“The origin of life is a singular event” is not the same statement as “all currently living organisms share one common ancestor or a single lineage of common ancestors”.
It is not the case that within the current scientific literature there is any consensus that there was one or any greater number of events that resulted in the emergence of life in locations where there was previously none and without life coming in from elsewhere. There is no “insistence” on this only ever happening exactly once.
It is not the case that “the rules of science” make any specific claims regarding facts of natural history.
The UCD model however points to a single point of origin where all living creatures share a common ancestor. Theobald in his 2010 paper tried to defend this claim for unicellular organisms. Lynn Margulis tried to model this with her endosymbiosis hypothesis.
You said that the other diagram contradicts what I claimed about the Venn diagram. I agree with you.
The Venn diagram needs confirmation from a population genetics model to confirm the claim by the diagram on the right unless the diagram is simply based on gene similarity and makes no claim about reproductive connection between the different primates.
Me too. I believe God created/designed a universe where the laws of physics and chemistry would operate exactly as we have observed them to function—with the result that evolutionary processes have produced the amazing biosphere of this planet.
Of course, this is my theological/philosophical opinion and unless someone publishes a viable Comprehensive Theory of Intelligent Design which survives peer-reviewed falsification testing under the methodologies of science, I will continue to assume that “ID Theory” is just poorly formulated philosophy masquerading as science.
Meanwhile, I will continue to wonder, tongue-in-cheek, why the Discovery Institute has yet to make any scientific discoveries in all of its years of “research” and publishing. (I’m all ears if someone can name one such discovery.)
No, I’m saying that the Venn diagram itself contradicts what you said about the Venn diagram. The diagram is fully consistent with common descent, as the figure itself shows.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what universal common descent means, then. I was under the impression that it is just what it says on the tin: The statement that all extant organisms we know of share a common ancestor. That this tree of life would have been the first on earth or that it was the only one thorughout its entire lifetime is a separate and unsubstantiated claim, the merits of which would in no way whatsoever affect the merits of UCD. Can someone, please, correct me on this? Does UCD also include a corrolary saying that there was at no point any further unrelated life occurrences, which went extinct before evolving features that would both endure as remains and also preclude their relatedness to our own tree of life?
It is not consistent with common descent until you can show the unshared genes are a product of reproduction and evolutionary mechanisms. The current tool used to show how changes occur is a population genetics model.
We agree on point one. The second point I do not think matches the data as no population genetics model exists that can reconcile the genetic differences between certain species with reproduction and evolutionary mechanisms. I agree that evolutionary processes had an impact on the diversity of life the question is how much.
ID is indeed an immature idea but the ideas by Meyer, @pnelson , Axe, Behe and Dembski are not without some merit to be considered. We cannot reconcile life purely on the laws of physics and chemistry as the origin of new functional information needs to be considered.
They have brought certain new ideas to the table. Such as Behe’s purposeful arrangement of parts pointing to evidence such as the bacterial flagellum, gears propelling the plant hopper and the movement of cilium. They all have brought ideas that are not perfect but useful in helping us understand what we are observing.
I know most people on this site believe the Discovery Institutes existence is to support theological Ideology. The criticism is not without merit but is it all wrong that an organisation with this charter has a public voice?
No. Pointing at thing, asking “how dat work”, shrugging, and going “therefore God” is not “useful in helping us understand what we are observing”. And that’s if we ignore their lies about real answers to very well understood questions, and active attempts to undermine science education across their nation.
Frankly, I’m not convinced their theology in particular is what invites all so harsh criticisms upon them. In fact, I didn’t know that theology was that much of a focus of theirs. As far as I ever knew, they were all about eroding science education and lying about scientific and political matters. If they also have a pulpit and congregates, fine. Shame it’s so far down the list of their priorities.
Since we don’t have a population genetics model based on current mechanisms that show how the species share a common ancestor due to gene differences the current theory, based on current evidence, shows they are from separate points of origin.
This is legitimately one of the silliest things I’ve ever seem anyone on this forum say. These “arguments” are not interesting. They’re not entertaining. They’re almost never educational. They’re mostly just embarrassing.
Isn’t it long past the time when silence became the most appropriate response?
They are not just “not perfect.” Those PRATT examples are so incredibly weak that one doesn’t have to be biologist to see though them. And if you read the Dover trial transcripts and focus on the cross-examination of Behe, he was entirely ignorant of the vast peer-reviewed literature refuting his arguments. (Incredibly, it was not just that that literature destroyed his arguments. He had never bothered to seriously review the scientific literature to at least acquaint himself with the evidence which stood against his ideas. No wonder most of the Discovery Institute’s “expert witnesses” suddenly beat paths to the airport and returned to Seattle without testifying. They knew they would also be destroyed on the witness stand.)
Hi Allen
Can you cite some specific examples? I have heard arguments by Ken Miller against irreducible complexity of the flagellum and Harold Doolittle on the blood clotting system but both lacked real specific ways how these systems evolved.
Bill, I just had a private message from the Discovery Institute . They are asking that you please stop embarrassing them.
Not all questions are good questions, and most of yours are nonsense. If you had a real question about population genetics, then you should be able to ask it if in a way that others can understand. The evidence suggests that you don’t even understand what you are asking.
