Is common descent a fact?

[ERayR]

The theory of evolution (and it is a theory, so no, common descent is not a fact) is a fairy-tale for grown-ups. In the fairy-tale the frog turns into a prince in a split second, in the theory of evolution it happens more slowly. A fairy-tale is a fairy-tale no matter how you dress it up.

In one sense we are examples of common descent... we are all desended from Adam.

Alan shame on you you have not been paying attention to the proponents. Not only is it a fact but they can look at the bones and write acomplete account of its life and loves.

I too think it is a fairy tale. God speaks through his prophets about the "fall" of Adam, not the rise of Adam from primordial slime. There are far too many assumptions in the "proofs" of that theory for me to be comfortable with it. As yet it is but a theory and not a law.

[Vex]

The idea that God uses natural laws to do his work is, again, a made up assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever. Without evidence, your claim, which I have heard before, can readily be dismissed as the imagining of superstitious folks who don't want to be left behind by science and so come up with a just so story about how God uses science and natural law to do his work.

How would you recognize evidence that intimates the work of deity?

I am very familiar with the Mormon claim that God accomplishes his work in accordance with natural law. This concept was famously articulated by Joseph Fielding Smith, and individual who also stated that man would never set foot on the moon. So much for prophetic competence, or the understanding of natural law for that matter.

Then you should also understand that the origin of that articulation stems from BY, during a time of science and understanding that would make you scoff and jeer (caloric theory comes to mind).

You need to figure out what you believe. Do you believe that God is supernatural?

How can you believe that God uses natural law and then turn around and claim the existence of miracles?

Define miracles? You seem to have a very narrow preconception and intend to fit God within your definitions. If you were being chased by an army of unimaginable magnitude and you had a meteorite crash on top of the army, decimating all inhabitants thereof, would you not call that a miracle? We know meteorites have trajectories we can predict, they are not prone to wild course deviations without the outside source producing a large gravitational or dv change on it. But what brought that meteorite down in that location at that exact time. To have it occur within your eyesight is a statistical anomaly, to have it be large enough and powerful enough to decimate a threat even more so.

In other words, what do you define as a miracle?

How can you claim that God uses natural law and then attribute to God actions that clearly violate the natural laws he supposedly uses?

Such as? You seem to be very broad in your brush strokes here.

Only one who is woefully unaware of what natural laws allow and do not allow would make such statements in the context of what Mormons claim to believe about God.

and yet you are doing just that...

[ERayR]

You and Tarski may feel comfortable claiming that the theory of common descent has factual status on par with the laws of physics, and that is a common ploy in the biological sciences (resulting from an inferiority complex?). The problem is that such biological theories do not have the status of physical laws which (1) can be replicated in a laboratory setting, (2) can be verified by other forms of observation, (3) are not in conflict with known normative theories, and finally (4) are theoretically falsifiable. Biology is not a "hard" science, and all we have actually seen validated has been adaptation and natural selection. That doesn't take us to evolution.

In this immediate instance, not only does basic evolutionary theory contravene the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy, which means both that spontaneous generation of life is impossible, and that mutations tend to be destructive) by imagining a logical sequence of descent which cannot be proved, based on an unobserved and unreplicated spontaneous generation of life, followed by a further spontaneous replication of, and sequential development of species through to homo sapiens sapiens -- as though there is a magical ghost in the machine!!

The theory of common descent may be true, but has not been demonstrated, and no known mechanism could overcome the difficulties: Not only those listed above, but the lack of intermediate forms which could link species in the required sequential order. That this is a major problem was well recognized a generation ago by Nils Eldridge and by the late Stephen J. Gould, who together formulated the theory of "Punctuated Equilibria" to account for the absence of transitional forms which the fossil evidence should long since have provided. Their theory provided for evolutionary change under stress over a relatively short period in an isolated area (thus not leaving huge quantities of fossils).

One of the reasons why the theory of intelligent design is so popular in some quarters is precisely because it doesn't seek to violate the known fundamental laws of the universe, and it also accords with what most hard scientists accept as the reasonable existence of sentient beings elsewhere in the universe, beings which have been around much longer than we have, and which would long since have been able to create life in some presumably complex forms. Indeed, we may be able to design and create actual life in the near future. Perhaps only technical limitations now prevent us from doing so.

We know that all life on Earth is based on a double-helix DNA blueprint. There might be other such blueprints in the universe, and ID need not be defined as a religious or magical belief. For, as the late Arthur C. Clarke liked to say, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Clarke's Third Law).

So far as I have been able to understand it, LDS doctrine doesn't actually distinguish between science and religion, and apparently opts for Transmission of life from one sector of the universe to another, so that "creation" is merely organization of worlds and the life thereon -- "terraforming," as it were -- and not creation from nothing. There was no beginning, and there shall be no end.

Mr. Smith have you not seen the neat little ascent charts in the biology books? It's all there drawn out for all to see. See no gaps, our imagination has filled them in. As Alan posted above Fairy Tale.

[ERayR]

The idea that God uses natural laws to do his work is, again, a made up assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever. Without evidence, your claim, which I have heard before, can readily be dismissed as the imagining of superstitious folks who don't want to be left behind by science and so come up with a just so story about how God uses science and natural law to do his work.

The idea that evolution is fact is, again, a made up assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever, but only by fossils seperated by very long periods and much imagination. Without evidence, your claim, which I have heard before, can readily be dismissed as the imagining of superstitious folks who don't want to be left behind by science and so come up with a just so story about how all life evolved from common descent.

[44Foxtrot]

Molecular biology suggests the ancestral line leading to hominids and chimps (and bonobos) diverged around 7 to 9 mya (cf. Archaeology Odyssey, 5/6 [Nov-Dec 2002], 17).

We have the full bipedalism of Auroran already at ca. 6 mya, and Ian Tattersal points out that the dentition and hip bones are more like modern humans than Lucy's. That suggests a long history of development prior to that time.

Okay. I have no problem with a 7 to 9 mya estimate for a latest common ancestor. As I stated, the estimates I have seen vary between 4.7 and 7 mya. A million years is a long time. We are lucky to have the fossil record we do. What I find fascinating is that some of the viral DNA preserved in the human lineage would appear to have been inserted much further back - 30 million years or more.

[Nathair/|\]

44Foxtrot, on 05 November 2010 - 10:07 PM, said:

to demonstrate common descent as a reality as opposed to magical creation.

I think you are confused. The LDS do not accept the "poof" of creationism == there is no magic in the creation, but but simply the application of natural laws. As someone said, that modern technology would appear to be magic to primitive people.

If you want to talk about magic and poof, please go to some other religious forum and stop insulting us with your ignorant comments.

Magic, as practiced by real shamans, mages, hermeticists, etc does not "Poof." The only difference between magical effects and non-magical effects is that events are put into motion by will. A medicine man does a ceremony, then the barometric pressure drops, clouds roll in and rain starts to fall. It's purely natural. Cause and effect merely transmit partially through non-ordinary means.

Yours under the non-Cartesian oaks,

Nathair /|\

[44Foxtrot]

The idea that evolution is fact is, again, a made up assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever, but only by fossils seperated by very long periods and much imagination. Without evidence, your claim, which I have heard before, can readily be dismissed as the imagining of superstitious folks who don't want to be left behind by science and so come up with a just so story about how all life evolved from common descent.

The critical difference between your version and my version is that I have provided peer reviewed scientific evidence to support the latter.

Why don't you provide peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting your version, then we can talk.

If you cannot provide such credible evidence, then there is nothing to discuss. Would you not agree?

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh, I have an understanding of religion alright, especially the Mormon religion. I was born and raised in the Church, married in the temple and all the rest. It took me a while to figure it out. However, I now understand that the basic tenets of Mormonism are absolutely incompatible with science. And it is clear which of the two worldviews is supported by the evidence.

To the other point, why should you see the term "magic" as pejorative? Given the history of Joseph Smith and the role that magic and magical thinking played in the early Church and especially in bringing forth of the Book of Mormon (as described in exactly those terms and in some detail by Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling), I would think that Mormons would embrace and defend the use of this term as applied to Mormonism.

