Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

I would say that you would need paleontologists, geologists and biologists in the multi-flavor package for a job like that. Along with chemists and a couple of physicists.

When I was in school before I became a Christian, I believed everything they taught about evolution. I was also an honor student.

 

[usfan]

When I was in school before I became a Christian, I believed everything they taught about evolution. I was also an honor student.

Me too.. before studying the science with a jaundiced eye..

 

[Jose Fly]

Here's the LINK..

1. The prejudicial bias is clearly stated in the opening paragraph. Common Descent is assumed as 'settled science!'

And that's the fundamental error in your response. The authors did not assume common descent, they tested between two scenarios--common descent or separate ancestry--to see which best explains the data.

Do you understand that very simple point? They did not assume common descent, they tested for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly I thought that all my questions were answered, but now I have some new ones. At first it seemed reasonable to me to me to think of common ancestry as an explanation for similarities between species

That's part of it, yes. It also explains other things, like differences between species, patterns in the fossil record, biogeography, patterns of genetic similarities and differences, etc.

but the more I thought about that, the less sense it made. One of the similarities between animal species is that they are composed of atoms containing electrons, and protons, but I wouldn’t try to explain that by saying that they have common ancestors. Why couldn’t the similarities simply be a result of the nature of evolutionary processes?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the nature of evolutionary processes". You'll have to explain.

 

[Jose Fly]

@usfan I’m beginning to see what you’re talking about here. The more I read about evolution research, the more that some of it looks like an endless, desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship.

Where specifically do you see that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I was in school before I became a Christian, I believed everything they taught about evolution. I was also an honor student.

There is no need to "believe" the facts that they teach can be independently confirmed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that's the fundamental error in your response. The authors did not assume common descent, they tested between two scenarios--common descent or separate ancestry--to see which best explains the data.

Do you understand that very simple point? They did not assume common descent, they tested for it.

Creationists cannot afford to understand how concepts are tested. Just as they cannot afford to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Me too.. before studying the science with a jaundiced eye..

LOL! So that's your problem.

Now that you are looking at it with undue prejudice you cannot understand it. I am a bit shocked that you admitted this flaw of yours:

Jaundiced eye Idiom Definition – Grammarist

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When I was in school before I became a Christian, I believed everything they taught about evolution. I was also an honor student.

When I was in school, I was a Christian and still am. I was taught evolution by a highly qualified teacher who was also a Christian. This teacher inspired me to continue on and become a professional biologist.

The evidence of evolution is remarkable and the theory is an incredible achievement of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL! So that's your problem.

Now that you are looking at it with undue prejudice you cannot understand it. I am a bit shocked that you admitted this flaw of yours:

Jaundiced eye Idiom Definition – Grammarist

It seems a rare moment of honesty in an otherwise deceit-laden, series of grandiose and empty assertions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since he will not respond to logic and evidence not much else is left. Of course then after going out of his way to earn what he calls "heckling" he will complain about that to no end. Is that not more than a little hypocritical?

A person making themselves a part of the thread they created and then using that as a means of escape and attack on posters that point it out is working at being hypocritical.

Anyone that really believes that someone has spent 40 years loving, studying and using science, yet has to rely solely on a series of deceitful tactics to reject science would be a fool for buying into that lie.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@usfan I’m beginning to see what you’re talking about here. The more I read about evolution research, the more that some of it looks like an endless, desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship.

Why are you reading about evolution research and not looking at the actual research. Creationist websites are about evolution research, but they have nothing useful to say on the subject. A person could read them, but would know nothing about evolution as a result.

The entire book, On the Origin of Species, was about all the evidence and the explanation that evidence lead to. The explanation was not contrived and then all the observations were jammed into whether they would fit or not.

What is sinking? Not the science. Not the theory. Not the nobility of honest inquiry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Jose Fly I thought that all my questions were answered, but now I have some new ones. At first it seemed reasonable to me to me to think of common ancestry as an explanation for similarities between species, but the more I thought about that, the less sense it made. One of the similarities between animal species is that they are composed of atoms containing electrons, and protons, but I wouldn’t try to explain that by saying that they have common ancestors. Why couldn’t the similarities simply be a result of the nature of evolutionary processes?

The similarities are the result of the nature of the evolutionary process. The differences are also the result of the nature of the evolutionary process. We are the result of the nature of the hereditary process that was engaged in by our great, great, great, great grandparents.

