Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Jim]

So is it a theory, in your opinion, or is evolution true beyond doubt? And by that, I also mean, is it beyond doubt in your mind that people built Paris or might it have come about through aliens from outer space? Since you haven't seen it being built, would you say then, in your sense of reason, that it might have come about by chance, or without human hands?
Or is it, you say, only some of it true? Soil contains many of the elements also in the human body, in fact, that are necessary for humans to exist and be healthy, does that prove to you that man evolved from apes?

I’m not in this to argue for or against evolution or creation. I think now that I should have made that more clear from the start. I don’t think of evolution theories as being true or not. I think of them as being useful, and widely used, for beneficial purposes. For me that has nothing to do with the historicity of the first creation story in the Bible. In my way of thinking, that creation story could be as historical as anyone could want it to be, without changing my view of evolution theories.

Sometimes I think of my relationship with other people and the world around us as part of a personal relationship with a person who created all of us. I’m not saying that there actually is a being like that. It’s an analogy, a metaphorical way of thinking about my relationship with other people and the world around us. For me that has nothing to do with the historicity of evolution theory. All of evolution theory could be as historical as anyone could want it to be, without changing my view of God.

 

[Jim]

So is it a theory, in your opinion, or is evolution true beyond doubt? And by that, I also mean, is it beyond doubt in your mind that people built Paris or might it have come about through aliens from outer space? Since you haven't seen it being built, would you say then, in your sense of reason, that it might have come about by chance, or without human hands?
Or is it, you say, only some of it true? Soil contains many of the elements also in the human body, in fact, that are necessary for humans to exist and be healthy, does that prove to you that man evolved from apes?

If your question is about whether I think that all life really does have a common ancestor or not, I don’t think that way. I don’t think of history in terms of what “really” happened. I will say that it makes more sense to me to think of multiple lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life, than to think exclusively in terms of it all going back to one and only one common ancestor. With multiple lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life, we could all have one common ancestor, or many, or none.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Frankly, it's odd that you might think or that it's possible there are cities on this earth that were built by non-humans, since no one saw them.

BINGO!!!!!!



Now.... any time you wish to take us for a tour in your God's life creating factories.................................................

I'm sure you will have those who say it's possible that there are cities on this earth not built by human hands.

There are some, yes, who believe in alien conspiracies and believe the pyramids were built by aliens and alike.

Then there are others.... who are absolutely convinced that their god of choice built biological creatures.

Is it sinking in?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you say it's not realistic in logic to say that cars and roads obviously have a human maker, and trees do not? Really in order to continue a decent discussion it's a yes or no answer.
Either it's not realistic to say that cars and roads have human makers and trees do not, or it is realistic to say that cars and roads have human makers and trees do not. We can stop there.

Everybody here agrees that cars and cities have human builders while trees don't.

The question you are being asked is HOW DO WE KNOW THIS.
Explain the reasoning step by step.


We all know why you refuse to answer that question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I answered it. I'll repeat the answer. Every house that you or I have ever seen, including igloos in pictures, has a maker. Since we were not around when the foundations of Paris were laid, I believe it was laid by human hands. It's kind of like the next whole number in sequence from 1 to 100. 2 follows 1, 100 follows 99. That's how it works.
But if you think it's possible that a car, house, city, bridge, etc. might not have a maker because you did not see them being made, that's up to you.

Awesome.

So where can we observe a biological creature being "created"?

 

[Jim]

I think I may agree with you to some extent. The are not immutable. The have utility. They are subject to falsification. They may be as close as we can come to a truth, but that is always contingent.

I’ll review and update my thoughts about evolution and creation. I’m not in this to debate for or against one or the other. I think now that I should have made that more clear from the start.

As I told @YoursTrue , I don’t think of evolution theories as being true or not. I think of them as being useful, and widely used, for beneficial purposes. For me that has nothing to do with the historicity of the first creation story in the Bible. That story could be as historical as anyone could want it to be, and it would not change my view of evolution theories.

I think of my relationship with the world around me as part of a personal relationship with a person who created it, which I equate with the God of Abraham. I’m not saying that there really is such a being. For me it’s just an analogy, a metaphorical way of thinking about my relationship with the world around me. For me that has nothing to do with the historicity of evolution theories. Those theories could be as historical as anyone could want them to be, and it wouldn’t change my view of God.

