Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How could we test universal common descent?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Paul Nelson offers some thoughts to A Goy for Jesus (“We’re just a humble Christian channel that largely focuses on Catholic & Jewish-related apologetics from a classical Protestant perspective, but we also deal with things like UFOs or random stuff.”):

May 18, 2022: The Challenge of Testing Universal Common Descent

Also:

April 27, 2022: Can Universal Common Descent be Tested?

You may also wish to read: Novel RNA and peptide species thought to have sparked evolution of complex life Researcher: According to the new theory, a decisive element at the beginning was the presence of RNA molecules that could adorn themselves with amino acids and peptides and so join them into larger peptide structures. “RNA developed slowly into a constantly improving amino acid linking catalyst,” says Carell. (He talks about the emergence of “information-coding properties” as if that would just happen.)

Comments
Can anyone say how to test the claim of universal common descent? A non-question begging test would be best. Fred has failed. Anyone else?ET
May 31, 2022
May
05
May
31
31
2022
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
So, if we ignore the fact that mechanisms produce patterns, trees based on DNA, which doesn't even determine biological form, somehow are evidence for universal common descent? Really? Sounds like desperation and not science.ET
May 29, 2022
May
05
May
29
29
2022
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Wrong. I already pointed out that mechanisms determine patterns. Your trees are meaningless without said mechanisms. Genetic similarity is evidence for a common design. Your willful ignorance is impressive.ET
May 29, 2022
May
05
May
29
29
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Yes. I already pointed out that relatedness trees constructed using comparative anatomy without any input from genetic information match closely with trees produced solely using genetic sequence comparisons. Consilience is impressive.Fred Hickson
May 29, 2022
May
05
May
29
29
2022
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
Can anyone say how to test the claim of universal common descent? A non-question begging test would be best.ET
May 25, 2022
May
05
May
25
25
2022
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Querius, there's a question mark there.Fred Hickson
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
FH
You could quote me.
I went back and searched for your commentary. That way I could quote you. Because when I repeated what you said, you asked me to quote you. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-id-as-fruitful-approach-to-science/#comment-755086
SA: Each year’s <b:environmental conditions create a different niche. The body plan was developed for specific environmental conditions, but those conditions change randomly and continually based on changing temperature, humidity, geography, presence of competition, introduction of new species, increase and decline of populations, introduction of disease and toxins, fires, floods, earthquakes. FH: Well sure, except I wonder whether climate change, say, is truly random. God’s hand behind it all? Humans fuelling their own destruction by causing carbon dioxide levels (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere to mount seemingly inexorably? SA: I can only see that as a sincere comment and therefore it’s a good thing that you’re wondering about that. I’m grateful to see it. – I like how you put that. “God’s hand behind it” FH: SA, I have a sense of humor (what ID skeptic posting here wouldn’t?) but that comment was perfectly serious. ID seems to perceive a conflict with science and evolutionary theory in particular that doesn’t exist for me. God the Designer doesn’t need puny ID. SA: As it stands, you’re supporting what ET said – there are no known naturalistic (blind, unguided) mechanisms to support universal common descent. You’ve affirmed it with “guided niches”. Agreed? FH: I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time SA: The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it. FH: But I don’t. ... Nor do I personally subscribe to the idea. SA: So now, just a suggestion: It would have been helpful back then, earlier, to have said that you actually reject that idea for whatever reason and that environment is, after all, random and not as you had said “guided by the hand of God”. Failing that, I wasted time thinking you were posting your own ideas and not proposals that you reject.
Silver Asiatic
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson: '
My position is that the source of guidance is a philosophical question that is impossible to resolve scientifically.
Why can't it be resolved scientifically? Do tell.ET
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
SA
You replied by saying that climate was not random but rather was “guided by the hand of God”.
You could quote me. My position is that the source of guidance is a philosophical question that is impossible to resolve scientifically.Fred Hickson
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I certainly proposed the niche’s role as the non-random source for non-random differential reproduction.
Only a lab can provide that role as the non-random source. In nature it is all in a constant state of flux.ET
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
DNA is NOT a magical molecule. All molecular studies ASSUME that DNA is a magical molecule. Again, mechanisms determine patterns. Until someone posits, tests and validates that there is a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life from some populations of prokaryotes, pattern hunting is a fool's errand. At least we understand why evos love it so much. Phylogenies assume universal common descent. They do not demonstrate it.ET
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
FH Some time ago I wrote about the problem of random effects of environment on niches. You replied by saying that climate was not random but rather was "guided by the hand of God". I responded by affirming that would mean a design-aspect to niches. You affirmed this by saying that it would reconcile faith and science. So now, just a suggestion: It would have been helpful back then, earlier, to have said that you actually reject that idea for whatever reason and that environment is, after all, random and not as you had said "guided by the hand of God". Failing that, I wasted time thinking you were posting your own ideas and not proposals that you reject.Silver Asiatic
