2 Billion people have neanderthal genes in them.. mostly european & asian. What does this tell us?
1. They were the same species. Separate species cannot interbreed.
2. They were merely a 'tribe' of humans that had unique physical features.. like many tribes today.
3. Their genetic 'line' can be traced. They did not evolve separately, nor were they a distinct hominid species. They just 'looked different' than whatever some arbitrary 'normal' 'homo sapiens' looked like. They were, in fact, just another tribe of human beings.

This was a problem for those in the evolution field.
"We were suspicious of the result," Reich says. "We found signals of mixture and then worked very hard to make them go away."
He tried for a year, to no avail. Finally, Reich and his colleagues had no choice but to conclude that Neanderthals had mated with humans. They estimated that the DNA of living Asians and Europeans was (on average) 2.5 percent Neanderthal. source

We are spoon fed these kinds of images from infancy..

They are the result of a creative mind, but not anything that can be called science. Evolutionists are so desperate to validate their 'theory' that they easily fall victim to any scammer or self seeking con man looking to make a name for himself. Instead of trying to force the data into the theory, why not try something novel? Use the scientific method. Let the data speak for itself, rather than distorting it into religious propaganda.

Aside from a lot of unsupported assertions here and the misunderstanding that science offers proofs, what are you saying? I see that Neandethals are still related to Homo sapiens and a hack job on the arguments of how they are related is not evidence refuting evolution or common descent.

The theory of evolution is valid. You have shown nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Project much?

He spends most of his time writing posts that have nothing to do with his premise for this thread and he seems to like repeating that phrase about "homerotic" attention.

He talks about how he expects to be put the through the wringer personally, as if to mention it offhand with the intention of trivializing such attention so he can get to the core of the thread. Then he goes on to obsess on what he misrepresents instead of the core of the thread. I am not sure which I find more amusing. That he does it or that he seems to think no one notices.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why talk about creationist fantasies? I thought you wanted evidence?

No. Just creationist fantasies from what the evidence of his posts indicate.

 

[Darkstorn]

Maybe i seem masochistic, for enduring the hate streams of ad hom and ridicule, but really, I'm just amused a bit, and fairly patient. I am not really wanting to be the object of homoerotic fantasies. I had hoped for a scientific discussion about common descent..

So.

Persecution complex? Check.

Homoerotic fixation? Check.

Not understanding logical fallacies(namely the ad hominem fallacy)? Check.

Attacking others and then proclaiming being attacked? This is actually getting super tiring at this point so definite check there. It would do well to remember, that people actually tried to discuss in the manner you set in the OP, and you did your damnest to avoid any of it. You didn't quote any of that in your rant here. Yet you imagine that's ALL we've done so far. It's extremely tiring talking to a person with zero ability at introspection:

To you scientific discussion about common descent seems to mean calling DNA evidence "belief" and handwaving every single thing people have given you.

So, TLDR: You are trying to project an image of amusement. But really, you're just suffering from this:

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

You're overplaying your position. Hard. Find me a person who agrees with you. Then maybe you'll have a point about detractors. To me it really looks like you're the detractor. And it's your own thread. What else would you expect to happen if you refuse to even talk about DNA properly?

 

[Darkstorn]

He devotes most of his posts here making personal attacks and obsessing on personal attacks. It does not leave much for anyone to respond to in terms of the OP. If you point out the flaws in what he is doing, he just misrepresents that and devotes even more time and posts to obsessing on it.

He's the boy who cried "ad hominem."

It has now lost all effect. Sad. Now when a real one comes, no one will believe him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Most of the problems with the belief in common descent are due to a faulty understanding of genetics. I mentioned that earlier, & gave a short clarification, but obviously more is needed.

We do not, even now understand all the nuances and hows and whys in genetics.. it is a new science, with clarifications happening all the time.

I think an understanding of some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change.

