• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim

Nets of Wonder
All this time, I’ve been asking the wrong questions. What I want to see is not the reasons for believing in common ancestry. What I want to see is arguments against the idea of many lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life. Some or all of the arguments might be the same, so I’ll repost the kinds of arguments that I’ve seen for believing in common ancestry, but considering them now as arguments against multiple lines of ancestry going all the way back to the beginning of life:
- Fossils.
- Similarities.
- How well it works not to think that way,

Can anyone think of any arguments against multiple lines of ancestry, apart from those three kinds of arguments?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
All this time, I’ve been asking the wrong questions. What I want to see is not the reasons for believing in common ancestry. What I want to see is arguments against the idea of many lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life.
This is strange thing to ask for, since the evidence for common ancestry and the evidence against separate ancestry are one and the same.

The reason we don't believe that life formed in separate and distinct ancestry events is all the evidence we have that suggests all life shares common ancestry.

Some or all of the arguments might be the same, so I’ll repost the kinds of arguments that I’ve seen for believing in common ancestry, but considering them now as arguments against multiple lines of ancestry going all the way back to the beginning of life:
- Fossils.
- Similarities.
- How well it works not to think that way,

Can anyone think of any arguments against multiple lines of ancestry, apart from those three kinds of arguments?
The fact that there is no distinct DNA between populations of organisms. If there were multiple lines of ancestry, we would expect to see several lines of entirely distinct genetic codes among living populations. Since all life shares significant amounts of their DNA code, this is extremely unlikely.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
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.
Indeed.

It seems that many of them focus solely on the passages they discuss in bible study/church and don't seem to know much about the rest, or the history, etc. And boy, do they always have anescape clause to rescue unflattering passages. One of my favorites is Hosea 13:16, where God orders all the people in Samaria to be killed for rebelling' , to include children and fetuses. I am usually told that I am taking it 'out of context.' So I provide the entire section. Then I am either told that this is not ENOUGH context (and when I ask how much is enough, I have actually been told 'the whole bible'), or I am told the slaughter of the unborn is justified because the parents 'rebelled.'

An amazing (and somewhat disturbing) thing to watch unfold...
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.

It looks to me like the argument from fossils is that there’s nothing in the fossils that conclusively disproves common ancestry. Is anyone claiming that there is something in the fossils that conclusively disproves separate ancestry?

The similarities argument looks to me like a reflex to think of common ancestry as an explanation for similarities. Other explanations have been found for similarities, at all levels from life chemistry to external appearances, so I see no reason to consider any similarities of any kind as an argument against separate ancestry.

I see the argument from how well it works to think that way as a good reason to keep doing it, but not a reason at all to stigmatize people who don’t believe it. In electricity and electronics it works very well to think of the electricity as flowing from the positive terminal of the source to the negative, but I don’t think anyone would think of stigmatizing people who think that the flow of particles is actually in the other direction, or objecting to that as a premise for some research.

I’ll explain my reasons for thinking that it’s unlikely that all life on earth has a common ancestor. However life first appeared, it seems unlikely to me that it only happened once, in one single organism. It seems more likely to me that it happened in many places all around the world, possibly thousands or even millions of places. For various reasons, I think that there would be variations from one first life organism to another that would lead to different paths of evolution. Out of all the thousands or millions of different first life organisms It seems unlikely to me that the lines of ancestry of all life today all go back to the same one. Possible maybe, but unlikely.
You need to Google "comparative genomics."
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
WHAT????

I admit that I did not read usfan's rambling gibberish about the paper, but I hadn't thought that even someone like him would have ONLY commented on an abstract, and thought that sufficient to declare it fraudulent.

Absolutely incredible. Such dishonesty and incompetence.... Can't understand why other creationists are telling this guy to put a lid on it to spare themselves some embarrassment.
I've never really seen any indication that creationists have the capacity to be embarrassed by their behaviors.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
@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.
Utterly and completely bizarre. You accuse the authors of a paper of being "dishonest and irresponsible", even though you've not actually read their paper. You make all sorts of declarations about common ancestry, even though you have no idea what the science is behind it.

