Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

YoursTrue said:

OK, what do you call whatever 'it' is? You think that your God has a will and purposes but don't want to call him intelligent and a designer? Things happen by his will? What things? Everything, including babies born with serious illnesses, for example?

Click to expand...

Well, I don’t like thinking of it that way, but I don’t see any honest way for me to squirm out of it.

Dan From Smithville said:

I am a believer in the Christian God. I am trained in science and I accept the theory of evolution. I do not believe in it in the same way as I believe in God. I accept that the theory of evolution is based on logic and evidence, but remains contingent on being falsified by new data. My belief in God does not have that requirement. It cannot. That belief is based on faith.

The first living thing is unknown and may remain unknown. The theory of evolution is not dependent on knowing the original life. It is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory about the relationships and diversity of living things and how they change over time. All that is required is that life exist, have variation that is heritable and be subject to natural selection.

The identification of the first life may be interesting and would have value, but is unnecessary to validate the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your statement that your belief in God does not have that requirement. Many have literally refuted with their proofs (although I don't believe them) that the Bible is not true. Or that there is no God.

Dan From Smithville said:

The only thing that is in opposition to theory is outside of science and entirely religious. Religious opposition cannot be taught in US schools due to that pesky old Constitution.

Click to expand...

OK, I said it's time to turn in, however, I feel compelled to add this: there are so many differing religious ideas about creation and life that it would be folly to offer most of them as proof. IMO anyway.

YoursTrue said:

OK. It is my belief that the "first life" consists of 'irreducible complexity.' Yet to be seen, I suppose. It's late on the east coast of the U.S., time to give in to my nature and wind it up. Thanks for conversation.

Click to expand...

You are free to believe that, but it is in opposition to the scientific hypotheses regarding the origin of life. As I have said, the entire concept of irreducible complexity is null, given the requirements and weaknesses that go beyond an ability to demonstrate that anything can be irreducibly complex. How would you demonstrate that previous, non-living chemical reactions and products were not prior steps to life?

Of course, at this stage, we cannot eliminate life arising by divine intervention. So your hypothesis may have merit in that gap.

I have enjoyed chatting with you. So you are on the East coast. Northern end or southern? Long Island ice tea or rum runners?

YoursTrue said:

I don't understand your statement that your belief in God does not have that requirement. Many have literally refuted with their proofs (although I don't believe them) that the Bible is not true. Or that there is no God.

Click to expand...

I do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible, but that is not the same as saying I think it is false. That would not make a lot of sense in many ways. I do know of anyone that has demonstrated that the Bible is not true, however, parts of it can be demonstrated not to be literal. The creation story in Genesis does not fit the evidence and, other than simply ignoring that and believing it is true, is not literal on the evidence. Allegorically, it is perfectly fine.

I do not know how anyone can demonstrate that God does not exist. We cannot demonstrate that God does exist. I accept that some people see no evidence for the existence of God or any god and consider that sufficient to grounds for their lack of belief. Logically, it is a reasonable basis for their atheism even if I disagree with their conclusions.

If there is no evidence that God exists and I cannot demonstrate that God exists objectively, how can there be a requirement for data in order to believe in God. I am not talking about personal experiences that cannot, themselves, be shared. I am talking about objective evidence that one could use to demonstrate something to another.

I just realized that I might be trespassing here. Is this forum only for people who are in it to fight for one side or the other?

YoursTrue said:

OK, I said it's time to turn in, however, I feel compelled to add this: there are so many differing religious ideas about creation and life that it would be folly to offer most of them as proof. IMO anyway.

Click to expand...

That is another issue as well. In order to even attempt to meet Constitutional requirements, all would have to be taught equally. That cannot be done by any practical means that I know of and it would still not be science on science, but religious views against valid scientific explanations.

All that one can say at this time and for a long time now, is that there is no valid scientific alternative to the theory of evolution that is being promoted by any scientists. Punctuated equilibrium is evolution. Hopeful monsters has been refuted based on the evidence. Pure lamarckianism was refuted over 150 years ago. Epigenetics that is similar to Lamarck's idea has been explained and included in evolution.

The only opposition to the theory is outside of science and ideological grounds that science does not have the means to evaluate.

Jim said:

I just realized that I might be trespassing here. Is this forum only for people who are in it to fight for one side or the other?

Click to expand...

I am only here as eye candy. That is what they told me anyway.

Jim said:

I just realized that I might be trespassing here. Is this forum only for people who are in it to fight for one side or the other?

Click to expand...

I checked my contract and that is what says. Eye candy. I was told they needed a real "Steve Stunning" to post on here and I was perfect for the job.

I don't think we could have a useful discussion if there was not some contention over the issues. Otherwise, it would be you guys posting a series of "Agreed" to every other post and me just looking good.