The idea that God uses natural laws to do his work is, again, a made up assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever. Without evidence, your claim, which I have heard before, can readily be dismissed as the imagining of superstitious folks who don't want to be left behind by science and so come up with a just so story about how God uses science and natural law to do his work.

I am very familiar with the Mormon claim that God accomplishes his work in accordance with natural law. This concept was famously articulated by Joseph Fielding Smith, and individual who also stated that man would never set foot on the moon. So much for prophetic competence, or the understanding of natural law for that matter.

You need to figure out what you believe. Do you believe that God is supernatural?

How can you believe that God uses natural law and then turn around and claim the existence of miracles?

How can you claim that God uses natural law and then attribute to God actions that clearly violate the natural laws he supposedly uses?

Only one who is woefully unaware of what natural laws allow and do not allow would make such statements in the context of what Mormons claim to believe about God.

So you believe in miracles and the supernatural as the abrogation of natural laws? Well, LDS doctrine does not include that concept. Why you believe that this is a basic LDS tenet, I don't know, but if you managed to be born and raised a Mormon, was married in the temple, and still didn't have the doctrine straight, then no wonder you left the faith. You didn't understand it to begin with. One major reason why Bertrand Russell rejected normative christianity was precisely because of its maintenance of a belief in miracles as the abrogation of natural law, a direct contradiction.

Mormonism rejected the creatio ex nihilo nonsense from the beginning, and one of the reasons why scientists and intellectuals within the LDS Church feel so comfortable is that there is this strong doctrinal commitment to natural law. After all why would God need the supernatural unless he is outside of the universe as an Uncaused Cause, the Primemover? The existence of such an all powerful God, who created everything that exists and is therefore outside existence, is a self-contradiction, because he would therefore be responsible for evil. Poof!! Absolute good cannot create evil and must necessarily vanish in the presence of his own opposite, which was created by him, just as surely as matter and anti-matter cannot coexist.

Since we are coeternal with God (along with all the other intelligences), we have free agency and are responsible for our own evil. I can't believe that you were a Mormon and do not understand that.

[Hick Preacher]

44Foxtrot in quotes

<<<<And yet we have a great deal of literature which shows that injected viral DNA sequences do survive in the genomes of humans and primates (and many other mammals as well). Did you read any of the papers I referenced? Did you see that at least one of them is a PNAS paper? Are you in the habit of ignoring the peer reviewed literature when taking a position on an issue?

If you don't like the idea of viral genes becoming an essentially permanent part of the human genome, you are certainly not ready for the more advanced concept that viral sequences may well have been a factor in our evolution and, though largely unexpressed, can still play a role in physiological function.>>>>

Added: Yes as one article's abstract stated

Altogether, these features suggest that Phoenix can direct the synthesis of complete retroviral particles.

Yes,injecting viral DNA into research subject organisms is the closet simulation to a natural environment that a researcher can conduct. Performing experiments can discover various mechanisms related to mutation of genetic information.

Nevertheless, it is far-, again very far from exactly reproducing what is actually happening with mutation in natural environments with real populations over long periods of time in a changing dynamic environment. Experimentation, cannot determine explicitly what actually is taking place in nature. All things known about minimum populations required for the survival of that population manifesting and maintaining a new genetic trait implies some guided nurturing, or some special other factors besides just natural mutation has occurred. Such factors could include a very large number of individual inheriting a discrete genetic trait within the same generation then interbreeding.

(On ancient chimps)

<<<<I agree with you on this point. It goes and primates was clearly not a modern chimp. However, chimp-like forms extend further back in the fossil record than do hominid forms.>>>>

This simply amounts to is that researches have no real control group for comparing some base-line primate with modern humans. But what else can they do? So conclusions are not explicit, and not really what can be justly called inferences, but rather implications while supposing what took place in human development over the ages.

<<<Again, why don't you read the literature instead of providing your own opinion, which is clearly based on a far from complete understanding of inheritance and population genetics?

The injected viral sequences can and do undergo mutation. However subsets of these are very well preserved and are found in the same location along the genome in both humans and chimps.>>>

Yes no doubt we humans can create artificial experimental controlled environments, and nurture generic changes that survive into the next generations, which can create a population that is able to survive with new characteristics.