For example: equidae

We have evidence that the equid line has changed chromosome numbers. It is theorized that at some point, a chromosome pair detached at the centromere, & reattached at a telomere, presumably at the fertilized egg level. We have mtDNA to indicate actual descendancy, but the chromosome pairs are different. But, under further examination, the structure of the chromosome 'arms' are the same, just rearranged at the centromere/telomere level.

This is not absolutely proven fact, but is merely a theory for HOW the equid line changed at the chromosomal level. it does fit with the more empirical evidence of mtDNA descendancy, however, so it is a pretty good theory. But, we do not see the same thing with canids.. some, but not as much. Nor do we see it with hominids, especially humans. So a particular trait from one genotype does not mean it can be universally applied to ALL genotypes. Each genomic structure is different, with different rules governing their propagation.

Also, as i noted in the earlier post, the number of chromosomes is not an indicator of ancestry.

Here are some chromosome pairs numbers from wiki:
Fennec fox Animals Vulpes zerda 64
Horse Animals Equus ferus caballus 64
Spotted skunk Animals Spilogale x 64
Mule Animals 63 semi-infertile
Donkey Animals Equus africanus asinus 62

We have mtDNA evidence that asinus & caballus are related. But there is nothing to indicate any genetic relationship with the fox or skunk. So the mere number of chromosomes is not a significant indicator, but the GENETIC structure in it, is. Both the asinus & caballus are from the same root haplogroup.. they are descended from the same ancestor. Their genetic STRUCTURE is the same. the fox & skunk are not. They are a different genotype, from a different haplogroup.

So it is not the number of chromosomes, but their structure, that is the indicator of ancestry.

Does that help any?

Do all these different animals share the same fundamental biochemistry? Do they share a common genetic code?

Can you explain what you mean by genotype? Can you explain what you mean by haplogroup?

If all you say is true, what you have presented here tells us that the evidence for relationships between closely related organisms is more obvious than that of more distantly related organisms. It is not evidence against a common ancestry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He's the boy who cried "ad hominem."

It has now lost all effect. Sad. Now when a real one comes, no one will believe him.

I wondered if he did not just set this up to play out as it has, so that he can throw his hands up claiming a post full of personal attacks avoiding the premise of the thread. That does seem like the kind of show a creationist would put on in place of a valid discussion.

 

[Darkstorn]

I wondered if he did not just set this up to play out as it has, so that he can throw his hands up claiming a post full of personal attacks avoiding the premise of the thread. That does seem like the kind of show a creationist would put on in place of a valid discussion.

I figured that's what's happening. Which is why i'm not actually going to argue this based on the rules he set forth.

I'm doing it by MY rules. Which are quite free-form.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An old 'proof!' of common descent was Neanderthal.. everybody 'knows!' that they prove the little progression that were shown us from infancy.

There is no "proof" in science. Knowing the material as you claim, you should know that basic fact.

What are you referring to here? What is it you are claiming was "proof" using Neanderthal as evidence?

Many people still believe, falsely, that they were a 'subspecies!' of man, or a missing link..

The subspecies concept is not ruled out and from the looks of it, you do not really understand what subspecies means.

for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language.

Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only "human" but also, it turns out, more 'modern' than scientists previously allowed. "In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will," says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. "They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought." Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals "were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished." source

Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.
Rethinking Neanderthals | Science | Smithsonian

This is why science is tentative and evidence and conclusions are not offered as "proof". As new information comes in, hypotheses can be formulated, tested and theories and understanding can be changed with regard to the new information.

You sort of just refuted one of your own claims there.

Since drawing about 60% of neanderthal dna, a lot has been discovered about them.
They interbred with homo sapien. ~ 2 Billion people have neanderthal genes in them.. mostly european & asian. What does this tell us?
1. They were the same species. Separate species cannot interbreed.
2. They were merely a 'tribe' of humans that had unique physical features.. like many tribes today.
3. Their genetic 'line' can be traced. They did not evolve separately, nor were they a distinct hominid species. They just 'looked different' than whatever some arbitrary 'normal' 'homo sapiens' looked like. They were, in fact, just another tribe of human beings.

