Is common descent a fact?

[TAO]

We don't assume. We know.

You know based on your senses. You still assume your senses work without knowing though. I make no more of a justification assuming that my spirit sense works than I do when assuming my sight works. If I use my spirit as often as I use sight, it should become just as powerful as sight is.

[Droopy]

The idea that God uses natural laws to do his work is, again, a made up assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Its a theological, or fundamental metaphysical claim. How odd, given what the gospel claims true religion is supposed to accomplish, and why, to ask for empirical verification that would be accessible to multiple independent observers.

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 have found,over time, that critical argument with the proponent of a fundamentalist religion, of whatever kind, and including the kind displayed here (secular humanism, naturalism, or scientism, call it what you will), is well nigh impossible precisely because most proponents of this religion, such as our present 44Foxtrot, have pushed the definition and perimeters of the concept "science" so far beyond its actual perceptual range and beyond the limits of its methodological tools, that it has become a kind of totemic shrine to the worship of humans by humans.

Gould's "overlapping magisterium" was indeed intended, once you actually read what it says, not as an overlapping magisterium between two really existing magisteriums, but as a radical dichotomy between religion and science, with religion holding court only in the subjective and relative realm of morality and ethics (as if this was really the only thing "religion" has historically been about throughout human history) and science comprehending everything else, or in other words, reality.

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.

Had you lived, or been born in the era in which he was born and enculurated, you may very well have held the same views. This is precisely the kind of mentality created by golden calf-like obeisance at the alter of Sagan and Dawkins, and why real science keeps its mouth shut, like all disciplines should, beyond their event horizon.

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

The definition of "super" I understand. How are you defining the term "natural" here?

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

We won't know that until you become clearer in your use of language.

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

To something to violate natural law, we would have to have a working definition of "natural" law, would we not?

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.

Allow where?

[44Foxtrot]

You are comparing apples and oranges, i.e., claiming incompatibilities among incommensurables -- all the while making a god out of science (see Richard Olson, Science Deified and Science Defied [u. C. Press, 1982]).

Mormon scholars in general (scientists, historians, philosophers, et al.) regularly submit to peer review both in Mormon publications and also in other peer reviewed scholarly journals throughout the world, and they seem to have had no difficulty in doing so. BYU Studies and FARMS publications have required peer review from the beginning, as have many other Mormon publications.

Official Mormon Church magazines and newspapers are not peer reviewed journals, nor should they be.

According to James Talmage, Jesus the Christ (1915), 81 = (1983) 77, miracles are merely "a higher manifestation" of "natural law." Non-Mormon scholar Thomas F. O'Dea argued that "There is actually no room in Mormonism for philosophy as distinct from theology" (The Mormons, 233). Leonard Arrington quoted Brigham Young to much the same effect (Great Basin Kingdom, 6), i.e., that temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected. Cf. Jan Shipps, Mormonism, 125.

Robert,

Somebody needs to tell you this and I guess everyone else is too polite to do so. So here goes. When one is in a discussion or debate about facts (as in "Is Common Descent a Fact?"), it is entirely inappropriate and ineffectual to cite the unfounded beliefs of other believers as evidence. What are needed are facts. It matters not one bit what Talmage or Olson think. What matters is what can be proven by logical and internally consistent interpretation physical evidence.

I find it to be somewhere between annoying and downright offensive when folks try to defend a position regarding some matter of fact by bearing testimony or by otherwise stating their unfounded beliefs or the unfounded beliefs of others.

First of all, you have no credible physical evidence whatsoever that temporal and spiritual things are connected. You don't have credible evidence that "spiritual things" even exist (let alone are connected to temporal things).

While these kinds of unfounded "doctrines" and beliefs may give you a sense that you understand something, they indicate just the opposite to individuals who base their worldview and decisions on evidence.

So, given that the OP makes an issue of whether or not Common Descent is fact, perhaps it would be better to stick to facts instead of unfounded opinions or made-up doctrines when participating in the discussion.

If you think that this is being too harsh, think about the fact that when you cite the Prophet Brigham Young as a reliable source of information and insight, you put yourself in the position of having to defend all of the things he said as a Prophet, including a great number of things that the Church would rather forget he said. Realizing that Brigham Young had no credible physical evidence for most of what he said and taught, citing him as a source of reliable information is not a good idea.

Do you see the problem?

[Droopy]

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.

