Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're in the wrong business then ...

Bowling alley wasn't hiring...

 

[scruffy]

You're in the wrong business then ...

Nah, every business is the same.

I can't help it if the libtards can't keep their act together.

Unfortunately there's no anti-libtard insurance.

 

[scruffy]

A template for "artificial life".

A template for artificial life - Nature Chemistry

Selection rules play an important role in Darwinian evolution. Now, it has been shown that selective templation enables the purification of oligomer libraries in a coacervate model, and that the oligomer library can reversibly affect the coacervates’ fusion behaviour.

www.nature.com

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.
`

This raises many interesting questions, let me address some of them.

You ask for evidence of design, well how would you recognize something as evidence for design? what would design look like?

How can a universe exist without a designer? please explain how it came to exist without being designed?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You ask for evidence of design, well how would you recognize something as evidence for design? what would design look like?

Not a simple question.

What Design Looks Like | National Center for Science Education

You know, people think it must all be very easy, creating. They think you just have to move on the face of the waters and wave your hands a bit. It’s not like that at all. —Terry Pratchett, Eric

ncse.ngo

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not a simple question.

What Design Looks Like | National Center for Science Education

You know, people think it must all be very easy, creating. They think you just have to move on the face of the waters and wave your hands a bit. It’s not like that at all. —Terry Pratchett, Eric

ncse.ngo

Right, so anyone asking for evidence of design would not be able to recognize it as such, and therefore asking for it at all is pointless.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right, so anyone asking for evidence of design would not be able to recognize it as such, and therefore asking for it at all is pointless.

No, there are ways. It's just not simple.

One is to hear the attestment of the designer.

 

[scruffy]

The design is in the mathematics underlying the combinatorial structure of the universe. There is no further design than that, that we know of. Evolution is combinatorics, nothing more. No one "designed life",, it is a ubiquitous and inevitable result of the underlying physical structure.

Our role in this life is research, not pontification.

 

[abu afak]

Right, so anyone asking for evidence of design would not be able to recognize it as such, and therefore asking for it at all is pointless.

Suppose Humans, as 'the special creation of the designer' had a completely different chemical makeup instead of being eminently traceable by, form, vestigal organs, and 98% similar DNA to our predecessors. THAT, for one thing, would do it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Suppose Humans, as 'the special creation of the designer' had a completely different chemical makeup instead of being eminently traceable by, form, vestigal organs, and 98% similar DNA to our predecessors. THAT, for one thing, would do it.

As would just about any refutation of evolution.

Like, finding raccoon fossils in the Cambrian. Like finding vertebrates fossils from 600 million years ago.

Like, doing a genetic study between several species of mammals and finding they diverged 300 million years ago instead of 50 million years ago.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

One must be careful here. Observations that are consistent with a hypothesis are not necessarily evidence for that hypothesis.

Theories in science have value in that they (should) let us falsify our models, it is where observation is inconsistent with hypothesis that things get interesting.

So rather than listing countless example of consistent observation we must seek out and investigate the inconsistent observations.

A superb example of this is the Cambrian explosion, a fossil record that exhibits an inexplicable discontinuity with the concurrent appearance of almost all biological phyla within a short time and little evidence of common ancestry.

The evolution devotees like to dwell on the consistent observations only and dismiss the inconsistent as merely apparent.

If we are to evaluate evolution only by looking at consistent observations then of course it all looks neat and tidy, but that's not the scientific method, falsification is key.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So rather than listing countless example of consistent observation we must seek out and investigate the inconsistent observations.

Yes, true. In other words, the scientific method.

And evolution withstands every single test. It would not be hard to falsify it. Mammal fossils found in the Cambrian. Vertebrates fossils found from 600 million years ago. Genetic tests showing humans are more closely related to sharks than to rhesus monkeys.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, true. In other words, the scientific method.

“By George, I think he’s got it”

TRISTAN: You don’t want me to tell Dean that we kissed.RORY: By George, I think he’s got it. Rory is referencing the 1964 musical comedy-drama film My Fair Lady, adapted from the 1956 L…

annotatedgilmoregirls.com

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, true. In other words, the scientific method.

And evolution withstands every single test. It would not be hard to falsify it. Mammal fossils found in the Cambrian. Vertebrates fossils found from 600 million years ago. Genetic tests showing humans are more closely related to sharks than to rhesus monkeys.

That's not the meaning of "falsification" though, we must consider any observation that's inconsistent, that's what matters.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The Cambrian is a crippling reality for evolution. The more one studies it the worse it gets too.

There's no evidence of common ancestry, instead we see staggering discontinuities, yet evolution predicts continuity, is defined by incremental small changes generation by generation.

Sophisticated life like Anomalocaris with a hugely complex vision system, just appears, unannounced by any precursor fossils.

The absence of fossils for most of the other 40+ phyla too, is inexplicable, no reasonable explanation exists for this.

The conditions for fossilization are known to have been superb, there are layers in the strata that contain fossils of embryos, tiny organisms wonderfully preserved so if ancestors to Anomalocaris ever lived we'd expect to see some fossil evidence.

The Cambrian when "explained" by evolution advocates, requires us to believe there were thousands of distinct ancestors for each of the complex phyla we find fossilized BUT there's NO EVIDENCE that these ancestors ever did exist - so why believe they did?

So yes a rabbit fossil as an ancestor to Anomalocaris would falsify evolution but even that is much better than no ancestor at all, that really messes up the narrative.

The Cambrian evidence is in fact that there really were no ancestors, these complex animals just appeared, almost instantaneously, the data is consistent with that, by which I mean IF these complex beasts DID just magically appear then we'd expect to see exactly what we do see.

 

[scruffy]

Science is experimentation, not observation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

science

1. (knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[scruffy]

The Cambrian is a crippling reality for evolution. The more one studies it the worse it gets too.

You need to study up on nonlinear math.

There's no evidence of common ancestry, instead we see staggering discontinuities, yet evolution predicts continuity, is defined by incremental small changes generation by generation.

Evolution goes not predict continuity.

Nor does it predict small incremental changes.

Both of those statements are a complete misrepresentation of the underlying principles.

Sophisticated life like Anomalocaris with a hugely complex vision system, just appears, unannounced by any precursor fossils.

Fossils? Srsly?

To make any meaningful statements about anomalocaris we'd have to know about its genetics. Which we don't.

What we DO know, is that lots of mutation took place. Evolution is mutation followed by selection. For example - here is a Cambrian creature that looks a lot like anomalocaris, but you'll notice the multiple eyes (this drawing is from a fossil)

Apparently, six eyes weren't good for anything, and they probably caused confusion in the visual system.

But you can take an ordinary tadpole embryo, and stick a pin in it at just the right time, and it will grow an eye where it's arm is supposed to be. The eye is fully functional, it responds to visual stimuli.

The absence of fossils for most of the other 40+ phyla too, is inexplicable, no reasonable explanation exists for this.

Fossils are a matter of luck. Just recently they found a perfectly preserved wooly mammoth.

The conditions for fossilization are known to have been superb, there are layers in the strata that contain fossils of embryos, tiny organisms wonderfully preserved so if ancestors to Anomalocaris ever lived we'd expect to see some fossil evidence.

Most of them got eaten. The ones that remain are the apex predators, like anomalocaris.

The Cambrian when "explained" by evolution advocates, requires us to believe there were thousands of distinct ancestors for each of the complex phyla we find fossilized BUT there's NO EVIDENCE that these ancestors ever did exist - so why believe they did?

New species are created instantly in a number of different ways. Polyploidy is one of them. It is only very recently (on an evolutionary time scale) that we find sophisticated DNA repair and protection mechanisms. A grain of sand can cause a mutation just as easily as a gamma ray or a neutrino.

So yes a rabbit fossil as an ancestor to Anomalocaris would falsify evolution but even that is much better than no ancestor at all, that really messes up the narrative.

Biological evolution is a fact. It happens in every bacteriological lab in the country, every single day. Once a bacterium becomes resistant to antibiotics, there is no evidence that it ever wasn't.

The Cambrian evidence is in fact that there really were no ancestors, these complex animals just appeared, almost instantaneously, the data is consistent with that, by which I mean IF these complex beasts DID just magically appear then we'd expect to see exactly what we do see.

Mutations can be caused by almost anything. Sun spots. Gravity. Shifts in the magnetic poles. Just because we don't understand the cause doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is plenty of evidence for changes in the Earth's atmosphere over time. 50% less ozone can cause plenty of mutations. UV is a well known mutagen. Meteor showers can put metal into sand, causing mutations in almost every sea creature.

Here is some information on the mutagenicity of ordinary sand:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772248909357436

 

[scruffy]

Here is some further information for you to consider.

What you call the "Cambrian explosion" is only a small part of a much larger event. The second half of it is called the Great Ordovician Biodiversity Event. Here are the basics:

Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After studying this you will realize that extinction is just as important as the appearance of new life forms. Sometimes it's even necessary, for the new forms to establish a sustainable niche. For example the nature of the fauna during this period had a lot to do with the sustainability of vertebrate forms.