Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

You're the one objecting to the reality that no one on this earth has discovered a planet with any life other than this one. No green grass detected, no trees and no evolution discovered in any other planet.

But that is like saying, I, personally, have not found a gold mine 10 miles below the surface. I have no way to do that exploration, so it is not surprising. Not detecting something does not mean it does not exists. Look at how many things that we do know exist, but were once undetectable.

I find organ transplants to be incredible. What a wonderous thing. Yet they are performed routinely and have been for decades. At one time, we did not do them. We didn't know how or if it was even possible. Some time ago, it would have been called impossible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fact is that fossils do not show micro evolution specimens that have been discovered. And yes, one 'form' is said to have eventually evolved into another. Simple or not, that's how it is summed up. Now you have me wondering -- just how related are cats and dogs? (According to the evolutionary scale, of course.)

But micro-evolutionary variation is visible in the fossil record.

When moving forward in the fossil record, as if you are running a film strip, macro-evolutionary change is quite striking.

Have you really examined the work or are you just agreeing with an opinion based on ideology that finds these particular facts disquieting? Examine something like Archaeopteryx and read up on the reasons it is considered an example of a transitional species. It possess characters that are ancestral to its dinosaur origins as well as derived characters that are shared with modern avians. It has been examined and is available for continued examination and what is understood about it is not the result of arbitrarily decided it is transitional. That status is based on observation and analysis of its fossils, dinosaur fossils and avian fossils along with examination of modern reptiles and birds. While it is the most famous, it is not alone in the fossil record and other species of the same, previous and subsequent times have been found. Ask @Subduction Zone about the evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution. I believe he was the person that has provided a valuable source listing the characters and the studies that have reviewed the steps from dinosaur to bird.

 

[usfan]

I've read the entire paper multiple times. You?

reading and comprehension are 2 different things.

Yep, they used existing sequence data. Do you see that as a problem? If so, why?

Can you define the data used? What was it, exactly? ..not just vague references to this mysterious data that they ASSERT constantly, 'proves Common Ancestry!', but reasoning and methodology that compels that conclusion.

Nobody has shown how this mysterious 'data!' does this, or how it was juggled to arrive at such blatant, dogmatic assertions. It is believed and asserted, nothing more. The science is hidden in innuendo and repeated techno babble insinuations, but there is nothing there.

You complain that i expose this, but you do not demonstrate with reason or compelling facts that this conclusion is necessitated by the facts. It is a vague extrapolation, based on flawed assumptions, innuendo, and plausibility. This is not compelling science. Only the gullible would fall for this pretension.

They ran the sequences through multiple statistical models.

..all designed to deliver the desired results. Computer model? Statistical analysis? Vegas odds? You really consider this 'hard science!'?

The authors describe the results as....
"Every test of species SA that we applied to the primates suggested

Yes, they are very forceful with their assertions. But their scientific methodology, facts, and data are not clear, nor do they compel their conclusions.

The results (as summarized above) are about which is the best explanation for the data, common ancestry or separate ancestry.

..as an extrapolated opinion, nothing more.
The data is vague. The statistical analysis is unclear and unspecified, only the conclusions are asserted with passion, to deceive the simple minded.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you complaining that you weren't given access to the pre-publication peer review process?

You have NO PEER REVIEWS, of this 'study'. You cheer for it, kiss the hem of the robes of the authors, and are dazzled by the genius they present, but there are no critical or 3rd party reviews of this earth shaking study, that impresses you so much.

No. The "proof of evolution" is that we see it happening all the time.

yes, that is the belief, repeated constantly, with no evidence.. except for this world changing study..

Wrong. As I noted then and again today, your assertion that the authors of the study "assumed common ancestry" is 100% completely wrong.

..maybe you haven't read it. This assumption and goal is repeated, and their agenda is even clearer in their blog. Anti-God, knee jerk hostility toward 'Creationism!' .. is their clearly stated agenda.. so it is not surprising that their fellow ideologues would suspend any scientific scrutiny, and just bow in adulation to the edicts of their priests.

 

[usfan]

..way too much for me to address in my small posting window, but since there have been no systematic points or specific claims made (or at least evidenced), most of the personal attacks, dismissals, patronizing well poisoning, and distortions are easily dismissed.

I see a few other posts with valid arguments that i intend to address, but wading through the barrage of hostility and ridicule makes it more tedious and time consuming. The 4 B's tend to overwhelm any rational discussion..

I am really perplexed at the weight given this obscure, non-critically reviewed 'study' on statistics, and the weight given it. I request those who believe this paper is 'compelling evidence for common ancestry!', to be more specific.. define the methodology and the data used, to compel such a conclusion. Merely posting the author's conclusions, or linking to the study does not provide evidence. That is Bluff.. and Bleating.. and Belief.

And Belittling me for questioning the assumptions and methodology completes the 4 B's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..way too much for me to address in my small posting window, but since there have been no systematic points or specific claims made (or at least evidenced), most of the personal attacks, dismissals, patronizing well poisoning, and distortions are easily dismissed.

I see a few other posts with valid arguments that i intend to address, but wading through the barrage of hostility and ridicule makes it more tedious and time consuming. The 4 B's tend to overwhelm any rational discussion..

I am really perplexed at the weight given this obscure, non-critically reviewed 'study' on statistics, and the weight given it. I request those who believe this paper is 'compelling evidence for common ancestry!', to be more specific.. define the methodology and the data used, to compel such a conclusion. Merely posting the author's conclusions, or linking to the study does not provide evidence. That is Bluff.. and Bleating.. and Belief.

And Belittling me for questioning the assumptions and methodology completes the 4 B's.

Once again, if you could debate properly and honestly the Four B's would go away.

Do you think that you could make one post without making false accusations about others and deal with the evidence presented to you? Denying evidence is not dealing with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I frankly didn't think you were intending to be crass. Whether I believe in life somewhere else is not the point. I merely pointed out that some scientists not only speculate that there could be life which evolved in the universe, unseen and unknown as it is, but more than that by saying it could be better than the life we now know. My thought is if there IS life evolved somewhere else, it could have evolved into something very very very different from this life. Very different. And evidently some object to my mentioning the rather perfect position the sun and moon are from the earth for life to exist here. Just by chance -- evolution started from that little unicell coming out of the water bearing the marks of life and not mere chemical matter. Amazing. Apparently if there was no abiogenesis -- no evolution -- there would be no life. Just that little cell coming up out of the water. Just amazing.

What makes you think that the Earth and Sun are at a "perfect distance"?

 

[usfan]

Except that all of those issues have been addressed.

Please source this claim. I have seen assumptions asserted as 'settled science!', but no facts or reasoning presented. Show how these ancient dates are compelling conclusions. You have only asserted belief in them.

The decay rates are constant. The amounts of initial isotopes can be determined. That is enough to get ages for the Earth. The oldest minerals we have are over 4.3 billion years.

'Constant decay rates', is an unverifiable assumption. We are premising an environment of Big Bang magnitude, explosive factors, acceleration, elements unknown, with nuclear affects on all the matter involved, yet you assume constancy in decay rates? ..the absurdity of that seems unthinkable, for any rational person.

Notice the size of those uncertainties. And yes, these are hard science.

No, those are speculations. Beliefs and conjecture. The ancient dating methods are filled with beliefs, assumptions, and conjecture. There is no 'hard science!', for any of it.

Show me, if you believe there is hard science for these projections. Merely asserting your beliefs does not evidence them as valid scientific hypotheses.

Why give you any evidence. You do not care and ignore or demean it without understanding. You have not fairly reviewed the studies. Given a study about genetic change in E.coli.

Still carrying on about me, personally? Why not forget about your obsession with me, and try to support your belief in Common Ancestry with real evidence?

You seriously believe the e.coli study 'Proved evolution!' ?
Really?
Give me a summary of that study, where the FACTS are presented, of what actually occurred, not the extrapolations and conjecture of what you BELIEVE occurred.

I've read (and summarized) it numerous times, here, and see no compelling conclusion of 'gene creation!', 'speciation!', or anything relating to common descent. It merely shows micro evolution.. adaptation, which nobody disputes. But there is nothing compelling in this study to make the leap to 'macro'. There was no structural change in the genome. They were not 'evolving!' to or from another phylogenetic structure. They were e.coli, exhibiting adaptation and variability, in their environment.

..but it is a false equivalency, to equate the variability within e.coli to a leap of common descent.

 

[Polymath257]

You're the one objecting to the reality that no one on this earth has discovered a planet with any life other than this one. No green grass detected, no trees and no evolution discovered in any other planet.

That is correct. We also don't have that capability even if such things are out there. If there was grass and dinosaurs and trees and any other sort of life, we simply do not have the ability to detect it at the distances involved.

On the other hand, if you had asked this question 25 years ago, we would not have even known if there were planets outside of our solar system. At that point, we did not have the capability to even detect other planets. We now know of thousands of other planets.

If you had asked this question 10 years ago, we would not have known there were planets in the 'Goldilocks zone' around other stars. We did not have the capability to detect such at that point. We now know of several planets in their Goldilocks zones.

If you had asked about 60 years ago, we would not have known that water is common in the universe at large. We do now.

The point is that our knowledge of the universe has drastically increased over the last few decades. And at each stage, the likelihood of life existing, according to our understanding, has gone up and not down.

