Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Subduction Zone]

As one famous work said, and I paraphrase, some truths are self-evident. Why do you say that if a person denies evolution he is calling God a liar?
What I see is evidence of fossils.

Good question. Because all of the scientific evidence out there supports evolution and only evolution. The amount of evidence is so massive that they only explanation (if the creation myths of the Bible are true) is that God falsely created mountains of evidence to make it look as if life was the product of evolution. That would make God a liar.

And fossils, which you do not appear to understand, are only the beginning. The same evidence that allows us to do paternity tests and to determine if a man raped a woman also tells us that we are related to other apes. Unlike the Bible there is no picking and choosing in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Both are theories of science that rest on evidence and observations, in turn explaining those observations and evidence. Both are incomplete, but of the two, the theory of evolution is the much more supported theory. If you were to base your conclusions on the facts, they are both in the supported by the evidence category.

Actually red exists only as light and is an interpretation of the information of those light waves received by our eyes. Objects that appear red are those that reflect light of wavelengths in the 650 to 700 nm range.

And so red exists, especially to the human eye. Fantastic, isn't it?
You say evolution is much more supported in fact than gravity?
Again -- whether you believe that evolution is more supported in fact than gravity, I'll just say that planes don't fly if they don't have proper engineering and fuel. I have a feeling someone will say, "it's possible there are planes that have not been made by men," and they've seen aliens at government stations. At this point, it might be time to say, 'hasta la vista,' and have a good night.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would have to agree with that. If it makes sense to you that life, and by that I mean life-forms such as plants and animals came about by macro or micro changes, then I will have to say that I don't think gravity and evolution are in the same category of reason by evidence. Yes, I believe gravity exists. Just as I believe the color red exists, too. I also believe when I see a painting that someone painted it.

On what basis have you come to the very high level of certainty that Paris was designed and constructed by people? Did you think I have forgotten that you have avoided this question? It is a very important question.

 

[YoursTrue]

It makes sense that living things evolve, because that is what the evidence tells us.

While I think it will be difficult for you to find an example of a human construct that anyone on here would disagree as being made by humans.

However, I have seen many paintings that were not done by people. Those paintings had designers that were not human. But they were contrived by very familiar means and in association with humans.

I'm glad you admit at least that. Soon you'll tell me that objects are not always painted on canvas. There's evidence of that, too. hasta la vista, thanks again for conversation, much appreciated.

 

[YoursTrue]

On what basis have you come to the very high level of certainty that Paris was designed and constructed by people? Did you think I have forgotten that you have avoided this question? It is a very important question.

Yes, ROFL. If you think that's a possibility, even in theory, again -- all I can say is -- thanks for conversation. Have a good night.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And so red exists, especially to the human eye. Fantastic, isn't it?
You say evolution is much more supported in fact than gravity?
Again -- whether you believe that evolution is more supported in fact than gravity, I'll just say that planes don't fly if they don't have proper engineering and fuel. I have a feeling someone will say, "it's possible there are planes that have not been made by men," and they've seen aliens at government stations. At this point, it might be time to say, 'hasta la vista,' and have a good night.

It is not a question of belief. It is a fact. Do you have evidence that the theory of gravity has more support? I am willing to look at that. I keep an open mind to the possibility of being wrong.

You are talking about an technology that can be applied without understanding complete understanding of the theoretical basis of all or part of why it is able to fly. There is more to plane flight than resisting the pull of gravity.

We have used aspirin for over 125 years and we still do not know the mechanism of how it works. Having an application does not mean we have a full understanding of the theory behind an application.

So how about your assurances of the origin of Paris. Any news or movement on that question?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, ROFL. If you think that's a possibility, even in theory, again -- all I can say is -- thanks for conversation. Have a good night.

You said it with such gusto, I am having difficulty understanding your avoidance at getting into the details. It is a pretty simple question. Who knows. I have some ideas on why a person would think that people designed and built Paris. Maybe if you share, we will find we are on common ground.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm glad you admit at least that. Soon you'll tell me that objects are not always painted on canvas. There's evidence of that, too. hasta la vista, thanks again for conversation, much appreciated.