It seems that you are trying to ask if the similarities are not real and result as a byproduct of evolution. This is not an original notion and has been investigated. Are you familiar with convergent evolution where similar traits arise due to similar selection pressure? Some traits are similar as a result of a similarity of circumstances that drive the evolution of the same or a similar answers to those circumstances, but not all of them are. Being able to recognize the two possibilities--traits common by relationship compared to traits common by circumstance--can be exploited as a tool to demonstrate common ancestry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If a person finds all manner of excuses to avoid what they claim they are wanting and doing, I see it fair and reasonable to consider their honesty in question.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does it mean to be an organism in a genetic family? My family was genetic just like their families before them. I guess we are all in genetic families. Unless some of you are really AI's.

What's a genetic hurdle? Is that like a regular hurdle, but one used by racing biologists?

I think if anyone wants a good laugh, please do debate the most recent common ancestor issue.

Well again, not an expert on these things, but on the subject of human evolution, studies show that facial characteristics like noses can be passed on, changing in essence the genetic structure. I don't think this means, however, (not sure of the majority of 'expert' opinions) that chimpanzees morphed eventually after passing through a few stages, into humans. But it is possible for these 'humanly' genetic changes in things like -- skin color -- nose structure and so forth. Chimps, to the best of my knowledge, remain chimps and don't micro or macroevolve to another form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well again, not an expert on these things, but on the subject of human evolution, studies show that facial characteristics like noses can be passed on, changing in essence the genetic structure. I don't think this means, however, (not sure of the majority of 'expert' opinions) that chimpanzees morphed eventually after passing through a few stages, into humans. But it is possible for these 'humanly' genetic changes in things like -- skin color -- nose structure and so forth. Chimps, to the best of my knowledge, remain chimps and don't micro or macroevolve to another form.

Correct. Chimps are another species of ape. We share a common ancestor, and that was obviously an ape as well. Chimps are one species of ape and you and I are another species of apes. Evolution is a one way street. There is no going back and evolving into a different already existing species.

 

[Jim]

That's part of it, yes. It also explains other things, like differences between species, patterns in the fossil record, biogeography, patterns of genetic similarities and differences, etc.

Are you saying that the idea of a common ancestor between a member of one species and a member of another species explains differences between them, better than not thinking that they have a common ancestor?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the nature of evolutionary processes". You'll have to explain.

How life first appears, and how evolution happens. For example, one similarity between species is that they contain carbon compounds. I don’t think that’s because they have a common ancestor. Do you? To me, a better explanation is that carbon compounds are required for life to happen. Other similarities between species could also be explained as a result of how evolution happens. The reason for large animals all having a head and four limbs could be because that turned out to be better for survival than not having a head, or having more or less than four limbs, and not because they have a common ancestor.

 

[Jim]

The more I read about evolution research, the more that some of it looks like an endless, desperate search for evidence for a foregone conclusion, and to find ways to plug holes in a sinking ship.

Where specifically do you see that?

Here for example:
Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct. Chimps are another species of ape. We share a common ancestor, and that was obviously an ape as well. Chimps are one species of ape and you and I are another species of apes. Evolution is a one way street. There is no going back and evolving into a different already existing species.

It seems that scientists believe the 'evolution' from apes (including chimps and other non-humans) to humans did not happen with two ape-like ancestors suddenly changing into unique beings, one male and one female. Is that how you understand the so-called evolving of humans from chimpanzees and other ape types? (Sorry, but don't know exact terminology now that the majority of scientists use.)
Not speaking of going back, but somehow the apes are not moving to another state with discernible evidence lately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that the idea of a common ancestor between a member of one species and a member of another species explains differences between them, better than not thinking that they have a common ancestor?

The hat is what the observations point towards. One then forms a hypothesis and tests the concept. After trying to refute it in many different says one tends to accept it. Also if one uses standards consistently the same evidence that tells us "You ARE the father!" also tells us that you are an ape.

How life first appears, and how evolution happens. For example, one similarity between species is that they contain carbon compounds. I don’t think that’s because they have a common ancestor. Do you? To me, a better explanation is that carbon compounds are required for life to happen. Other similarities between species could also be explained as a result of how evolution happens. The reason for large animals all having a head and four limbs could be because that turned out to be better for survival than not having a head, or having more or less than four limbs, and not because they have a common ancestor.

How life first appears is a different but related topic. The probable cause of first life was natural abiogenesis. That is a concept that is still in the hypothetical state and may always be so. One reason for that is that there appear to be multiple possible.pathways to life so we may never know which one.

Perhaps you should review the scientific method. You are comparing idle speculation to tested and confirmed hypotheses.