Peer review is, as well, and despite its critically useful function in the sciences, no necessary guarantee of the acquisition of "truth". All theories within the sciences are, as Popper said, "tentative forever", and always liable to modification and overturning due to new discoveries. That state of affairs obtains due to the fundamental nature of human perception and the limits placed upon science itself (which is, after all, a human creation) by our fundamental perceptual limitations, limitations inextricably enmeshed with the structure of scientific thought and its methodological forms.

Beyond this, all I should need say is "AGW". Peer review can become corrupt, incestuous and tendentious. It is a human enterprise, and as such, contains no absolute guarantees.

[44Foxtrot]

Peer review is, as well, and despite its critically useful function in the sciences, no necessary guarantee of the acquisition of "truth". All theories within the sciences are, as Popper said, "tentative forever", and always liable to modification and overturning due to new discoveries. That state of affairs obtains due to the fundamental nature of human perception and the limits placed upon science itself (which is, after all, a human creation) by our fundamental perceptual limitations, limitations inextricably enmeshed with the structure of scientific thought and its methodological forms.

Beyond this, all I should need say is "AGW". Peer review can become corrupt, incestuous and tendentious. It is a human enterprise, and as such, contains no absolute guarantees.

And yet because of science and it's peer review process, we drive cars instead of ride horses, we fly over oceans in hours instead of sailing on them for weeks, we read by electric light instead of candle, and we have medical knowledge and equipment not even dreamed of in 1800.

Perhaps most importantly, science has increased our mean life expectancy by 50% (about 75 years in 2000 as compared to about 50 years in 1800).

The proof is in the performance. Science has provided the goods for humankind. On a per capita basis, practioners of science have benefited humankind immeasurably more than have practitioners of religion in the last 200 years.

And those are the indisputable facts.

[TAO]

Robert,

Somebody needs to tell you this and I guess everyone else is too polite to do so. So here goes. When one is in a discussion or debate about facts (as in "Is Common Descent a Fact?"), it is entirely inappropriate and ineffectual to cite the unfounded beliefs of other believers as evidence. What are needed are facts. It matters not one bit what Talmage or Olson think. What matters is what can be proven by logical and internally consistent interpretation physical evidence.

Well considering that logically, I can prove there are no absolute facts based on observation, this kinda falls through, no?

I find it to be somewhere between annoying and downright offensive when folks try to defend a position regarding some matter of fact by bearing testimony or by otherwise stating their unfounded beliefs or the unfounded beliefs of others.

How is it any different than citing that X scientists says this or Y scientist says that. When we talk of things we don't understand, we tend to cite people. You might say it only matters if it makes sense to oneself. But religion makes sense to me, so it fits in that category as well.

First of all, you have no credible physical evidence

This is an opinion, and thus, it is relative to your point of view. From his point of view, it is quite different. So I need a definition as to what 'credical physical evidence' is, and to what assumptions - yes, I said assumptions - it makes.

whatsoever that temporal and spiritual things are connected.

Just as you have no evidence they aren't. Thus, one cannot judge whether they are or are not. It cannot be default assumed they aren't. We must settle with 'they could be'.

You don't have credible evidence that "spiritual things" even exist (let alone are connected to temporal things).

What evidences do you have that your physical senses aren't deceiving you? There is none. Spiritual senses are trusted on the same basis that physical ones are. Also, they require training to be good, just as physical senses do.

While these kinds of unfounded "doctrines" and beliefs may give you a sense that you understand something, they indicate just the opposite to individuals who base their worldview and decisions on evidence.

As said, evidence is based on assumption, so it isn't really all that much of evidence. And I have just as much evidence my spiritual sense works compared to my physical senses when thinking about it to myself. However, due to the information gap of communication, I cannot properly explain to you my senses of spirituality, just as I cannot properly explain to a blind person what it means to see.

So, given that the OP makes an issue of whether or not Common Descent is fact, perhaps it would be better to stick to facts instead of unfounded opinions or made-up doctrines when participating in the discussion.

From Merrium Webster:

fact

noun \?fakt\

Definition of FACT

1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action 2 archaic : performance, doing 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

[semlogo]

You know based on your senses. You still assume your senses work without knowing though. I make no more of a justification assuming that my spirit sense works than I do when assuming my sight works. If I use my spirit as often as I use sight, it should become just as powerful as sight is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And yet because of science and it's peer review process, we drive cars instead of ride horses, we fly over oceans in hours instead of sailing on them for weeks, we read by electric light instead of candle, and we have medical knowledge and equipment not even dreamed of in 1800.