What is to admit? It is not a state secret. Anybody with Google access could find the information. Personally, I love cousin Bessie's composition of the Blue Bananas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good question. Because all of the scientific evidence out there supports evolution and only evolution. The amount of evidence is so massive that they only explanation (if the creation myths of the Bible are true) is that God falsely created mountains of evidence to make it look as if life was the product of evolution. That would make God a liar.

And fossils, which you do not appear to understand, are only the beginning. The same evidence that allows us to do paternity tests and to determine if a man raped a woman also tells us that we are related to other apes. Unlike the Bible there is no picking and choosing in science.

It may not be the first time a creationist has actually responded to this, but it is the first time I have seen one do it that I can recall.

I hope he understands the logic behind it and the evidence that supports it. He seems reluctant to give up, but I get the impression that he is repressing things in order to maintain his belief. If he would just release himself from certain un-required and self-imposed views, he would find he can believe as he chooses and still accept this science.

 

[Jim]

So is it a theory, in your opinion, or is evolution true beyond doubt? And by that, I also mean, is it beyond doubt in your mind that people built Paris or might it have come about through aliens from outer space? Since you haven't seen it being built, would you say then, in your sense of reason, that it might have come about by chance, or without human hands?
Or is it, you say, only some of it true? Soil contains many of the elements also in the human body, in fact, that are necessary for humans to exist and be healthy, does that prove to you that man evolved from apes?

I don’t think think of models or theories as being true or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rabbits are sneaky and not to be trusted.

How was Mars anyway? I hear it can get a bit chilly there.

Rabbits are sneaky. Don't let us date your daughters. In the old days, I had family members dying all over the place because of those daughters.

It was pretty cool in several contexts. Fortunately, I have a fur coat for just such occasions.

I ran into Matt Damon up there. Had to rescue him again. I thought he was going to start pouring water out all over his body, but I remembered that was an entirely different show.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So is it a theory, in your opinion, or is evolution true beyond doubt? And by that, I also mean, is it beyond doubt in your mind that people built Paris or might it have come about through aliens from outer space? Since you haven't seen it being built, would you say then, in your sense of reason, that it might have come about by chance, or without human hands?
Or is it, you say, only some of it true? Soil contains many of the elements also in the human body, in fact, that are necessary for humans to exist and be healthy, does that prove to you that man evolved from apes?

My questions about the design and construction of Paris regards your claim that you are so certain that it was people that built it. Why and how do you know that people built Paris? I agree with you, and provided some fantastical alternatives that can be shoved aside for some reason. It is that reason that I am interested in. Why would those alternatives I mentioned be considered fantastic and without merit to the origins of Paris? What is your basis for concluding that?

Why would the elemental composition of soil be used as evidence that man and apes have a common ancestry?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t think think of models or theories as being true or not.

I think I may agree with you to some extent. The are not immutable. The have utility. They are subject to falsification. They may be as close as we can come to a truth, but that is always contingent.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not a question of belief. It is a fact. Do you have evidence that the theory of gravity has more support? I am willing to look at that. I keep an open mind to the possibility of being wrong.

You are talking about an technology that can be applied without understanding complete understanding of the theoretical basis of all or part of why it is able to fly. There is more to plane flight than resisting the pull of gravity.

We have used aspirin for over 125 years and we still do not know the mechanism of how it works. Having an application does not mean we have a full understanding of the theory behind an application.

So how about your assurances of the origin of Paris. Any news or movement on that question?

What are the applications of evolution, such as you bring out about aspirin? And because you keep entertaining that question about Paris, do you really believe that Paris could have been designed and built by non-humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

My questions about the design and construction of Paris regards your claim that you are so certain that it was people that built it. Why and how do you know that people built Paris? I agree with you, and provided some fantastical alternatives that can be shoved aside for some reason. It is that reason that I am interested in. Why would those alternatives I mentioned be considered fantastic and without merit to the origins of Paris? What is your basis for concluding that?

Why would the elemental composition of soil be used as evidence that man and apes have a common ancestry?

