Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Subduction Zone]

'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.

<sigh>

Your own posts condemn you. Just because you did not learn any science when you went to school does not mean that others have that.same affliction.

And yet you could still learn. But until you learn the basics, which all of your opponents did and can demonstrate you will get nowhere.

Are you ready to learn the basics of science yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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).

So as far as we are concerned here it is a nonsense phrase.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking. The concept being discussed was "scientific evidence" .

 

[usfan]

<sigh>

Your own posts condemn you. Just because you did not learn any science when you went to school does not mean that others have that.same affliction.
And yet you could still learn. But until you learn the basics, which all of your opponents did and can demonstrate you will get nowhere.
Are you ready to learn the basics of science yet?

You really think you can just bluff and pretend to be an expert in origins, when you can't even present an intelligent argument for your beliefs?

You think this deflective BS passes for 'Reason!' or 'Facts!', anywhere except in Progresso World?

Keep deflecting.. don't try to produce evidence or arguments. You seem enamored with fallacies and ad hominem..

..basics of science..

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really think you can just bluff and pretend to be an expert in origins, when you can't even present an intelligent argument for your beliefs?

You think this deflective BS passes for 'Reason!' or 'Facts!', anywhere except in Progresso World?

Keep deflecting.. don't try to produce evidence or arguments. You seem enamored with fallacies and ad hominem..

..basics of science..

Please don't lie about me. Your education is clearly lacking. You do not understand the concept of scientific evidence and I offered to help you with that. That is not bluff, that is not bullying.

And I never claimed to be an expert on origins. I merely know far more than you do. Once again you won't let yourself even learn the basics. You handicap yourself terribly in the debate by using that strategy.

And please where is this supposed ad hom? Facts and corrections are not ad hom.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Well, we can start by assuming, I hope, that general relativity can be used as a base description. If you need support for *that*, we have a bit more work to do. So can we start there? Or do you need detailed evidence for general relativity?

Next, I assume you know the basics of how GR is applied to a universe with isotropic time sections to get the FWR metrics, which serve as the first approximation for cosmology. Then, of course have to add in how a cosmological constant affects such development (yes, this is all theoretical at this point).

Now, you have previously complained that we cannot assume the expansion rates are always the same. If you understand the material to this point, you know that, in fact, the rates of expansion are NOT constant, but are dependent on the densities of matter, radiation, and the value of the cosmological constant. Furthermore, each of these densities changes over time as the expansion occurs. SO, at the very least, the complaint about assumptions of constant expansion was a strawman.

Are we good so far?

Then, you have to add in thermodynamics to understand how the temperature is affected by the density changes in the expansion. Again, this is just the first approximation so far.

Finally, you have to do the perturbation theory to see how fluctuations in density affect the overall metrics and how that is reflected in the CMBR.

Again, this is all from the theoretical side of things, but is quite enough to show the universe is over 10 billion years old when the basic data on red shifts of distant galaxies is taken into account. If not, then we don't even have to get into the deails of COBE and WMAP, but can focus on the simple stuff like red shifts and standard candles.

Again, may I assume all of this or do you need a detailed description of the data and reasoning leading up to this?

Well, at that point, you would know there are several basic parameters to the model, such as baryon density, radiation density, overall expansion rate, overall acceleration on the expansion, as well as things like the average size of density fluctuations at the time of radiation decoupling.

At this point, all that the COBE and WMAP satellites did is take very precise measurements of the temperature in every direction of the sky. It is this map of temperatures that forms the basic data for the rest of the analysis. Can I assume you are willing to accept this data, at least as being data on temperatures in different directions for the CMBR? Or do we need to go into details on this?

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

Agreed. But appealing to the evidence as conveyed by people who have studied it in detail is NOT 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.

No, they have not been ignored. You claimed that there is no evidence for magnetic field reversals. I pointed out that the directions of magnetism in the spreading sea floor is such evidence. You have ignored that. Or do you want me to give details on that?

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

Well, it seems to me that you like to ignore evidence and analysis that is provided. The link to the WMAP analysis is very detailed and explains how the age of 13.7-8 billion years is arrive at in detail. Yes, it assumes that you accept the overall models that have worked previously (and where alternative models had been discarded because of previous releases of data from WMAP and COBE).

 

[Polymath257]

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!' ?

Well, let's focus on either the age of the universe or the age of the Earth. They are derived by very different methods and if we want details, we need to pick one or the other to not get too much cross-talk. I am more knowledgeable about the age of the universe, but can do a passable job on the age of the Earth.

Next, in these, I can ask whether you want an analysis of the most recent, best methods that give the most accurate answers? This would require a lot of very technical analysis.

Or is it enough to do a basic analysis that shows that the Earth is billions of years old and the universe is at least 10 billion years old? Since you seem to be objecting to any ages in the billion year range, can I assume that the overall picture is good enough and an approximation that gives an order of magnitude is sufficient?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, we can start by assuming, I hope, that general relativity can be used as a base description. If you need support for *that*, we have a bit more work to do. So can we start there? Or do you need detailed evidence for general relativity?

Next, I assume you know the basics of how GR is applied to a universe with isotropic time sections to get the FWR metrics, which serve as the first approximation for cosmology. Then, of course have to add in how a cosmological constant affects such development (yes, this is all theoretical at this point).

Now, you have previously complained that we cannot assume the expansion rates are always the same. If you understand the material to this point, you know that, in fact, the rates of expansion are NOT constant, but are dependent on the densities of matter, radiation, and the value of the cosmological constant. Furthermore, each of these densities changes over time as the expansion occurs. SO, at the very least, the complaint about assumptions of constant expansion was a strawman.

Are we good so far?

Then, you have to add in thermodynamics to understand how the temperature is affected by the density changes in the expansion. Again, this is just the first approximation so far.

Finally, you have to do the perturbation theory to see how fluctuations in density affect the overall metrics and how that is reflected in the CMBR.

Again, this is all from the theoretical side of things, but is quite enough to show the universe is over 10 billion years old when the basic data on red shifts of distant galaxies is taken into account. If not, then we don't even have to get into the deails of COBE and WMAP, but can focus on the simple stuff like red shifts and standard candles.

Again, may I assume all of this or do you need a detailed description of the data and reasoning leading up to this?

Well, at that point, you would know there are several basic parameters to the model, such as baryon density, radiation density, overall expansion rate, overall acceleration on the expansion, as well as things like the average size of density fluctuations at the time of radiation decoupling.

At this point, all that the COBE and WMAP satellites did is take very precise measurements of the temperature in every direction of the sky. It is this map of temperatures that forms the basic data for the rest of the analysis. Can I assume you are willing to accept this data, at least as being data on temperatures in different directions for the CMBR? Or do we need to go into details on this?



Agreed. But appealing to the evidence as conveyed by people who have studied it in detail is NOT a fallacy.



No, they have not been ignored. You claimed that there is no evidence for magnetic field reversals. I pointed out that the directions of magnetism in the spreading sea floor is such evidence. You have ignored that. Or do you want me to give details on that?



Well, it seems to me that you like to ignore evidence and analysis that is provided. The link to the WMAP analysis is very detailed and explains how the age of 13.7-8 billion years is arrive at in detail. Yes, it assumes that you accept the overall models that have worked previously (and where alternative models had been discarded because of previous releases of data from WMAP and COBE).

Oh snap!

 

[Polymath257]

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!' ?

OK. Let's start with the first step. The rates of decay of radioactive elements is constant. In other words, for each radioactive isotope, there is a constant k, called the rate of decay, such that whenever there is an amount A of that isotope, the number of decays per unit time is given by A'=-kA.

This value k is determined by the specific radioactive isotope and can be measured and is cataloged in any number of places by the isotope involved.

Being a process in the *nucleus* of the atom, and because the potential wall around the nucleus is so high, there are very few things that *can* affect the rate of decay. In particular, temperature, pressure, chemical environment, electrical fields, magnetic fields, collisions, etc are ALL irrelevant to the rate of decay unless the pressure and temperature are like those at the cores of stars (even at the surface of the sun, there is no detectable effect).

So can we agree that the rates of decay in radioactive substances is constant? or do you want the results showing they are independent of all of those variables?

I would also point out that if we are talking about the age of the Earth, we are NOT talking about anything close to the time of the Big Bang (as you had warned against) or where the conditions are significantly different than they are in star forming regions today.

Are we OK so far?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking. The concept being discussed was "scientific evidence" .

LOL, so it's a concept. ok.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, so it's a concept. ok.

Please, don't. Have you lowered your posts to just trolling?