What I actually think about history, including the history of life and of the earth, is that there’s no way to ever know anything about it directly. All we can do is model it, without even understanding what it is that we’re modeling. Different models might be better for different purposes. It makes more sense to me to think of life having multiple lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life, than to think exclusively in terms of one ancestor for all of life. There might be one common ancestor for all life, or many, or none. What I think of the first Bible creation story is that it makes more sense to think of it as an allegory than to think of it as actual history. Two creation stories contradicting each other looks to me like God saying from the start that Bible stories are not always actual history. In fact, I don’t think that any Bible stories need to be considered as actual history, to learn everything there is to learn from it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If your question is about whether I think that all life really does have a common ancestor or not, I don’t think that way. I don’t think of history in terms of what “really” happened. I will say that it makes more sense to me to think of multiple lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life, than to think exclusively in terms of it all going back to one and only one common ancestor. With multiple lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life, we could all have one common ancestor, or many, or none.

But that doesn't make sense. Why do you think a model that isn't actually supported by the facts and can't actually explain what we see and, therefore, makes less sense... makes more sense?

 

[Jim]

But that doesn't make sense. Why do you think a model that isn't actually supported by the facts and can't actually explain what we see and, therefore, makes less sense... makes more sense?

How is “supported by the facts” different from “explains what we see”?

Evolution theories don’t explain everything. There’s no way to know how well all the observations could be explained by theories based on multiple lines of ancestry, because no one has ever tried explaining them all that way. It doesn’t make any sense to me to think that when life started, it only started in one place, in one single organism. Besides, because the idea of multiple lines of ancestry includes a possibility of one common ancestor, it can be used to explain everything that can be explained imagining only one common ancestor, while opening up more possibilities for explaining observations that can’t be explained with current theories.

 

[ratiocinator]

There’s no way to know how well all the observations could be explained by theories based on multiple lines of ancestry, because no one has ever tried explaining them all that way.

Sorry but this is just nonsense. The conclusion isn't a way to interpret the evidence, it is what the evidence leads us to conclude.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How is “supported by the facts” different from “explains what we see”?

Because it goes the other way around. We reach the conclusion FROM the facts, we don't fit the facts to the conclusion. The "separate origin" idea doesn't explain anything and is contradicted by the facts, so how does it make more sense to you?

Evolution theories don’t explain everything. There’s no way to know how well all the observations could be explained by theories based on multiple lines of ancestry, because no one has ever tried explaining them all that way.

Why do I have to keep explaining this to you?

The idea of multiple origins HAS been tested and has failed. It categorically doesn't work and is CONTRARY to what is observed, because what is observed LEADS to the conclusion of common ancestry.

So how does it make more sense to you?

It doesn’t make any sense to me to think that when life started, it only started in one place, in one single organism.

Why not when this is what all the facts indicate and none of the facts contradict?

Besides, because the idea of multiple lines of ancestry includes a possibility of one common ancestor, it can be used to explain everything that can be explained imagining only one common ancestor, while opening up more possibilities for explaining observations that can’t be explained with current theories.

This makes no sense. How can the idea of multiple lines of ancestry INCLUDE the possibility of a single, common ancestor? They are mutually exclusive propositions.

And what observations are you suggesting can't currently be explained with current theories? What explanatory power does multiple lines of ancestry have?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Besides, because the idea of multiple lines of ancestry includes a possibility of one common ancestor, it can be used to explain everything that can be explained imagining only one common ancestor, while opening up more possibilities for explaining observations that can’t be explained with current theories.

Which examples can you give of observations that can't be explained with "current theories" that are in need of a "special explanation" that includes multiple lines of ancestry?

 

[Jim]

Because it goes the other way around. We reach the conclusion FROM the facts, we don't fit the facts to the conclusion. The "separate origin" idea doesn't explain anything and is contradicted by the facts, so how does it make more sense to you?


Why do I have to keep explaining this to you?

The idea of multiple origins HAS been tested and has failed. It categorically doesn't work and is CONTRARY to what is observed, because what is observed LEADS to the conclusion of common ancestry.

So how does it make more sense to you?


Why not when this is what all the facts indicate and none of the facts contradict?


This makes no sense. How can the idea of multiple lines of ancestry INCLUDE the possibility of a single, common ancestor? They are mutually exclusive propositions.

And what observations are you suggesting can't currently be explained with current theories? What explanatory power does multiple lines of ancestry have?

What do you think theories are good for, and how do you think that they are developed and improved?

 

[Jim]

The "separate origin" idea doesn't explain anything and is contradicted by the facts.