I didn't say that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of soil. If that's the impression you got, sorry. That humans and soil have common elements does NOT mean that humans evolved from the soil, does it? Of course, when we die we go back to dust which could constitute particles in soil. And because humans and other life-forms, such as apes, have some similar elements also does not mean that humans evolved from the category of apes, after some supposed in-between changes. OK. Done, and have another very good night.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What are the applications of evolution, such as you bring out about aspirin?

Subduction Zone pointed out a very topical one in the rotation of flu vaccine elements to keep up with changes in viral strain. Another application would be in the study of and management of resistance in both pathogenic bacteria and in plant pests.

More recently, manufacturers have instituted systems that rely on the principles of evolution and selection to optimize designs for products. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that a recently designed windmill was the results of one of these applications.

However, application is not criteria of validation for a theory and having no application for a theory would not falsify it.

And because you keep entertaining that question about Paris, do you really believe that Paris could have been designed and built by non-humans?

I do not and never have. I believe it was designed and built by humans. I have reasons for this. But the questions that I asked you still remain unanswered. Why do you feel, with such assurance, that it was designed and built by people? What is your basis for holding this view?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't say that humans and apes have a common ancestry because of soil. If that's the impression you got, sorry. That humans and soil have common elements does NOT mean that humans evolved from the soil, does it? Of course, when we die we go back to dust which could constitute particles in soil. And because humans and other life-forms, such as apes, have some similar elements also does not mean that humans evolved from the category of apes, after some supposed in-between changes. OK. Done, and have another very good night.

Unfortunately, the sharing of common elements is too ubiquitous to have explanatory value at the level of evolutionary biology. While it may not be of much use in evolution, it could have some value in the origin of life, though it is more likely that life formed in an aqueous environment. Of course, the soil has a water component. But I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that the origin of life was in soil. Fluid environments would be more conducive to chemical reactions. Though, fluid films on the surface of soil aggregates can host life. Perhaps that is something that has already been explored and rejected. I have not read anything to that effect, but I have not kept up with abiogenesis as fully as I have with findings in evolution.

Have a good evening?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

View attachment 32150

If you look carefully, that drawing still has a common root. Meaning, it still talks about a single population of ancestral life from which all the rest evolved.
It seems to me that (after a quick scan of the articles), they are saying that LUCA (the last common ancestor of all extant life) represents just a single branch of that pre-LUCA time.

So you have a population/community of "first life".
Evolution sets in.
That population branches out into a bunch of different species lines.
Then there is HGT taking place between those different lines.
Then all lines but one go extinct.
The one that does not go extinct, is what we refer to as LUCA - which is packed with genes acquired through HGT. This line goes on to branch out and evolve into all extant life we observe to day (and for which we find fossils in the ground).

Is it possible that that "first" population was really several distinct population, each the result of a distinct abiogenesis event?

I guess it could be. The evidence does not seem to suggest it though.

Now, I don't know enough about the subject, so I'm not sure in how far this will make sense... But it seems to me that having different distinct abiogenesis events also raises questions concerning "genetic compatability" between these different populations. For HGT to take place, it would mean that these populations independently from one another would come up with the "same" solutions. As in, both would have to, distinctly from one another, evolve things like DNA.

That seems rather unlikely to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fine details? You think that figuring how something goes from non-life to life is a "fine detail"????? I can tell you this -- assuredly, although neither you nor I were there when the foundation for Paris was laid, it was planned and laid by human beings. No fantastic deduction there. Similarly, although I might not know the name of the builder of a house I pass by, but again -- most assuredly we can reason, and understand that it didn't just come about by itself.

Damning the analogy, is a logical fallacy.

The only reason you "know and understand" that whoever it was, it was a human who build some house, is because you know what houses are and know that humans build them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you explain what you mean when you said that you believe in evolution in a "way." What way is that? I could guess, but I'd really prefer for you to explain what you mean when you said that.
Since Dr. Szostak reportedly said, "The key thing," Szostak says, "is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene." Now if I believed in evolution and wanted to get down to the bottom of non-living matter emerging fantastically to "life," I'd sure want to see if I could figure it out. It sure a "key thing."
Research Spotlight: Jack Szostak

A "key thing" in context of unravelling how life originates.
Which is not a "key thing" in context of how already existing life evolves.