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

There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of universal common descent. Fred Hickson:
Read what you wrote, ET. It makes no sense.
Perhaps not to you. But here, try this: There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes.ET_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

In fairness, FH (@24) - you have already denied that blind, unguided naturalistic mechanisms (and that's what we mean by natural causes) can produce the effect. Your mechanism, which you've affirmed here, has the designer creating niches. I urge you to be consistent with your own view and not just jump into blind evolutionism because that's the default. The idea that the designer ("the hand of God") created niches (which is what drives evolution) is not going to be found in any scientific texts. We, the ID community, is obviously ok with that. But it puts you in a tough position to argue from default science. 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?Silver Asiatic_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

:) Same genome provide different morphologies How many darwinists know that? Morphology (blueprint + fine-tuning around blueprint ) is not dependent of genome but other codes. Only defective/damaged morphology is dependent of genome(genetic disorders) Imagine a car graveyard . This is darwinism. :)Sandy_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of universal common descent.
Read what you wrote, ET. It makes no sense. It is as if you are a bot generating random phrases using key words.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

you did not answer my question from the other post...
Missed it. Try putting a link.
, i have asked, WHAT MAKES DARWINISTS SO TRUSTWORTHY ? because they seem to be always wrong ….
When did you stop beating your wife? Loaded questions don't deserve an answer.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

...there is a lot of subjectivity in the morphology classification system...
Yet it matches the tree produced by DNA sequence comparisons to an extraordinary degree. Sequences aren't subjective.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

...despite i am a mechanical engineer, with no formal education in biology, i always suspected that Darwinists are fraudsters … the more i study biology the more obvious it gets …
That explains plenty.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Jerry::
But it doesn’t.
But it does. It is a matter of record. I wonder if, were we ever to meet on a sunny day, I pointed to the sky and remarked how blue it was, what you would say.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Thank you for clarifying. As a storyteller, I view Darwin-only thinking as the most elaborate storytelling formula I've ever come across. It can explain everything regardless of what happened. Encounter a problem? No problem. Just invent an explanation. I have no issue with current work in biology that involves organisms alive today but again, the 'we can explain or dismiss anything' storytelling function can be used there as well. Want to push something as "true"? Just get enough scientists to believe some experts from some prestigious locations. Take abortion. There is no human being there. Trust us. No, I won't trust you.relatd_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Relatd, if you would read my blog (at Stuffhappens.info), you would see, that i am making jokes of convergent evolution .... Darwinists invented this fancy term because they couldn't explain why some of the same features evolved up to 100 times repeatedly and independently in evolutionary unrelated species ... It is clear that 'convergent' 'evolution' is an ultimate proof of common design.martin_r_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Convergence? What convergence? What kind of fiction is that? Did cars evolve into SUVs and hatchbacks? No. An intelligence designed them. If I was the designer and I had a planet with one Earth gravity, an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere and various finite food sources, I could develop body plans that could be used and reused with slight modifications.relatd_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

"there is a lot of subjectivity in the morphology classification system, made more difficult by convergence. Additional noise is added in the genomic classification depending on the prevalence of HGT. You would have to consult a statistician on what an appropriate significance level would be." Jholo, This doesn't sound like a very robust test. Andrewasauber_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Andrew: So in this test, when does the failure event happen? Please be specific as possible.
A failure would be if there was no similarity between the genome similarity and the morphology similarity. Of course, there are going to be some differences because there is a lot of subjectivity in the morphology classification system, made more difficult by convergence. Additional noise is added in the genomic classification depending on the prevalence of HGT. You would have to consult a statistician on what an appropriate significance level would be.JHolo_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

The result is uncanny
All invalidates a mechanism for natural Evolution.
we predict that creating a similarity relationship based on the genomes would result in a very similar “tree” as we see based on morphological “trees
But it doesn’t. Isn’t that embarrassing? I guess not since you repeat nonsense.jerry_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

"That is exactly how tests work. We make predictions based on the proposed idea (common descent) and then test to see if those predictions are supported or not." Jholo, So in this test, when does the failure event happen? Please be specific as possible. Andrewasauber_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

ET: Linnaean Classification had nothing to do with evolution or universal common descent.
You are correct. It was a classification based on similarities in morphology. If common descent is true, which Behe agrees with, we would expect to see the type of rankings of similarities that Linnaeus presented.
Andrew: This isn’t a test. It’s a comparison of ideas.
That is exactly how tests work. We make predictions based on the proposed idea (common descent) and then test to see if those predictions are supported or not. Given what we know about evolution and population genetics, we predict that creating a similarity relationship based on the genomes would result in a very similar "tree" as we see based on morphological "trees". And they compare very well. We would also predict that creating a similarity relationship based on the proteome would result in a similar "tree". And, guess what?JHolo_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