So, yes, it is speculation to say that life is likely. But it is an informed speculation based on knowledge of what life is and what is common in the universe.

 

[usfan]

Now, to really criticize the Lambda-CDM model, you need to *at least* understand general relativity. Do you?

Instead of worrying about my understanding, why not concentrate on presenting evidence for yours? Present your arguments and evidence for your ancient dating methods, and show how they are based on 'hard science', and not unverifiable assumptions. Use whatever acronyms you want, link to a source, if you wish, but clearly verbalize your arguments.. don't just hide them in pretense and innuendo.

IOW, show the evidence. Assertions and talk is cheap. Show me the compelling evidence, AND the explanations for the very real problems of the earth's magnetic half life, and the helium problem, that makes a belief in 'billions of years!', more than an asserted belief.
My summaries have been ignored. My points dismissed. ..Beliefs just reasserted.. but scientific and rational arguments have not been presented.. just allusions of 'settled science!' for the beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, cats and dogs fit into the same 'scientific' classification. I'll certainly look for the micro-evolution of graptolites, etc. But what about cats and dogs and carnivora? Are there fossils showing micro evolution there?

Well, carnivores in general evolved from the miacids. The carnivores split fairly early on (43 million years ago) into dog-like and cat-like branches (as well as others--bears, seals, etc). Those branches then diversified further, leading to the wide variety of cat species and dog-like species.

Cats vs dogs: in terms of evolution, are we barking up the wrong tree? | Elsa Panciroli

What Animal Did All Cats Evolve From?

Your Dog's Pedigree Goes Back 40 Million Years

 

[Polymath257]

'Constant decay rates', is an unverifiable assumption. We are premising an environment of Big Bang magnitude, explosive factors, acceleration, elements unknown, with nuclear affects on all the matter involved, yet you assume constancy in decay rates? ..the absurdity of that seems unthinkable, for any rational person.

No, we are NOT premising such environments when we are getting the age of the Earth. Nothing that we know affects decay rates was operating at that time. The accelerations were not relativistic, the temperatures were not in the millions of degrees, the elements *are* known (there aren't that many to choose from, after all) and the nuclear 'affects' were simply not there (it takes a LOT more energy to affect the nucleus that what is available in planet formation).

We don't use radioactive decay to date the universe as a whole. Instead we use our relativistic models and compare to the observed data. The models fit incredibly well (as was documented in the link from WMAP I provided). So we have a great deal of confidence in the results.

 

[Polymath257]

Instead of worrying about my understanding, why not concentrate on presenting evidence for yours? Present your arguments and evidence for your ancient dating methods, and show how they are based on 'hard science', and not unverifiable assumptions. Use whatever acronyms you want, link to a source, if you wish, but clearly verbalize your arguments.. don't just hide them in pretense and innuendo.

I already gave the source: the technical review of the results from WMAP.

In essence, the lambda-CDM model has 6 parameters and we can fit the background radiation to several decimal places of accuracy. That gives the age of the universe as one of the consequences.

 

[usfan]

I want to make a point about the value of models and theories. The value that I see in theories and models is in how they facilitate research and the development of technologies. For that purpose, a model or theory does not need to be an actual physical description, or actual history. For example, the flow of particles in electrical circuits is from the negative terminals of sources to the positive ones, but for many purposes we can imagine the current going the other way.

It looks to me like evolution theories, including imaginary trees of life going back to one imaginary ancestor, have beneficial uses, and should be part of what is taught in school as much as conventional current flow. I have seen people taking them literally and trying to use them to validate their opposition to some religious beliefs, and that might be happening sometimes in public education, but I don’t see that as a reason to campaign against teaching them in public schools, or to promote teaching other views in opposition to them.

I have no problem with theories or models. They are important tools for discovery.

My problem is with pseudo scientists who PRETEND that a model or theory is 'settled science!', or Absolute Truth, when there is nothing compelling in the science to give it credence.

That does violence to the scientific method, and turns it into a tool of propaganda, by charlatans and ideologues, not sincere seekers of knowledge.

What 'beneficial uses!' does common ancestry have? None. There is nothing in that theory that has any benefit for humanity, and the assumptions they make are not even borne from reality. We cannot use genes from chimps or other 'common ancestors' in humans. Blood does not interchange. The genes are not interchangeable. Pigs hearts are a closer match, to fool the recipient, but even then it takes constant medication to keep the illusion alive, so that some parts can work.

If we were commonly descended, we would expect many exact matches, especially among the closer alleged 'relatives'. But reality belies the theory. Nothing in common ancestry has any value, or positive implication for humanity or society. In fact, the opposite has been the case. All social engineered societies, based on evolutionary theory, have been oppressive and genocidal. The quest for a 'New Man!' has justified all manner of atrocities, in the desire to help evolution along, to 'better' mankind.

