Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How could we test universal common descent?

Denyse O'Leary
May 19, 2022
Darwinism, Intelligent Design
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
whatever you present. My bet is it doesn’t do what you think it does
If it existed it would be Nobel prize material. No one ever presented it here including anti ID defenders of natural evolution presenting to state educational systems. It’s The Big Con. jerry
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
For AlanFred: There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes.ET
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Meanwhile, on tree of life matters, we can try https://salvomag.com/article/salvo27/logged-outkairosfocus
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Yes, Fred. I will read whatever you present. My bet is it doesn't do what you think it doesET
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
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?
I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time. I'm the Ent who is on no-one's side. Talking of sides explains everything politically and nothing in reality.Fred Hickson
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
34 JerryMay 20, 2022 at 12:13 pm
But it does. It is a matter of record
What record?
There's plenty. Can I get any kind of indication from you you'll glance at what I dig up? I seek no assurance you'll understand it or accept it, just acknowledgement that it exists.Fred Hickson
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
SA, also, thank you for looking at my blog at Stuffhappens.info
(Stuffhappens.info) taken as a whole it’s devastating.
Yes, it was my intention, to collect as much as possible MAINSTREAM articles about repeated evolution and to make a website/blog out of it. So even a lay person can see that Darwinism is a scam. The funny thing is, that i only publish mainstream Darwinian articles. Darwinists debunk themselves.martin_r
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
SA, you know that English is not my first language, but it is pretty clear how to interpret Wilson's words. Just look at the subtitle of the BBC article: "US scientist dismisses Dawkins as a ‘journalist’ in a BBC television interview about pair’s differing views on natural selection" It is clear that Wilson disrespected Dawkins, that is why he called him "a journalist". (only a journalist not a scientist). It was an insult. And it must hurt a lot when someone who is also known as THE DARWIN OF THE 21st CENTURY calls you 'a journalist'. As you can see these two biologists had an argument about natural selection. 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. Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilsonmartin_r
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
Martin Interesting. Aside from Wilson labeling him a journalist, how do you interpret his comment that he has no dispute with him because he's just reporting what scientists have found? Maybe Wilson is saying that evolutionists are too confused to be reported-on accurately? P.S. - I've benefited from stuffhappens.info -- taken as a whole it's devastating. I'm convinced that evolutionary biology is an elaborate scam. Actually, not even that elaborate.Silver Asiatic
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
SA,
Dawkins is a propagandist. Like a TV infomercial salesman
This is what E.O. Wilson AKA Darwin of the 21st century said about Dawkins:
There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson
martin_r
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
On that alleged "tree of relatedness"- The DNA tests that show that I am related to my father would show that neither of us are related to any chimps. I can't say the same for Alan'sFred's family, though.ET
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
FH, sequences may be theory laden and are not conclusive evidence of origin of relevant information; you may need to consider common design with particular adaptation, which is rypically ruled out ideologically.. This is why ool and oo body plans are pivotal. kf PS, there are no actually observed blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanisms with empirically warranted capability to cause origin of life, of body plans and of the required coded information. There is imposed, ideologically tainted assumption as Lewontin and many others admit.kairosfocus
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.”
Nothing is absurd for an atheist because s/he is his own god and answer only to his own arrogance.Sandy
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility.
Dawkins is a propagandist. Like a TV infomercial salesman: "Who could doubt that this is the greatest product in the history of the world?"
as another evolutionist admitted, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”
The tree is a jumbled mess and it has little real value.Silver Asiatic
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Hickson, now you know that i don't have a formal education in biology. So i was hoping that you can help me to understand one thing which bothers me a lot. What makes Darwinists think, that a mutation was inherited (a common descent) ? e.g. Chimps/humans pseudogenes. Could the same mutation arise in chimps and humans independently ?martin_r
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
From the June 5, 2013 issue of Time magazine: "A. achilles will tell paleontologists an enormous amount about a crucial period in primate evolution. The tiny animal — about eight inches long, but most of it tail — lived during an anomalously warm period known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. “The entire planet was tropical or sub-tropical,” said Beard. “It was a great time to be a primate.” It was during this period that the group known as the haphlorines diverged into two branches, one of which developed into modern tarsiers and the other into the anthropoids — that is, monkeys, apes and humans. (The haphlorines had diverged earlier on from the streppsirhines, which led to modern lemurs. The quiz answer, therefore, is that you’re a haphlorine, and more closely related to tarsiers than to lemurs)." The entire planet was tropical or sub-tropical. OK. So, does anyone here have an ancestor that was a lemur-like creature? An ape-like creature?relatd
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”,,, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”,,, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.”,,, he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.” “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.” And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data. Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model. Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree. Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process. Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model. Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/ Completion of Human Genome Reveals Anti-Evolutionary Surprises BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * - APRIL 14, 2022 https://www.icr.org/article/completion-human-genome November 2021 - Human evolution? - the evidence from genetics, (as well as the mathematics of population genetics itself), when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal as Darwinists are prone to do, actually falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245
bornagain77
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
how they can talk about similarity of anything, when 9% from human genome was missing,
The main differences between humans and chimps are not in the genome. There are huge differences in the epigenetics that affect the expression of genes especially neural genes. I can guarantee you that nearly all the discussions on human/chimp difference never mention the real source of differences. Wonder why?jerry
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
ET @33 i am glad you have mentioned chimp-human similarity. There is one thing i did not get... only few weeks ago, scientists announced, that they finally sequenced the whole human genome. Most lay people think, that it was done 20 years ago. No, it was not. There were about 9% of human genome missing (to be sequenced). The same for any other mammals including chimps. So, what i don't understand, how they can talk about similarity of anything, when 9% from human genome was missing, and i guess the same % from chimp genome is still missing. perhaps Hickson can explain.martin_r
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
This is the heart of the problem. This is why engineers turn to living things for clues about how to make similar things. The dinosaur example is very good. All load-bearing points have to carry the load and allow for the stress involved in movement. There would not be enough time for blind, unguided processes to get to that point, to design a multi-ton dinosaur, even after millions of years.relatd
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Relatd
In real life, the code for producing an ape’s arm or rib cage can be compared with the code for making the same human parts. The designer will use similar body plans over and over.
I have no doubts that this is exactly what happened.
Since you are a mechanical engineer, you are familiar with the various material stresses, and other problems involved in designing real-world things.
i am glad you mentioned material stresses. It is funny to see, that blind unguided process developed the best materials imaginable. Everywhere you look in nature, you always find the right materials on the right place. e.g. bones ... it is a very strong, but on the other hand, pretty flexible material. And lightweight thank to its foamy structure. A high-tech material. No doubts. Do you think that biologists (natural science graduates) know how bones evolved? Of course they don't. Do you think that these natural science graduates know how the whole vertebrae skeleton evolved ? Of course they don't. They can't show you a single evidence on evolution of bones or skeleton. For me, it is not surprising, this was exactly what i have expected. When i started to study these things, I predicted it ... they will not have a clue. Sure, because it did not evolve. I can't imagine, how a joint could have evolved. And, these natural science graduates claim, that joints evolved multiple times independently in evolutionary unrelated species (you know, the convergence again). PS: one more thing regarding the material stresses. There were dinosaurs weighting tens of tons. Some of them were running when chasing prey. Huge dynamic material stress. Dynamic material stress is more serious engineering problem, than e.g. static material stress. I don't understand, how a rational educated person, can even think, that these huge running objects self-designed and no engineer was involved. This is very hard to imagine. But of course, natural science graduates can imagine anything, because they never made anything. Basically, they don't know what they are talking about ...martin_r
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Martin_r, If you have access to a good graphic design program, try the following. Get 3-D skeleton models of land creatures that you can rotate, then enter the modifications. Example: take a human skeleton and turn it into an ape skeleton or the reverse. In real life, the code for producing an ape's arm or rib cage can be compared with the code for making the same human parts. The designer will use similar body plans over and over. Since you are a mechanical engineer, you are familiar with the various material stresses, and other problems involved in designing real-world things.relatd
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
JHOLO
ID is right, but asking for details of the mechanisms involved is off limits.
i am a mechanical engineer with a decent IT background. I am a creationist. So what do you want me to do ? To show you how species were designed ? If i knew, i would get a Nobel and become a billionaire. It is very possible, that the overall species design is beyond human comprehension ... And yes, i can assure you, that ID is 100% right. I as an engineer would stake my life on it. Would you stake your life on Darwinian theory of evolution ? From design/engineering point of view, there are many evidences that ID is 100% right. My favorite one is DNA proofreading and repair.martin_r
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
But it does. It is a matter of record
What record? No one has ever presented such information. Why? It doesn’t exist. How do I know, I asked and searched for it. I suggest you be the first one to present it. A Nobel prize awaits.
but asking for details of the mechanisms involved is off limits
Not off limits but it is an absurd question. Been asked probably a thousand times before because all thought it would be a gotcha. A serious person would not ask it because It indicates desperation. The only reason any anti ID person is here is to see if they can find a gotcha. There’s only been one honest one here in the site’s 17 years. That person was an evolutionary biologist and actually tried to respectfully share information. But he could never make the case.jerry
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Chimps and humans are allegedly >98% genetically similar. Yet evolutionary biologists have been unable to link that slight genetic difference to the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans. Evolutionary biologists still don't even know what determines biological form! That is a basic question with respect to biology they can't answer.ET
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Hickson,
It is as if you are a bot generating random phrases using key words.
Don't be ridiculous, Hickson ... ET can't compete with modern day science:
Computer generated papers (CGP) pose a serious problem to academic integrity and publishing. The problem began with SCIgen. Created in 2005 by MIT students, SCIgen is a software program that generates papers with simulated content. In 2014, we learned that more than 120 CGP passed through the peer review process , were published in well-known academic journals, and had to be retracted. https://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=grad_rsch
martin_r
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Jholo:
Hmmm. So, evolution is wrong because scientists haven’t been able to detail all of the mechanisms involved.
Your cowardly equivocation is duly noted. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with evolution by means of telic processes as exemplified by genetic algorithms. And YOUR position is about the how. From Darwin on down it has been all about the mechanisms. Yet all you have is gibberish. The science of ID, as with archaeology, is about detecting intelligent design in nature and then studying it. And we have a process for doing that.ET
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Hmmm. So, evolution is wrong because scientists haven't been able to detail all of the mechanisms involved. ID is right, but asking for details of the mechanisms involved is off limits.JHolo
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
JHolo:
If common descent is true, which Behe agrees with, we would expect to see the type of rankings of similarities that Linnaeus presented.
Behe says that God did it. Do you agree? But no. We would expect to see innumerable transitional forms that would ruin any and all attempts at nice, neat groupings.ET
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Wow. MECHANISMS determine patterns, people. Common design easily explains the genetic, anatomical and physiological similarities. Linnaean classification was based on a common design. What this means is if you don't know the mechanism(s) that can produce the diversity of life starting from populations of prokaryotes, then you can't say anything about any patterns.ET
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply