• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Status
Not open for further replies.

Audie

Veteran Member
Let our hero present one fact contrary to
ToE . One. We will do what we can to get
him a much deserved noble.

The OP was such a stink bomb, I will stay
away unless I hear that the incredible fact
against ToE has been announced.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Sorry, but evolutionary theory is settled science, and isn't going anywhere however threatening it is to actual religious beliefs like yours.

No, common descent is a scientific pronouncement - the result of applying reason to evidence. Creationism is a religious belief, and offers no evidence or valid arguments, just fallacious ones like the special pleading that a cell is too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated, so lets propose an infinitely more complicated thing - a god, also said to be undesigned and uncreated - to explain the existence of the far simpler cell. Or that DNA looks like a program to somebody, therefore there must be an intelligent designer of it

The way we can tell which one is science is to see which one is useful. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Creationism can do none of those things and having no predictive power, can be used for nothing.That's all you really need to know about either subject. You don't need to know the science to know that it is correct, just that it works, and therefore must be correct in the main even if a few details are still being worked out. That's also how we know that the science and engineering that NASA brings to space travel is correct because it works. You don't need to know the calculus or the science behind the materials used to know that the people who do are correct by their success.

Furthermore, the science has already eliminated the Christian god from possibility. Even if the theory were falsified tomorrow by some finding that showed that evolution did not actually occur, what are you left with but that mountain of evidence suggesting evolution had occurred and that one finding confirming that it didn't? The old data that strongly suggested that life on earth - millions of pieces of evidence from multiple fields of science such as comparative anatomy and biochemistry, biogeography, genetics, and paleontology - that old data doesn't disappear.

It would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the new finding, and no other interpretation occurs to me than that an extremely powerful and deceptive agency intended for us to be deceived into believing that life had evolved on earth to the extent that it buried strata of life forms that never lived such that the most primitive appearing would be found deepest and with a combination of radionuclides that made them appear oldest, with progressively more modern forms appearing in shallower strata. And it went to the trouble of creating all of those nested hierarchies and inserting ERVs into genomes as part of the great deception, scattered the ring species to be found, and the like.

That pretty much eliminates the Christian god, who we are told wants to be believed in, obeyed, loved, and worshiped, not hide from us and deceive us with the evidence that we have that life evolved.

If you have an argument against the science, make it.

Your last sentence is the only appropriate response,
unless you care to add "put up or shut up, we aint
dancin' your jig."
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I prefer not to debate with those who rely heavily on ad hom and distortion.

If you have evidence, present it. If you just want to heckle and disrupt, fine. I can't stop you.
Fine, I have never used either. In fact by your standards your post is an "ad hom".

Can't you answer a simple question?

In your own words what is "Scientific evidence"? You used the term in your title. You should be able to define it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.

Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent. Simple.
Nested hierarchies.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Philosophical comments, and statements of belief are to be expected, but the thread is about specific evidence, not general assumptions, about the theory of universal common descent.

Start with ONE bit of evidence.. scientifically verifiable evidence.. that supports (or refutes) the theory of common descent. Simple.

It seems you're asking everyone else to do the heavy lifting here? The orientation of the OP feels a bit like sea-lioning to me, no?

But in an attempt to respond in good faith, from what I've heard many times, the more we study the genes of various species, the more we find them to be mostly similar.

If that's not sufficient I'd say that you can research it for yourself. I for one an happy to rely on scientific concensus.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I would say the best evidence is that genealogy of species via DNA analysis confirms morphology. What this means in basic terms is that the "tree of life" AKA the "family tree" of species based upon their resemblances to each other very closely matches the family tree of species based upon analysis of their DNA. For instance, the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is very similar, the DNA between humans and other apes is less similar, the DNA between humans and monkeys like gibbons is still less similar, and the DNA between humans and other animals like cats and dogs is even less similar. The tree of life created by the hierarchical similarities of life based on both appearance and actual genes is very similar, indicate strong evidence for common ancestry. If the species were independently created, then the creator purposely made it look as if the species evolved from a common ancestor.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
DNA

It does not lie, all cellular life has it.

It really doesnt matter what unproven arguments are put forward.
And that's it, in a nutshell. Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids.

To me, that is evidence for all living things and their interacting processes having the same Designer.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And that's it, in a nutshell. Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids.

To me, that is evidence for all living things and their interacting processes having the same Designer.
It goes far beyond that. It is the pattern of similarities that we see in DNA that tell us that we are all related. Creationists have no explanation for the similarities except to claim that God is incompetent.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
And that's it, in a nutshell. Because all known life has the same building blocks, w/ proteins and their amino acids.

To me, that is evidence for all living things and their interacting processes having the same Designer.

You are welcome to your opinion, to me, relating it to the myriad other evidence it is shown without doubt that evolution is valid.

The one designer idea is not about evolution but a/biogenesis. Different argument.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
You are welcome to your opinion, to me, relating it to the myriad other evidence it is shown without doubt that evolution is valid.

The one designer idea is not about evolution but a/biogenesis. Different argument.
Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.