And then when people call you out for such unethical behavior, you whine and complain about being treated poorly? Here's a tip....if you don't like being treated badly, then behave more ethically.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree.

It disappoints me to see you participating in that vilification campaign. I thought better of you than that.
He is not part of the vilification campaign that this thread was created to carry out. He is a target of it. Along with anyone that supports the science of evolution.

It appears, from what I have read, that subscription to the theory of evolution is following a progressive political doctrine and anyone that follows that is a hated and despised progressive. That this makes no sense and is in no way consistent with any facts has not deterred the campaign.

In as much as one man's politics have been turned into a religion, this thread does qualify as a religious campaign. But it is one that is set against science and seeks to falsely set up a particular part of science as a religion.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’m considering the possibility of multiple lines of ancestry going all the way back to the beginning of life. I see four kinds of possible arguments against it:
- Fossils.
- Similarities.
- How many things can be explained by common ancestry.
- Benefits that have resulted from evolution theory with a premise of common ancestry.

Can anyone think of any arguments against multiple lines of ancestry, apart from those four kinds of arguments?
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
... you have no idea what the science is behind it.
I disagree.
And then when people call you out for such unethical behavior ...
If the behavior you’re talking about is saying what I thought from reading the earlier abstract and the blog post, and refusing to submit to anyone’s demands to Substantiate Or Retract, then I disagree that it was unethical.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I see four kinds of possible arguments against the idea of multiple lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life:
- Fossils.
- Similarities.
- How many things can be explained by common ancestry.
- Benefits that have resulted from evolution theory with a premise of common ancestry.

If anyone can think of any arguments against multiple lines of ancestry, apart from those four kinds of arguments, please post them.

- Fossils.

It looks to me like the argument from fossils is that there’s nothing in them that conclusively disproves the idea of common ancestry. Is there anything in them that conclusively disproves multiple lines of ancestry going back to the beginning of life?

- Similarities.

The argument from similarities looks to me like counting all similarities that haven’t been explained some other way as evidence for common ancestry. That looks arbitrary to me. Out of all possible explanations for similarities, why choose that as the default explanation, rather than survival value or some other explanation?

- How many things can be explained by common ancestry.

Everything in electric circuits can be explained by imagining the electricity flowing out of the positive terminal of sources and into the negative terminals, but the current flow is actually in the opposite direction.

- Benefits that have resulted from evolution theory with a premise of common ancestry.

Most of the benefits of chemistry have happened or could have happened with everyone imagining the electrons in atoms flying in circles around the nucleus. That is not a reason for thinking that they actually do that.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I’m considering the possibility of multiple lines of ancestry going all the way back to the beginning of life. I see four kinds of possible arguments against it:
- Fossils.
- Similarities.
- How many things can be explained by common ancestry.
- Benefits that have resulted from evolution theory with a premise of common ancestry.

Can anyone think of any arguments against multiple lines of ancestry, apart from those four kinds of arguments?


The first - fossils - has been by far the most impressive. Even in Darwin's time the understating that different layers of sedimentary rock represented different time frames in earths history which correlated so well with the types of fossils found. The fact that our dating techniques of sediments is so accurate considering the length of time that has passed, it gives us a powerful tool to compare sediments around the world and the findings are consistent. The findings are clear - simpler structured organisms come first. There is a progression from that point onward with increasing diversity with time. This is exactly what is predicted from common descent.

Multiple descent first must come up with how many different forms of descent were formed and how to distinguish them from each other so they do not share characteristics. Second is determining how each of the multiple descent lines formed and when. Now we are going from a simple to a complex explanation without supportive evidence. Why create something far more complicated to explain when a better supported and simpler explanation already exists.

