Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[abu afak]

And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all.​

​

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Contents​

• 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
• 4 Evidence from biogeography
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
  • 5.2 Invertebrates
  • 5.3 Microbes
  • 5.4 Plants and fungi
  • 5.5 Vertebrates
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Fossils
  • 6.2 Invertebrates
  • 6.3 Plants
  • 6.4 Vertebrates
• 7 Evidence from coloration
  • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
  • 7.2 Camouflage
• 8 Evidence from behavior
• 9 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
• 10 See also
• 11 References
• 12 Sources
• 13 External links

And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god .. any evidence at all.
`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't forget to add some personal "Contents"..

 

[Seymour Flops]

Don't forget to add some personal "Contents"..

He cant really comment on those links, since he has read/understood none of them.

 

[abu afak]

He cant really comment on those links, since he has read/understood none of them.

I've posted extensively on them here for years
I have threads on many things in that list.

What have you got for you Magic Designer/god except a LYING Dawkins 'quote' which actually calls Design an "Illusion."
oooph

If you were near as literate as me on the topic, you wouldn't have a no-evidence Religious position.
`

 

[abu afak]

Doesn't rely on one person's misquotes but solid Biochemical and cellular analysis.
The biggest gap on this board is Evidence.
Evo has all of it in the debate.
ID, god, etc, NONE.

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life
Scientific American

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

One researcher put the basic biological assumption of a single common ancestor to the test--and found that advanced genetic analysis and sophisticated statistics back up Darwin's age-old proposition

www.scientificamerican.com

One researcher put the basic biological assumption of a single common ancestor to the test--and found that advanced genetic analysis and sophisticated statistics back up Darwin's age-old proposition.

Earth's first life-form, floating in the proverbial froth of the primordial seas that eventually gave rise to trees, bees and humans, is not just a popular Darwinian conceit but also an essential biological premise that many researchers rely on as part of the foundation of their work.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin went beyond others, who had proposed that there might be a common ancestor for all mammals or animals, and suggested that there was likely a common ancestor for all life on the planet—plant, animal and bacterial.

A new statistical analysis takes this assumption to the bench and finds that it not only holds water but indeed is Overwhelmingly sound."..."
[.......]

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Doesn't rely on one person's misquotes but solid Biochemical and cellular analysis.
The biggest gap on this board is Evidence.
Evo has all of it in the debate.
ID, god, etc, NONE.

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life
Scientific American

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life

One researcher put the basic biological assumption of a single common ancestor to the test--and found that advanced genetic analysis and sophisticated statistics back up Darwin's age-old proposition

www.scientificamerican.com

One researcher put the basic biological assumption of a single common ancestor to the test--and found that advanced genetic analysis and sophisticated statistics back up Darwin's age-old proposition.

Earth's first life-form, floating in the proverbial froth of the primordial seas that eventually gave rise to trees, bees and humans, is not just a popular Darwinian conceit but also an essential biological premise that many researchers rely on as part of the foundation of their work.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin went beyond others, who had proposed that there might be a common ancestor for all mammals or animals, and suggested that there was likely a common ancestor for all life on the planet—plant, animal and bacterial.

A new statistical analysis takes this assumption to the bench and finds that it not only holds water but indeed is Overwhelmingly sound."..."
[.......]

`

Damnit, Abu!

I thought I was going to get a spark of intelligence from you at last. Or at least from the article you copied and pasted from.

That is an article about a paper. It provides no evidence, but rather claims that the author of the referenced paper has provided evidence.

Go back and read the paper itself, then come here and tell us in your own words how it supports its claims. Connect the dots for us. You won't convince anyone with cut and paste reviews of papers you haven't read.

 

[abu afak]

Damnit, Abu!

I thought I was going to get a spark of intelligence from you at last. Or at least from the article you copied and pasted from.

That is an article about a paper. It provides no evidence, but rather claims that the author of the referenced paper has provided evidence.

Go back and read the paper itself, then come here and tell us in your own words how it supports its claims. Connect the dots for us. You won't convince anyone with cut and paste reviews of papers you haven't read.

Right after you post a Speck of Evidence for 'Design.'
A Claim in every single post you made.
100% of them Bogus with Lies, word twists and misquotes.

You are the lowest of the low honesty-wise and IQ wise.

You have -0- evidence in over 400 posts.
You are a FILTHY FRAUD.
Where's your 'Sciam'/your paper?
`

the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits.
Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, to do the same. ie,
Look at his 4/5 (now 40/50, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.'
Juvenile last-worder GOT to have his grudge sated.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Right after you post a Speck of Evidence for 'Design.'
A Claim in every single post you made.
100% of them Bogus with Lies, word twists and misquotes.

You are the lowest of the low honesty-wise and IQ wise.

You have -0- evidence in over 400 posts.
You are a FILTHY FRAUD.
Where's your 'Sciam'/your paper?
`

I'm not trying to force people to believe as I do.

Believe in spontaneous abiogenesis, and designer-less design all you like. I'm fine with that.

You're the one who screams in all-caps when challenged to provide evidence.

 

[ding]

Damnit, Abu!

I thought I was going to get a spark of intelligence from you at last. Or at least from the article you copied and pasted from.

That is an article about a paper. It provides no evidence, but rather claims that the author of the referenced paper has provided evidence.

Go back and read the paper itself, then come here and tell us in your own words how it supports its claims. Connect the dots for us. You won't convince anyone with cut and paste reviews of papers you haven't read.

That's just lazy. No wonder he can't discuss anything in any depth.

 

[abu afak]

I'm not trying to force people to believe as I do.

Believe in spontaneous abiogenesis, and designer-less design all you like. I'm fine with that.

You're the one who screams in all-caps when challenged to provide evidence.

See even now you lie with False premises.

1. We don't know how the first spark started.
You (low IQ) claim because we don't know it must be god/design.
God of the Gaps
Let me explain your reasoning to YOU!
You would have claimed the Fire and Lightning gods too because we just didn't know/know yet.
that is NOT evidence of god, and we eventually found out why
Poof!
Got it yet?

2. There is NO evidence of "Design" to claim I'm denying a Designer about!!!!
What do you claim is designed specifically?
You have presented NO EVIDENCE of design.
-0-
One man's (corrected) Mis-speak is NOT Evidence!!! Pathetic!
Astonishing how stupid you are.
(no insult intended but debate is difficult with two digit IQers who don't understand their every word is an empty claim.)
`

 

[ding]

See even now you lie with False premises.

1. We don't know how the first spark started.
You (low IQ) claim because we don't know it must be god/design.
God of the Gaps
Let me explain your reasoning to YOU!
You would have claimed the Fire and Lightning gods too because we just didn't know/know yet.
that is NOT evidence of god, and we eventually found out why
Poof!
Got it yet?

2. There is NO evidence of "Design" to claim I'm denying a Designer about!!!!
What do you claim is designed specifically?
You have presented NO EVIDENCE of design.
-0-
One man's (corrected) Mis-speak is NOT Evidence!!! Pathetic!
Astonishing how stupid you are.
(no insult intended but debate is difficult with two digit IQers who don't understand their every word is an empty claim.)
`

Did you never learn how to compose paragraphs?

 

[Grumblenuts]

That is an article about a paper. It provides no evidence, but rather claims that the author of the referenced paper has provided evidence.

Go back and read the paper itself, then come here and tell us in your own words how it supports its claims. Connect the dots for us.

As the article makes abundantly clear, the paper uses statistical analysis (study!) of DNA (for evidence) to reveal some improved understanding within the field. Science! No need for anyone to "go back and read" anything. You just need to go pound sand. Perhaps take your new BBF with you. Please!

 

[Seymour Flops]

As the article makes abundantly clear, the paper uses statistical analysis (study!) of DNA (for evidence) to reveal some improved understanding within the field. Science! No need for anyone to "go back and read" anything. You just need to go pound sand. Perhaps take your new BBF with you. Please!

So you would say that credulity is the most important trait in scientific learning?

I disagree. Since Abu is so desperate to convince me of something, let him read the referenced article and provide some evidence that he at least understands it, even if he can't provide evidence of its validity.

 

[abu afak]

So you would say that credulity is the most important trait in scientific learning?

I disagree. Since Abu is so desperate to convince me of something, let him read the referenced article and provide some evidence that he at least understands it, even if he can't provide evidence of its validity.

Everyone here is still waiting for any snippet of Evidence of your main claim: Design.
(one persons part quote/opinion is NOT evidence)

In that time I've made Hundreds of posts in my own words and posted scores of good links.
You have posted NOTHING in support/evidence of 'Design/ER.'
NOTHING you FRAUD
and you are indignant about my posts Mr "coinkee-Dinkie"?
You're a FRAUD.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Everyone here is still waiting for any snippet of Evidence of your main claim: Design.
(one persons part quote/opinion is NOT evidence)

In that time I've made Hundreds of posts in my own words and posted scores of good links.
You have posted NOTHING in support/evidence of 'Design/ER.'
NOTHING you FRAUD
and you are indignant about my posts Mr "coinkee-Dinkie"?
You're a FRAUD.
`

I don't think everyone is waiting for that. I've given the evidence too many times.

Only an illiterate poster would still be waiting for something I've provided already.

 

[abu afak]

I don't think everyone is waiting for that. I've given the evidence too many times.

Only an illiterate poster would still be waiting for something I've provided already.

You have given no Evidence.
Dawkins conflicting hyperbole (your claim to fame/this blast) is NOT evidence,.

You're LYING AGAIN you no-conscience FRAUD.

You are a Sociopath too. You can't help but lying.
`

 

[Hollie]

I don't think everyone is waiting for that. I've given the evidence too many times.

Only an illiterate poster would still be waiting for something I've provided already.

That’s actually pretty funny. The reason ID’iot creationism is dismissed as fraudulent is because there is no evidence to be presented.

To claim you have provided evidence for anything perpetuates the stereotype of the creationist fraudster. Why not link to a single post, just one, where you provided evidence of supernatural creation?

I’m afraid you are just another clone of the ID’creationer frauds who put together arguments that sound convincing to people like yourself who do not have the background and knowledge to know that their arguments are a fraud.

 

[ding]

As the article makes abundantly clear, the paper uses statistical analysis (study!) of DNA (for evidence) to reveal some improved understanding within the field. Science! No need for anyone to "go back and read" anything. You just need to go pound sand. Perhaps take your new BBF with you. Please!

BBF? Is that a homophobic slur? Why is it that supposedly liberal minded people - who are supposed tolerant of the gay lifestyle - are always the ones to use homophobic slurs when they want to insult someone. Methinks there is a hypocrisy there.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You have given no Evidence.
Dawkins conflicting hyperbole (your claim to fame/this blast) is NOT evidence,.

You're LYING AGAIN you no-conscience FRAUD.

You are a Sociopath too. You can't help but lying.
`

I'm not surprised that you haven't looked at the evidence I've provided. Ignoring evidence is the hallmark of the dedicated Darwinist.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not surprised that you haven't looked at the evidence I've provided. Ignoring evidence is the hallmark of the dedicated Darwinist.

I believe the posters in these threads have looked and and as usual, there is no evidence you have provided for your specious claims to designer gods.