What is "drawing about 60% of Neanderthal DNA"?

Interbreeding between species would depend on how divergent those species are and other factors and is not the "drop dead" conclusion you want it to be. Mechanisms preventing interbreeding are chromosomal incompatibility, morphological incompatibility, behavioral incompatibility, geographic, ecological or chronological separation and so on. Some of these mechanisms are stronger and more efficient than others. That there are exceptions does not destroy a biological definition of species.

This was a problem for those in the evolution field.
"We were suspicious of the result," Reich says. "We found signals of mixture and then worked very hard to make them go away."
He tried for a year, to no avail. Finally, Reich and his colleagues had no choice but to conclude that Neanderthals had mated with humans. They estimated that the DNA of living Asians and Europeans was (on average) 2.5 percent Neanderthal. source

I believe these parings have been shown to be the result of male Neanderthal and female Homo sapiens predominantly. So an incomplete mechanism of separation.

You are making an argument about Neanderthal relationship to Homo sapiens. This is not an argument against common descent. If Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are the same species, common descent still stands, it just would not apply in the same way if Neanderthals were ancestral to us or if they branched off somewhere along the way.

We are spoon fed these kinds of images from infancy..

They are the result of a creative mind, but not anything that can be called science. Evolutionists are so desperate to validate their 'theory' that they easily fall victim to any scammer or self seeking con man looking to make a name for himself. Instead of trying to force the data into the theory, why not try something novel? Use the scientific method. Let the data speak for itself, rather than distorting it into religious propaganda.

So far, this is not evidence against common descent. It is an argument about the placement of Neanderthals in human evolution (not well articulated, but still). Then it is followed by a personal opinion that has zero value in establishing your position and is replete with erroneous notions and creationist misconceptions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Its tough on me, to try to sift through post after post of irrational religious hysteria, to find a 'point' to address.

Which is exactly the reason I offered to have a one-on-one discussion with you. Since you started this thread, I count at least 29 different "evolutionists" (including me) who've replied. It's simply not possible to have any sort of thorough discussion when 29 different people are all trying to get responses from one person.

But you seem to prefer the chaotic environment. That's hardly surprising, as other creationists before you have exploited it to their advantage and you appear to be no different. Oh well....a few years from now no one will even remember this thread existed and all your bluster will have been in vain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which is exactly the reason I offered to have a one-on-one discussion with you. Since you started this thread, I count at least 29 different "evolutionists" (including me) who've replied. It's simply not possible to have any sort of thorough discussion when 29 different people are all trying to get responses from one person.

But you seem to prefer the chaotic environment. That's hardly surprising, as other creationists before you have exploited it to their advantage and you appear to be no different. Oh well....a few years from now no one will even remember this thread existed and all your bluster will have been in vain.

Meaningful responses anyway. All the responses we did get were pretty much as expected.

 

[Jose Fly]

Meaningful responses anyway. All the responses we did get were pretty much as expected.

Of course. When the ratio in a thread is one creationist to 29 "evolutionists", the creationist can exploit that pretty easily. Because there's so much noise and so many different posts, the creationist can just pick the easier ones to reply to and ignore all the inconvenient ones. That way he never has to actually thoroughly and thoughtfully address anything. And whenever someone gripes "Hey, you just waved that data away" all he has to do is say "there's so many posts that I have to reply to, I just don't have time to get to everything".

That's why he refused my offer. If he accepted, his primary defense mechanism will be taken away.

That's okay though. I think back to a couple of decades ago when some of us "evolutionists" would dream about the day when this debate would be effectively over and what that would look like. Looking around this and other similar websites, I'd say this is what the end of the debate should look like.....one creationist to 30 "evolutionists".