Perhaps most importantly, science has increased our mean life expectancy by 50% (about 75 years in 2000 as compared to about 50 years in 1800).

The proof is in the performance. Science has provided the goods for humankind. On a per capita basis, practioners of science have benefited humankind immeasurably more than have practitioners of religion in the last 200 years.

And those are the indisputable facts.

And what about it? No one argued that science was bad or that it cannot produce wonderful things. All Droopy said isthat we don't worship (my words)it like others in this thread do.

[Tarski]

And what about it? No one argued that science was bad or that it cannot produce wonderful things. All Droopy said isthat we don't worship (my words)it like others in this thread do.

My acceptance of mainstream science is appropriate to what science is. Some parts are more tentative than others and some parts are essentially certain for all practical purposes.

I for one do not worship anything or anyone.

If you or Droopy want to think that accepting mainstream science over the fantasy of personal revelation and over the pronouncements of self proclaimed prophets in Salt Lake, is tantamount to "worship" then go ahead. But, all you are doing is trying to fit others actions to your religious world view.

Speaking of worship; I think some here worship a certain extreme free market ideology more than they worship any God or savior. So much so that the teachings of Jesus (give all to the poor, eye of the needle, Lazarus/Rich man and crumb) are inauthetically reworked in service of this ideology. I'm fairly liberal but nothing compared to Jesus.

[semlogo]

And what about it? No one argued that science was bad or that it cannot produce wonderful things. All Droopy said isthat we don't worship (my words)it like others in this thread do.

No one in this thread worships science. Some people seem to fear and loath it, though.

(See, I can stuff straw men too!)

[ERayR]

No one in this thread worships science. Some people seem to fear and loath it, though.

(See, I can stuff straw men too!)

OK if you say so but you sure exihibit the signs of worship.

[semlogo]

OK if you say so but you sure exihibit the signs of worship.

You sure exhibit signs of science-phobia.

See how that works?

[ERayR]

You sure exhibit signs of science-phobia.

See how that works?

Aux contrare I don't fear it but I don't place it above my spirituaal experiences either. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio" (hamlet) and I tend to try to give balance to my life by giving heed to the spiritual side.

But thats just me.

[TAO]

But I thought THIS was WOAH!

[Droopy]

If you or Droopy want to think that accepting mainstream science over the fantasy of personal revelation and over the pronouncements of self proclaimed prophets in Salt Lake, is tantamount to "worship" then go ahead. But, all you are doing is trying to fit others actions to your religious world view.

Someday Tarski will finally come to grips with the concept of circular argumentation, and begin conducting himself appropriately.

Speaking of worship; I think some here worship a certain extreme free market ideology more than they worship any God or savior. So much so that the teachings of Jesus (give all to the poor, eye of the needle, Lazarus/Rich man and crumb) are inauthetically reworked in service of this ideology. I'm fairly liberal but nothing compared to Jesus.

I'd be interested to see where Jesus ever taught, as a general rule, to "give all to the poor". I can see how there might be special, extreme circumstances in which this might be undertaken, but this could not possibly be a general rule. The reason for this should be obvious. The affluent can give all they have to the poor only once, at which point the affluent join the poor in their poverty, which will shortly return once all the wealth given is used up. As the affluent will no longer have any more to give, that condition of poverty will be irremovable.

Then, all will be poor together, which is, after all, the leftist ideal (and may as well be, as this is the inevitable consequence of such ideas of "charity").

The ideals of the gospel, however, are to raise, improve, and exalt, not to level.

[cdowis]

My acceptance of mainstream science is appropriate to what science is. Some parts are more tentative than others and some parts are essentially certain for all practical purposes.

I for one do not worship anything or anyone.

That is very naive. You can either recognize what you worship, or remain in denial of reality.

If you or Droopy want to think that accepting mainstream science over the fantasy of personal revelation

Speaking of fantasy

• Feynman related in his autobiography an experience that one of his most significant discoveries was based on a vision, a dream.
  Let's talk about quantum mechanics. Much of it is fantasy, but reality.

Speaking of worship; I think some here worship a certain extreme free market ideology more than they worship any God or savior. So much so that the teachings of Jesus (give all to the poor, eye of the needle, Lazarus/Rich man and crumb) are inauthetically reworked in service of this ideology. I'm fairly liberal but nothing compared to Jesus.

Yes, people worship money, power and sex. And you are pretending that you are immune, is that correct?

BTW, if I were you, I would not trust my understanding what Christ actually taught. I am guessing you are depending on what others are teaching, and using the words of Christ to justify their false doctrines.

