Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[ImmortalFlame]

View attachment 32150

You realize that that graph doesn't literally show several origins, right? The lines are emerging from the same ancestral pool.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What evidence? That dinosaurs became birds? Or that humans evolved from apes? Where's the evidence that this is so? Fossils that show similarities of sorts?

The fossil as well as the genetic record.

It is impossible to come up with a definition of "dinosaur" which includes ALL dinosaurs, but excludes birds without arbitrarily adding "....but not birds".
If you build a definition that encompasses ALL dinosaurs - birds fit that definition.

The same goes for humans and primates. It's impossible to come up with a definition of "primate" that includes all primates, yet excludes humans without arbitrarily adding "...but not humans".

Just like it is impossible to define "mammal" to include all mammals but excluding humans. Or cats. Or dogs. Or whales.


All the evidence, come from multiple independent lines of inquiry - even completely different scientific fields, ALL converge on the exact same answer: evolution and common ancestry of species.



When multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same answer, with no evidence contradicting it, it is rationally impossible to deny it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe there could have been one gene as the beginning of life, emerging from non-life, as Dr. Szostak says, from a chemical matter to a biological one? It had to start somewhere, didn't it?
You say creationist evolutionists have ideas that get a little fuzzy. You don't think evolutionists' ideas get a little fuzzy? Allow me to say that I have enjoyed these conversations and looking into what highly educated evolutionists say about the subject.

I "believe" that at one point in time there was no life on this planet, and then there was.
So one way or the other, life emerged.

I expect it to have been a natural process, even for the sole reason that there is no reason to expect otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The amazing part is that no one has seen the emergence of a dinosaur into a bird.

If someone would observe a dino species evolving into birds, which btw IS a dino species, (thus necessarily within a single human life time), then evolution theory as presently understood, would be falsified.


Such speciation takes millions of years. There is zero expectation to observe such a process in real time within a human life time. All of human history isn't even NEARLY enough time for such things to unfold.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's funny, because there is more, and more comprehensive AND more conclusive, evidence for the explanation of how plants and animals evolved from a common ancestor, then there is for the explanation of gravity.

It's funny, and sad, how creationists usually never realise that evolution theory is actually one of the strongest, most established, best evidenced theories in all of science....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So is it a theory, in your opinion, or is evolution true beyond doubt?

Evolution is a fact. Speciation happens. Species change over time.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of said fact. It explains the process by which the fact of evolution occurs.


Likewise, gravity is a fact.
Gravitation theory (Einstein's relativity) is an explanation of the fact of gravity.




psss: common ancestry of species...... a genetic fact, explained by the theory of evolution (which details the mechanism of the process by which the fact of evolution occurs....)

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?

Before I answer, I want you to list me 5 differences between biological living entities and buildings.

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?

Random irrelevant question is random and irrelevant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I appreciate your insistence that because no living person was there to see the building of Paris means that it might not have been built by people. Thanks again.

That's not at all what he is saying.
He's asking you how you KNOW it was build by people, eventhough you weren't present (or anyone else alive today, for that matter).

I'm fairly sure that he too accepts the city was build by people.

He's just asking YOU how you know.
Please answer the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Could it be that you refuse to answer his question because you realise that your answer would completely destroy your "argument" and/or analogy?

 

[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’ll just try to explain some of my thoughts about evolution and creation. I think that God can do whatever he wants to. He can make living cells appear out of nowhere if He wants to, or He can design things to happen in a way that could be modeled in terms of current theories of chemistry and physics. Another possibility I see is that the transition from non living materials to living organisms, and from one species to another, involves some forces and processes that haven’t been modeled and measured yet. There are no limits in my mind on what can happen or could have happened.

To be continued ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I think that @YoursTrue may have been convinced by the poor argument of "a creation implies a creator". That, or course, is just an attempt to sneak God in the back door by declaring what we see a "creation". He refuses to grasp that we know cities and buildings are made by an intelligence since we can observe that daily and that this is in reality an argumentfor evolution. Evolution is based upon what we can directly observe and that is increased variety in a species and then eventual speciation when two populations are separated. We do not observe creations of new kinds of life. We see new species arising from existing ones.

To repeat that which has been said before, there is no "change of kind" in evolution . That is a creationist strawman. That is why the statement "evolved from apes" is inaccurate and misleading. We still are apes. A fact that even the creationist Carolus Linnaeus recognized.

 

[Polymath257]

The only possibilities that I was thinking of, for the number of common ancestors for all life, were zero, one, and more than one.

That depends on exactly what you mean by a common ancestor. For example, if there were several lines at one time and they either merged or only one survived, then there would still be a common ancestor.

 

[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 of theories as being true or not. I think of them as ways of thinking that can facilitate research and development of technologies. Different theories might be better for different purposes, but there also needs to be a common framework for communicating information and ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

What evidence? That dinosaurs became birds? Or that humans evolved from apes? Where's the evidence that this is so? Fossils that show similarities of sorts?

Not just similar fossils, but fossils with ages that, when put together in order, show a progression.

If you were actually interested in these questions, you would have the evidence already because it is commonly available.

 

[tas8831]

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?

Hey dude - I don't think you answered this (asked about 10 pages ago):

Ancient tales claim Yahweh made a man from the "dust of the ground" on Day 6, plants having been created on day 3 (the first living things). 3 previous days is insufficient for things to have died, decayed and rendered their forms to the soil, especially since some creationist claim there was no death until later. Since much 'dust of the ground' is these decay products (organic compounds), it stands to reason that Adam was made from the other primary constituent of 'dust' - silicates.

So what are the experiments demonstrating that a deity can transform silicates into thousands of bio-organic molecules via speaking?​

 

[tas8831]

Do you believe there could have been one gene as the beginning of life, emerging from non-life, as Dr. Szostak says, from a chemical matter to a biological one? It had to start somewhere, didn't it?
You say creationist evolutionists have ideas that get a little fuzzy. You don't think evolutionists' ideas get a little fuzzy? Allow me to say that I have enjoyed these conversations and looking into what highly educated evolutionists say about the subject.

Here is a link to his research pages:

Szostak Lab: Research

Szostak Lab: Research

Szostak Lab: Research

Take a gander and show us examples of his work that favor ID or creation or whatever, and be sure to explain how it supports your position.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.
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?

Simple reasoning. If you can't figure that out with certainty, all I have to say is so long for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hey dude - I don't think you answered this (asked about 10 pages ago):

Ancient tales claim Yahweh made a man from the "dust of the ground" on Day 6, plants having been created on day 3 (the first living things). 3 previous days is insufficient for things to have died, decayed and rendered their forms to the soil, especially since some creationist claim there was no death until later. Since much 'dust of the ground' is these decay products (organic compounds), it stands to reason that Adam was made from the other primary constituent of 'dust' - silicates.

So what are the experiments demonstrating that a deity can transform silicates into thousands of bio-organic molecules via speaking?​

I never said that each day was 24 hours as we know time now. Obviously each day cited is a period of time, not 24 hours each.

 

[YoursTrue]

Here is a link to his research pages:

Szostak Lab: Research

Szostak Lab: Research

Szostak Lab: Research

Take a gander and show us examples of his work that favor ID or creation or whatever, and be sure to explain how it supports your position.

I didn't say I think he believes in a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple reasoning. If you can't figure that out with certainty, all I have to say is so long for now.

This is a rather specious argument. Ideas can be shown to be wrong in science. Getting the exact answer can be very hard. We know that the creation story is a myth. Perhaps you should try to understand how we know that. And all scientific evidence points to evolution. You would not jump off of a cliff just because not all questions about gravity have been answered. You should try to be consistent in your approach to the sciences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Simple reasoning. If you can't figure that out with certainty, all I have to say is so long for now.

Why do you keep dodging this? You were gungho about being assured it was designed and built by people.

If you believe Paris was designed and built by people, then what is it that makes you think that?