 

[Bear Wild]

Its tough on me, to try to sift through post after post of irrational religious hysteria, to find a 'point' to address. This is one i have seen, now, a couple of times:

- e.coli have evolved to a different species, and created new traits

Perhaps this could be presented in a logical way, with the evidence used to support the belief in common descent. But since it is only asserted as a vague proof text, i can only dismiss it with my own assertion:

- e.coli are the same species, that have adapted to digest citrates
This is only evidence of micro, which is not in question. It does not indicate a change in the genomic architecture. It is not macro evolution.

Did you read the two articles available on the internet showing evidence and how the genetic code changes in E. coli. The total evidence will not be in a single article or research paper it requires an accumulation of information which is available yet the concept of conserved segments of genetic material throughout phyla of critical genes and highly variable phenotypic gene segments is clearly supportive of common descent.
DId you decide if you accept the concept of natural selection or not? You wanted it evidence one at a time. Start by just answering the simple question about natural selection then we can go further to common ancestry.

 

[Bear Wild]

Of course. When the ratio in a thread is one creationist to 29 "evolutionists", the creationist can exploit that pretty easily. Because there's so much noise and so many different posts, the creationist can just pick the easier ones to reply to and ignore all the inconvenient ones. That way he never has to actually thoroughly and thoughtfully address anything. And whenever someone gripes "Hey, you just waved that data away" all he has to do is say "there's so many posts that I have to reply to, I just don't have time to get to everything".

That's why he refused my offer. If he accepted, his primary defense mechanism will be taken away.

That's okay though. I think back to a couple of decades ago when some of us "evolutionists" would dream about the day when this debate would be effectively over and what that would look like. Looking around this and other similar websites, I'd say this is what the end of the debate should look like.....one creationist to 30 "evolutionists".

There may be even a pleasure derived from this type of argument by posting inaccurate evidence at random and not addressing specifics with repeated statements of what he says is true over and over. Donald Trump is a master at this avoidance technique. No matter what evidence there is Donald Trump avoids it by changing the subject or stating over and over something is not true in hopes that if he says it enough people will start to believe it is true even if it is not. He almost takes pleasure when multiple reporters ask relevant questions and he knows he does not have to answer them at all with statements like make America great again. My new favorite is "she isn't my type."

 

[usfan]

But you seem to prefer the chaotic environment. That's hardly surprising, as other creationists before you have exploited it to their advantage and you appear to be no different.

No, I'd prefer a rational, scientific based discussion, and call for that constantly. Ironic that you blame me for the hecklers..

Because there's so much noise and so many different posts, the creationist can just pick the easier ones to reply to and ignore all the inconvenient ones.

I ignore the hecklers, and those who cannot show a modicum of civility. I ignore NOTHING, relating to the topic, and have had to sift through vague, unsubstantiated assertions to find a point to address.

Did you read the two articles available on the internet showing evidence and how the genetic code changes in E. coli. The total evidence will not be in a single article or research paper

I am very familiar with the studies on e.coli. i have read the published studies, not just journalistic 'explanations!' that tell what 'it really means!'

I'm a pathetic science geek, who knows the lingo, can't be bluffed, and can see through any attempts at techno babble obfuscation.

the concept of conserved segments of genetic material throughout phyla of critical genes and highly variable phenotypic gene segments is clearly supportive of common descent.

Not really. All it shows is the ability for e.coli to ADAPT to a wide range of environmental variables. They did not change in their basic architecture. They are still bacteria.. E.COLI bacteria. They did not become insects, sprout wings, grow legs, or 'evolve!' into anything. It is a huge leap of faith, and willful, science denying dogmatism, to pretend that e.coli, adapting to digest citrates, 'proves universal common descent!'

Donald Trump is a master at this avoidance technique. No matter what evidence there is Donald Trump avoids it by changing the subject

Ah, so Trump is the new 'Hitler!'

Very funny evidence, for common descent..

I guess we have a new fallacy for the ETBs to use!

Reductio ad Trumpum, or
Argumentum ad Donaldium..

' Hitler!' ..... gets boring..
Good to mix those up a bit!