JoeG's Case Against Common Descent


(Intelligent Design Deist) #21

Total crock, GB. I am not allergic to evolutionary concepts. I have studied them at great length. ID is not anti-evolution.

To go from prokaryote to eukaryote needs a mechanism that we can test.

From single-celled eukaryote to metazoan needs a mechanism we can test

Then you have the addition of limbs, muscles, bones a nervous system to power those muscles; muscles attached to the right points on the bones to make articulated joints useful and the organism viable

You need a whole lot of intervention/ guidance.


(George) #22

@JoeG,
Who says that?

Absolutely. And we have God for that.


(Charles Edward Miller) #23

That is a great answer, Friend George.


(Intelligent Design Deist) #24

Science says we need a mechanism we can test. And if intervention is required then it is hardly Common Descent.


(Guy Coe) #25

Maybe, for just a moment, we can go beyond the discussion over what to call, or how to exactly account for, what we see in nature, and simply remind ourselves of how incredible, as well as incredibly unlikely, is what we see possible without God “behind” (at the subtle forefront) of it all. Praise God for His good creation!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming… : )


(Ashwin S) #26

I agree with Joe here. Science holds itself to a standard of testability. And since the theory claims all variation arose through natural means without the help of any agency, we should be able to test it. I.e the cause should be capable of producing the claimed effect.

@swamidass: I hope it’s fair to classify evolution as a process which does not require an intelligent agency guiding it (Though it doesn’t comment on the existence of the same).


(George) #27

@JoeG,

Ohhhh? So you day. And so if God makes it rain using evaporation and the water-cycle… suddenly it’s not the water-cycle any more?


(George) #28

@swamidass…see?

My proof that @Ashwin_s is not interested in bridging the gap.

@Ashwin_s… so how would YOU prove that God shortened the distance in speciation between two populations by 50 or even 500 years?

God is not testable… which leaves us the science part. And it is our faith that gives us the confidence in the part that is God.


(Ashwin S) #29

George,
I didn’t ask anyone to test God. I endorsed the fact that any and all scientific theory must be testable based on its claims.
Why do you have a problem with that?


(George) #30

@Ashwin_s

Because YOU said that if God was involved in NATURAL processes… we can’t test them.

In fact we CAN test them. It is only God that can’t be tested or measured.


(Ashwin S) #31

I didn’t get you. Can you elaborate.


(Charles Edward Miller) #32

An interesting thought. So I can understand, how would you classify your means of creation? I use the term creation loosely of course.


(George) #33

@Ashwin_s

It seems you are intentionally trying garble the Evolutionary views of Pro-Evolutionary Christians.

A. Descent from shared ancestral populations of a different species is not eliminated simply because God uses shared anestors as part of Jid method to create speciation.

B. Nor are mutations no longer mutations simply because God uses mutations as part of the process of creating Speciation.

He both you and @JoeG attempt to argue that speciation that involves mutations and NATURAL Selection applied to ancestral populations somehow disqualifies mutations and NATURAL Selection as key elements of the evolutionary processes.


(Charles Edward Miller) #34

George,

That is a wise answer. You are not a bad guy and quite intelligent. I must say that you are a friend. God bless you, George.


(Intelligent Design Deist) #35

That is false. Why do people think it is OK to put words in other people’s mouths? Common Descent is eliminated from science for the simple fact it is an untestable concept.

Natural selection is a process of elimination. It is actually nothing more than contingent serendipity because whatever is biologically fit depends on the environment. The fit can be the slowest, fastest or anywhere in between. Better eyesight, or no eyes- big or small- and again everything in between. That is why driving a change to fixation is difficult unless under intelligent guidance.

The water cycle- yes it is part of the design of earth but God is no longer required to intervene to create a water cycle.


(Charles Edward Miller) #36

I wish all of my friends good night and have a pleasant evening. It has been a pleasure hearing from all of you today.


(George) #37

@JoeG,

This is probably the least supportable thing you have uttered in your life. I don’t see any possible way to sustain a plausible discussion.


(Ashwin S) #38

Actually @JoeG has a point here. Let me give you the reasons why -

  1. The MRCA (most recent common ancestor) between two organisms changes based on what you are looking at. Different genes/ regions in the DNA point to different ancestry. The phylogenetic trees are arrived at by parsimony analysis and probability calculations. Some data that doesn’t match is disregarded as “noise”.These trees need not reflect actual history. They are just the most probable options given the initial assumptions are true (for example mutation rates). One of the initial assumptions is Common ancestry. Another common assumption is that species bifurcate (i.e 1 species branches off to create another species. Options like two species undergoing hybridization to create a third species are not considered).
    Strictly speaking, phylogenetic trees cannot be used as proof of common ancestry because common ancestry is assumed.
  2. Another “proof” of common ancestry is the presence of “Homologs”, i.e similarity between organisms.The problem with this is that there are similarities between unrelated organisms which are said to have emerged by convergence.So again, it involves a certain amount of circular reasoning regarding which similarity is significant in terms of CA and which is not.

Common Ancestry is the best explanation available with Science assuming natural causes. As far as i understand, the best evidence for it is its success in classification of organisms
especially in the animal kingdom.(though it has not proven to be a comprehensive explanation for all the data). Technically, it cannot be proven. Its merits lie in its explanatory power. This is why alternate explanations such as the dependency graphs are important. There is another framework developed in evolution of Bacteria called the the common goods theory where genetic information is treated as a public library which is accessed by bacteria as and when required through cell to cell communication. If this trend extends to the animal kingdom also, then it will be a serious problem for the paradigm created by common ancestry.

However, if we are willing to consider the interference of a supernatural entity like God. All bets are off. Its possible for Special creation to happen in a way that is interpreted as common ancestry.
If we consider some element of design involved. Then CA becomes trivial even if it is true.


(George) #39

@Ashwin_s,

When CSI tech’s use converging lines of evidence to prove whether a victim is child or parent to a witness… and whether the accused is BLOOD related to the victim or not, it becomes very clear that probabilities help the jury avoid circular reasoning.

I’m not surprised that you and @JoeG cling to each other for support as you tilt against the windmills of epistemology.

Genetics are the litmus test for circularity in anatomical speculations.


(Ashwin S) #40

If CSI came with the result that there are possibly 40 parents to a witness… and the most parsimonious result is the victim… Courts would throw them out.
Pls address arguments without spewing mindless analogies.