The theory of common ancestry has been a negative in humanity, and provides justification for racial supremacy, genocide, eugenics, racial profiling, and elitist control. We have strayed from the ideals of Human Equality, Natural Law, Science and Reason, in favor of decrees and mandates from elites and superiors.

We are returning to the Dark Ages, with a New set of elites, based not on self appointed insight into the Divine, but self appointed insight into the new religion of elitism based on the pseudoscience of evolution.

 

[usfan]

No, we are NOT premising such environments when we are getting the age of the Earth. Nothing that we know affects decay rates was operating at that time. The accelerations were not relativistic, the temperatures were not in the millions of degrees, the elements *are* known (there aren't that many to choose from, after all) and the nuclear 'affects' were simply not there (it takes a LOT more energy to affect the nucleus that what is available in planet formation).

We don't use radioactive decay to date the universe as a whole. Instead we use our relativistic models and compare to the observed data. The models fit incredibly well (as was documented in the link from WMAP I provided). So we have a great deal of confidence in the results.

You are repeating your beliefs and assertions. WHERE is this compelling evidence for ancient dating? HOW is it assembled? Do you know, or just trust 'really smart people!', who tell you this?

WHAT facts and data compel a conclusion of 'billions of years!', that is not fraught with assumption, speculation, and plausibility?

Isotopes in a rock? Which rocks? What did the ones a few feet away yield? How did they know or assume the starting amount of the isotopes, or how can they assume constancy over billions of years for the daughter elements?

No, the assumptions are legion, in ancient dating methods, filled with discrepancy, juggled data, and speculation. Ancient dating beliefs are more religious than scientific.

 

[ratiocinator]

WHERE is this compelling evidence for ancient dating? HOW is it assembled?

I don't know why you are pretending that people haven't answered your points and given evidence - and perhaps you should consider how this pretence reflects on you and your faith?

Anyway, here is a quite detailed introduction to radiometric dating methods (written by a Christian, not an atheist):
Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

 

[usfan]

Here's is an official summary of the WMAP data by NASA:
WMAP 9 Year Mission Results
If you follow the links on the left, you will find technical papers supporting the conclusions.
Here is a technical paper describing the cosmological parameters derived from that data:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5226.pdf
If you disagree that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, please show where this data and these analyses are incorrect.

I have seen this before.. it is common knowledge in the field of cosmology.

But the dogmatic declarations are impossible to miss, for any skeptic, or someone not looking for confirmation of belief.

For example:
the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.


Right. They 'measured!' this dramatic early period, where everything exploded in 'in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second!' They only assert their theories as 'settled science!', to fool the gullible.
It evidently works.

I cannot see how any scientific minded, reasonable thinking person could buy all these bluffs and dogmatic assertions, with only allusions of 'absolute scientific proof!', of some mysterious data that only the high priests can interpret for us.

'Don't read the texts for yourselves! It will just confuse you. Take our word for it, and trust that we have Special Insight into these obscure mysteries, and will deliver the Truth, with no hidden agenda!'

..history repeating itself..

 

[usfan]

I don't know why you are pretending that people haven't answered your points and given evidence - and perhaps you should consider how this pretence reflects on you and your faith?

Anyway, here is a quite detailed introduction to radiometric dating methods (written by a Christian, not an atheist):
Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

So, you don't know the facts yourself, but rely on a link to make your arguments?

..all the while dismissing my REAL, ORIGINAL arguments?

And you accuse me of pretending?

 

[ratiocinator]

So, you don't know the facts yourself, but rely on a link to make your arguments?

Somebody has gone to a deal of effort to write a reasonable introduction with a good amount of detail - are you afraid to try to understand it? Too lazy to read it?

You seem to be impossible to reason with. When people provide you with brief descriptions you either ignore them, or accuse them of just making assertions - and when you're given detailed references you refuse to read them or respond to the details.

..all the while dismissing my REAL, ORIGINAL arguments?

You haven't made any. All you've done is posted ill-informed nonsense about assumptions that you (falsely) claim have been made.

 

[ecco]

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?

You haven't learned the abiogenesis idea. From your posts, it's more appropriate to say you've been exposed to one concept of abiogenesis.



Just keep in mind that currently there are many different "paths" abiogenesis could have taken. Possibly even multiple paths.




ETA: I just read your post...

Just by chance -- evolution started from that little unicell coming out of the water bearing the marks of life and not mere chemical matter. Amazing. Apparently if there was no abiogenesis -- no evolution -- there would be no life. Just that little cell coming up out of the water. Just amazing.

You definitely haven't learned the abiogenesis idea. Maybe you need to look at Szostak's videos more carefully and really try to understand.

 

[ecco]

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

So far. For reasons others have addressed.