[Robert F. Smith]

Please excuse the added emphasis here and there.

When one is in a discussion or debate about facts (as in "Is Common Descent a Fact?"), it is entirely inappropriate and ineffectual to cite the unfounded beliefs of other believers as evidence. What are needed are facts. It matters not one bit what Talmage or Olson think. What matters is what can be proven by logical and internally consistent interpretation of physical evidence.

Questions about Mormon theology are questions of factual descriptions of the beliefs of the Mormons. Thomas F. O'Dea and Jan Shipps, both prominent non-Mormon scholars (two among many such examples), have described Mormon beliefs in ways which correspond to fact in both a normative and phenomenological sense. Your notion that Mormons should not be allowed to define their own religious system of beliefs and practices seems odd to say the least, and is certainly not in keeping with any sort of factual, academic inquiry with which I am familiar. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the basis of your very different opinions, so that we Mormons can correct our false notions ("unfounded beliefs") about our own religion.

I find it to be somewhere between annoying and downright offensive when folks try to defend a position regarding some matter of fact by bearing testimony or by otherwise stating their unfounded beliefs or the unfounded beliefs of others.

Sorry that actual Mormon beliefs annoy or offend you, although I find it hard to imagine why someone else's beliefs could do such a horrible thing to you. Can it be that you are annoyed or offended that Mormons don't conveniently roll over and play dead when you tell them what they are supposed to believe? How convenient to assert that Mormons (along with normative christians) believe in the abrogation of the laws of physics, even if it isn't true.

First of all, you have no credible physical evidence whatsoever that temporal and spiritual things are connected. You don't have credible evidence that "spiritual things" even exist (let alone are connected to temporal things).

Perhaps it infuriates you that Mormon belief accords with strict science in declaring that immaterialism is absurd, that imaginary things don't exist, and that the universe is real and palpable -- everything taking place in accordance with eternal law, and that humanity is part of a continuum of life which has no beginning and no end, and that what is described as "spiritual" cannot truly be distinguished from the "temporal," since these are merely terms used by those who believe in the supernatural -- a belief which Mormonism does not share.

While these kinds of unfounded "doctrines" and beliefs may give you a sense that you understand something, they indicate just the opposite to individuals who base their worldview and decisions on evidence.

So, given that the OP makes an issue of whether or not Common Descent is fact, perhaps it would be better to stick to facts instead of unfounded opinions or made-up doctrines when participating in the discussion.

You ought to rejoice that there is a religion which bases itself on evidence rather than mere supposition. Even if you don't like Mormons or Mormonism, you ought to at least be satisfied that, in this case, you have found an authentic belief in natural law. You might even appreciate that Deism and Tibetan Buddhism take a similar approach to the nature of reality.

If you think that this is being too harsh, think about the fact that when you cite the Prophet Brigham Young as a reliable source of information and insight, you put yourself in the position of having to defend all of the things he said as a Prophet, including a great number of things that the Church would rather forget he said. Realizing that Brigham Young had no credible physical evidence for most of what he said and taught, citing him as a source of reliable information is not a good idea.

We all have opinions on the many frank and earthy statements of Brother Brigham, but since he was not infallible, but merely a remarkable human being, we need not take every statement ex cathedra. Rather we must take all such statements in the broader context of LDS Scripture and of many statements of other modern prophets and apostles. We do much the same thing when evaluating ancient Israelite religion, or the nature of early Christianity. Huston Smith did the same thing in assessing the nature of religions worldwide. Scholars make factual assessments of such matters, rather than attributing to them a priori opinions. So, although I don't know where you got your non-factual, imaginary version of Mormon beliefs, I suggest that you might find the scholarly community a good place to start in making a factual reassessment.

Do you see the problem?

Yes, I can clearly see (both here and elsewhere) that the root of your problem is probably to be laid at an upbringing in an atmosphere of rigid and brittle false beliefs which set you up for a big let-down when you had to adjust to reality. This led inevitably to a strong contempt and disdain for Mormonism requiring the treatment of its adherents as the "enemy." There is only so much cognitive dissonance one can take, only so many times that most people are willing to wrench their minds around to some new "reality." It can be exhausting. I understand.

But, we aren't your enemies, Foxtrot. We're your friends. Come on home, guy.

[Ralph Man]

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).

Yes and no.

All physically possible biological features are consistent with the hypothesis that some supernaturally powerful entity designed them. That includes biological features that support common descent and those that do not.