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
you proposed “guided niches”. That refutes a blind, unguided process.
I certainly proposed the niche's role as the non-random source for non-random differential reproduction. I also suggest we can reconcile with theism by hypothesising a supreme creator as source of the guidance imparted by the niche. It's untestable (in my view) so doesn't refute anything. Nor do I personally subscribe to the idea.Fred Hickson
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
@ Jerry. That was my exact point. Molecular phylogenetics was already an active and fruitful area of research in 1998 and earlier. The progress since, if you dare to look, is spectacular.Fred Hickson
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
SA: As it stands, you’re supporting what ET said – there are no known naturalistic (blind, unguided) mechanisms to support universal common descent. You’ve affirmed it with “guided niches”. Agreed? FH: I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time SA: The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it. FH: But I don’t. Fred - you proposed "guided niches". That refutes a blind, unguided process.Silver Asiatic
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Where did Jerry look, I wonder
No serious person would present what you presented. A paper in 1998 which meant it was based on findings probably before 1996. This would not have the necessary data to investigate common descent by DNA. They were just getting started looking into genomes. They are just now possibly getting the expertise to start such a project almost 25 years later. Here's an example of how one would prove it https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/#comment-631468 Nothing like it has ever been attempted. Hint, they won't do it because I bet they know what they will find. Another hint: they do not know the origin of DNA sequences that translate to proteins. So they couldn't possibly have the information. You just confirmed my assessment that you did not have anything and paying attention to you is a waste of time.jerry
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Another taster, Wikipedia on phylogenetic comparative methods. Note reference 1 in the article. Wikipedia on molecular phylogenetics. Note reference 3 in the article. Where did Jerry look, I wonder.Fred Hickson
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Just as a taster, here is a review paper from 1998 that has been cited over 400 times. I see Joe Felsenstein gets a few mentions. Should be a useful starting point to show how much work has been done in the 24 years following publication.Fred Hickson
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes. That happens to be a fact. And all AlanFred can do is try to handwave it away like the coward he has always been. You are still a sad little person, AlanFred.ET
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
It’s a daft, repetitive mantra.
Wrong again, little boy. It is a fact. You are a daft punk.ET
May 23, 2022
May
05
May
23
23
2022
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
SA:
There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes.
The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it.
But I don't. It's a daft, repetitive mantra.Fred Hickson
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Had a look at Martin_r's blog, though blog seems a misnomer. Wasn't there a commenter here did something similar but by posting comments containing links to papers without any discussion about the content or significance? The thread went to over a thousand comments, all by that guy. Can't remember his handle for the moment.Fred Hickson
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
Jerry
I’ve already said he doesn’t have anything. If he had he would have presented it.
Jerry seems reluctant to look in my telescope. ;) . I'll put something together anyway though. It will have to fit around my normal RL commitments so might be a few days or so.Fred Hickson
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Martin
The funny thing is, that i only publish mainstream Darwinian articles. Darwinists debunk themselves.
I will bet that you do not get any Darwinists responding to you, for that very reason. True?Silver Asiatic
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Martin
It perfectly illustrates, that nobody knows how evolution works. As you can see, most famous biologists have a serious argument about such a basic thing (natural selection). The argument was so serious that they insulted each other in public.
Great explanation. Yes, it's a lose-lose situation for the evolutionists. The greatest spokesman for Darwinism in the world is called just "a journalist" - and then not only that, but they have to argue about natural selection and reveal that nobody knows what evolution is doing. Clearly, they just make up whatever stories they want to fit their materialistic narrative, and outside of ID and some other critics, nobody cares what evolutionists claim. They're never made to validate anything. They just demand acceptance - and they get it from academia, the media and the general public.Silver Asiatic
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Fred
I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time.
That is good to hear and I agree that it's not about taking sides. But in this case, it's a pretty huge agreement with ET. As you know he has often said:
There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes.
The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it. Again, it's not about taking sides or winning points, but it's just a very big and major point of agreement that should be built-upon.Silver Asiatic
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
tell Fred that you will take a look at his alleged evidence
He doesn’t have any. I’ve already said he doesn’t have anything. If he had he would have presented it. This is all nonsense.jerry
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Jerry, tell Fred that you will take a look at his alleged evidence. That way we can all see that he is equivocating and clueless. For some reason he needs your permission to do that.ET
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
ET My offer was to Jerry. He seems to have ignored it.Fred Hickson
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I’m the Ent who is on no-one’s side. Talking of sides explains everything politically and nothing in reality.
No one said anything about sides, Fred. Stop being such a drama queen.ET
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply