Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure how far it went as far as disagreeing eventually, and why, but I might surmise that the reason some scientists dissented from the dissenters is that some of the dissenting scientists that agree that Darwinian concept of evolution is wrong is because they don't believe in God but realize the validity of the concept that there are elements that are irreducibly complex. In other words, doubtful that these things just came about by themselves in their apparently irreducible complexity.

First off most of the scientists that signed that were scientists in other fields than biology or paleontology. In other words they really did not know what they were talking about. Very very few biologists and paleontologists signed that and most of them accepted the theory of evolution. They were not dissenters. The wording of the petition means that people were not necessarily dissenters if they signed it. That alone makes it worthless.

And then when some of the signers found that those who were organizing the petition were dishonest and planned to misrepresent their signatures they asked them to be taken off. The Discovery Institute refused. That makes it even more worthless.

You are relying on dishonest people.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no objection to evolution research being done with a premise of common ancestry. I would want that to continue. I agree with teaching common ancestry in public schools. I’m opposed to everything that I’ve seen creation factions promoting for what to teach in public schools.

I’ve read a few more articles about reasons for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor, as a historical fact, and I see nothing but fallacies. I see three kinds of arguments:
- Fossils.
- Similarities between species.
- How well it works to think that way....

Now that was cute. "How well it works to think that way"...

 

[Jim]

@Polymath257 @Jose Fly What I think would be irresponsible for me now would be to continue to help you publicize the abstract and the blog post where I got my ideas about the study. I invite you to study the blog post again, and reconsider how much you want to publicize them and my view of them, yourselves. I will say again that what I said about the study was only my personal impression, only from reading that abstract and that blog post. I didn’t read the report. What I said about defensive common ancestry research in general was only from reading a few articles by people defending common ancestry beliefs. Apart from that, I don’t know anything about what’s happening in evolution research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a feeling that many claims of famous or not famous scientists turned out to be verifiable, while other claims of the same scientist were not. Not that it matters though.

Which is why peer review and multiple sources is so important. Irreducible complexity is dead. It was a claim made without any evidence and has been refuted by many scientists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was reading something about linguistics in relation to John 1:1. And while it is believed the English is translated from the Greek (logos) usually into the word 'word,' there is much more to it, also stemming from the philosophical discussions of Plato and others. So some of realization comes with enhanced understanding, and others take it on face value in translation without delving. That is in reference to your statement that believing is without evidence and accepting is based on evidence. Meanwhile, I'll go back to irreducible complexity of elements. There is a supposition that they are irreducibly complex, if I remember correctly. Is there proof yet that there is irreducible complexity in some items, elements, substances, whatever. And somehow -- I'm not sure yet -- what about nothing? Is there nothing? What have you or the majority of scientists accepted about that?

I know nothing on the subject of nothing. That may be something, but I am not sure. I do know Who is on first.

In my view, belief is based on faith and requires no evidence. By evidence I mean views that are subjective with no objective means to share those views with others. Acceptance is based on a review of the theory, the logic behind it, it's predictive nature and the evidence that it explains.

Regarding irreducible complexity. It is a null explanation. In order to establish that something is irreducibly complex, all possible iterations would have to be observed. Given that the number of iterations for many things are very large numbers, I do not see how they can be observed and marked off. It is akin to claiming that some being or person is immortal. How would you be able to observe that?

How would you be able to determine if you had seen all the iterations. That is one reason behind the idea that we will never be able to count all the species on earth. If the rate of speciation is 3 to 4 per year, by the time you finish the first count, you would have new species. Probably some would have gone extinct too. Even if you assumed a static number, you could never be certain that you had counted them all.

 

[YoursTrue]

First off most of the scientists that signed that were scientists in other fields than biology or paleontology. In other words they really did not know what they were talking about. Very very few biologists and paleontologists signed that and most of them accepted the theory of evolution. They were not dissenters. The wording of the petition means that people were not necessarily dissenters if they signed it. That alone makes it worthless.

And then when some of the signers found that those who were organizing the petition were dishonest and planned to misrepresent their signatures they asked them to be taken off. The Discovery Institute refused. That makes it even more worthless.

You are relying on dishonest people.

I am relying upon the (my) recognition of what scientists say as to human origin or the origin of life. Evolution of this sort, including how life came about somehow by chance, doesn't make sense. To me. Because for one thing, the irreducible complexity of what is said to be simple organisms, and also checking the age of fossils such as that which is claimed as dinosaurs with feathers do not 'prove' evolution. Frankly, aging of elements does not prove evolution either. That is, to me. If I were a proponent of evolution, I imagine I could make a case as to what's what. It's almost like a Disney movie. But that's how I look at it now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is why peer review and multiple sources is so important. Irreducible complexity is dead. It was a claim made without any evidence and has been refuted by many scientists.

Hmm, I doubt that, but I'll check it out. Refutation is not proof, however. Is it?

 

[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.

@Jim AND Subduction Zone
I'm not sure, but I think I see a problem here. Here's the problem: "intelligent design" seems to propose that things come about for the betterment in evolution because it makes the organism (apparently by chance?) more efficient or workable. Am I right about this? In other words, there was no intelligent designer, such as God, causing any changes, but they came about because it just made the organism "better," more efficient, etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't speak for the "ethical house of cards" you speak of. I do know, however, that some scientists cannot justify the proposition of irreducible components, or complexity with the concept (theory) of evolution. So maybe, in your idea, one day these scientists will figure how it is that something that cannot be reduced can be reduced to -- ??? (Can't say nothing, that wouldn't be right, would it?)

I just posted my thoughts on irreducible complexity in a response to another post of yours.

The idea of irreducible complexity applied to biological constructs is that the construct is reduced down to its minimum and below that, it would not function. Any reduced structure would have no selective value and so the functional construct would never form. Thus it must have entered the system intact and fully functional.

However, a construct does not need to have the function that it currently serves and could have been a reduced structure that had a different function and was conscripted to a new function by natural selection. The classic example Behe used was the spring-loaded mousetrap. With a part or two missing, it could not function. As a mousetrap perhaps, but that does not mean that it would not have use in some other function as Ken Miller demonstrated by removing a couple of pieces and using the rest as a serviceable tie clip.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know nothing on the subject of nothing. That may be something, but I am not sure. I do know Who is on first.

In my view, belief is based on faith and requires no evidence. By evidence I mean views that are subjective with no objective means to share those views with others. Acceptance is based on a review of the theory, the logic behind it, it's predictive nature and the evidence that it explains.

Regarding irreducible complexity. It is a null explanation. In order to establish that something is irreducibly complex, all possible iterations would have to be observed. Given that the number of iterations for many things are very large numbers, I do not see how they can be observed and marked off. It is akin to claiming that some being or person is immortal. How would you be able to observe that?

How would you be able to determine if you had seen all the iterations. That is one reason behind the idea that we will never be able to count all the species on earth. If the rate of speciation is 3 to 4 per year, by the time you finish the first count, you would have new species. Probably some would have gone extinct too. Even if you assumed a static number, you could never be certain that you had counted them all.

Behe's first argument was based upon a mousetrap. A mousetrap will not work as a mousetrap if it is missing any of its parts. But it was shown that it still worked very well for other jobs without those parts. The bacterial rotator flagellum also works just fine doing various other jobs when it is missing "key parts". In other words it could evolve with the present use being an emergent property. I know that at least two of the examples that he chose failed. So he had a "because I say so" argument that was shown to be wrong for at least two of his prime examples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Jim AND Subduction Zone
I'm not sure, but I think I see a problem here. Here's the problem: "intelligent design" seems to propose that things come about for the betterment in evolution because it makes the organism (apparently by chance?) more efficient or workable. Am I right about this? In other words, there was no intelligent designer, such as God, causing any changes, but they came about because it just made the organism "better," more efficient, etc.

There are supporters of intelligent design that try to claim that evolution is impossible without help. That has not been supported by evidence yet. All that scientists can say is that there does no appear to be any need for a God nor is there any evidence for a God. Evolution does not disprove the concept of God. Variation, natural selection, and other natural "forces" appear to be enough to do that job. I am not saying that a God could not have been involved because there is no evidence that says that either. Merely that no Gods need apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am relying upon the (my) recognition of what scientists say as to human origin or the origin of life. Evolution of this sort, including how life came about somehow by chance, doesn't make sense. To me. Because for one thing, the irreducible complexity of what is said to be simple organisms, and also checking the age of fossils such as that which is claimed as dinosaurs with feathers do not 'prove' evolution. Frankly, aging of elements does not prove evolution either. That is, to me. If I were a proponent of evolution, I imagine I could make a case as to what's what. It's almost like a Disney movie. But that's how I look at it now.

Once again, irreducible complexity does not appear to be a real thing. I think that you want to not accept evolution and are looking for excuses. You won't find any help from that source.

 

[tas8831]

Gould spoke at a meeting I attended in 1996. He was indeed an intelligent and compelling speaker, but also came fully loaded on arrogance. Still, I enjoyed the talk, since his 40 years of study were real..

Also saw a Gould talk (on the rise of creationism in America), probably the same year! He was pretty smug, but it was entertaining.
During the Q&A some creationist stood up and challenged him on one of his references to the bible. Gould pulls out a bible from his bag, explaining that he took it from his hotel room, found the chapter and verse he had referred to and called the creationist out in no uncertain terms. Classic...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Jim AND Subduction Zone
I'm not sure, but I think I see a problem here. Here's the problem: "intelligent design" seems to propose that things come about for the betterment in evolution because it makes the organism (apparently by chance?) more efficient or workable. Am I right about this? In other words, there was no intelligent designer, such as God, causing any changes, but they came about because it just made the organism "better," more efficient, etc.

Intelligent design is a religious paradigm that seeks to find a way to interject a creator into natural processes. While the original claim of the movement stated a specific designer was not supported, it was obvious which designer they did support. This was made clear when the supporters of the movement finally fessed up and claimed God did it.

The scientific position on biological evolution cannot include claims about something that has no evidence and cannot be demonstrated to exist. This does not mean that a designer is not behind it all, just that there is no evidence or means to conclude that. For some, this means there is no reason to consider a designer at all, since this fits with their view that they have no reason to believe a designer exists. For some believers, it means that, there is no point to divert effort to include something without evidence and that a natural explanation is sufficient to explain and predict. They can continue to believe as they choose, without contaminating science or going off on some religious dead end.

What you seem to be describing is all that we can say about observations of evolution. No external action is apparent and there is nothing demonstrating a need for external action. Evolution, by all current observations and following the theory, is the result of random variation and the non-random action of natural selection. Natural selection is the designer and works with what it has available and does not come up with novel solutions that have no previous basis for existing. The theory of evolution and any theory in science does not follow some pre-existing list of action items and goals. It goes where selection and fitness takes it. Organisms are optimized for their environment and this optimization is continually tweaked by changes in that environment. A more static environment and the changes are smaller and slower. A more active environment and chances may still be small, but they can be sifted through much more rapidly. Radical change in an environment could be so great that variation, selection and fitness cannot overcome the changes and a population can go extinct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, I doubt that, but I'll check it out. Refutation is not proof, however. Is it?

You are stuck on the horns of a dilemma here. Science does not "prove" anything, but it can show ideas to be wrong. Behe did try to give a somewhat scientific version of IC, but that version was shown to be wrong. If you try to change the idea so much that it cannot be testable then you do not have a scientific idea. You only have an ad hoc explanation and those are not only worthless in the world of the sciences, they usually are still shown to be wrong. Ad hoc explanation earn the description of "Not even wrong". At least when a concept is shown to be wrong something is usually learned from that. But ad hoc explanations (such as God did it but he hid all of the evidence) are so weak that they have no explanatory power. No one can use those supposed explanations for anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Also saw a Gould talk (on the rise of creationism in America), probably the same year! He was pretty smug, but it was entertaining.
During the Q&A some creationist stood up and challenged him on one of his references to the bible. Gould pulls out a bible from his bag, explaining that he took it from his hotel room, found the chapter and verse he had referred to and called the creationist out in no uncertain terms. Classic...

Overall, I liked him. I can be pretty forgiving to the smug when they have reasons to be smug about. Not like he wasted my time talking about his 40 years study in the building trades and then called me names for pointing out that this has nothing to do with evolution and how he was wrong about his "this old house" examples.

It would be easy to call my knowledge of the Bible into question, but I am willing to admit this and do not pretend that I am a biblical scholar. Creationists seem to think that merely believing gives them special understanding, until someone asks them questions and they cannot answer them. It has never been a surprise to me that more atheists, agnostics and non-Christians are better educated in scripture than most creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmm, I doubt that, but I'll check it out. Refutation is not proof, however. Is it?

What do you mean by proof? Something is either refuted or it is not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Behe's first argument was based upon a mousetrap. A mousetrap will not work as a mousetrap if it is missing any of its parts. But it was shown that it still worked very well for other jobs without those parts. The bacterial rotator flagellum also works just fine doing various other jobs when it is missing "key parts". In other words it could evolve with the present use being an emergent property. I know that at least two of the examples that he chose failed. So he had a "because I say so" argument that was shown to be wrong for at least two of his prime examples.

I think the mistake that was made was conceptual. He was thinking of things having purpose rather than function. I could be wrong, but that does fit. Not something I would expect out of person with his level of knowledge, but desire can be blinding.

He really set himself up for defeat in the Dover trial. With all the effort he spent describing these things in his book, he must have been blinded by a failure in logic and not bothered to consider what would ruin his idea. He did not learn from Darwin's example.

 

[YoursTrue]

So--my question to believers in evolution is: what is the first living matter that just happened to come about? Anyone know?

 

[Jim]

@Jim AND Subduction Zone
I'm not sure, but I think I see a problem here. Here's the problem: "intelligent design" seems to propose that things come about for the betterment in evolution because it makes the organism (apparently by chance?) more efficient or workable. Am I right about this? In other words, there was no intelligent designer, such as God, causing any changes, but they came about because it just made the organism "better," more efficient, etc.

I don’t call anything “intelligent design,” and I know very little about what other people mean by it. In my way of thinking, however evolution works, it’s designed by the God of Abraham to work that way.