But this isn't the coup you imagine it to be. When all possible outcomes are expected given your hypothesis, then no particular outcome can be said to be providing evidence of it.

[Ralph Man]

The public humiliation suffered by the evolutionists is the primary reason why evolutionists have recently become so trenchant in their vitriolic attacks on creationists and their refusal to engage in further debate -- even though the debates were restricted only to discussion of scientific data. I attended many of those debates and was frankly astonished at the weakness of the evolutionist position. Yes, they were a "nuisance" all right.

Or, maybe, there's a small chance that such forums are used as public relations opportunities for creationists to falsely suggest there is a legitimate controversy that evolutionary biologists would prefer not to indulge.

I can think of no better way to engage in scientific discourse than via public debates in front of a lay audience where oratory skills are paramount, where its incredibly easy to gallop from one misleading statement to another, and where it is difficult to reduce complicated issues and errors in reasoning into soundbites. If only there were another way, a better way, to communicate where "evolutionists" might fare a little better.

[DonBradley]

Common descent most decidedly is a fact, and the evidence for it is voluminous. To use one small example, mitochondrial DNA studies on the mutation rate and the degree of difference between species even allows us to determine how recently humans and other species share a common ancestor. (Note that the techniques used in this research are the same as those used in DNA genealogy research pioneered at BYU and LDS-run Sorenson Genetics. There is as much reason to accept the former as the latter.)

An extended case for common descent, and evolution, has recently been made by a prominent LDS biologist at BYU: Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNAby Daniel J. Fairbanks. Though the book is written for a general audience, Fairbanks also attempts to tackle how evolution does or doesn't fit into a religious worldview.

Don

[semlogo]

Common descent most decidedly is a fact, and the evidence for it is voluminous. To use one small example, mitochondrial DNA studies on the mutation rate and the degree of difference between species even allows us to determine how recently humans and other species share a common ancestor. (Note that the techniques used in this research are the same as those used in DNA genealogy research pioneered at BYU and LDS-run Sorenson Genetics. There is as much reason to accept the former as the latter.)

An extended case for common descent, and evolution, has recently been made by a prominent LDS biologist at BYU: Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNAby Daniel J. Fairbanks. Though the book is written for a general audience, Fairbanks also attempts to tackle how evolution does or doesn't fit into a religious worldview.

Don

Genetics is only a valid branch of science when we're using it to prove heredity or catch criminals. When we use that same science to explore evolution suddenly it's all wrong. Didn't you get the memo?

[cdowis]

Common descent most decidedly is a fact, and the evidence for it is voluminous.

Don, in case you missed it, that is the point of this thread. To provide proof of this assertion.

To use one small example, mitochondrial DNA studies on the mutation rate and the degree of difference between species even allows us to determine how recently humans and other species share a common ancestor. (Note that the techniques used in this research are the same as those used in DNA genealogy research pioneered at BYU and LDS-run Sorenson Genetics. There is as much reason to accept the former as the latter.)

I have enough intelligence to know that there is a difference between facts/data and the interpretation of the data. You can have valid and rigerous techniques, but use flawed logic and assumptions to interpret that data.

It happens all the time. I seem to remember an example in our thread on C14 dating, where a scientist spent his entire life on C14 dating, but his conclusions were wrong because of faulty assumptions.

An extended case for common descent, and evolution, has recently been made by a prominent LDS biologist at BYU: Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNAby Daniel J. Fairbanks. Though the book is written for a general audience, Fairbanks also attempts to tackle how evolution does or doesn't fit into a religious worldview.

Thanks for the reference, but that is less than helpful. Why don't you give us some ideas of what is in the book, otherwise we will have a battle of the books, where we throw book titles at each other.

You have been here long enough to know that does not work here.

Don

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[caudicus]

If you want one thing you can point to as proof of common descent, it has already been mentioned.

Endogenous Retroviral Insertions.

There is plenty of other mutually supporting evidence from a wide variety of fields that constitutes proof, but the retroviral insertions stand on their own fairly well.

Referring to the theory of evolution as "just a theory," or these silly ideas about what is needed to sustain a population doesn't really address the evidence provided in retroviral insertions. If anything, these arguments are an attempt to convolute the issue.

The more ancestors you share, the more retroviral insertions you will share. Its that simple.

You can say science is unreliable, if you like, but then you need to come up with a better explanation than currently exists for these common insertions. Maybe you can pray about it and see what God's opinion on the subject is.

[thesometimesaint]

caudicus:

I have and he said the Church can tell me how to go to heaven, but not how the heavens go.