Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

When used in the context of biological science, "common descent" refers specifically to the theory of common genetic ancestry: i.e that all living forms are descended from a common ancestor through evolution. If you prefer, you could use the more specific "universal common ancestry", but "common descent" or "common ancestry" are just useful shorthands.


Except water is not a common ancestor because water is not a naturally self-replicating organism. Common ancestry refers to common ancestry through reproduction.


This is a loaded question. We are unsure if the Universe formed from nothing or not. We are not even currently sure if "nothing" is a meaningful concept.


Except science makes no presumptions about this point beyond what we are capable of investigating. Religion simply makes assertions and then assumes they are true.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that any science that doesn't fully investigate and explain every aspect of its field all the way back to the origin of time are "political science"? Is the theory of gravity "fake news" because we cannot yet explain the origin of mass? Is germ theory "political" because we have yet to pinpoint the origin of the first germ?

You don't need to know or understand the origin of a phenomenon in order to observe and test how that phenomenon operates. In other words, not knowing the origin of life or the Universe doesn't detract from the knowledge and observations we have made regarding how life changes over time.

Scientific American had an article about the formation of seashells, and commented that "analysis of clamshell and screw-shaped shells reveals the structures withstand much greater forces than would a simple sphere or cylinder. And suggested that in the future, if a car was designed with structure similar to the seashell, it would protect the passengers inside.

 

[ratiocinator]

Scientific American had an article about the formation of seashells, and commented that "analysis of clamshell and screw-shaped shells reveals the structures withstand much greater forces than would a simple sphere or cylinder. And suggested that in the future, if a car was designed with structure similar to the seashell, it would protect the passengers inside.

And.......?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

H
2. Phylogenetic Tree
This is a graphical illustration of the BELIEF in common descent.

For some reason, I saw your post and this was what my eyes fell on first.

After seeing that, I have lost any and all interest in reading the rest. I know for a fact that people have explained to you how phylogenetic trees are generated and how they are a reflection of genetic structures, rather then a prio images that are superimposed upon genetics.

I know, because I was one of them. And I know of at least 2 others explaining it as well.

Yet, here you are, repeating your same false assertion that was corrected already.

Why bother reading the rest, if this is the level of "honesty" I can expect...




To repeat in simple terms: no, such trees are the result of plotting genetic structures on a graph. There's no superimposing going on. The plotting results in a tree, because that's how the genetic data is arranged in our collective genomes. It didn't have to be this way. But it is. And it is completely consistent with evolution. In fact, if it wasn't structured like this, then evolution would be falsified.

So.... yea......

What's the point....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific American had an article about the formation of seashells, and commented that "analysis of clamshell and screw-shaped shells reveals the structures withstand much greater forces than would a simple sphere or cylinder. And suggested that in the future, if a car was designed with structure similar to the seashell, it would protect the passengers inside.

Yes, evolution works by repeated attempts where inferior traits are replaced by superior ones. Quite efficient structures can arise. Why are you amazed by this? This concept of variation and selection has been applied to engineering and superior structures have artificially evolved for man made objects as a result.

Evolutionary Computation in Structural Design

 

[Subduction Zone]

For some reason, I saw your post and this was what my eyes fell on first.

After seeing that, I have lost any and all interest in reading the rest. I know for a fact that people have explained to you how phylogenetic trees are generated and how they are a reflection of genetic structures, rather then a prio images that are superimposed upon genetics.

I know, because I was one of them. And I know of at least 2 others explaining it as well.

Yet, here you are, repeating your same false assertion that was corrected already.

Why bother reading the rest, if this is the level of "honesty" I can expect...




To repeat in simple terms: no, such trees are the result of plotting genetic structures on a graph. There's no superimposing going on. The plotting results in a tree, because that's how the genetic data is arranged in our collective genomes. It didn't have to be this way. But it is. And it is completely consistent with evolution. In fact, if it wasn't structured like this, then evolution would be falsified.

So.... yea......

What's the point....

Was it just yesterday that he tipped his hand and demonstrated the he is just another science denying YEC. He brought up the same old false claims about radiometric dating, stratigraphy, cosmology, etc.. He did a massive Gish Gallop of ignorance and frankly a fair amount of idiocy and refused to discuss any of it properly. Now he is just trolling his own thread which is rather sad to say the least.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For some reason, I saw your post and this was what my eyes fell on first.

After seeing that, I have lost any and all interest in reading the rest. I know for a fact that people have explained to you how phylogenetic trees are generated and how they are a reflection of genetic structures, rather then a prio images that are superimposed upon genetics.

I know, because I was one of them. And I know of at least 2 others explaining it as well.

Yet, here you are, repeating your same false assertion that was corrected already.

Why bother reading the rest, if this is the level of "honesty" I can expect...




To repeat in simple terms: no, such trees are the result of plotting genetic structures on a graph. There's no superimposing going on. The plotting results in a tree, because that's how the genetic data is arranged in our collective genomes. It didn't have to be this way. But it is. And it is completely consistent with evolution. In fact, if it wasn't structured like this, then evolution would be falsified.

So.... yea......

What's the point....

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

 

[YoursTrue]

Why not?

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?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, then why teach evolution? And please do not think by my saying that I mean they should teach any form of religion in public schools, and I mean any.