Though many Christians in the U.S. do make the error of reading Genesis literally most of the world's Christians do not appear to do do. One still can be a Christian and not call God a liar. You do not have to believe the myths of Genesis to be a Christian.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I understand we are not supposed to assume he is stupid. I think by now, no one assumes that.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

The irony here is not only you accusing others of being indoctrinated when you won't even consider the evidence given to you, but also that you jumped in on a specific point I was making to have a little ad-hom rant (something else you hypocritically accuse others of) that had nothing to do with the subject.

If you can point to any (genuine) exposition of the theory of evolution that would predict anything other than "complete forms", please feel free to contribute.

 

[ratiocinator]

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?

Why don't you? I tried to give you proper information and you just ranted....

 

[usfan]

The Berkeley.Edu site is often quoted, in any discussion about common descent. The whale/hippo connection is a popular 'proof text' for common ancestry.

Here's an excerpt, and my examination:

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree &#8212; such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."
The evolution of whales

1. but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. Asserted. There is no evidence for this, other than assumptions & speculations.
2. ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
3. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree such as Pakicetus. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
4. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. These are just assertions & speculations, with no empirical evidence for the conclusion. They are assumed events, after the assumption of common descent. There is nothing empirical presented here, nor even any suggestion as to HOW these transitions could happen. This is all assertion after assertion, based on nothing but assumptions. There are no scientific facts in this link. It is a dogmatic expression of Belief, nothing more.

All the dates, all the claims of descendancy are based purely on homological or morphological speculation, that one might 'see & believe!' a morphing from one organism into another. If you look hard enough, hold your tongue in just the right way, and believe with all your heart, you can 'see!' this mystical religious phenomena. But scientific evidence? Nada. Zip.

This is just the 'logical fallacy' of 'correlation implies causation' or the argument of homology, in the ToE, that a vocal few have insisted were 'Evidence!' for the ToE. It is not evidence, it is a fallacy. Just because you can imagine a morphing from one creature into another, & you believe strongly that they descended from each other, does not provide evidence for this phenomenon. You must have something empirical, not just imagination & belief. That is how Real Science works

 

[usfan]

OK. Let's start with the first step. The rates of decay of radioactive elements is constant. In other words, for each radioactive isotope, there is a constant k, called the rate of decay, such that whenever there is an amount A of that isotope, the number of decays per unit time is given by A'=-kA.

The assumption of uniformity is still there, and is unwarranted.

Your own link posited:

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.

This is not an assumption of uniformity, but of cosmic expansion and time relativity, where the current laws of physics did not apply.

If the universe 'expanded' in less than a trillionth of a second, and rock containing isotopes formed, how can you assume current uniform conditions?

I would also point out that if we are talking about the age of the Earth, we are NOT talking about anything close to the time of the Big Bang (as you had warned against) or where the conditions are significantly different than they are in star forming regions today.

Allegedly, the earth was also formed during the big bang. Are you suggesting another cosmic creation event? From what basis?

Are we OK so far?

Great! Thanks for returning to a topical discussion.

 

[usfan]

Well, let's focus on either the age of the universe or the age of the Earth. They are derived by very different methods and if we want details, we need to pick one or the other to not get too much cross-talk. I am more knowledgeable about the age of the universe, but can do a passable job on the age of the Earth.

How do you posit the formation of the earth separately, from the rest of the universe?

If all matter was compressed, then expanded, "growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second", why was the matter in the earth excluded from this Causation Event?

I do not see a way to differentiate the age of the earth from the rest of the universe. It blew up, in the big bang, and was suddenly, almost instantly, expanded trillions fold to fill the universe, without the need for slow gradualism. Light and other rays expanded at this same 'rate', in this cosmic creation event. We cannot assume uniformity nor gradualism under these conditions. The very opposite is premised, so those conditions must apply to isotopes as well. You cannot cherry pick them out of your big bang event, and apply uniform gradualism to them, only.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Berkeley.Edu site is often quoted, in any discussion about common descent. The whale/hippo connection is a popular 'proof text' for common ancestry.

Here's an excerpt, and my examination:

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree &#8212; such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."
The evolution of whales

1. but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. Asserted. There is no evidence for this, other than assumptions & speculations.
2. ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
3. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree such as Pakicetus. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
4. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. These are just assertions & speculations, with no empirical evidence for the conclusion. They are assumed events, after the assumption of common descent. There is nothing empirical presented here, nor even any suggestion as to HOW these transitions could happen. This is all assertion after assertion, based on nothing but assumptions. There are no scientific facts in this link. It is a dogmatic expression of Belief, nothing more.

