JoeG's Case Against Common Descent

That doesn’t even make any sense. Do you know how genealogies are created?

You don’t have a mechanism capable of producing the transformations required.

I did. It doesn’t make any sense in the debate on Common Descent- meaning it doesn’t make a case for Common Descent.

1 Like

Why couldn’t God have produced those transformations in a process of common descent?

You don’t seem to know anything about ID nor science

If God did it then it isn’t Common Descent.

Not according to ID and everyone else. You will have to explain your definitions.

1 Like

Common Descent means that organisms reproduced, on their own and the changes accumulated to bring about the diversity of life. ID does NOT require God nor designer intervention once the design was realized

Unfortunately that has never been validated.

How can we scientifically test the claim that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? How do you know the test9s) is (are) valid?

Already explained that. You haven’t engaged.

So I do need to clarify that this forum has a purpose that is much bigger than engaging in repetitive polemics. If you continue to do be repetitive like this, Ill have to put the posting limit back in place. Several of the posts here Ive seen from you almost verbatimultiple time, and you’ve ignored the responses. So please find another way to explain yourself.

No, you have just made bald assertions, Joshua. I have not ignored anything. You have yet to post any science that supports your position.

But whatever. Have fun wallowing in your own little world away from reasoned criticisms.

You have come up with a mathematical model which includes mutation rate and time. You claimed that mutation rate equals fixation rate and that given the mutations we count reconcile with the proposed split and that tests the claim. You also claim several scientists believe this. Some of us are not convinced by an ad populum argument.

While that is an interesting position some of us are skeptical that really tests the claim as the key premise mutation rate= fixation rate in primates has not been successfully tested.

If you disagree then you should cite testing and not a mathematical model. Larry Moran in response to VJ Torley’s 2014 article in UD cited the Lenski experiment as evidence yet the fixation rate was 50% of the mutation rate and the organism tested was not a primate. In fact as far away from a primate as possible :slight_smile:

In addition DNA is just part of the story. We have gene expression differences and splicing differences which I know you are aware of yet the true origin of these is unknown. This is a fascinating discussion thanks for graciously hosting and engaging in this.

Let’s set some reasonable goals. I entirely expect we will disagree at the end of the day. People don’t change minds easily on this. For me, it took over a decade to move away from ID and YEC. It took me time, and I don’t think it is any different for others. Some also will never leave.

So what is a reasonable goal?

I’d suggest understanding one another is a better goal. What is one thing you do not understand about me or someone esle here you like to understand? What is one thing about you both you would like us to understand?

1 Like

For me it took over a decade to move away from evolutionism and to ID. The evidence for ID is overwhelming and comes from several different scientific venues such as cosmology, physics and biology

5 posts were split to a new topic: Ashwin on Common Descent

It isn’t even testable. The data only supports Common Descent for those who already believed it and who reject a common design. It only looks like we share a common ancestor with great apes because you reject a common design. The fact remains there is a whole lot of anatomical transformation that cannot be accounted for via genetics.

Again- how can we test the claim that humans and chimps share a common ancestor and how do you know it is a valid test?

Very nice post. I am off to my wife ordination this pm and off for a week vacation with the family including grandson #1. Will try and get back to this soon as I can.

Two thoughts I have is
-what would it take to fully test this hypothesis including gene, gain gene loss, mutational adaption, function gain from recombination, alternative splicing pattern changes, gene expression changes, unique embryo development patterns
-what would it take to partially test this hypothesis? Determining fixation rate by some independent test including identified beneficial mutations per the Sanford paper.

1 Like

Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti’s book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled “Wobbling Stability”

Blockquote > Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

That is what we observe which means anyone going against that observation has to have a testable mechanism that gets beyond it.

@JoeG… ohhhhh no.

Do you understand that Speciation is the evolutionary principle most associated with Transformation?

Common Descent is most associated with the principle of legacy genes… either SHARED with other species from a common ancestral source…

… or so identically arranged it is clear where the species received the genetic trait.

Joe, how can an actively publishing scientist subjecting his research and analysis on a continual basis to the rough-and-tumble world of peer-reviewed scientific journals be described in that way? Are you serious in this charge? How is it a “little world”?

Why not?

Clearly organisms reproduce on their own and they’ve done so for a very long time. I don’t think I’m following you here. Could you clarify please?

I’m a born-again, evangelical Christ-follower and retired professor, but a still active minister/preacher, and a former Young Earth Creationist of long ago. I’m curious about your statement that the evidence for ID is “overwhelming”. If it is so overwhelming, what is your opinion about why so many of your Christian brethren inside and outside of the science academy find the evidence uncompelling? After all, we should be among the easiest to win over.

I certainly believe that God created everything and did so intelligently. But ID theory, by claiming to be scientific, would thereby have to claim that one can, or will eventually, (1) detect and identify “intelligent design” by means of the scientific method, and (2) propose a comprehensive scientific theory of intelligent design which survives falsification testing. Yet, I’ve yet to find anything compelling from ID advocates as to #1 and I know of no published scientific theory which satisfies #2. (Yes, I’ve read Stephen Meyer’s books and found them very disappointing.) Can you address either or both of those two issues?

At this point I find some ID literature to be interesting philosophy but not compelling science. So I have no opposition to ID philosophy, but not when it appears to masquerade as science. Indeed, sometimes I have wondered if philosophers like Stephen Meyer so badly want to appear scientific because they know that the general public has very little regard for philosophy but has great respect for science. Do you think that unfair of me?

Until “ID theory” can win over more evangelicals within the scientific academy, I don’t think ID advocates will be all that successful convincing significant numbers of the world’s leading university professors.

Welcome to this forum and I appreciate having someone of your viewpoints to help us understand yet another view of the ID position.