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientific American had an article about the formation of seashells, and commented that "analysis of clamshell and screw-shaped shells reveals the structures withstand much greater forces than would a simple sphere or cylinder. And suggested that in the future, if a car was designed with structure similar to the seashell, it would protect the passengers inside.

Nature has had a long time to perfect biological traits in the context of selection. This approach is being employed by some companies to optimize products so that they provide superior performance in the jobs for which they are produced.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Quick answer: no. We have not detected life anywhere else in the universe.

More detailed answer: We have only verified the existence of planets outside of the 8 planets in our own solar system in the last 20 years or so. We have only found Earth-like planets fairly recently. So the range of places where we could look has been very restricted until recently.

Second, we simply would not be able to detect life on planets outside of our solar system at this point. If there were analogs of dinosaurs on a planet orbiting a star 50 light years away, there is no way we could determine that. Our abilities to detect just are not that good yet.

Third, there are only a handful of places we have actually landed on (the moon, Mars, Venus, and a couple of asteroids) and only one ( Mars) would have even been *considered* as possible life habitations.

In other words, out of the *thousands* of planets we know exist at this point, there is only *one* (beside the Earth) we have been able to really look at close enough to determine if they have life (and Mars may well have had life or it may be in places we haven't looked).

So to conclude life is nowhere else is very, very premature.

 

[tas8831]

I know for a fact that people have explained to you how phylogenetic trees are generated and how they are a reflection of genetic structures, rather then a prio images that are superimposed upon genetics.

I know, because I was one of them. And I know of at least 2 others explaining it as well.

Yet, here you are, repeating your same false assertion that was corrected already.

Why bother reading the rest, if this is the level of "honesty" I can expect......

So.... yea......

What's the point....

Amazing, isn't it?

And yet, he will call US names and insult US and pretend to be "science minded" and to have studied and debated all this for 40 years...

One has to wonder what goes though their heads. Do they try to impress layfolk in their congregations, or their families, or something? And what happens when those people see how incredibly clueless he is?

 

[tas8831]

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

Engaging? Nope, not any more. Debunking and correcting? Yup.

 

[tas8831]

Was it just yesterday that he tipped his hand and demonstrated the he is just another science denying YEC. He brought up the same old false claims about radiometric dating, stratigraphy, cosmology, etc.. He did a massive Gish Gallop of ignorance and frankly a fair amount of idiocy and refused to discuss any of it properly. Now he is just trolling his own thread which is rather sad to say the least.

No sad at all - it is the best he can do.

Wait... After 40 years at this...

Yeah, that is pretty sad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No sad at all - it is the best he can do.

Wait... After 40 years at this...

Yeah, that is pretty sad.

He has to work at keeping himself ignorant. Please note how he simply will not enter a discussion on what is and what is not scientific evidence. When I quoted and linked a source he tried to claim that was "my definition". I then pointed out that it was not my definition, it is simply the definition that scientists use and offered to find other sources for him or alternatively I asked him to find a reliable source that has a different definition. He still ran,

He probably has lost the debate so many times that he knows what pitfalls to avoid. Unfortunately for him since he has revealed himself to be YEC he has to avoid all of the sciences. It is pretty hard to win a scientific debate when one handicaps oneself in such a fashion.

 

[tas8831]

He has to work at keeping himself ignorant. Please note how he simply will not enter a discussion on what is and what is not scientific evidence. When I quoted and linked a source he tried to claim that was "my definition". I then pointed out that it was not my definition, it is simply the definition that scientists use and offered to find other sources for him or alternatively I asked him to find a reliable source that has a different definition. He still ran,

He probably has lost the debate so many times that he knows what pitfalls to avoid. Unfortunately for him since he has revealed himself to be YEC he has to avoid all of the sciences. It is pretty hard to win a scientific debate when one handicaps oneself in such a fashion.

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' 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.

 

[ecco]

Where did this material manufacturing event and connected dynamic principles in time and space derive? How did the universe form from nothing? This is where both Science and Creation, lack hard science evidence. Both are religions at this starting point. The common descent of both is faith. The original common descent begins in the mind and heart of man. Religion calls this starting point God forming Adam; the first man designed think and have faith in such things. Inhernet within the human mind are the dynamics to think such things.

First off, the concept of Adam is from the Hebrews of 6000 years ago. There are other creation stories from other religions. So, it is not Science vs Abrahamic beliefs, it is science vs Abrahamic beliefs vs Atenism vs Sikhism vs Janism, vs etc, etc. One of these is scientific, all the others are religious. All the religious beliefs are based on unproven, speculative assertions of certainty. The scientific belief honestly admits it can not account for the first few fractions of a second. Simply put, it is religious dishonesty vs scientific honesty.

 

[ecco]

Following with my emphasis.

For instance, we're talking about the possibility of one cell with life popping up somehow from elements in water which seems incredible to me (and I mean unbelievable for real)

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.

Again -- to jump presumably from water defined as non-living, to an emergence of life, so to speak, in a one-celled organism, which then over presumably billions of years developed into animals after passing through other formed states, doesn't make sense to me any more.

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?

 

[ecco]

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?

 

[gnostic]

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, 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?