and Hickson, despite i am a mechanical engineer, with no formal education in biology, i always suspected that Darwinists are fraudsters ... the more i study biology the more obvious it gets ...martin_r_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Hickson, or would you like another example of how to construct trees of life Darwinian way ? from a mainstream paper:
Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth Although overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports the existence of the universal common ancestor of all extant life on Earth, it is still an open question whether the universal common ancestor existed or not . Theobald (Nature 465, 219–222 (2010)) recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test applied to aligned sequences of conservative proteins sampled from all domains of life and concluded that the universal common ancestor hypothesis holds. However, we point out that there is a fundamental flaw in Theobald’s method which used aligned sequences. We show that the alignment gives a strong bias for the common ancestor hypothesis , and we provide an example that Theobald’s method supports a common ancestor hypothesis for two apparently unrelated families of protein-encoding sequences (cytb and nd2 of mitochondria) . This arouses suspicion about the effectiveness of the “formal” test. — Masami Hasegawa ( Department of Statistical Modeling, Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Japan ) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361263/
martin_r_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

And Hickson, you did not answer my question from the other post, i have asked, WHAT MAKES DARWINISTS SO TRUSTWORTHY ? because they seem to be always wrong .... you know: "...current concepts are reviewed..." "...uprooting current thinking...." "...latest findings contradict the current dogma...." “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” "... in contrast to the decades-long dogma ..." “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex than thought ….”martin_r_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

There aren't any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of universal common descent. So, the concept isn't scientific. Linnaean Classification had nothing to do with evolution or universal common descent.ET_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Hickson
Well, one way might be to construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA sequences
you mean to construct trees of life Darwinian way ? "DO SCIENTISTS BUILD ‘TREES OF LIFE’ WITH FAULTY METHODS?"
“Our finding casts serious doubts over literally thousands of studies that use phylogenetic trees of extant data to reconstruct the diversification history of taxa, especially for those taxa where fossils are rare, or that found correlations between environmental factors such as changing global temperatures and species extinction rates,” Louca says, using a term for populations of one or more organisms that form a single unit.
or this one is disturbing:
“I have been working with these traditional types of models for a decade now,” Pennell says. “I am one of the lead developers of a popular software package for estimating diversification rates from phylogenetic trees. And, as such, I thought I had a really good sense of how these models worked. I was wrong. ”
https://www.futurity.org/extinctions-evolution-2340092-2/ or here https://around.uoregon.edu/content/researchers-find-flaws-how-scientists-build-trees-lifemartin_r_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

I think the more accurate answer is yes, Jerry. Classification of species by phylogeny and morphology has been ongoing since Linnaeus and now DNA sequencing can be done cheaply and easily it is simple to assemble a tree of relatedness completely independent of morphology. The result is uncanny.Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

"construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA sequences" Fred, This isn't a test. It's a comparison of ideas. Andrewasauber_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Hasn’t this already been done, though
No. It would destroy the myth of the power of natural selection and support the ID thesis. Who would do this in evolutionary biology? Answer: no one. They would be canceled and impoverished immediately. I came across a discussion yesterday that looks at this behavior. There are theories going around that are receiving lots of press as if they are plausible but are in fact nutty. But very little objection. Why? Most people just want to get along and by most I mean nearly all especially if your livelihood is at risk. This is probably what affects acceptance of ID in the general public. I will be thought of as a kook if I accept this. So I either remain quiet or actually support the nuts who believe in natural answers. That will be safer. But as we have evidence here, there is no valid objection to ID.jerry_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

What were the assumptions that would make Darwin believe in common descent? 1.His ignorance about cell complexity and 2.His belief that it's natural for life to emerge from chemicals. Today we know that Darwin's assumptions are wrong. What is the excuse of people believing in such nonsense? Well, did I forget to mention the 3rd assumption of Darwin ? Hate for God. First 2 were quickly debunked by Genetics but the 3rd one (metaphysical) is very live and well therefore today argument for common descent is reduced to a mere metaphysical argument : "I hate God , therefore darwinism is true." :lol:
to construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA
:) Your tree is called "Phylogenetic incongruence(discord)" but don't worry the Scientific Storytelling Service will explain how this incongruence is not what it seems actually is a congruence. Incongruence is congruence. I'm not joking it's exactly what scientists say.Sandy_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

“How could we test universal common descent?” Well, one way might be to construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA sequences and see how different the two trees are. Similarity between the two trees would be a strong argument for universal common descent. Hasn't this already been done, though...Fred Hickson_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Darwinists themselves falsified universal common descent like hundreds of times ... yes, i am talking about convergent / repeated evolution ... Darwinists claim, that species’ features look the same features because they are evo related - share a common descent .... but also, there are hundreds if not thousands of species sharing the same features, but these species are evolutionary not related, therefore, these features evolved repeatedly and independently... converged ... Most absurd examples of repeated evolution are when the same features evolved, devolved and re-evolved again, like here: https://stuffhappens.info/repeated-evolution-giving-a-live-birth-but-then-back-to-egg-laying-lizards-re-evolved-laying-eggs-multiple-times/ Darwinism = a theory of never-ending miracles... Just look at my blog, it is crazy what Darwinists claim.... https://www.stuffhappens.infomartin_r_{May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply