• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Even though the abstract for Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry was re-written for the revised version, without the words that originally aroused my suspicions, the motivation is still clear in the revised abstract.
we also need formal methods for quantifying the evidential support for CA over the alternative hypothesis of separate ancestry (SA).
From the blog post by the lead author, it looks to me like the research is part of a personal crusade against creation doctrine, and not what I would call serious, responsible research. Also the correspondence with “Evolution” confirms my suspicions about his dishonesty.
It has been my understanding throughout that your group's development of tests for common ancestry is motivated by the need for such tests to address hypotheses of current scientific interest, of which special creation is not one. This response from you indicates otherwise, and this makes me think I misunderstood. If refuting the doctrine of special creation is the sole or even a primary motivation for this development, as your email suggests, then I seriously question whether it should appear in Evolution.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Even though the abstract for Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry was re-written for the revised version, without the words that originally aroused my suspicions, the motivation is still clear in the revised abstract.

From the blog post by the lead author, it looks to me like the research is part of a personal crusade against creation doctrine, and not what I would call serious, responsible research. Also the correspondence with “Evolution” confirms my suspicions about his dishonesty.

Its not a crusade. It is in defense against unsupported attacks on the theory of evolution in which creationists/ID supporters have gone to eliminate the teaching of the theory of evolution from schools or to give equal weight to one creation story over any other which is not even related to science. Their argument in my opinion that statistical studies are so necessary for common ancestry is overstated. Yes they may be helpful but in complex systems mathematical analysis becomes less reliable. The supportive sciences of geology, genetics, ecology, comparative biology and even ethnology give ample evidence to support evolution. Of course if you are an enemy of science than those other fields will have no meaning either.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Its not a crusade. It is in defense against unsupported attacks on the theory of evolution in which creationists/ID supporters have gone to eliminate the teaching of the theory of evolution from schools or to give equal weight to one creation story over any other which is not even related to science. Their argument in my opinion that statistical studies are so necessary for common ancestry is overstated. Yes they may be helpful but in complex systems mathematical analysis becomes less reliable. The supportive sciences of geology, genetics, ecology, comparative biology and even ethnology give ample evidence to support evolution. Of course if you are an enemy of science than those other fields will have no meaning either.
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?
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
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.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
We are posting in a thread "scientific evidence for universal common decent" and I was responding to a post of yours where you were talking about the scientific theory of evolution.

Yet, you didn't expect a scientific discussion?
No, not really. Experience hath taught me that a rational, civil debate on this tooic is impossible, due to the triggered True Believers, who charge into the topic with jihadist zeal. ;)
I saw pages of explanations of scientific principles, evidence for evolution with citations and pictures... and you replying to those with accusations of heckling and ridicule.
you have a vivid imagination, if you 'see!' that, in the nearly 100 pages of this thread.

ONE STUDY, has been the centerpiece for over 30 pages, and the 'evidence' from it has not even been analyzed or examined, except by me. Assertions and outrage seem preferred to scientific analysis.
I'm almost certain that at some point you'll decide that I'm a "heckler".
I've considered you that for some time now.. likely since our initial exchange. :D
Progressive indoctrinees usually, and typically, lash out in unscientific, hysterical outrage, instead of calm, evidentiary based reason.
Or.... you could just discuss the topic of this thread, in this thread, instead of complain, while ignoring what you perceive to be "personal attacks" and just engage the actual points raised. Just a thought. I bet it would be more constructive.
I don't obsess over the hecklers, just point out that this is their tactic, to deflect attention from the impotence of the science and reason. Seldom has anyone addressed my rebuttals, and NEVER on this chimp/human computer statistics study. Mostly i get jeering and ridicule, or indignation, like from you, here, as a substitute for a reasoned rebuttal.

It is the essence of ad hominem, to direct your comments 'to the man', instead of to the topic.

My offer stands. If you wish to debate the science, and ditch the ad hom. I'm willing to do a 'reset', and start anew. But i have little hope of that either, as my offer usually falls on deaf ears, that prefer the joys of fallacy, to the mundane practice of reason.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’m not denying the value of the common ancestry premise. I can believe that it has been very fruitful and beneficial, just like saying that there’s only one parallel to a given line through a given point, or the planetary model of the atom, or Thevenin and Norton equivalent circuits. I don’t see that as a reason to think of it as a historical fact.

Here’s how the arguments from similarities look to me. I see it as possibly a natural human impulse to think of common ancestry as an explanation for some similarities. What seems strange to me is to keep clinging to that explanation as the only possible one for some similarities, no matter how many times it turns out to be wrong.

What I’ve seen of other reasons for thinking of common ancestry as history, doesn’t look at all convincing to me. Searching on the Internet, again and again I saw examples of paleontologists failing to find what was predicted by common ancestry theory. Again, how many times would the predictions of common ancestry theory have to fail, before its believers would consider other possibilities?

There have been reports of new species appearing in some experiments, but now I’ve discovered that biologists themselves are confused about the meaning of “species.” However that may be, I don’t see that as a reason to think that’s how new species have appeared historically.

Besides all that, I can’t think of any reason why anyone would be opposed to anyone doing any evolution research without a premise of common ancestry, if it isn’t because of animosity against some religious beliefs.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I’m not denying the value of the common ancestry premise. I can believe that it has been very fruitful and beneficial, just like saying that there’s only one parallel to a given line through a given point, or the planetary model of the atom, or Thevenin and Norton equivalent circuits. I don’t see that as a reason to think of it as a historical fact.

Here’s how the arguments from similarities look to me. I see it as possibly a natural human impulse to think of common ancestry as an explanation for some similarities.
I'm fairly sure that's not true. If anything, common ancestry is very counter-intuitive.

What seems strange to me is to keep clinging to that explanation as the only possible one for some similarities, no matter how many times it turns out to be wrong.
In which instances is it wrong?

What I’ve seen of other reasons for thinking of common ancestry as history, doesn’t look at all convincing to me. Searching on the Internet, again and again I saw examples of paleontologists failing to find what was predicted by common ancestry theory.
Could you provide examples?

Again, how many times would the predictions of common ancestry theory have to fail, before its believers would consider other possibilities?
Could you provide examples of the theory failing?

There have been reports of new species appearing in some experiments, but now I’ve discovered that biologists themselves are confused about the meaning of “species.” However that may be, I don’t see that as a reason to think that’s how new species have appeared historically.
There is currently only one known mechanism for shared genetic phylogeny, and one known mechanism of life arising from life: reproduction. All of the available evidence indicates common ancestry.

Besides all that, I can’t think of any reason why anyone would be opposed to anyone doing any evolution research without a premise of common ancestry, if it isn’t because of animosity against some religious beliefs.
That's a huge non-sequitur.

For starters, what would "evolution research without a premise of common ancestry" look like?

For seconds, what do religious beliefs have to do with anything?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
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 really not understanding your logic here. This is like saying that you would expect a research environment where some research is carried out with the premise that the earth is round, and some research is carried out without that premise, and expect them to encourage and learn from each other.

What exactly can be learned by starting from a premise that has no basis, or continuing to pursue a conclusion which is falsified?

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.
You keep acting as if you are in some way privy to the scientific debate between actual academics on this issue. Please stop equating internet debates between laymen - which have always been the same - and actual academic discourse.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
That's a very serious accusation. Do you have any evidence that Larget et al. dishonestly manipulated the data?

Completely wrong. The criticisms were centered on Theobald's previous work and how it assumed that sequence similarity = common ancestry. Larget et al. eliminated that assumption.

So again, your objection is 100% the opposite of reality.
???????? Nonsensical.
It was, within evolutionary biology circles.
Completely false and ridiculous. The paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Again, you make a very serious accusation. Do you have any evidence to support your accusation that the work was conducted dishonestly?
I'm sure that's your opinion, but that only matters to you.
Again, 100% completely false. They specifically accounted for similarity = common descent (hint: that's what the phrase "functional constraints" refers to).

If this "rebuttal" is the best you can do, that speaks volumes.

There is no excuse for your comments. Your statements are without basis and are intentionally inflammatory. All you do is show your ignorance of science and your lack of respect for what it shows. Be honest for a change and just state you do not care what evidence is provided because you will reject it based on your beliefs and not evidence. At least that would be an honest answer.
Posts like this cause me to despair of ever having rational, empirically based discussions on origins..
Ad hom and deflection, not scientific analysis, is all that is offered.

Has anyone presented, examined, or scrutinized the CLAIMS of this study? Only me. Has anyone pointed out the facts, and methodology that compels the conclusions of the abstract? No. Only me. ALL of the devotees to CA just sing the prsises of their priests, and parrot the CONCLUSIONS. NOBODY even mentions the actual science, data, or methodology.

And, there IS NO peer review, mentioned, referenced, or quoted. As Jim noted, the abstract was 'pre published, NOT peer reviewed', so the claims that this study has ANY SIGNIFICANCE to the scientific community is absurd, and a bluff, to try to prop up the very shaky 'evidence!', that is not being presented.

This paper is pseudo science bluff.. even 'Evolution' magazine thought it was too narrowly partisan, and unsuitable for publishing.

That hordes of True Believers swallow this bluff hook, line, and sinker, shows them to be pseudo science indoctrinees, not critically thinking, scientifically minded, analysts. You look desperately for affirmation and confirmation, but suspend reason AND scientific scrutiny, and become easy targets for propaganda.

With NO EXAMINATION, of this (and other) studies, you stoop to attacking me, personally, for daring to question the assumptions, facts, and methodology of this obscure 'study', trumpeted by the faithful, as 'Proof of Evolution!!'

I reviewed this obscure paper as a favor to Poly, who has not even acknowledged my rebuttal. Was it all a bluff? Busy work, on known propaganda, with no intent of defending the claims?

I expect the unscientific hecklers to shriek, leap about, and throw poo, but i had hoped for perhaps one rational person to debate this with civility and reason. Is there not even one?

This study is a fraud. It does NOT 'prove common ancestry!', between spider monkeys and humans. It is a bluff.. contrived data, with contrived conclusions, all based on similarity of amino acids and sequences. It is flawed at its root, and I'm a little surprised the True Believers put so much of their hopes and dreams into this propaganda piece. It is, imo, because the actual 'evidence' for universal common ancestry is so sparse.. non existent, really, that they become easy targets for deception. They want to believe this 'theory' so desperately, that they suspend scrutiny and become gullible dupes to manipulation.

AKA..

Bobbleheads.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@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.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
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?
Nobody has asserted that similarities are proof of common ancestry. This is a dramatic over-simplification of the many different fields of evidence that lead to the conclusion of common ancestry.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
@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.
You have claimed that the theory of common ancestry has produced multiple failures - that's not a claim of experience, that's just a claim. I'm asking you to provide examples of this claim. Can you do that?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I’m just describing my personal experiences, what I thought I saw, when I searched on the Internet for answers to my questions.

You do understand that the internet is full of ****, don't you? You have to be very careful about what you take seriously.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
This is like saying that you would expect a research environment where some research is carried out with the premise that the earth is round, and some research is carried out without that premise, and expect them to encourage and learn from each other.
If there are any researchers who would like to do some research with a flat earth premise, that’s exactly what I would expect, in a research environment that is not corrupted by factional feuding.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
You have claimed that the theory of common ancestry has produced multiple failures - that's not a claim of experience, that's just a claim. I'm asking you to provide examples of this claim. Can you do that?
I don’t know. I don’t feel like taking the time to search for that. Like I said, you can think that it was all in my imagination, or that I’m lying about what I thought I saw, or whatever you want to think.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
If there are any researchers who would like to do some research with a flat earth premise, that’s exactly what I would expect, in a research environment that is not corrupted by factional feuding.
Thing is, nothing is stopping people - or scientists - from carrying out that research. It's just that their research never leads anywhere because they are wrong.

Have you considered that possibility? Do you also think this way about medicine? Should we perhaps expect research into alchemy to continue and have wide coverage and peer-review? Should we re-consider the benefits of phrenology?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Since this statistical analysis of monkey/human amino acid sequences seems to be such 'compelling evidence!', for common descent devotees, I'll repeat a few points, if anyone wishes to rebut them in a systematic manner.

1. This is a statistical computer model, attempting to lay 'odds' on universal common ancestry. It is not an indicator of ancestry, like the mtDNA or mt-MRCA discoveries.
2. They used sequenced data from another study to plug into their model. There were no experiments, no lab coats, no microscopes. These were computer nerds, manipulating data for their own purposes.
3. The 'criticisms' from peer reviewed responses from earlier studies, that they referred to, were just as appropriate for this study. Merely asserting, 'Ours was different!' 'We proved evolution!', does not change anything.
4. No peer reviews for this obscure study were quoted, just the self aggrandizing conclusions of the authors.. repeated over and over as if that gives credence to the claims.
5. If this study was as significant as some believe, it would be heralded, AND peer reviewed, with fierce scrutiny over their methods and data.
6. My review examined the methodology, assumptions, and goals of the study, and is the closest to a peer review that has been produced.
7. The scientific community does not accept horn tooting conclusions as 'evidence!' The obscurity of this study shows the impact it has had in the actual fields of science.. i.e., none.
8. That unscientific minded Believers cling to the conclusions of this obscure study, with NO CRITICAL EXAMINATION of the methodology, data, and conclusions, exposes them as bobbleheads, desperate to prop up their shaky belief system.
9. This is NOT a sound, scientifically based study, but a contrived, presupposed, propaganda piece, to fool the gullible. Techno babble and assertions mask the actual scientific methodology involved, but any critically thinking person can see through it. That is it's only success.. otherwise, nobody would have ever heard of this 'study'. It is not even weak evidence for CA. The statistical odds.. the number arrived at by juggling the data, is as i noted in my earlier analysis:

The significance of this statistic can only be described as 'a trivial consequence of similarity'.

10. Those who believe strongly in UCA, will no doubt find confirmation for their bias. Those looking for objective evidence will be sorely disappointed.
11. The complete lack of objective, empirical data, facts, peer reviews, and evidence in this study (and many others), exposes the desperation of the True Believers, suspending critical thinking, scrutiny, and skepticism for a leap into the abyss of blind Faith.
12. The authors 'sound really smart!', and are given a pass, trusting in their Authority, or at least sincerity, instead of using sound principles of scientific methodology.
13. Assertions and Authority Worship are the major 'defenses' for this insignificant, obscure, and pointless abstract. It only impresses those predisposed to Believe.
14. The adulation given to this 'study', and others like it, show the thorough Indoctrination among progressive bobbleheads, who can only nod in unanimous approval and adoration for their High Priests of anti-science.

From the study and my rebuttal:
"..it becomes reasonable to ask the specific question of how strongly molecular sequence data support the inference that the human species shares CA with other primates."

..reasonable, indeed. It is even more reasonable to ask how any statistical or visual 'similarity!' can infer common descent..

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. ~Benjamin Disraeli
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top