Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought of a different way of explaining what I think will happen, and might be happening already, out of public view. People doing research with and without a premise of common ancestry will encourage and support each other, and learn from each other. Just now I realized that there is funding and encouragement for research that is not restricted by a premise of common ancestry. That may or may all be restricted by some religious beliefs, but even if it is, it still brings more diversity to the research.

It is a theory of common ancestry. I am not sure I follow what you are talking about. You aren't suggesting that a scientists religious views have some bearing on the interpretation of experiments and observations are you?

 

[Jim]

There are some scientists well qualified that no longer go along with common thoughts about evolution. And they do acknowledge, as you seem to be saying, that if a scientist does not go along with the majority view of evolution, it means trouble for them. You may see that someone who is a staunch believer in evolution (evidently the Darwinian kind), will ridicule and put down the qualifications of those scientists who allow themselves to openly dissent. Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Unfortunately, that article is using that to promote a Bible-as-history view, which I’m sure grossly misrepresents most of the dissenting scientists, and adds to the stigma against them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately, that article is using that to promote a Bible-as-history view, which I’m sure grossly misrepresents most of the dissenting scientists, and adds to the stigma against them.

It also misrepresents what those scientists signed. You should look into the history of this. It was not a dissent against Darwin. At least it was not presented that way. It merely said that scientists should keep an open mind. And that part is true.

when some that signed it learned how this was being misused they asked their signatures to be withdrawn. The group behind this refused.

Was that ethical behavior by those that started this petition?

 

[Jim]

There are some scientists well qualified that no longer go along with common thoughts about evolution. And they do acknowledge, as you seem to be saying, that if a scientist does not go along with the majority view of evolution, it means trouble for them. You may see that someone who is a staunch believer in evolution (evidently the Darwinian kind), will ridicule and put down the qualifications of those scientists who allow themselves to openly dissent. Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

That looks to me like it only adds fuel to the fire, without helping in any way. It draws a line in the sand between scientists, and equates skepticism about evolution orthodoxy with belief in the Bible as history. That is not at all what I was saying is needed, and what I think will happen. It’s just one more example of the feuding that I think is impeding progress, and more of the kind of thinking that I’m denouncing, thinking that it matters how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with some view, or who they are. I can see some possible good intentions in the people who signed it, and some possible encouragement that some researchers might get from it, but I think that there are better ways to encourage them, without all the harm that comes from a campaign like that.

 

[Jim]

If has been over a decade, if there was a mythical, massive group of lurker scientists, there would be some indication of it. The Disco Institute can't even provide evidence that it is more than that small group that was lied to, to begin with, just to get them to sign.

That explains it to me. I was surprised that so many researchers would participate in a factional campaign like that. If they were tricked into it, without knowing how it would be used, that would make more sense to me.

 

[Jim]

It also misrepresents what those scientists signed. You should look into the history of this. It was not a dissent against Darwin. At least it was not presented that way. It merely said that scientists should keep an open mind. And that part is true.

when some that signed it learned how this was being misused they asked their signatures to be withdrawn. The group behind this refused.

Was that ethical behavior by those that started this petition?

I would say not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can call that an accusation if you want to. Help yourself, knock yourself out. If you want to vilify me truthfully, call me a science denier.

Are you denying your own claim?

 

[Jim]

If you’re referring to this: “I don’t believe that it was done honestly and responsibly,” I’m not denying that I said that. I disagree with making that into an accusation and demanding substantiation for it, but if you want to do that, you’re welcome to it. You’ll just have to do it without me. My online games are WoW and some phone games.

 

[Jim]

@Jose Fly @ImmortalFlame I see that there could possibly be a misunderstanding about what I meant. I didn’t read the report itself, and I have no idea what’s actually in it, or how the research was done. It’s what the researchers said in the abstract that they were doing, and their reasons for it, along with what I’ve learned from direct experience and from reports of the experiences of others, about corruption in all the professions and institutions of society, that leads me to think that it wasn’t done honestly and responsibly.

However that may be, even if it was done honestly and responsibly, I don’t see it as a reason to stigmatize people who don’t believe that all life on earth has a common ancestor.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

@Jose Fly @ImmortalFlame I see that there could possibly be a misunderstanding about what I meant. I didn’t read the report itself, and I have no idea what’s actually in it, or how the research was done.

So how on earth could you claim that they did anything neither "honestly or responsibly"?

It’s what the researchers said in the abstract that they were doing, and their reasons for it, along with what I’ve learned from direct experience and from reports of the experiences of others, about corruption in all the professions and institutions of society, that leads me to think that it wasn’t done honestly and responsibly.

In other words, you just assumed it based on a bias without actually investigating it.

However that may be, even if it was done honestly and responsibly, I don’t see it as a reason to stigmatize people who don’t believe that all life on earth has a common ancestor.

I don't see the problem with calling ignorant people ignorant, and I see no issue with being combative against people who wish to push lies instead of facts.

 

[YoursTrue]

That looks to me like it only adds fuel to the fire, without helping in any way. It draws a line in the sand between scientists, and equates skepticism about evolution orthodoxy with belief in the Bible as history. That is not at all what I was saying is needed, and what I think will happen. It’s just one more example of the feuding that I think is impeding progress, and more of the kind of thinking that I’m denouncing, thinking that it matters how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with some view, or who they are. I can see some possible good intentions in the people who signed it, and some possible encouragement that some researchers might get from it, but I think that there are better ways to encourage them, without all the harm that comes from a campaign like that.

OK, you have your opinion. I don't agree with it because -- the evidence speaks.

 

[YoursTrue]

That explains it to me. I was surprised that so many researchers would participate in a factional campaign like that. If they were tricked into it, without knowing how it would be used, that would make more sense to me.

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand you now. As I said, so it's not misunderstood, I think you are speaking without knowledge, but just spouting your opinion.

 

[Jim]

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand you now. As I said, so it's not misunderstood, I think you are speaking without knowledge, but just spouting your opinion.

I’m planning to look into it some more.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand you now. As I said, so it's not misunderstood, I think you are speaking without knowledge, but just spouting your opinion.

Actually, it is fairly factual to claim that the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" statement was fundamentally based on lies and deception.

For starters, the actual statement doesn't indicate actual disagreement with evolutionary theory. It is deliberately worded to be a statement that, broadly speaking, any scientist should accept. Firstly, because the statement was simply:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."​

Broadly speaking, exercising "skepticism" and "careful examination of the evidence" are required of ALL claims, so the statement is functionally meaningless in a scientific context. And secondly, because it only addresses "Darwinian theory" rather than "evolutionary theory", which is an outdated model that is arguably no longer relevant to the current model. As the Deputy Director of the NCSE said:

"Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself."
SOURCE: Creationism's Trojan horse : the wedge of intelligent design : Forrest, Barbara, 1952- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

In fact, when interviewed after signing the statement, many of the scientists who signed it revealed that they did accept common descent and evolutionary theory.
SOURCE: Doubting Darwinism through Creative License

On top of this, many of the signatories weren't actually scientists or didn't have PhD's in relevant fields.
SOURCE: AAUP: Wedging Creationism into the Academy

The petition is now widely considered little more than a dishonest joke.

 

[Jim]

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand you now. As I said, so it's not misunderstood, I think you are speaking without knowledge, but just spouting your opinion.

This reaction of yours to what said I disappoints me. I was hoping for better than this from you.

 

[usfan]

Over 20 pages later, we still seem fixated on the statistical study of a computer model. I offered a detailed rebuttal to the abstract, but my points were ignored, and the conclusions of the authors were just reasserted.

So, i will repeat myself, and show that this 'study' is NOT 'proof of evolution!', as some seem to believe. I will also include additional points, for the True Believers to ignore.

My earlier ignored rebuttal:

Here's the LINK..

"We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species."

This is a statistical study, not a laboratory experiment. But I'll look at the claims, and offer my analysis.

The summary in the abstract is the conclusion of the writers, in this computer model. Is it compelled by the evidence? That's for the reader to judge.

From the abstract:
While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism.

1. The prejudicial bias is clearly stated in the opening paragraph. Common Descent is assumed as 'settled science!'
2. 'Statistical methods', have received criticism, for the very reason mentioned, and this statistical analysis is no different. "..take sequence similarity as evidence for common ancestry while ignoring other potential biological causes of similarity.."
3. 'Sequence similarity' (looks like!) , is a subjective, argument of plausibility. Because of similarity of design, materials, and construction, a conclusion of 'common descent!', is asserted. This is no different than drawing a phylogenetic tree and declaring it as evidence.

So right off, the premise is based on an assumption of common descent. The deck is stacked to deliver the desired results, which is what you get in a computer model.

The conclusion and belief in common descent is asserted often, but the 'evidence' is vague, and only alluded to. Most people seem to be dazzled by their conclusions and forceful assertions, not any empirical evidence.

The most compelling among these objections was that the results of the tests are a trivial consequence of significant similarity among the sequences.

This criticism of another statistical analysis applies equally to this one. How is 'similarity!' of construction or design an indication of common ancestry?

All that is being done here, is taking the building blocks of life.. ALL LIFE.. amino acids, etc, and declaring this lowest common denominator as 'proof of evolution!' This was the earliest argument from Darwin.. similarity of appearance (looks like!) morphology, and arbitrary taxonomic classifications make it seem plausible.

But this is not evidence. It is speculation. It is a belief, repeated as a plausibility until it is accepted as 'settled science'.

..the community remains without a thoroughly convincing statistical method to demonstrate universal CA, whether among all domains of life or for more specific sets of species.

And i see nothing in this study to refute this observation of statistical analysis. Assumptions are made, between chimp and humans, the same as the previous computer models.

The data from the earlier, criticized study appears to be based on:
..used as evidence the highly unlikely topological agreement among the most-parsimonious trees for five separate proteins sampled from the same taxa..

So there were 5 seperate proteins, analyzed for similarity, then plugged into a computer model to calculate the odds of this happening, if you assume common descent.

This computer model is based on another study of primates.. animals assumed to be descended from a common ancestor.

A recent publication (Perelman et al. 2011) contains a molecular phylogeny of primates created using 54 nuclear genes and 191 taxa including 186 primate taxa from an alignment of 34,941 base pairs that the authors reduced from a larger alignment after discarding sites with great alignment uncertainty. Sequence data included roughly equal amounts of coding and noncoding sites, mostly from autosomal regions of the genomes, but with a few thousand sites from both X and Y chromosomes. No taxon was sampled for all 54 genes (humans are the most sampled with 53 genes) and many taxa have long stretches of missing data.

Everything is based on the ASSUMPTION of common descent. The cherry picked samples, the molecular structures, assumed to be related, then coming up with the 'odds', that this is what happened.

..it becomes reasonable to ask the specific question of how strongly molecular sequence data support the inference that the human species shares CA with other primates.

..reasonable, indeed. It is even more reasonable to ask how any statistical or visual 'similarity!' can infer common descent..

That is the crux of this study. It is a computer model, using sampled proteins from chimps and humans, and comparing their structure. Descendancy is assumed, and a calculation is contrived to arrive at a number..

The significance of this number can only be described as 'a trivial consequence of similarity'.

Hopefully, the grant money was good, and the conclusions seem to impress those who already believe strongly in common descent, but i see no evidence of ancestry, other than the age old argument of similarity. Putting a statistical number, from a human programmed computer model, is not a compelling scientific study, to support common descent.

One poster's reasserted belief in the conclusions.. with no arguments, evidence, or rebuttals of my points:

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.

My call for an address of my analysis, to the poster who requested it. I still have not heard from Poly, regarding his/her request of my analysis:

How did you find this computer model on statistics compelling evidence for common descent? Several people seemed to think it 'proved evolution!' Was my rebuttal off base? Were my points flawed?

If this study is offered here as 'evidence for common descent', then the claims, data, and conclusions can and should be examined, as objectively as possible. I've offered a rebuttal to this 'evidence', but i see no response. Was it a bluff? A proxy argument, with no intent to follow up?

I'm doing my bit, in examining the offered evidence, even though it was just a link, that most do not understand, it seems. My rebuttal stands, unaddressed and unrefuted. So is this 'link' no longer compelling scientific evidence for common descent?

Another reassertion of the conclusion, with no scrutiny of the data and methods, and no references to any of my rebuttals:

Because it specifically tested separate ancestry against common ancestry, and the results were....

"Acceptance of SA means believing a chance occurrence less likely than correctly identifying an atom from the universe 32 times in succession has occurred, which is truly overwhelming evidence against SA in favor of CA among primate families."​

Yes, very much so. I pointed that out earlier and you appear to have ignored it.

So, i will list some specific points, about this 'study', since it has such significance to some of the posters, here:

1. This is a statistical computer model, attempting to lay 'odds' on universal common ancestry (UCA, or just CA).
2. They used sequenced data from another study to plug into their model. There were no experiments, no lab coats, no microscopes. These were computer nerds, manipulating data for their own purposes.
3. The 'criticisms' from peer reviewed responses from earlier studies, that they referred to, were just as appropriate for this study. Merely asserting, 'Ours was different!' 'We proved evolution!', does not change anything.
4. No peer reviews for this obscure study were quoted, just the self aggrandizing conclusions of the authors.
5. If this study was as significant as some believe, it would be heralded, along with fierce scrutiny over their methods and data.
6. My review examined the methodology, assumptions, and goals of the study, and is the closest to a peer review that has been produced.
7. The scientific community does not accept horn tooting conclusions as 'evidence!' The obscurity of this study shows the impact it has had in the actual fields of science.
8. That unscientific minded Believers cling to the conclusions of this obscure study, with NO CRITICAL EXAMINATION of the methodology, data, and conclusions, exposes them as bobbleheads, desperate to prop up their shaky belief system.
9. This is NOT a sound, scientifically based study, but a contrived, presupposed, propaganda piece, to fool the gullible. Techno babble and assertions mask the actual scientific methodology involved, but any critically thinking person can see through it. That is it's only success.. otherwise, nobody would have ever heard of this 'study'. It is not even weak evidence for CA. The statistical odds.. the number arrived at by juggling the data, is as i noted in my earlier analysis:

The significance of this number can only be described as 'a trivial consequence of similarity'.

10. Those who believe strongly in UCA, will no doubt find confirmation for their bias. Those looking for objective evidence will be sorely disappointed.
11. The complete lack of objective, empirical data, facts, and evidence in this study (and many others), exposes the desperation of the True Believers, suspending critical thinking, scrutiny, and skepticism for a leap into the abyss of Trusting Faith.
12. The authors 'sound really smart!', and are given a pass, trusting in their Authority, or at least sincerety, instead of using sound principles of scientific methodology.
13. Assertions and Authority Worship are the major 'defenses' for this insignificant, obscure, and pointless abstract. It only impresses those predisposed to Believe.
14. The adulation given to this 'study', and others like it, show the thorough Indoctrination among progressive bobbleheads, who can only nod in unanimous approval and adoration for their High Priests of anti-science.

From the study and my rebuttal:
"..it becomes reasonable to ask the specific question of how strongly molecular sequence data support the inference that the human species shares CA with other primates."

..reasonable, indeed. It is even more reasonable to ask how any statistical or visual 'similarity!' can infer common descent..

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. ~Benjamin Disraeli

 

[usfan]

Again i apologize for my limited posting window. This should not be a problem, in an evidentiary based debate, where claims and arguments can be examined in greater detail. It only becomes a problem if points are made, then lost in a flurry of other posts.

A deliberate, systematic examination is what i have called for, and examining each point thoroughly is appropriate. This is an evidentiary based discussion, where assertions, fallacies, and opinions are not relevant. We are examining the FACTS, to see if there is any scientific validity to the belief in Universal Common Ancestry.

There are other points, too, that should be examined with closer scrutiny. The mitochondrial clock, the mt-MRCA, the e.coli study, the canidae study.. all of these have significant facts that have major implications for this theory of origins.

 

[usfan]

That's nice.
Meanwhile, there is another post of mine that is addressed to you and which is actually on-topic.
Let's focus on the points.

I was not aware you wanted to engage in a scientific discussion with me. I saw pages of heckling and ridicule, and assumed you wanted to align with the hecklers. I'll debate under the terms i gave. Do you wish to do that?

Do researchers have mock debates with each other where they call their own views “scientific” and “evidence based,” and opposing views “unscientific,” and call each other “science deniers”?

of course they do. They deflect with fallacies, ad hom, and disdain as well as any. Humans do that sort of thing. Among progressive indoctrinees, it is a constant tactic.

You cannot compare conflicting research carried out by scientists with debate between people defending the very basic principles of science from people who are rejecting them.

It is the SCIENCE.. the FACTS and METHODOLOGY. that anybody can examine. Scientific debate and analysis is not limited by credentials. Science is much more democratic than that. It is not owned by a self serving elite.

But, calling someone 'un-scientific' who is NOT a scientist who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists and who doesn't have evidence to back up their position seems perfectly reasonable.

Yes, to the progressive, steeped in Mandates by Authority. But to the true scientist, facts, evidence, reason, and sound scientific methodology are better tools of discovery.

Scientific Truth is not a majority vote, nor a consensus.

Still waiting for an answer.....do you think the belief that the earth is flat, doesn't move, and is orbited by the rest of the universe is deserving of respect?

You know this is a fallacy.. I could just as easy include common ancestry in that list of absurd beliefs, once held by the majority of 'scientists!'

I don't see the problem with calling ignorant people ignorant, and I see no issue with being combative against people who wish to push lies instead of facts

..you mean like the propagandists for common ancestry? You would have no issue with me ridiculing and demeaning them for their ignorance and delusions?

In other words, you just assumed it based on a bias without actually investigating it.

.yes, that seems to be the practice, among the True Believers in UCA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Denial is not refutation.

But then the OP still does not understand the concept of scientific evidence.

 

[Jim]

I was looking again at the abstract of the study Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry , and I saw a link to a blog post by one of the authors, explaining how and why the study was done.

Statistical Testing of Common Ancestry: Something To Be Embarrassed About?