Shouldn't we consider universal, common ascent rather than descent? Sounds more uplifting to a higher order.
Descent refers directly to origin or background. Ascent seems to imply an overall direction or value statement that doesn't exist in evolution. So, I don't know how to make that word apply.
Damned if I know why it should - especially given that the internet is constantly flooded with ignorance dressed up as enlightenment from you and your ilk. Perhaps it's worth noting that the application thereof can just as readily yield lies as truth. Trust me, I get it: just as there is safety in numbers, there is an illusion of safety in the illusion of numbers. That aside, as to those who do have that reaction, that's a problem on their end. Yeah, well here I am all the same. Deal. It's not debating at all, it's just giving straight answers. Perhaps you deem that inappropriate in a science forum?
Quite to the contrary. Your willful ignorance, bad, self-affirming behavior, and vunlerability to bronze age superstition is a fine illustration of why science is needed.
You've got me confused with the yguy-in-effigy your imagination has obviously contrived in defense of your cherished conceits; and most likely you won't have it otherwise.
Fascinating. So, my esteemed man of faith... why do you propose God made everything look like evolution is a fact? I know you will be tempted to say, "He didn't, because it doesn't look like fact." But you already admitted you know less than nothing about it, so you are not really in a position to say that. So, just for the sake of discussion, let's acknowledge that it, at the very least, appears to be fact to nearly all the experts (Even if they are wrong. Especially if they are wrong.). Why did God make this so?
Since it only looks that way to people who are devoid of any understanding of what a human being is, the question is nonsensical. You're welcome.
I think some believe you cannot be a Christian and a scientist as well as believe in evolution. That's not true. Perhaps they're reasoning to refute evolution lies in you have to choose religion or science.
Creationists may think that;however,the vast majority of the faithful have long since adjusted their belief system to accommodate evolution—including the Pope.
The "Flexibility" of Christianity allows for each Christian to be whatever they desire, they can either just ignore the parts they don't like or even make a new version entirely. In this way adaptation to new realities let the religion maintain viability without undue force, unlike the Islamic faith. Creationist Christians are a different story and give the religion a bad name in the eyes of pretty much everyone else....including many Christians.
The Book of Genesis is a liberal poem for the origin of the universe and a version of evolution a nomad could understand. How else can you write of the cosmos to wandering herdsmen?
'Common descent' is the more common vernacular for this theory, so i have used it here. But it implies, of course, ascent. And that term was used by Darwin in his book, 'The Descent of Man'. It is proper for the founder of a belief system to set precedence for terminology. It depends on which way you are looking from. We cannot see forward, so any 'ascent' from here is speculative, if at all. But, we can't see backwards either, and can only speculate 'descent', as well. The believers in common descent see all manner of clues and evidence for this theory, and become frustrated with anyone who dares question their conclusions. But the evidence is too speculative, sketchy, and full of holes, to compel a scientific conclusion, so it remains a plausible belief. I have no issue with UCD as a plausible belief.. just when it is framed as 'settled science!'
Exactly. So WHY do Believers in UCD always frame the argument as, 'Christians vs Atheists!'? Obviously, MOST theists believe in UCD, from years of indoctrination. When anyone raises SCIENTIFIC objections, why are those filtered through 'Christian bias?' Most of the objections to UCD are scientific and evidentiary in nature. ALL of mine are. Why is this distorted as a 'religious!' argument, when my objections are all scientific and evidentiary?
The problem arises in a thread like this, when the hecklers outnumber the debaters. The ignored posters continue with heckling and disruption, diverting any discussion from scientific, fact based reasoning. It is just the way of Progresso World, i suppose, where antifa disruption is tolerated as a 'method' of public discourse. Truth, understanding, and civility are the casualties, but i guess those things are not congruent with Progresso World.
Likely, this would be because almost everyone who tries to debunk Evolution or common descent does so from the creationist standpoint. You are an exception in that you simply dismiss or ignore the evidence presented for unknown reasons and claim it has nothing to do with religion. I personally believe it does have a creationist underpinning but embarrassment prevents you from admitting it, the alternate explanation is far less flattering. Though you indeed claim science drives you it seems very clear you either do not grasp the concept or simply play a game. I for one stopped presenting you with data after several attempts were dismissed or went unanswered.