Jim said:

I just realized that I might be trespassing here. Is this forum only for people who are in it to fight for one side or the other?

Click to expand...

Dan From Smithville said:

I don't think we could have a useful discussion if there was not some contention over the issues. Otherwise, it would be you guys posting a series of "Agreed" to every other post and me just looking good.

Click to expand...

The reason I asked is because that might be why people can’t understand what I’m saying, because it isn’t to fight for one side or the other. Then I thought that maybe I’m not even supposed to be posting here, if it isn’t to fight for one side or the other. Am I breaking a forum rule, posting in this forum without fighting for one side or the other?

Jim said:

The reason I asked is because that might be why people can’t understand what I’m saying, because it isn’t to fight for one side or the other.

Click to expand...

But you are taking a side.

Jim said:

Then I thought that maybe I’m not even supposed to be posting here, if it isn’t to fight for one side or the other. Am I breaking a forum rule, posting in this forum without fighting for one side or the other?

Click to expand...

I consider that pretty conclusive evidence that you're not really being very serious...

What would be the adverse effects on the biological sciences and on paleontology of some research being done from a point of view of imagining that there are hundreds or even thousands of separate lines of ancestry going all the way back to the beginning of life?

Jim said:

What would be the adverse effects on the biological sciences and on paleontology of some research being done from a point of view of imagining that there are hundreds or even thousands of separate lines of ancestry going all the way back to the beginning of life?

Click to expand...

There would be no adverse effect because that view would be falsified by phylogenetic data.

I went to the Intelligent Design website, and the first thing I saw was:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Click to expand...

So it explicitly opposes the idea of natural selection. I didn’t know that. Too bad I didn’t see that sooner. It might have avoided some misunderstandings between me and some other people. I’m not opposed to the idea of natural selection.

Jim said:

What would be the adverse effects on the biological sciences and on paleontology of some research being done from a point of view of imagining that there are hundreds or even thousands of separate lines of ancestry going all the way back to the beginning of life?

Click to expand...

The same as the harm of doing research from the point of view that the world is flat, or from the point of view that alchemy works, or from the point of view that bloodletting is a suitable treatment for anemia. You'd be wasting time and resources, not following the evidence, and starting from a position that is contrary to the facts.

I'm taking a break fot a while..

1. My 91 yr old stepmother went into the hospital last night, and family concerns will occupy me for a bit.
2. The thread seems to be devolving into more heckling, ad hom, and false accusations, rather than an examination of evidence.
3. The few who debated the science with me have declined further discussion.

Perhaps later, I'll summarize the evidence given, so far, or swap barbs with the peanut gallery, but reason and scientific debate seems to be undesired, so I'll bow out for a while.. days, weeks.. i don't know.

Thanks to all for the interesting, varied, and passionate discussions!

usfan said:

I'm taking a break fot a while..

1. My 91 yr old stepmother went into the hospital last night, and family concerns will occupy me for a bit.
2. The thread seems to be devolving into more heckling, ad hom, and false accusations, rather than an examination of evidence.
3. The few who debated the science with me have declined further discussion.

Perhaps later, I'll summarize the evidence given, so far, or swap barbs with the peanut gallery, but reason and scientific debate seems to be undesired, so I'll bow out for a while.. days, weeks.. i don't know.

Thanks to all for the interesting, varied, and passionate discussions!

Click to expand...

Okay. Sorry to see you go.

I see people making the same mistake sometimes with science theories that they do sometimes with religious scriptures: taking them too literally.

YoursTrue said:

OK. It is my belief that the "first life" consists of 'irreducible complexity.' Yet to be seen, I suppose. It's late on the east coast of the U.S., time to give in to my nature and wind it up. Thanks for conversation.

Click to expand...

No scientist has found this irreducible complexity. All you have done is to move the goalposts a bit. You have taken a refuted idea in evolution and have tried to apply it to abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a concept that is still in the hypothetical state. And it may never fully emerge from it. Not because it appears to be impossible. But rather because right now it looks like there was more than one possible pathway to life. It may not be possible to tell which path life took.

And why is it necessary for you to believe that "God did it"? Why can't God just be without you forcing him to jump through hoops for you?

YoursTrue said:

I don't understand your statement that your belief in God does not have that requirement. Many have literally refuted with their proofs (although I don't believe them) that the Bible is not true. Or that there is no God.

Click to expand...

parts of the Bible have been refuted,if one makes the error of reading it literally. Your belief whether that has been done or not does not really matter. Surely you do not believe in the Noah's Ark myth.

The biggest problem I can see with a literal translation is that one ends up calling God a liar by doing so. The evidence against some of the myths of the Bible is so clear that false evidence would have to have been planted by God. You are trying to force yourself into believing in a God that you shouldn't believe in. I would suggest that it you believe in God that you should trust his work.