Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

I noticed that too, in my Web searches on this topic.

(lol) As I said, or think I said (lol), maybe they'll figure it out some day. (I doubt it.)

 

[ratiocinator]

(lol) As I said, or think I said (lol), maybe they'll figure it out some day. (I doubt it.)

I see you're a believer in the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.

An unknown in science does not lend credence to unsupported myths.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.

Additionally, except, of course, in reportedly three cases (and I say reportedly since it is written, there were no human eyewitnesses to Adam's creation, but I believe it as written), Adam--no meeting of sperm and egg needed--and Eve (similarly with her) and Jesus Christ, since his birth as well as the other two, were made-designed-created by God the Almighty, who can do such wondrous things.
Notice:
Romans 5:12 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"
Death spread through the sin of Adam.
"Let us make man in our image." Almighty God does not die. The Almighty is sinless. His son in heaven was sinless. Adam was sinless until he sinned. Same with Eve. Jesus was without sin, he died because he was killed. He was killed because of the sins of those around him, not because he sinned. He was blameless.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't. But I also see that you can't say what is the first "living matter." I guess no scientist really knows. But I was curious and so I asked here of those who believe in evolution. It actually has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but you made it so.

Well, we know simple bacterial existed 3.8 billion years ago. What sort of life existed prior to that, we do not know.

There are also definitional problems for the very early stages (what, precisely, does it mean to be alive?).

 

[YoursTrue]

I see you're a believer in the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.

An unknown in science does not lend credence to unsupported myths.

So far no one saw the first living thing that was. No report. No one saw the second living thing come about. No one knows. But they say these living things did come about, they say there was a time they weren't there, don't they? In other words, that life on this planet was not.

 

[Jim]

There are also definitional problems for the very early stages ...

I noticed that too, in my Web searches on this topic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, we know simple bacterial existed 3.8 billion years ago. What sort of life existed prior to that, we do not know.

There are also definitional problems for the very early stages (what, precisely, does it mean to be alive?).

A brief search showed me that definitions for bacteria are that these things are alive, while viruses are not. It's quite amazing.
Furthermore, diagrams of bacteria show me they are not like nothing. Or a blank, so to speak. They are defined and in my opinion, complicated. One might say they came about by themselves, but imo, they are small but complex. Irreducible? I'll leave that up to you in reference to evolution to work on.

 

[Polymath257]

So far no one saw the first living thing that was. No report. No one saw the second living thing come about. No one knows. But they say these living things did come about, they say there was a time they weren't there, don't they? In other words, that life on this planet was not.

Yes, there most certainly was not life on Earth 4.3 billion years ago. The conditions were not such that life could have existed.

 

[Polymath257]

A brief search showed me that definitions for bacteria are that these things are alive, while viruses are not. It's quite amazing.
Furthermore, diagrams of bacteria show me they are not like nothing. Or a blank, so to speak. They are defined and in my opinion, complicated. One might say they came about by themselves, but imo, they are small but complex. Irreducible? I'll leave that up to you in reference to evolution to work on.

Well, at that point it isn't a question of evolution, but of abiogenesis: how did life arise?

We know that there was no life on earth 4.3 billion years ago and that there was 3.8 billion years ago. We do not know details of what happened in that 500 million years timespan. That is what the investigations into abiogenesis are all about.

I'd also point out that the universe is much older than the Earth. The universe as a whole is 13.7 billion years old, or about 3 times as old as the Earth.

 

[Jose Fly]

I disagree.

Oh brother.....

Here's what you said, "What I said about defensive common ancestry research in general was only from reading a few articles by people defending common ancestry beliefs. Apart from that, I don’t know anything about what’s happening in evolution research."

But then when I reflect that back to you, you disagree? Again you seem to have a real problem with short-term memory, specifically not being able to remember what you've said from one post to the next.

If the behavior you’re talking about is saying what I thought from reading the earlier abstract and the blog post, and refusing to submit to anyone’s demands to Substantiate Or Retract, then I disagree that it was unethical.

So you think it's perfectly fine to accuse a group of scientists of being irresponsible and dishonest in their work, even though you haven't read their work. That doesn't speak well of you.

Makes me wonder too, why you're so seemingly sensitive to how evolution deniers are treated (i.e., your lamenting how they're "vilified" and "denigrated"). But apparently you vilifying and denigrating scientists is just fine, eh?

 

[Jose Fly]

What I’m reporting now for example is people repeatedly accusing me of trolling, dishonesty and unethical behavior, in posts addressed to me.

But it's just fine for you to accuse others of being dishonest and unethical?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.

You are correct that this was once an explanation in science, but the scope that you are trying give it is unreasonable. This is ancient history that was subjected to the continual review of science to the point that it was understood to be invalid.

I am not a fan of our president, but I would not go after him if I found out he stole a candy bar when he was five. How would that be relevant today? How would that single him out among all other people that were once five?

Have you considered the issue that exists in this? That you have to go back to when the science was young in order to find something to attack it with. Something that science no longer recognizes as valid. Is there anything recent that raises objections in your mind?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A brief search showed me that definitions for bacteria are that these things are alive, while viruses are not. It's quite amazing.
Furthermore, diagrams of bacteria show me they are not like nothing. Or a blank, so to speak. They are defined and in my opinion, complicated. One might say they came about by themselves, but imo, they are small but complex. Irreducible? I'll leave that up to you in reference to evolution to work on.

I encourage you to learn more about all these things related to evolution. Consider irreducible complexity. Why do you find it so compelling? Is it really as good an explanation as you think it is or is there some other reasons for clinging to it?

You appear to reject what you have been told about irreducible complexity. Why? What is the basis of your rejection?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.

The mechanisms of reproduction are incredibly diverse. The union of two cells as carried out in humans is common, but far from the only way that it can occur. Given that there are multiple mechanisms, a claim of irreducible complexity is unwarranted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see you're a believer in the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.

An unknown in science does not lend credence to unsupported myths.

Upon close examination of most creationists assertions and arguments, most of them turn out to be some form of God of the Gaps/Default argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't. But I also see that you can't say what is the first "living matter." I guess no scientist really knows. But I was curious and so I asked here of those who believe in evolution. It actually has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but you made it so.

When you claim "believe" and associate it with the theory and facts of evolution, what do you mean by that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.

I also note that your use of irreducible is plastic and you are using differing versions as if they go back to a single, static definition.

 

[ratiocinator]

So far no one saw the first living thing that was. No report. No one saw the second living thing come about. No one knows. But they say these living things did come about, they say there was a time they weren't there, don't they? In other words, that life on this planet was not.

Yes, and.........?

You seem to think it significant that science has yet arrive at a tested theory for how it happened. Do you imagine your god lurks in such gaps, the ones that have steadily grown fewer over time?

 

[Jim]

I also note that your use of irreducible is plastic and you are using differing versions as if they go back to a single, static definition.

That’s a good start. Now maybe you’ll start noticing people doing that with some other words, on all sides of all debating.

 

[Jim]

@Jose Fly I won’t be replying to your posts any more, except possibly sometimes to disagree with what you say about me. If you say anything to me about evolution or common ancestry, I will read it and consider it.