I am not asking for an explanation or teaching moment, but evidence for the theory. Patronizing comments like this are fallacies. That has been the claim, in every instance the 'e coli' argument has been presented. I can only rebut claims that are made. If you are not claiming e coli to be evidence of speciation and UCD, then we have no debate. False accusation I have given direct evidence about the mtDNA and paragraphs of explanations & arguments that you dismiss or ignore. ALL the genetic, fossil, and anthropological evidence points to neanderthal as fully human tribe. It is up to you to provide evidence for your claim of missing link, or subspecies, for neanderthal. Do you want me to quote all of my points & evidence on neanderthal again? False accusation. I have ignored NOTHING. The 'evidence' provided in this thread has been so sparse i address it all. If you are making a claim of 'horse fossils prove UCD!', then make it. How can i ignore arguments that are not made, only alluded to or implied? Lots of assertions, ad hom, and false accusations, here. Why not try a scientific, evidentiary debate? I, for one, am sick of the fallacies that are used.. almost exclusively .. by the True Believers in UCD. 1. No, the embryo 'tail', is not a tail. It is a developing embryo that 'looks like!' a tail. It has no genetic or morphological identity as a tail, and it has no compelling conclusion of common descent. 2. 'Species' is vague, fluid, and useless as a descriptive term. Many different 'species!' so defined are just variants of the parent. Canidae, equidae, and fruit flies all exemplify this confusion about 'species!' 3. Vestigiality is circular reasoning.. proof by definition. Unknown function of an organ does not compel belief in 'vestigiality!' There is no compelling evidence that requires a conclusion of UCD, in any of these 'proofs' that have been presented. Other explanations are just as plausible, if not more so. Evidence, not plausibility, is the challenge here.: Scientific facts and tests that support the theory of universal common descent, not assertions, fallacies, and hints of possibility.
Lets start at the top shall we. Evolution isn't only about speciation and UCD. Without the evolution of new complex traits then life would have never evolved from simple organisms to the complex ones we see today. So the evolution of new complex abilities does prove an important part of the theory. It refutes creationists claims about evolution like "no new information", "irreducible complexity", and "no good mutations."
Note that other posters have repeatedly asked him valid questions and his response has been to put them on ignore.
That doesn't make it nonsensical. God would know these people possess this deficit. So, the question stands. Why would god make this so?
That is false. Why do the UCD Believers insist on using lies, bluffs, and distortions? I have to ignore the hecklers and disrupters, or the thread is totally ruined by them. Few.. VERY few, have provided anything for me to address or examine.. as scientific evidence. The disrupters won't allow reasoned debate, and they outnumber the civil, rational posters. ..nothing to be done about it.. Hysteria and partisan polemy is wanted, not dry examination of facts. Still, i try.. like Quixote tilting at windmills..
1. Macro evolution and universal common descent are synonymous. 2. Mutations have not produced any new haplotrees or phylogenetic structures. That is an imagined event. 3. What is the source of 'new information' that you claim happens all the time? Why can we never observe a genetic change like this? 4. What is the mechanism at the genetic level, that overcomes the observed reality of dna constancy? Millions of generations attempting to force 'speciation' into a distinct phylogenetic type have only produced variations of the same organisms. They branch into different haplogroups, lose some traits, isolate reproductively perhaps, but their genetic architecture remains the same. How do you get from ape to man, or man to ape, when none of their genes interchange, they have no chance of breeding, and sex between them only produces AIDS? The challenge here is to provide evidence for the theory of universal common descent. Assertions, ad hom, deflections, and other fallacies do not provide evidence, and imply that the True Believers have no clue why they believe such a far fetched, imagined speculation. If you have evidence, please present it. If not, admit it, and don't try to bluff.
The catch with this is that the real argument includes vestigial structures where function IS known - it's just unused or unnecessary. That can be further supported by identifying homologous structures in related species, including where the function is important. For example, many animals have an appendix, even though some animals (such as humans) don't need them. I see this as a common trait of evolution deniers - that information is presented in a way that makes the point sound trivial when it is not.
We don't 'need' a lot of things in our anatomy. That does not imply common descent. Are you claiming that the human appendix is an unneeded, vestigial organ? With no useful function? http://time.com/4631305/appendicitis-appendix-gut-bacteria/ Perhaps the real 'denier!' is you and your fellow True Believers.. insisting on your fantasy beliefs instead of hard science.. Why are name calling, ad hom, and other fallacies the best 'arguments!' you can come up with? Don't know the science? Have to defend your beliefs? A victim of Indoctrination? Groupthink loyalty?
Of course, our tiny appendix is,indeed, vestigial, as its function and importance have diminished since our ancestors. Its function is no longer necessary to our species, whether it does something or not. Similarly, some species have vestigial eyes that still do retain some function , but are most unnecessary and not really used. Of course, this is why they became "vestigial" in the first place.
