JoeG's Case Against Common Descent

(George) #41


You are describing analyses that attempt to prove something without recourse to multiple lines of converging evidence.

In the forensic sciences, photographic analysis of phenotypes are linked to BLOOD work, patterns of behavior and causal analysis of means and opportunity.

These same converging lines of evidence are used in the archaelogical sciences.

Sure… there are cases in forensics or any of the sciences where an incompetent technician garbled the evidence. But these events are weeded out through peer review and the sheer numbers of technicians around the world repeating similar forms of analysis.

I don’t know whether your conspiratorial accusations against science in general is more or less charming than the sheer effrontery of it!

(Ashwin S) #42


I have seen n number of papers working on phylogenetic trees… A lot of trees are possible. We get different trees from evaluating different DNA sequences/ Proteins etc…

This is a fact.

(George) #43


And your dependence on phylogenetic trees, in isolation from any other lines of evidence, is not only a fact… it is a notorious one.

As soon as anyone begins to enlist the effort to bring in supporting lines of evidence you demure or disappear.

For example … the multiple phenotypes of marsupials in Australia that is relatively impressive … UNTIL we bring in the genetics and show that these oddly diverse creatures are uncommonly closely related!

(Intelligent Design Deist) #44

Then it is strange that no one can refute it and no one can say how to test the claim of Common Descent. So clearly you have other issues

(Intelligent Design Deist) #45

That would not show that humans are related to chimps. You lose. Genetics does not demonstrate Common Descent.

(George) #46


Ha. Did you or did you not just read my posting on fish, Aquaria and the Harvard Medical School?

Do you think the bacteria and antibiotic demo in a giant Petri dish DISPROVES common descent?

Or the marsupial diaspora in Australia ?

Genetic PROOF of common descent.

(Intelligent Design Deist) #47

I read it and it doesn’t help you at all. How do you test Common Descent ie the claim that chimps and humans share a common ancestor? You can’t even account for fish.

The bacteria in the petri dish doesn’t help you. Marsupials don’t help you. Try making a case using peer-review that chimps and humans share a common ancestor

(George) #48


Excuse me… but you were attacking broad principles… and now these attacks are based ONLY on what I can prove with primates?

Retract your charges against ALL evolutionary principles and I will proceed… but not until then.

There will be no moving the goal posts with me.

(George) #49


At what point was your refutation limited to primates? You are exercising a fallacious attempt to repudiate ALL based on one case.

Retract your sweeping generalization against common descent and I will proceed to discuss primates… but not until you make a retraction!

(George) #50


Marsupials are irrelevant? Since when?

You don’t think marsupials are living creatures? Are they mirages? Or they don’t have chromosomes?

Sir, you are a real dilly…

(Ashwin S) #51

Fair enough… share you information… any papers or links.

(George) #52


First, I already have. Just search the archive on my login… on “Australia”.

And you can search BioLogos.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #53

@JoeG we’ve made a thread for you all your own to make your case: JoeG’s Case Against Common Descent. Go for it. The truth is that we have tested for common descent. You might need to catch up on the science here.

(Intelligent Design Deist) #54

Great. Am I going to be able to respond or am I going to be continually moderated? What are these alleged tests, Joshua? How do you know they are valid tests for the concept of universal common descent?

OK so I will continue to be heavily moderated and because of that will be unable to answer any objections to my claims in any sort of timely manner. The thread would be unnecessary if anyone could just point out the science Joshua says that I am missing. I just completed Futyma’s 2013 college textbook “Evolution” and it wasn’t in there.

(Bill Cole) #55

What is needed to focus the discussion is what specifically does common descent mean and what are the tests that validate it. I have spun my wheels because the other person in the discussion had another meaning of common descent then I did.

For example John Harshman claims that common descent explains the nested hierarchy only. John claims the mechanism could be divinely driven mutations. Others say it requires a mechanism we can identify.

Some level of common descent is almost universally accepted. The question in my mind is can we discover the lines of demarkation? How do we establish a testing standard that validates two species share a common ancestor?

(Ashwin S) #56

One test would be if we can identify the additional mutations thay occurred from the CA and knock them out of the genome one by one… and we get the common ancestor… If we can’t find a way to do this without killing the organism, common descent did not happen…
Edit: This probably won’t work in cases of loss of function/loss of a gene changed gene regulation.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #57

When anyone posts several reiterations of the same point in other threads, all of them off topic in their original location, then we do like to clean house and move them to single place. This allows us to take the questions seriously, while keeping things on topic in other threads. That is why things were moved.

Sure, certainly respond. However, you have ignored the posts I already made on the evidence for common descent. It would be first interesting to see some real engagement with that.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #58

Yes, it is (ID is creationism) and yes they do (the courts in the US).

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #59

DNA tests would show that you are related to your sister, me and George, and all chimps.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #60

@JoeG, in case you missed it, here is my response to all this:

For example, have you seen this thread? Common Descent: Humans and Chimps / Mice and Rats. The key formula to learn is D = TR, or distance equals the product of time and rate. That is what gives us the key predictions and validation of the theory.