But again unless a large breeding population ends up with an identical genetic modification, all at once, then together interbreeds to create viable offspring, the new trait will most likely not survive very long, and will become extinct.

<<<Lab studies, and especially in vitro studies, are irrelevant to the present discussion. The studies at issue are not in vitro lab studies. ) They are population (in vivo) studies involving thousands of humans and ( I would guess) at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of chimps and other great apes. >>>

I skeptical about the condition of such studies in arriving at a viable explicit finding. Can you provide an access or link to such a study that has controls and an explicit finding, not just an inference or implication?

This would require a longitudinal study that would be many generations in duration where natural selection in a natural breeding population passes genetic inheritance, in a dynamic environment.

<<<BTW, it appears that you do not understand the term "in vitro". In vitro(literally "in glass") refers to studies that are performed on isolated cells (often in a glass petri dish or test tube) or with other material that is no longer a living whole animal. Fruit fly studies are preformed on living organisms and are therefore termed "in vivo" (literally "in life" or alive).>>>

Yes I use the terms loosely. The main critical distinctions I wish to emphasize are the differences in outcomes in humanly controlled environment as opposed to creatures reproducing in natural dynamic environments.

-Hick-

[ERayR]

The critical difference between your version and my is that I have provided peer reviewed scientific evidence to support the latter.Why don't you provide peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting your version, then we can talk.

If you cannot provide such credible evidence, then there is nothing to discuss. Would you not agree?

That my friend is the difference between my worldview and yours. My experiences lead me to believe in the actuality of God, yours evidently does not. My experiences also lead me to disbelieve in the infalibility of mans efforts, yes even in peer reviewed efforts. Ten people in error are no better than only one in error.

It is obvious that, while I have studied some of the material you present, you have not sought nor received the spiritual affirmations that I seem to have been blessed with so it will be difficult for us to find common ground as long as you deride and denigrate those who have had such experiences. Those whose experiences lead them to different conclusions than your own do not deserve your dogmatic derision.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mr. Smith have you not seen the neat little ascent charts in the biology books? It's all there drawn out for all to see. See no gaps, our imagination has filled them in. As Alan posted above Fairy Tale.

I used to look at those ascent charts in the museums over forty years ago when I was an archeology student, and I even believed them. They seemed so logical, the sequence so reasonable. It wasn't until years later that I began to understand the difficulties. Thanks for reminding me.

[ERayR]

And yet we have a great deal of literature which shows that injected viral DNA sequences do survive in the genomes of humans and primates (and many other mammals as well). Did you read any of the papers I referenced? Did you see that at least one of them is a PNAS paper? Are you in the habit of ignoring the peer reviewed literature when taking a position on an issue?

An impressive example of ID

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay. I have no problem with a 7 to 9 mya estimate for a latest common ancestor. As I stated, the estimates I have seen vary between 4.7 and 7 mya. A million years is a long time. We are lucky to have the fossil record we do. What I find fascinating is that some of the viral DNA preserved in the human lineage would appear to have been inserted much further back - 30 million years or more.

Good point. I don't pretend to understand the mechanism by which such viral DNA may "have been inserted," but molecular biology is likely to be the means of explaining all that to us eventually.

In the meantime, however, I have an anthropologist friend (Ph.D. from Cornell Univ.) who stoutly maintains that evolution was merely the means by which the intelligent designer developed ever more complex forms of life on Earth. I have my doubts, but he likes that theory.

That reminds me of the late Fred Hoyle, the eminent British astronomer and atheist, who strongly asserted that life could not have arisen on Earth spontaneously. He and his associate, Dr. Wickramasingh, both maintained this stance and used math and physics to argue for such a position -- including the spatial transfer of living molecules from one part of the universe to the other by comet or meteor.

[cdowis]

Molecular biology suggests the ancestral line leading to hominids and chimps (and bonobos) diverged around 7 to 9 mya (cf. Archaeology Odyssey, 5/6 [Nov-Dec 2002], 17).

This thread is about proof, not "suggestions". There are many "suggestions" which disprove many of the claims of macro-evolution, so we can spend time "suggesting" many things.

