Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, well.. i never expected it to be easy.. though ignoring the worst hecklers has been a welcome respite from the verbal abuse.. looks like a couple of others intend to pick up the slack!

Maybe you should pick up some maturity

 

[Bear Wild]

I’m an enemy of faction science, but that doesn’t mean that any fields of study have no meaning for me. Are you saying that the idea of statistical studies as a way of proving or disproving common ancestry came originally from creation factions? That surprises me. Now I want to do some research on where that idea came from. The whole idea of similarities on any level as proof of common ancestry looks fallacious to me. I can understand the impulse to see it that way, but how many failures of that logic will it take for people to give it up?

No the idea of statistical research has always been a way of better understanding relationships in science. The authors comment is that they feel better statistical studies will help with the irrational arguments against the theory of evolution and that is all. They do their research to better understand the relationships between different forms of life and especially in reference to the common descent the rest was just an opinion expressed. These scientists are not self-seeking but are allowed to have opinion.

As for evidence (NOT PROOF) of common ancestry as being fallacious is very strange since we use genetic tests for genetic relatedness in humans all of the time. We also identify physical features to see how humans are related. Is that so fallacious? I would offer that the identical physical patterns in identical twins (not to mention what would be seen genetically) is good evidence for common descent for those children. I am not sure what your problem is with scientific evidence that shows the similarities between different organisms as being related thus common descent. Our entire classification system is based on this unless you object to that also.

 

[tas8831]

What's the saying? "Every accusation is a confession". We're seeing that in spades with @usfan and @Jim .

That sounds like the hysterical jihadist ranting of a progressive indoctrinee!
Now stop calling names and using ad homs!

 

[tas8831]

Here's how I see it. Any "lurkers" who might be persuaded by @usfan's posts are not the sort of people I'd want on our side anyways.

Good point...

 

[tas8831]

Here are some examples of misleading evidence that scientists believed for decades --The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades

Thanks for the new bit of support for evolution:

"But the evidence available after embryo neck slits were discovered in 1827 certainly made Mecklel’s theory appear persuasive. It was only when Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution took hold in the second half of the 19th century that it became totally clear that Meckel’s idea of a linear series of biological perfection was completely untenable."
​

This is a pretty desperate gambit - I've seen it many times. Something like 'science has been wrong before, therefore, we shouldn't trust it. But we SHOULD trust my preferred religion, because it is NEVER wrong by definition.'
It never works, but many keep trying it.

 

[tas8831]

It may be intriguing to try to figure out how things are (scientifically, of course) and analyze them, such as light rays, but I am convinced that mankind will never figure out God's way from the start to duplicate them.

Or, to put it another way, you will never know whether Yahweh is real or not, so you will side with Pascal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, well.. i never expected it to be easy.. though ignoring the worst hecklers has been a welcome respite from the verbal abuse.. looks like a couple of others intend to pick up the slack!

Since your bad behavior caused what you call heckling you are far from being a martyr.

 

[tas8831]

I am not denying science.

I am.

Huh...

So all those times you claimed otherwise were... what? Lies? Trolling?

 

[tas8831]

(I certainly don't trust everything the doctor tells me. Anyway.)

Studied medicine, have you?

 

[tas8831]

I’m denying all the claims that people make of knowing anything, in public debating, including everything that they think they know, that they call “science.” I’m saying the whole idea of believing things because they’re “scientific” or “evidence based” is wrong. I’m saying that in public debating, using “science” and “evidence” is as fallacious as using religious scriptures. That what I mean by saying that I’m denying science. I’m denying the validity of all arguments from “science” and “evidence,” in public debating.

What you are really saying is that because you cannot compete with such ideas, you just want to declare it all rubbish.

Got it.

 

[tas8831]

I'm betting this isn't the first time you've heard this in your life.....you are a very odd person.

You are far more charitable than I.

Having grown up in a situation in which it was in my best interests to be able to sort out trustworthy people from shysters quickly, I have developed a very keen nose for the 'odd' ones out there. And I had this one pegged after about the 3rd post of his I'd read (usfan took me but a single post). Your (and others') patience is inspirational.

 

[tas8831]

Can anyone tell me how to find research articles on topics where there is disagreement between researchers, that are not behind paywalls?

Google it, lazy bones.

 

[tas8831]

What I would expect to see, in a research environment uncorrupted by factional feuding, would be various lines of evolution research, some with a premise of common ancestry and some not, with all the researchers valuing that diversity, encouraging and supporting each other and learning from each other. I’m still not sure that it isn’t already happening, out of public view. It might only be a few who are using evolution theory as a battleground for factional feuding, and of course that would be all we would hear about in media stories and Internet flame wars.

Do you also expect their to be anti-B'hai people in your church or whatever it is called? You know - to keep you all honest?

Do you expect to see mathematical researchers, some of whom accept the Pythagorean theorem, some that don't, you know, to keep them honest?

Or do you employ factional standards to satisfy your ego?

 

[tas8831]

@ImmortalFlame I’m just describing my personal experiences, what I thought I saw, when I searched on the Internet for answers to my questions. You can just think that it was all in my imagination if you want to, or that I’m lying about what I thought I saw, or whatever you want to think. Maybe it really was all in my imagination.

Experience tells me lying, but then... could be imagination with you.

Either way, all we get are silly stories that you expect us all to believe.

Sorry.

 

[tas8831]

Tell us more, Dr. "Eve gene"!!!

 

[tas8831]

. All you've referred to is the abstract, with nothing at all posted about or from the body of the paper.


Again, given that everything you've said about it has been completely wrong, plus that you appear to have only read the abstract, your opinion is meaningless.

WHAT????

I admit that I did not read usfan's rambling gibberish about the paper, but I hadn't thought that even someone like him would have ONLY commented on an abstract, and thought that sufficient to declare it fraudulent.

Absolutely incredible. Such dishonesty and incompetence.... Can't understand why other creationists are telling this guy to put a lid on it to spare themselves some embarrassment.

 

[tas8831]

Personally, I see the main opposition on this thread acting mostly on the levels of narcissism and politics with religion playing a minor, supporting role. There is a delusional or near delusional grasp of the issues.

Indeed.

While there are narcissists on 'our side' (nobody on this forum - hey, I might be a jerk to charlatans but I am not a narcissist!), they at least have the benefit of understanding the things they boast about (I'm thinking Gould as an example of a professional - a bit of a narcissist, but a font of knowledge).

But the number of narcissistic creationists who quite literally know next to nothing about science who proclaim their every utterance a grand scientific statement is shocking. I'd estimate about 1 in 20 internet creationists are of this type. Clueless yet totally confident of their 'rightness.' Weird.

 

[YoursTrue]

That entire list is constructed on an ethical house of cards. The idea that they are supporting is being skeptical of the theory of evolution. They are not casting it out. Scientists are trained to be skeptical. To question and test. Some of the signers were mislead about what they were signing. There is a paucity of biologists on that list. Being skeptical does not mean that they think the theory is garbage and being a Darwin-doubter in this day and age is a little silly, since the theory has been revised since his time and much evidence has been added by so many others.

I can't speak for the "ethical house of cards" you speak of. I do know, however, that some scientists cannot justify the proposition of irreducible components, or complexity with the concept (theory) of evolution. So maybe, in your idea, one day these scientists will figure how it is that something that cannot be reduced can be reduced to -- ??? (Can't say nothing, that wouldn't be right, would it?)

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you considered the difference between believing and accepting? Believing is without evidence and accepting is based on the evidence. Both of these occur. Sometimes in the same person.

I was reading something about linguistics in relation to John 1:1. And while it is believed the English is translated from the Greek (logos) usually into the word 'word,' there is much more to it, also stemming from the philosophical discussions of Plato and others. So some of realization comes with enhanced understanding, and others take it on face value in translation without delving. That is in reference to your statement that believing is without evidence and accepting is based on evidence. Meanwhile, I'll go back to irreducible complexity of elements. There is a supposition that they are irreducibly complex, if I remember correctly. Is there proof yet that there is irreducible complexity in some items, elements, substances, whatever. And somehow -- I'm not sure yet -- what about nothing? Is there nothing? What have you or the majority of scientists accepted about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't speak for the "ethical house of cards" you speak of. I do know, however, that some scientists cannot justify the proposition of irreducible components, or complexity with the concept (theory) of evolution. So maybe, in your idea, one day these scientists will figure how it is that something that cannot be reduced can be reduced to -- ??? (Can't say nothing, that wouldn't be right, would it?)

Yes, the claim of irreducible complexity was refuted almost immediately. But that was a creationist concept. Why even bring it up?