Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

At this point - actually, about 40 pages ago - there is really no point at all for ANYONE to engage him. He is simply reiterating his "facts" that he first posted about 50 pages ago - every single one of which has been refuted, debunked, demolished; that he was given evidence for, explanations for, links to additional information on; etc.

It is very very clear that he is NOT here to debate or discuss, much less to learn - he is here to browbeat and 'martyr'

Following with my emphasis.


You are not alone in your incredulity. I don't know of any scientist who has asserted what you stated.

If that is your understanding of the process of abiogenesis, then it's not surprising that you are in disbelief.







If that is your understanding of the process of evolution, then it's not surprising that you are in disbelief.



So, are you intentionally positing strawmen or are you truly lacking in knowledge?

himself. But I don't think lying and refusing to humbly admit that you are wrong about things is what we should see in a martyr, even a metaphorical one.

I am only learning what some scientists say might have happened. So I learned the "abiogenesis" idea from Dr. Szostak, who speculated that a unicellular organism with a shape, I suppose, popped up from a chemical and not biological basis (in the water of sorts). And, of course, you can't have evolution without abiogenesis, can you?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Why?

One reason is that some scientists speculate that in a far-away place in the universe, life could have evolved even better than it is here. Now I wonder what he thinks would be better. It's nice to examine sometimes what people think about things, don't you think so?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, I'll answer that as best I can, given the context of the differences of opinion on the subject as to how "life" as we know it on this earth came about. Before I do, however, I'd like to ask one more question of you -- have scientists found any life as they understand life on any other planet so far? I'm not asking if they found water, or minerals, etc., because I believe they have. But what about life? Have they found life as said to have evolved on this earth anywhere else in the universe yet?

No. Why?

So this earth then, so far as scientists have seen/discerned, is the only 'life' they have found. Isn't that true?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, because we currently have no technology to observe life on other planets.

None of our telescopes - be they be optical or radio - can observe any organism on planets outside of solar system, at surface level.

None of spacecraft - manned or unmanned - have reach orbits other star systems.

Only a few manned exploration reached the moon and set foot on the surface, hence the Apollo missions. Only the two Voyager vessels explore gas giants and ice giants, and gone further than other space missions (41 years now) and yet has not traveled even 1 light year.

Voyager 1 has traveled 146 AU (0.00146 ly), while Voyager 2 traveled 120 AU (0.00120 ly). At this rate of travel, it will not reach the nearest star - Proxima Centauri - anywhere between 175 and 200 years from now; this is hypothetical because neither vessels are pointed to Proxima Centauri. Proxima Centauri is 4.244 light years away, and Voyagers have barely reached 0.001 light year.

The only way to actually observe life on other habitable planets is land on one of these, and clearly we have no vessels capable of doing so.

Until then, we don’t know if there are life on other planets. Our technology is limited and in their infancy.

So what’s your point?

That the only greenery, fish, and animals seems to be recognized on the earth.

 

[Polymath257]

So this earth then, so far as scientists have seen/discerned, is the only 'life' they have found. Isn't that true?

Yes. But this is like an ant poking its head outside of its tunnel and declaring no other ant piles have been seen.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, I'll answer that as best I can, given the context of the differences of opinion on the subject as to how "life" as we know it on this earth came about. Before I do, however, I'd like to ask one more question of you -- have scientists found any life as they understand life on any other planet so far? I'm not asking if they found water, or minerals, etc., because I believe they have. But what about life? Have they found life as said to have evolved on this earth anywhere else in the universe yet?

No. Why?

So this earth then, so far as scientists have seen

Is this some sort of test? Unless you have been living off the grid and have had zero connection to the modern world, this question comes off as silly. I assume you are using this to make a point, rather than as a serious question.

The answer of course is that we have found no life or evidence of life on other planets. The only possible life on other planets might be from hitchhikers on man made objects that have reached the moon or Mars.

It is a little early in our exploration for a failure to find native life on other planets to mean very much.

Why is the question silly? Scientists are entertaining the question, aren't they? And some evidently speculate that life could be even better somewhere (having evolved, of course).

 

[YoursTrue]

We could just teach facts and leave all theory out. Of course a bunch of facts with no connection or explanation would not mean very much or be very useful.

Good morning students. Here is a tree. Here is a different looking tree. This next one looks different too. Have a good day. Don't forget to read your list of facts about insects. Friday we will have a quiz on what you see in the sky.

Or we could make observations, come up with explanations, and test those. If they are internally and externally consistent explanations that fit the facts, are predictive, open up new questions and explain the observations, we could teach that. Then the facts would make sense and be useful as more than just lists of information.

That is not religion, so it is OK to teach in school.

Where did the tree come from? Well, some come from seeds. Where did the seed come from? Uh, well, class that's a bit ponderous. But here is a modern explanation--(etc.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did the tree come from? Well, some come from seeds. Where did the seed come from? Uh, well, class that's a bit ponderous. But here is a modern explanation--(etc.)

A species of plants only needed to evolve to grow taller than other plants to start the evolutionary race of trees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One reason is that some scientists speculate that in a far-away place in the universe, life could have evolved even better than it is here. Now I wonder what he thinks would be better. It's nice to examine sometimes what people think about things, don't you think so?

Why not? With the countless billions of planets in the Goldilocks Zones of their solar systems why would ours have to be the "best evolved"? Of course that is a purely judgment call. But if life exists on other planets, and it almost surely does, some may be considered to be better than our planet and some worse. There is no reason for this planet to be the best.

 

[gnostic]

That the only greenery, fish, and animals seems to be recognized on the earth.

You were asking about other planets, YoursTrue.

Whether the life are big or small, advanced or primitive, I am telling you now, we still don’t have the technology to observe or to detect life on other planets in other star systems.

Due to the limitations of our technologies, we simply don’t know if there are life on other planets.

Although I respect your needs to ask questions, we cannot answer these at this stage, definitely not in our life time. It is a mystery.

What we don’t need is making unwarranted assumptions seeking out answers with supernatural or the mystical, or believing in the paranoid storytelling of alien abductions or alien invasions.

 

[YoursTrue]

A species of plants only needed to evolve to grow taller than other plants to start the evolutionary race of trees.

O

A species of plants only needed to evolve to grow taller than other plants to start the evolutionary race of trees.

the tree -- the first tree from a se

Why not? With the countless billions of planets in the Goldilocks Zones of their solar systems why would ours have to be the "best evolved"? Of course that is a purely judgment call. But if life exists on other planets, and it almost surely does, some may be considered to be better than our planet and some worse. There is no reason for this planet to be the best.

Still no evidence. And then to say it could be better. Maybe it could be 'worse.' Or something very, very, very, very different. After all, it is supposed to be evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You were asking about other planets, YoursTrue.

Whether the life are big or small, advanced or primitive, I am telling you now, we still don’t have the technology to observe or to detect life on other planets in other star systems.

Due to the limitations of our technologies, we simply don’t know if there are life on other planets.

Although I respect your needs to ask questions, we cannot answer these at this stage, definitely not in our life time. It is a mystery.

What we don’t need is making unwarranted assumptions seeking out answers with supernatural or the mystical, or believing in the paranoid storytelling of alien abductions or alien invasions.

As far as detecting life on other planets, just taking this one and its situation regarding the other planets in the solar system, this is conveniently situated so grass grows.

 

[gnostic]

So this earth then, so far as scientists have seen/discerned, is the only 'life' they have found. Isn't that true?

Yes, we can only study life on Earth, because it is feasible.

As I have already stated in my past 2 replies, we have no technology to investigate life on other planets from other star systems from this galaxy or other galaxies.

It is simply not feasible at this stage, so anything we do say are merely speculation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, we can only study life on Earth, because it is feasible.

As I have already stated in my past 2 replies, we have no technology to investigate life on other planets from other star systems from this galaxy or other galaxies.

Yes, we can only study life on Earth, because it is feasible.

As I have already stated in my past 2 replies, we have no technology to investigate life on other planets from other star systems from this galaxy or other galaxies.

It is simply not feasible at this stage, so anything we do say are merely speculation.

It is simply not feasible at this stage, so anything we do say are merely speculation.

But you don't think it's speculation to decide that one life form evolved into another. Despite lack of evidence except fossils with fully formed specimens.

 

[gnostic]

As far as detecting life on other planets, just taking this one and its situation regarding the other planets in the solar system, this is conveniently situated so grass grows.

What is so wrong with saying “I don’t know” or “We don’t know”, instead of speculating on things that we have no answers for?

 

[Subduction Zone]

O

the tree -- the first tree from a se


Still no evidence. And then to say it could be better. Maybe it could be 'worse.' Or something very, very, very, very different. After all, it is supposed to be evolution.

What sort of evidence do you want? You do not seem to realize that evolution is a global process. Evidence for the evolution of one species is evidence for evolution of all species. Asking silly questions will not refute evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you don't think it's speculation to decide that one life form evolved into another. Despite lack of evidence except fossils with fully formed specimens.

DNA is even stronger evidence. It demonstrates the degree of relatedness of all species.

You should never claim "lack of evidence" if you cannot prove it. Instead you should be asking for what evidence is there for a concept. And learning what is and what is not evidence might be a must for you as well.

 

[gnostic]

But you don't think it's speculation to decide that one life form evolved into another. Despite lack of evidence except fossils with fully formed specimens.

Only someone who haven’t study biology, or refuse to learn biology would say there are no evidences.

You are forgetting DNA, chromosomes and genes. Fossils are only for those who specialize in paleontology.

And unless you are talking about bacteria or Archaea, the more complex life take generations, thousands or tens of thousands of generations, to notice changes.

And the changes are tiny and incremental, so life cannot simply evolve from one species of one genus or one family into species of a different genus or different family.

Your statement “one life form evolved into another” only demonstrated that you really don’t understand evolution. It is a lot more complicated than your silly overly simplistic statement.

You cannot have cat give birth to a dog, or the other way around. That’s not how evolution work. It simply ignorant statement.

 

[Bear Wild]

I see no point in engaging him and I am not going to bother. I recommend everyone else not waste their time either.

I completely agree with you. usfan has only one agenda and that is to preach beliefs and falsely discredit what is presented. Usfan has been on a mission to denounce evolution for years by his own posting in the beginning. He feeds on any challenge by ridiculing scientific ideas with his twisted view that only he understands science when he clearly does not believe in science itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I completely agree with you. usfan has only one agenda and that is to preach beliefs and falsely discredit what is presented. Usfan has been on a mission to denounce evolution for years by his own posting in the beginning. He feeds on any challenge by ridiculing scientific ideas with his twisted view that only he understands science when he clearly does not believe in science itself.

I would say that he does not understand science itself. But aside from that I agree 100%.