If you want to open a thread on speculation, please do so, but here we are talking about Tarski's claim of proof, absolute certainty, established fact.

[ERayR]

This thread is about proof, not "suggestions". There are many "suggestions" which disprove many of the claims of macro-evolution, so we can spend time "suggesting" many things.

If you want to open a thread on speculation, please do so, but here we are talking about Tarski's claim of proof, absolute certainty, established fact.

And you did know that you were setting before them an impossible task, did you not. But it is good that you have confronted the arrogance in their claims.

[cdowis]

Foxtrot makes an interesting comment:

The critical difference between your version and my [sic] is that I have provided peer reviewed scientific evidence to support the latter

Help me understand something.

When you talk about "peer reviewed" article, is that the same peer review process in those climate change articles?

Don't you really mean that it received the imprimatur, the seal of approval. This term has become somewhat tarnished, even discredited, and you will find that there are those among us who are very skeptical.

I have a high regard for science, but peer review ain't what it used to be. Unfortunately, it has become a political thing, rather than science.

(PS. you should use "mine" rather than "my" without the noun)

[Analytics]

When hearing Intelligent Design claims, I imagine this group of celestial scientists with flowing white hair, beards, and loose robes, in laboratories with Greco-Roman architecture. I imagine them working on a science which entails carefully designing the genetic codes of millions of species and sneaking onto the earth, shooting an animal with a dart gun, tweaking its DNA according to their master designs, and then disappearing without a trace. I imagine this process slowly happening over the course of some three billion years. It raises the question, "why"?

[44Foxtrot]

44Foxtrot in quotes

Added: Yes as one article's abstract stated

Yes,injecting viral DNA into research subject organisms is the closet simulation to a natural environment that a researcher can conduct. Performing experiments can discover various mechanisms related to mutation of genetic information.

Nevertheless, it is far-, again very far from exactly reproducing what is actually happening with mutation in natural environments with real populations over long periods of time in a changing dynamic environment. Experimentation, cannot determine explicitly what actually is taking place in nature. All things known about minimum populations required for the survival of that population manifesting and maintaining a new genetic trait implies some guided nurturing, or some special other factors besides just natural mutation has occurred. Such factors could include a very large number of individual inheriting a discrete genetic trait within the same generation then interbreeding.

(On ancient chimps)

This simply amounts to is that researches have no real control group for comparing some base-line primate with modern humans. But what else can they do? So conclusions are not explicit, and not really what can be justly called inferences, but rather implications while supposing what took place in human development over the ages.

Yes no doubt we humans can create artificial experimental controlled environments, and nurture generic changes that survive into the next generations, which can create a population that is able to survive with new characteristics.

But again unless a large breeding population ends up with an identical genetic modification, all at once, then together interbreeds to create viable offspring, the new trait will most likely not survive very long, and will become extinct.

I skeptical about the condition of such studies in arriving at a viable explicit finding. Can you provide an access or link to such a study that has controls and an explicit finding, not just an inference or implication?

This would require a longitudinal study that would be many generations in duration where natural selection in a natural breeding population passes genetic inheritance, in a dynamic environment.

Yes I use the terms loosely. The main critical distinctions I wish to emphasize are the differences in outcomes in humanly controlled environment as opposed to creatures reproducing in natural dynamic environments.

-Hick-

There is a difference between using terms loosely and using them incorrectly. When on does the latter, as you have done, it leads to the sneaking suspicion that the user knows not whereof he speaks. Given your responses overall, which show clearly that you do not understand the terminology or science related to ERV's, I have more than a suspicion.

You insist on referring to laboratory studies when I have clearly stated that the relevant data come from measurements on human and primate populations, and have provided you with references. I have said nothing about introducing foreign DNA in a laboratory setting.

Please trust me when I say that you need to do a lot more reading before you are ready to discuss the concepts of ERV sequences and fossil DNA in the human genome in any kind of a public forum.

[Tarski]

Foxtrot makes an interesting comment:

Help me understand something.

When you talk about "peer reviewed" article, is that the same peer review process in those climate change articles?

Don't you really mean that it received the imprimatur, the seal of approval. This term has become somewhat tarnished, even discredited, and you will find that there are those among us who are very skeptical.

I have a high regard for science, but peer review ain't what it used to be. Unfortunately, it has become a political thing, rather than science.

(PS. you should use "mine" rather than "my" without the noun)

Based on you supposed discovery of imperfection in the peer review process (your Fox News version of the climate change email controversy which is in reality no big deal and does not invalidate climate science at all), you feel it better to rely on non-peer-reviewed fringe science and religiously motivated anti-science?

I once heard of a surgeon that performed surgery where it wasn't needed. Ah ha! I knew those western science doctors were frauds! So from now on I will go to witch doctors only. /end sarcasm

[semlogo]

It appears to me that the evidence for "common decent" could also be used as evidence for a common creator (or designer, if you will).

No, it couldn't. It neither proves nor disproves a creator - in fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with that topic.

[Vex]

In response to my questions:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Chromosomes.html

Diploid numbers of some commonly studied organisms

(as well as a few extreme examples)

Homo sapiens (human) 46

Mus musculus (house mouse) 40

Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) 8

Caenorhabditis elegans (microscopic roundworm) 12

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (budding yeast) 32

Arabidopsis thaliana (plant in the mustard family) 10

Xenopus laevis (South African clawed frog) 36

Canis familiaris (domestic dog) 78

Gallus gallus (chicken) 78

Zea mays (corn or maize) 20

Muntiacus reevesi (the Chinese muntjac, a deer) 23

Muntiacus muntjac (its Indian cousin) 6

Myrmecia pilosula (an ant) 2

Parascaris equorum var. univalens (parasitic roundworm) 2

Cambarus clarkii (a crayfish) 200

Equisetum arvense (field horsetail, a plant) 216

[44Foxtrot]

Foxtrot makes an interesting comment:

Help me understand something.

When you talk about "peer reviewed" article, is that the same peer review process in those climate change articles?

Don't you really mean that it received the imprimatur, the seal of approval. This term has become somewhat tarnished, even discredited, and you will find that there are those among us who are very skeptical.

I have a high regard for science, but peer review ain't what it used to be. Unfortunately, it has become a political thing, rather than science.

(PS. you should use "mine" rather than "my" without the noun)

Sorry for the grammatical error. I did not re-read my response after it posted.

Peer review is process wherein qualified third parties review a submitted work to make sure that proper scientific approach, accuracy, logical interpretation of data and reasonable conclusions. It is a process that religion (especially Mormonism) does not (and could not) tolerate.

In most peer review processes, the authors of a submitted work are provided with written criticisms by two or more reviewers and often end up making numerous revisions or even doing additional experimental work in order to satisfy these reviewers and the journal editor.

Peer review is not a perfect system, but is is the best we have developed so far and over the long haul, it works very well. The reason is that we scientists have the right and the obligation to be critical of, and to check and verify, the work of others both on a formal and informal basis. The process may take a while, but the process works.

If a scientist sees something in the published literature that be or she believes to be wrong, he or she can comment to the journal or even publish another paper pointing out the mistakes or problem. Of course before doing so, one would need the evidence to back their position regarding questionable aspects or possible errors in previously published work. This happens all the time.

In religion, and especially Mormonism, criticism of the dogma is not allowed. It is considered sinful to call into question the judgment or pronouncements of those in authority who are responsible for determining what the "truth" is and what the worldview of an adherent should be. Religion is the opposite of science. Where science is based on evidence and knowledge, religion is based on superstition arising from unfounded belief.

If there were any "universal objective truth" to religion, why would it be it that there are so many of them, each with a different idea of what constitutes "truth".

The saying that science seeks truth while religion claims to have it sums up the situation fairly well.

[semlogo]

An impressive example of ID

Viruses = God?

[ERayR]

Viruses = God?

"And yet we have a great deal of literature which shows that injected viral"

[44Foxtrot]

Does this mean that the story of Eve is true, and does that give validity to the Genesis account?

Not in the least. The "Mitochondrial Eve" lived on the order of 200,000 years ago, not some 6,000 years ago as claimed in the OT.

And there were plenty of hominid females who came before her and after her.