I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.
  1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
  2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
  3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
  4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
  5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
  6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
  7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.
If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.
Universal Common Descent is different from Theory of Biological Evolution. Which one is up for discussion?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.

I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.


DNA research is too vast to post on this thread, we are talking terabytes of data. Here are over 70,000 papers on the subject
Google Scholar

Micro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution.

Here is a new species recently evolved.
A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
Which shows the evidence is there if only you bother to look
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.

I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.
So you understand on the micro scale. What don't you understand about how small changes add up to larger changes on the macro scale? It's all the same, with the only difference being the amount of time involved.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.
  1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
  2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
  3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
  4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
  5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
  6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
  7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.
If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.
Rolling back to darwins original drawing the tree cannot be debated its self evident no science even needed. And factually that itself isnt science but nature itself. A simple small child walking through the forest knows this. If the child has the opportunity.

The hanging disconnected "i think" or gap, most certainly can be discussed in regards to whats self evident. Darwin has a gap. Yet gaps are not real in the current theory.
598px-Darwins_first_tree-2.jpg
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
How? Explain, not just link to an assumed authority. I don't debate links, and can only deal with evidence provided.

I know this argument, i would just like it presented. I won't go through some link as a proxy, and rebut their points.

How does the 'development of embryos', evidence common descent?
Well if you know it, I'm certainly not wasting my time to jump through the hoops just for your amusement. This is an old and tiresome creationist game: get the scientists to run around justifying scientific theories with their description of the evidence, while you take potshots at what they say and try to nickel and dime it to death. I'm not playing.:D

As you say you know the argument, you can cut all this short by telling us, yourself, why you apparently think it is NOT evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.

I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.
But that is only because you do not understand the concept of evidence. It won't take long to learn. The only problem is that you will no longer be able to claim not to see evidence for evolution without lying.

Are you hold enough to learn?
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
..and, of course, if nobody has any evidence, or if they only wish to assert THEIR beliefs and ridicule other's, that is a common occurence in forums, too.

It is appropriate to debate common descent as a religious belief, because that is what it is.

Your discussion is futile as evolutionists adapt a distorted concept of what science is. Evolutionists must first realize that ToE (as well as BBT) is not delivered the same way as all any other traditional science.

Traditional science relies on a predictable model on how a phenomenon repeats itself. It's an infallible (in a theoretical sense) prediction on how this phenomenon repeats itself from now till in a future time point where the phenomenon completes its end-to-end repetition.

ToE cannot be established this way because we can't possibly generally speculate how complicated organisms are formed from single cell organisms. It's thus a scientifically fallacious employment to use simple form of evolution (say from single to multiple cell) as a proof to conclude that more complicated organisms are formed from evolution.

Because a single cell organism (simple form) has been evolved to a multiple cell organism (another simple form), such that a human (complicated form) must have been evolved from a single cell (simple form).

The above is a scientifically fallacious conclusion. In terms of the religious sector, it's a satanic deception because it's perceived as a legitimate scientific conclusion!

Only after the evolutionists having the courage to admit the above, then we can talk about how ToE intends to work.

ToE in a nutshell is the use of an alternative approach under the circumstance that we humans cannot establish a scientific model simply because it takes too long for an end-to-end repetition to complete for us to draw a legitimate scientific conclusion.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Your discussion is futile as evolutionists adapt a distorted concept of what science is. Evolutionists must first realize that ToE (as well as BBT) is not delivered the same way as all any other traditional science.

Traditional science relies on a predictable model on how a phenomenon repeats itself. It's an infallible (in a theoretical sense) prediction on how this phenomenon repeats itself from now till in a future time point where the phenomenon completes its end-to-end repetition.

ToE cannot be established this way because we can't possibly generally speculate how complicated organisms are formed from single cell organisms. It's thus a scientifically fallacious employment to use simple form of evolution (say from single to multiple cell) as a proof to conclude that more complicated organisms are formed from evolution.
Actually this is not so. Phenomena that repeat themselves are not intrinsic to science.

You may possibly be getting confused about what "repeatability" (or reproducibility) of observations means. It means that different observers can repeat the observation and get consistent results - basically a way of minimising the subjective element in any human observations of nature.

ToE makes predictions that are regularly shown correct, as any good scientific theory should.

For instance, it generally predicts correctly what degrees of relative similarity in DNA there should be between organisms, from the Phylogenetic Tree, a construction that is one product of the theory.

And it predicts what transitional fossils we should expect to find, and in rocks of what age, and we find them.

(Different observers generally have little trouble agreeing on degrees of DNA similarity, or on what the fossils are, so the need for repeatability poses no problem for the ToE.)

So, regardless of what you may have read in a creationist tract, it is quite wrong to imagine that it is qualitatively different from a theory like, say, the part of chemistry that accounts for the Periodic Table. That too makes predictions of what properties and behaviour we should expect from the elements and it too is fairly successful in doing what it does.

In fact it is the departures from the predictions that make for the most interesting chemistry. I have no doubt that the same is true of the theory of evolution. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top