Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

I think that @tas8831 is correct. Correct all the disinformation, misrepresentation, deceit, comedy of errors, and so forth, but that does not require engagement.

Ya - just reply about him (or rather, his silly naive claims), not to him.

 

[tas8831]

I don't know about him, but I used to be in this for the chicks, but then I lost interest in embryology and moved into entomology.

Ugh....

 

[Polymath257]

Sometimes the debating is entertaining and sometimes I either have to relearn things I used to know but lost due to non-use or I even get to learn something new. I seriously doubt if you can help those that refuse to learn.

That said, I find that I *do* learn a LOT from the arguments and papers that those who are knowledgeable bring into these discussions.

And I have noticed that many of these papers don't appear until stimulated by someone who knows almost nothing.

So maybe the creationists have a use: to get us to bring out interesting articles that we may not have discussed otherwise. THEY won't get anything out of them, but I know that *I* do.

 

[usfan]

So, either you have not bothered to learn anything about evolution before criticising it, or you've got what you think you know about it from a dishonest source.

'Ignorance and lies!!'

The 'scientific rebuttal of the common descent True Believer..

It is ironic projection, since 'ignorance and lies!' is all the 'debaters' for common descent have..

I get real tired of looking at pretentious ignorance, claiming to be 'science!', when it is nothing but anti-science propaganda.

It is sad that there is a WHOLE GENERATION of bobbleheaded indoctrinees, who fall in line with their Indoctrination, refuse to critically examine REAL science, and plug their eyes and ears to open inquiry.

 

[usfan]

Exactly....they get to a certain point where it starts to get uncomfortable, and they run. It can be fascinating to watch at times.
I keep wondering if he actually thinks he's doing well here. If he does...then......wow.

Yes, your snippy little patronizing remarks are very appropriate.. for middle school catty girls..

..funny you think this is a 'scientific!' rebuttal to my points..

Anytime you think you have the intelligence and the balls, to debate me straight up over science, I'm here. I return your pathetic barbs, to expose the anti-science bias and tactics.

You are afraid to debate me with facts and reason, because you know I'd mop the floor with you.. so.. you have mocking, ridicule, and the 4 B's.

How very 'scientific!'

I know you're in over your head, and only have Bluff, Belittling, Bleating, and Belief.

If you were an honest debater, you'd try to use science, facts, and reason. But, since you're not, you have to rely on ridicule, mocking, and fallacies.

Your 'Religion' of common ancestry is not even close to a scientific theory. You rely on hecklers and dogmatic bloviators to promote your propaganda. It is pathetic and disgusting.

 

[usfan]

So maybe the creationists have a use: to get us to bring out interesting articles that we may not have discussed otherwise. THEY won't get anything out of them, but I know that *I* do.

Want to try and defend, 'scientifically', your belief in ancient earth dates? It's fun, I'm sure, to mock and ridicule your ideological enemies, but why not destroy them with facts! You know, 'science!' ?

 

[Jose Fly]

.funny you think this is a 'scientific!' rebuttal to my points..

Not sure why you think that, since that post of mine is a reply to SZ, and not you.

Anytime you think you have the intelligence and the balls, to debate me straight up over science, I'm here. I return your pathetic barbs, to expose the anti-science bias and tactics.

Fascinating how you speak that way, immediately after complaining about alleged "snippy little patronizing remarks".

You are afraid to debate me with facts and reason

Again I suggest you focus less on childish taunting and more on reading the material you challenged us to provide.

You can start by actually reading the first paper I provided you and then responding in a thoughtful, adult manner to my posts to you from earlier today.

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

 

[usfan]

Oh, Dr. Eve gene, all those projection and jealousy laden paragraphs, when you could have directed your laser-like focus and scientific knowledge on addressing this:


A Mitogenomic Phylogeny of Living Primates
July 16, 2013

The pseudo science projection here is off the charts.

Did you even read this 'study?' This is NOT like the discovery of mtDNA, or its significance in tracing the mt-MRCA, but is a statistical comparison, AFTER THE ASSUMPTION of common ancestry is made! You put your faith is vague comparisons of the 'genomic sequences', which is declared, 'proof of evolution!'

I usually don't even bother with your hysterical, poo flinging posts, but the pretentiousness of this is beyond belief. Only gullible bobbleheads would read through this fluff propaganda piece and conclude, 'evolution!'

This is propaganda, not science. The 'data' is vague and undefined. The conclusions are asserted. The science is atrocious. I see no perer reviews for this crusader piece, just distorted claims, masked in techno babble to fool the simple minded.

That is its only success. I'm happy that you are so easily convinced of something you already believe with passion.

One major result is a relatively young date for the most recent common ancestor of all living primates which was estimated to 66-69 million years ago, suggesting that the divergence of extant primates started close to the K/T-boundary. Although some relationships remain unclear, the large number of mt genomes used allowed us to reconstruct a robust primate phylogeny which is largely in agreement with previous publications.


Really? Reconstructing the phylogenetic tree, with speculation and vague claims of 'similarity!', is all that is done here. There is no mtDNA evidence of common ancestry, nor a thread of descent to follow, like in the REAL mt-MRCA chain.

This is a deliberate deception. There is no Most Recent Common Ancestor, for all primates. There is No EVIDENCE of common ancestry, just belief and plausibility.

There IS an mt-MRCA for EACH of the phylogenetic organisms, that can be traced. But it is a distortion and 'fake science'.. a con.. a hoax.. a LIE, to pretend there is a mtDNA 'marker' showing common ancestry between the spider monkeys and humans.

It is not surprising, that you place such stock in this misleading, flawed conclusion, propaganda piece, since confirmation bias, not critical thinking, is your goal.

Bluff, Belittling, Belief, and Bleating is all you have. You add Bullying, as though you can intimidate people to accept your religious beliefs, but that is Boring, to me, and i tire of debating Bobbleheads.

..continue your heckling and mocking.. it is a very clear indicator of the depth of your intelligence.

 

[usfan]

Ya - just reply about him (or rather, his silly naive claims), not to him.

Yes, 3rd party gossiping about someone is much more 'scientific!' than debating with facts and reason..


..progressive indoctrinees..

 

[usfan]

Not sure why you think that, since that post of mine is a reply to SZ, and not you.

ROFL!!

So you pretend this post was a private conversation with someone else, about another topic, and not a patronizing personal shot at me, personally?


..and you bobbleheads accuse me of lying..

 

[usfan]

The evidence from your posts is that you haven't read it, or anything like it, or, if you have, you didn't understand it.

The evidence over the last few pages here, where, for example, you've been given lots of information about how we know the age of the universe, and you've just ignored it and re-posted your misunderstandings, is that you simply aren't interested in science, just in making baseless assertions about it and falsely accusing others of what you are doing yourself.

You just accuse me and ignore the topic.

Why not give all your attention to the TOPIC, rather than my person? Ad hominem all you have?

 

[Jose Fly]

ROFL!!

So you pretend this post was a private conversation with someone else, about another topic, and not a patronizing personal shot at me, personally?


..and you bobbleheads accuse me of lying..

Even if it was, the question remains why you reponded to that rather than my replies to you about the paper I posted.

I thought you were going to ignore all things personal and focus soley on the science-related posts?

 

[usfan]

The evidence is the detailed angular distribution of the fluctuations in the CMBR. Now, to understand that evidence and why it supports the age conclusions requires a LOT more work. And, unless you understand the basics of differential geometry, you won't be able to do so.

Why assume I'm stupid? Is it because you are, and try to bluff with pretended understanding of this subject?

Explain your beliefs, and the evidence that supports them. Appealing to 'really smart people!,' is a fallacy.

If you understand the dating methods, you should be able to explain them, and show the 'science' and data behind them. I've presented some problems with the assumptions of ancient earth dates, which have been ignored, in favor of posting links to verbalize your beliefs.

If you don't really know, no problem. Most people don't. They trust their Indoctrination.

 

[usfan]

You can start by actually reading the first paper I provided you and then responding in a thoughtful, adult manner to my posts to you from earlier today.

I read it. I told you so, and even quoted exerpts. Yet you repeat with propaganda like efficiency the opposite.

Why is that?

You have a narrative and caricature to construct, and can't be bothered with facts?

If you spent half as much time evidencing the claims, and showing what this 'paper!' actually said, there could be a discussion. But your propaganda pounding of, 'You didn't read the paper!' .... is an absurd deflection, and only deflects from the CONTENT of this earth shattering paper.

You have only quoted the conclusions of the abstract. You don't know, or can't (or won't) explain what the data was, or how their conclusions are valid.

You only cheerlead for your groupthink cronies, and have no display of reasoning or critical thinking.

..and btw, are your posts examples of "responding in a thoughtful, adult manner"..?

So obviously you haven't read the full paper

That you don't know this further indicates that you haven't read the full paper.

If you'd read the full paper you would have known that.

Given that you've not read the paper,

But you wouldn't know either way, since you've not read the paper.

your opinion of a paper that you've not read is meaningless.

But you wouldn't know either way, since you've not read the paper.

you didn't even bother to read the paper

your opinion of a paper you've not bothered to read is meaningless.

I bet you're "perplexed", since you didn't bother to read it.

Have you ever seen any creationist do that? When was the last time you provided a scientific paper to a creationist and they responded with a comprehensive and detailed response that showed they not only read the paper, but fully understood

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not seem to understand that that was a poetic phrase.

How is it I do not understand? I didn't think Jesus was literally water. But he made a point of speaking of living water that gives life. Revelation 7:17.
"For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; 'he will lead them to springs of living water.' 'And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes"
Poetically speaking you think he could have been talking about evolution, poetically that is, since some conjecture that "life" came from nonliving water. You know, the chemicals that became, so it is hypothesized, biological (and that, of course, leading to or beginning the supposed evolution of what is called life by some).

 

[YoursTrue]

Why assume I'm stupid? Is it because you are, and try to bluff with pretended understanding of this subject?

Explain your beliefs, and the evidence that supports them. Appealing to 'really smart people!,' is a fallacy.

If you understand the dating methods, you should be able to explain them, and show the 'science' and data behind them. ..

My thought also.

 

[usfan]

I thought you were going to ignore all things personal and focus soley on the science-related posts?

I've evolved.

Unlimited freeshots from hecklers does not promote clarity and understanding. False accusations should be exposed, as well as fallacies.

I won't do it a lot, and i don't reply to every heckling, disruptive post, but i will confront the hecklers from time to time.

Not fair? Prefer a one way shooting arcade, where you can attack and ridicule with no return fire?

Do what your Master Baiter does: start threads mocking and ridiculing me, personally, so i won't fire back.

Bullies prefer passive, defenseless targets. Did you think i would be one?

 

[Jose Fly]

I read it.

That's good, although it makes me wonder why you had to ask what data and methods they used. If you'd already read it, why ask?

Anyways, since you've read the paper, show exactly where the authors "assumed common ancestry" (rather than testing for it), show exactly where they rigged things "to get the desired results", and identify any fundamental errors you see in their work.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evidence has been given. People that have supplied you with evidence understand the concept. You either do not understand the concept or are a liar.

The question is why are you afraid to even discuss the concept? Is it because every reliable site out there uses a variation of the definition that I posted.

Running away is a sign that you know that you are wrong.

The concept? Because I looked up the word, it is described as

1: something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Note #2. Abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances. Particular instances say nothing; tells you nothing about micro-evolution. Shows nothing. Only shows that some things look like other things. Not mindlessly change (evolve) without outside direction.

 

[YoursTrue]

You made a lot of posts ostensibly asking questions about abiogenesis and evolution. You try, a little, to convey that you are actually interested in learning, but it has become obvious that that is probably not the case. "Mindless Evolution"? That's right out of the Creationists playbook.

So, let's flip things around a little. How about you tell us how you account for man's existence on earth.

So you think evolution has a mind to say, ok, I'll make legs?