Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Sep 30, 2018.

  1. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah.. i see
    I peeked and saw the flood of disruptive, ad hom filled posts from a member i have on ignore. Since they have not changed their tactics, but rely on disruption, ad hom, and ridicule, i see they are appropriately ignored, which is where they will stay, unless they agree to a scientific, civil debate.

    Contact me if you want to try again. I understand how the hysteria and polemy in political threads can carry over to an empirical debate.
     
  2. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, and for the record, let it be noted that 'usfan' has been 100% Refuted by me, so HAD to put me on Ignore to continue posting.
    This happens to me with EVERY creationist on Every board, because just as they deny evidence, they have to deny those who can present in a way that blatantly refutes them. That's what I do.

    On to the next:

    "Tribe" is NOT a genetic term, it's a Social group.
    The 'creative' "taxonomy" of creationism continues.
    Someone again demonstrates they don't Know, or want to use the term subspecies (aka, race) either.

    For 'One Mind too

    "Missing link"/linkS - or actually the intermediate fossil record - continues to be filled in EVERY Year, in not only humans, but other current species, as ONLY Evolution would predict.
    Predictability (besides other hard evidence) being a good test of a theory.

    Sciam:
    15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

    "....For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.​

    (Graphics/pictures/skulls/etc available)

    Neanderthals do not prove or disprove evolution, they are just part of the (non-linear in this case) web/offshoots of proto-humans that "ended up" with 'us'
    "us" for the moment that is, as WE TOO are transitioning/intermediate, as are all species.
    'We" are just part of a momentary snapshot in a billion+ years of ongoing Evolution.

    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
    Mamasaid, Cosmo and tecoyah like this.
  3. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again? Does presenting the same two questions to you 4 times, with nothing but whining and a sham insistence on "actual discussion" in response count?
     
  4. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @usfan

    Canis lepophagus

    Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since.

    Where did they come from?

    Where did they go?
    ....................

    Evolution answers both of these questionsneatly and simply.

    As for evidence this species was the ancestor of modern wolves and coyotes, that is also fairly simple in this case:

    First, no other species in the fossil record with such physiological similarity to modern canids has been found at this place and time. The "place" is important, as we know modern coyotes and wolves first appeared in this area of the world. The "time" is important, as this species exists just before the appearance of coyotes and wolves. And not after.

    Second, the physiological changes from this species to coyotes and wolves is a small portion of a spectrum of changes along the ancestral line of these modern species, per the fossil record. The changes present as continuous across the spectrum. These physiological traits not only demonstrate the ancestry of modern canids via their similarity and presence on a continuum, they also delineate this species as NOT being the ancestor of other species from different families of species.

    Any scientist will say the same thing: if you think this species is NOT the ancestor of modern canids,then present your alternative hypothesis, so that we can test it. No such alternative, testable hypothesis exists, and all the evidence available points toward the accepted hypothesis, istelf supported as part and parcel of the most well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind: evolution.

    This is how scientific knowledge is decided: when scientists have no choice but to accept something as fact, due to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, and due to lack of any viable and/or testable explanation.
     
    Cosmo and tecoyah like this.
  5. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So....you have yourself on ignore? How does that work and does it hamper you talking to yourself?
     
    Cosmo and Taxonomy26 like this.
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Swell. Now all you have to do is observe the evolution of such creatures into a new species over the next few (or many) thousands of years...

    ...but alas, regardless of the result, you won't be within lightyears of proving humans evolved from any other species.
    A patently dubious claim, seeing its inception came decades after his death. In any case, plenty of commies nowadays see the propaganda value in the most diabolical fraud perpetrated on mankind in the last millennium.
     
    usfan likes this.
  7. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why? That is an absurd standard that no scientist on the planet holds as required for the truth of any scientific knowledge. That is merely a convenient little standard you have contrived to rig the game for yourself. We haven't traveled to the center of a star to witness stellar fusion, but we know it is a fact. And you accept many scientific facts, despite scientists having not watched them happen. Do you know we have never seen an electron? I promise you... electrons exist. And you accept that they exist, as evidenced by your denier rantings being crafted on a quantum mechanical machine and sent to my monitor to be shown to my eyes, all thanks, in part, to the existence and understanding of electrons. These machines were invented precisely because of the knowledge of electrons, yet we have never seen an electron.

    Gee, how is that possible?

    And the evidence that humans evolved from another species is so overwhelming that it is considered established fact. Facts don't care whether or not you believe in them.

    Your occasionally sore back, which is not yet very well adapted to walking upright, does not care if you believe in evolution or not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  8. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,728
    Likes Received:
    8,770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It clearly went over your head. That legged snake is a throw back to its legged ancestors so why would snakes evolve legs? Legs are a hindrance to snakes hence why snakes evolved to become legless. Legged snakes are easy prey. Snakes still have the genes to form legs but those genes are switched off. That legged snake had a birth defect that affected the gene that switches off the development of legs.
    Wow. You think that humans have different rules to other animals in evolution.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  9. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct, he does. Accepting such absurd and unsupported ideas is required to maintain his magical, religious paradigm. trust me, no amount of evidence or fact is going to dislodge him from this position. You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into in the first place. You are not going to demonstrate the compelling nature of empirical evidence to a person who does not believe in determinism, and so therefore does not recognize even the existence of such a thing as "empirical evidence".
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @yguy

    Canis lepophagus

    Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since.

    Where did they come from?

    Where did they go?
     
  11. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @usfan

    Canis lepophagus

    Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since.

    Where did they come from?

    Where did they go?
     
  12. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Usfan and yguy

    Where did these posters come from?

    And where did they go?
     
  13. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did the rats abandon the sinking ship? Isn't the captain supposed to stay with the sinking ship?
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  14. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One of the 'proofs' commonly given for universal common descent is the combination of Time + Mutation. I did not have it in my earlier list, because it was never presented in a scientific argument, just asserted by drive by posters. But it is a common belief, that some are convinced is true. I will briefly examine the claim.

    Mutations are commonly presented by the entertainment industry (and every other UCD promoter), as the engine of genetic change, increases in complexity, and the source of new traits and abilities. We have NO scientific evidence that this can happen, so another element is included to make the idea seem more plausible:

    Time

    No structural changes in a genome have ever been observed, so time is suggested as a system of change.

    But time has no mechanism of change. It is a passive factor, that only supports degradation, as entropy returns all matter and energy to simpler forms.

    Add to that the far fetched notion that you had 2 genetic mutations, at the same time, with both male and female mutants to allow propagation of this new species, and the speculation becomes laughably absurd.

    Mutations happen all the time. They are almost always deleterious, with negative consequences for the organism. A few are neutral, but there is no scientific way that structural changes in the genome can be explained by mutation. Adding time is a bluff.. wishful thinking to hide the impossibility of the imagined process.

    'Given enough time, anything is possible!', cries the Believer in common descent. But it is not observable, repeatable, or even possible, by scientific methodology. It is an imaginary belief, nothing more.
     
  15. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a shred of evidence or argument to be found....just a Gish Gallop of authoritative statements.

    Nobody has to expend an ounce of energy counterarguing against the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn, as his rantings present no actual challenge to hard earned knowledge. Check the scoreboard: the scientific theory of universal common descent is quite safe from such blustering.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is why I asked you for your scientific credentials But you refused to offer any.
     
  17. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I ignored that very irrelevant request. Not only does scientific knowledge exist and persist regardless of any training or lack thereof which I possess, the question itself was posed by a dishonest actor...a naysayer who clearly pays no mind to the credentials or expertise of the global scientific community when engaging in his pattern of denial of scientific knowledge that doesn't align with his politics and/or superstitions.

    Which begs the question...if I had a wall of sheepskin to present as my "credentials", would that make me MORE or LESS credible, by your estimation? You don't seem to have settled on a side on that one. ;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Taxonomy26 and tecoyah like this.
  18. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It would seem you asked in order to distract away from failed argument and avoid embarrassment.
     
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  19. primate

    primate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    When 'white' pe
    You need to educate yourself before you speak. When people arrived in Europe they were black. Some of you are racist as all skin color is a result of the amount of melanin in the skin. It has nothing to do with race. We are all Homo sapiens regardless of skin color. There is but one species of Homo on this earth.........Homo sapiens
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. His argument. Thank you for noticing. Can he be embarrassed? I don't know.
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where is the evidence "they" were black?
     
  22. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You would be credible if you knew what you are talking about. For instance, though I am rusty in Chemistry, at least in college I did take and pass my chemistry courses.
     
  23. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Humans could have evolved anywhere.

    Could have been and is most likely India.

    Could have been Asia.

    Could have been Asia Minor.

    Least likely is Africa. They are most likely a separate spin off group like Neanderthals in Europe.
     
  24. primate

    primate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    In the DNA and mtDNA and in our languages
     
  25. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, skin color does Not alone determine Race, but it and other factors do.
    And yiostheoy included some of those other factors.
    Of course, he also had species and subspecies/Race mixed up.

    But Species too can be very close, and described with little more than he used for the term.
    Surprise to most....
    There are, ie, two Chimpanzee species, and four subspecies/races.
    There are also two Gorilla species, with 6 or 7 subspecies/races, with not alot to distinguish them visibly. Less than among the (currently nonexistant) human subspecies/races in fact.
    Because of their wide geographic adaptations/separate evolution, human "groups" are strongly morphologically marked.

    As to whether there are races among Homo sapiens, there obviously/officially aren't at the moment, but this is a disputed topic with plenty of evidence that there are if the same standards are used as used in other species. Politically this is a "hot potato", and due to the unfortunate abuse of the term in the past/last century, there are likely Never going to be further subdivisons.
    (this has been debated extensively in the Race section)
    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.

Share This Page