The second - similarities. Genetics has shown that the genetic codes for basic physiological functions are extremely well preserved throughout living things. Thus we even share genetic similarities with plants. The closer in form and function the more similar genetic material. This is entirely in harmony with common descent. Multiple descent lines would not necessarily have to share any genetic material and certainly not in the pattern we see when we compare the genetics of different organisms that correlate with the history of the fossil record.

What is amazing is just how supportive all the information actually is. All other views do not fit with what is found. I hope my simple explanation will help. The scientific evidence can get quite complex.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The first - fossils - has been by far the most impressive. Even in Darwin's time the understating that different layers of sedimentary rock represented different time frames in earths history which correlated so well with the types of fossils found. The fact that our dating techniques of sediments is so accurate considering the length of time that has passed, it gives us a powerful tool to compare sediments around the world and the findings are consistent. The findings are clear - simpler structured organisms come first. There is a progression from that point onward with increasing diversity with time. This is exactly what is predicted from common descent.

Multiple descent first must come up with how many different forms of descent were formed and how to distinguish them from each other so they do not share characteristics. Second is determining how each of the multiple descent lines formed and when. Now we are going from a simple to a complex explanation without supportive evidence. Why create something far more complicated to explain when a better supported and simpler explanation already exists.

The second - similarities. Genetics has shown that the genetic codes for basic physiological functions are extremely well preserved throughout living things. Thus we even share genetic similarities with plants. The closer in form and function the more similar genetic material. This is entirely in harmony with common descent. Multiple descent lines would not necessarily have to share any genetic material and certainly not in the pattern we see when we compare the genetics of different organisms that correlate with the history of the fossil record.

What is amazing is just how supportive all the information actually is. All other views do not fit with what is found. I hope my simple explanation will help. The scientific evidence can get quite complex.
Thank you. If there was a rating higher than “winner,” I would have given it to that post.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’ve decided to start reporting personal attacks against me. I won’t be trying to do anything about what people say to each other about me, except possibly sometimes to say that I disagree with it, but now when I see people repeatedly vilifying me, in posts addressed to me, I’m reporting it.

@Dan From Smithville I thought for a while that you were vilifying me, but I know better now, and it was never the kind of vilifying that I’m reporting now. What I’m reporting now for example is people repeatedly accusing me of trolling, dishonesty and unethical behavior, in posts addressed to me.

If anyone seriously thinks that I’m trolling, lying, behaving unethically, or whatever vilifying things they want to think about me, I have no objection to them telling that to all the world, but now when they do that in posts addressed to me, I’m reporting it as personal attacks.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I’ve decided to start reporting personal attacks against me. I won’t be trying to do anything about what people say to each other about me, except possibly sometimes to say that I disagree with it, but now when I see people repeatedly vilifying me, in posts addressed to me, I’m reporting it.

@Dan From Smithville I thought for a while that you were vilifying me, but I know better now, and it was never the kind of vilifying that I’m reporting now. What I’m reporting now for example is people repeatedly accusing me of trolling, dishonesty and unethical behavior, in posts addressed to me.

If anyone seriously thinks that I’m trolling, lying, behaving unethically, or whatever vilifying things they want to think about me, I have no objection to them telling that to all the world, but now when they do that in posts addressed to me, I’m reporting it as personal attacks.
Jim, I think there has been a lot of confusion over what you are doing and you have made some questionable claims regarding the theory of common descent. I missed it, but apparently you challenged the ethics of some authors of a paper that you did not bother to read? Is that correct? I got the impression that people were a little stunned by that, if I am correct on the idea. I will have to go back and sift through if I get time.

What is your main objection to common descent? Is it based on some idea of the evidence or do you just have an ideological issue with the idea?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So - to the people that hate evolution because of their fragile faith - Why do you try to conflate abiogenesis with evolution?
I don't. But I also see that you can't say what is the first "living matter." I guess no scientist really knows. But I was curious and so I asked here of those who believe in evolution. It actually has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but you made it so.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So - to the people that hate evolution because of their fragile faith - Why do you try to conflate abiogenesis with evolution?
You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top