All the dates, all the claims of descendancy are based purely on homological or morphological speculation, that one might 'see & believe!' a morphing from one organism into another. If you look hard enough, hold your tongue in just the right way, and believe with all your heart, you can 'see!' this mystical religious phenomena. But scientific evidence? Nada. Zip.

This is just the 'logical fallacy' of 'correlation implies causation' or the argument of homology, in the ToE, that a vocal few have insisted were 'Evidence!' for the ToE. It is not evidence, it is a fallacy. Just because you can imagine a morphing from one creature into another, & you believe strongly that they descended from each other, does not provide evidence for this phenomenon. You must have something empirical, not just imagination & belief. That is how Real Science works

Ummm, no. Just about everything wrong as usual. First of of course your use of the world's "proof". Science does not do lroofs, science is evidence based. But you do seem to finally have started to realize that there is scientific evidence for all of our claims

The article that you cited is not about evidence for common descent, that has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is about the evolution of whales. Also if you read the article you would have seen how your claim of speculation falls apart, and this is far from a peer reviewed article that goes into detail as to the evidence they base their conclusions on. One piece of evidence that you missed is that the teeth of ambulocetus were analyzed and from that they could conclude that it consumed both fresh and salt water.

Here is some advice. Instead of making false claims of speculation, a claim that puts the burden of proof upon you, it would be wiser to ask how they know what they know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Berkeley.Edu site is often quoted, in any discussion about common descent. The whale/hippo connection is a popular 'proof text' for common ancestry.

Here's an excerpt, and my examination:

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree &#8212; such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."
The evolution of whales

1. but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. Asserted. There is no evidence for this, other than assumptions & speculations.
2. ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
3. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree such as Pakicetus. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
4. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. These are just assertions & speculations, with no empirical evidence for the conclusion. They are assumed events, after the assumption of common descent. There is nothing empirical presented here, nor even any suggestion as to HOW these transitions could happen. This is all assertion after assertion, based on nothing but assumptions. There are no scientific facts in this link. It is a dogmatic expression of Belief, nothing more.

All the dates, all the claims of descendancy are based purely on homological or morphological speculation, that one might 'see & believe!' a morphing from one organism into another. If you look hard enough, hold your tongue in just the right way, and believe with all your heart, you can 'see!' this mystical religious phenomena. But scientific evidence? Nada. Zip.

This is just the 'logical fallacy' of 'correlation implies causation' or the argument of homology, in the ToE, that a vocal few have insisted were 'Evidence!' for the ToE. It is not evidence, it is a fallacy. Just because you can imagine a morphing from one creature into another, & you believe strongly that they descended from each other, does not provide evidence for this phenomenon. You must have something empirical, not just imagination & belief. That is how Real Science works

Ummm, no. Just about everything wrong as usual. First of of course your use of the world's "proof". Science does not do lroofs, science is evidence based. But you do seem to finally have started to realize that there is scientific evidence for all of our claims

The article that you cited is not about evidence for common descent, that has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is about the evolution of whales. Also if you read the article you would have seen how your claim of speculation falls apart, and this is far from a peer reviewed article that goes into detail as to the evidence they base their conclusions on. One piece of evidence that you missed is that the teeth of ambulocetus were analyzed and from that they could conclude that it consumed both fresh and salt water.

Here is some advice. Instead of making false claims of speculation, a claim that puts the burden of proof upon you, it would be wiser to ask how they know what they know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you posit the formation of the earth separately, from the rest of the universe?

If all matter was compressed, then expanded, "growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second", why was the matter in the earth excluded from this Causation Event?

I do not see a way to differentiate the age of the earth from the rest of the universe. It blew up, in the big bang, and was suddenly, almost instantly, expanded trillions fold to fill the universe, without the need for slow gradualism. Light and other rays expanded at this same 'rate', in this cosmic creation event. We cannot assume uniformity nor gradualism under these conditions. The very opposite is premised, so those conditions must apply to isotopes as well. You cannot cherry pick them out of your big bang event, and apply uniform gradualism to them, only.

You really should not ask such an ignorant question and pretend to be any sort of expert at all.

Tell me, didn't you at least know that the Big Bang made only hydrogen, helium, lithium, and trace amounts of beryllium?