If you mean that the idea of multiple lines of ancestry doesn’t explain any observations and is contradicted by them, I disagree.

How can the idea of multiple lines of ancestry INCLUDE the possibility of a single, common ancestor?

In the network model the separate lines of ancestry go back to an ancestral community of primitive cells. It’s conceivable that the ancestral community all came exclusively from a single organism that was either the only living organism that ever emerged from non living matter, or the only one to survive out of thousands or maybe even millions. In that case that single organism would be the single common ancestor of all life.

And what observations are you suggesting can't currently be explained with current theories? What explanatory power does multiple lines of ancestry have?

Read those two articles again, carefully and thoughtfully, all the way through.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you mean that the idea of multiple lines of ancestry doesn’t explain any observations and is contradicted by them, I disagree.

Then please provide observations that support multiple lines of ancestry.

In the network model the separate lines of ancestry go back to an ancestral community of primitive cells. It’s conceivable that the ancestral community all came exclusively from a single organism that was either the only living organism that ever emerged from non living matter, or the only one to survive out of thousands or maybe even millions. In that case that single organism would be the single common ancestor of all life.

But that's still common ancestry, not multiple ancestry. There is still one common ancestor.

Read those two articles again, carefully and thoughtfully, all the way through.

Again, I don't think those articles are saying what you think they are. They are saying that several populations arose from one common ancestor and there was horizontal gene transference between these populations. They do not allege that there are "multiple lines of ancestry". There is still ONE common ancestor, because all of those populations come from the SAME ancestor.

Do you understand?

 

[Jim]

Again, I don't think those articles are saying what you think they are. They are saying that several populations arose from one common ancestor and there was horizontal gene transference between these populations. They do not allege that there are "multiple lines of ancestry". There is still ONE common ancestor, because all of those populations come from the SAME ancestor.

Where in this model do you see a single, individual organism that is identified as the common ancestor of all life?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where in this model do you see a single, individual organism that is identified as the common ancestor of all life?

View attachment 32217

Do you not understand that the "ancestral community of living cells" refers to a population arising from a common ancestor?

It's a map of horizontal gene transference - not a model of abiogenesis. You're getting confused by your sources.

 

[tas8831]

I never said that each day was 24 hours as we know time now. Obviously each day cited is a period of time, not 24 hours each.

Oh, OK... Obviously. Ask you fellow creationists if they agree with that obvious fact.

 

[tas8831]

I didn't say I think he believes in a creator.

Cool, but this is not what I asked -

Take a gander and show us examples of his work that favor ID or creation or whatever, and be sure to explain how it supports your position.

 

[Jim]

Do you not understand that the "ancestral community of living cells" refers to a population arising from a common ancestor?

If you mean, all from one single living cell, where do you see anyone saying that? What reason is there to think that?

No one is claiming to know what conditions are required for life to emerge from non life. In order for all life to have only one individual organism as a common ancestor, either the conditions for life to appear would have to have happened in only one microscopic location on the whole earth, only just long enough for one single living cell to form, or else out of the thousands or millions of the first living cells that formed, there would have to be one and only one whose population survived long enough to become part of the pool. What compelling reason would there be for excluding the possibility that when life first emerged from non life, it happened in thousands or even millions of places, producing multitudes of populations that eventually merged into a pool?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you mean, all from one single living cell, where do you see anyone saying that? What reason is there to think that?

Because if it wasn't a single common ancestor, there wouldn't be shared genetic lineage.

No one is claiming to know what conditions are required for life to emerge from non life. In order for all life to have only one individual organism as a common ancestor, either the conditions for life to appear would have to have happened in only one microscopic location on the whole earth, only just long enough for one single living cell to form, or else out of the thousands or millions of the first living cells that formed, there would have to be one and only one whose population survived long enough to become part of the pool. What compelling reason would there be for excluding the possibility that when life first emerged from non life, it happened in thousands or even millions of places, producing multitudes of populations that eventually merged into a pool?

Nothing. But there is a lot to suggest that only one of these actually survived, since there is only a singular genetic lineage. You are equating HGT between various populations that arose from a universal common ancestor with the existence of multiple common ancestors - but if those earlier forms of life died out out and were only survived by a single organism, by definition they are NOT the common ancestor - because they died.

All of the evidence indicates a single common ancestor to all extant life. If other early forms of life arose and subsequently died without (or before) passing on their inheritance, then they are not an ancestor.