Macro Evolution: The Evidence

[magellan004]

Look at your father. Are you identical? If not, you are seeing evolution in action. (IF your eyes are open, of course.)

(And sure enough, I predicted in the first sentence of my first post that there would be SOME clowns who "know" that evolution doesn't happen, and therefore the evidence can't be evidence, so it isn't evidence, so there!)

That some animals are similar IS evidence of Evolution. It is also evidence of Intelligent Design.
Evidence without a test (and criteria) is useless, as I have said too many times to mention.

And why start with the insults at this early stage? Feel like you've lost the point already?

Magellan

[wattsr1]

That some animals are similar IS evidence of Evolution. It is also evidence of Intelligent Design.

Indeed. I spotted a lot of dust on top of one of my cupboards this morning. It is evidence of dust blowing into my room from outside, and flecks of skin falling from my body. It is also evidence of Intelligent Design, by the same designer you appeal to.

[USIncognito]

I am not a scientific expert so please bare with me. Anyhow, in another thread Phank posted:

"Dawkins observed, that for the YEC "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."

Right, so, I would appreciate if someone can please provide this all-embracing, overwhelming, devastatingly convincing evidence for macro evolution. I am currently open on this matter because I haven't studied the science nor the Biblical creation narrative enough to formulate an educated opinion.

So please show me the evidence.

Well, here's the thing. All the evidence is located on plenty of websites, plenty of scientific papers, plenty of genetic and molecular studies, plenty of fossils, etc. etc. For some reason Creationists just buy the word of professional Creationists that "there is no evidence" and don't bother doing the homework themselves. I'm going to give you one particular website and look at common ancestry from basal animals to humans. I'll even cut and paste a few of the citations that are provided on every page of the links I post. If you're sincere in this request, you'll take the clades, references, etc. and plug them into Google scholar and check out all the sites, papers, etc. that demonstrate "macro-evolution".

So.. here we go.. Animals.
http://tolweb.org/Animals/2374

Adoutte, A., G. Balavoine, N. Lartillot, O. Lespinet, B. Prud'homme, and R. de Rosa. 2000. The new animal phylogeny: Reliability and implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 97:4453-4456
Anderson, C. L. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of the Myxozoa. Pages 341-350 in Evolutionary Relationships among Protozoa (G.H. Coombs, K. Vickerman, M.A. Sleigh, and A. Warren, eds.) Chapman & Hall, London.
Anderson, C. L., E. U. Canning, and B. Okamura. 1998. A triploblast origin for Myxozoa? Nature 392:346-347.
Ayala, F. J., A. Rzhetsky, and F. J. Ayala. 1998. Origin of the metazoan phyla: Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates. PProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 95:606-611.
Baguñà, J., P. Martinez, J. Paps, and M. Riutort. 2008. Back in time: a new systematic proposal for the Bilateria. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1481-1491
Borchiellini, C., M. Manuel, E. Alivon, N. Boury-Esnault, J. Vacelet, and Y. Le Parco. 2001. Sponge paraphyly and the origin of Metazoa. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14:171-179.
Briggs, D. E. G., D. H. Erwin, and F. J. Collier. 1994. The Fossils of the Burgess Shale. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washingthon, D.C.
Brusca, R. C. and G. J. Brusca. 2002. Invertebrates. Second Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Budd, G. E. 2008. The earliest fossil record of the animals and its significance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1425-1434.
Carroll, S. B., J. K. Grenier, and S. D. Weatherbee. 2001. From DNA to Diversity. Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts.
Cavalier-Smith, T., M. T. E. P. Allsopp, E. E. Chao, N. Boury-Esnault, and J. Vacelet. 1996. Sponge phylogeny, animal monophyly, and the origin of the nervous system: 18S rRNA evidence. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:2031-2045.
Chen, J.-Y., P. Oliveri, C.-W. Li, G.-Q. Zhou, F. Gao, J. W. Hagadorn, K. J. Peterson, and E. H. Davidson. 2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 97:4457-4462.
Collins, A. G. 1998. Evaluating multiple alternative hypotheses for the origin of Bilateria: An analysis of 18S rRNA molecular evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 95:15458-15463.
Collins, A. G. and J. W. Valentine. 2001. Defining phyla: evolutionary pathways to metazoan body plans. Evolution & Development 3:432-442.
Conway Morris, S. 1993. The fossil record and the early evolution of the Metazoa. Nature 361:219-225.
Conway Morris, S. 1998. The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Copley, R. R. 2008. The animal in the genome: comparative genomics and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1453-1461.
Dellaporta, S. L., A. Xu, S. Sagasser, W. Jakob, M. A. Moreno, L. W. Buss, and B. Schierwater. 2006. Mitochondrial genome of Trichoplax adhaerens supports placozoa as the basal lower metazoan phylum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 103(23):8751-8756.
Dewel, R. A. 2000. Colonial origin for Eumetazoa: Major morphological transitions and the origin of Bilaterian complexity. Journal of Morphology 243:35-74.
Dunn, C. W., A Hejnol, D. Q. Matus, K. Pang, W. E. Browne, S. A. Smith, E. Seaver, G. W. Rouse, M. Obst, G. D. Edgecombe, M. V. Sørensen, S. H. D. Haddock, A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, A. Okusu, R. M. Kristensen, W. C. Wheeler, M. Q. Martindale, and G. Giribet. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature06614

That's only A-D for the citations.

Bilaterians
http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459

Anderson, F. E., A. J. Cordoba, and M. Thollesson. 2004. Bilaterian phylogeny based on analyses of a region of the sodium-potassium ATPase alpha-subunit gene. Journal of Molecular Evolution 58:252-268.
Adoutte, A., G. Balavoine, N. Lartillot, and R. de Rosa. 1999. Animal evolution, the end of the intermediate taxa? Trends in Genetics 15:104-108.
Aguinaldo, A. M. A., J. M. Turbeville, L. S. Linford, M. C. Rivera, J. R. Garey, R. A. Raff, and J. A. Lake. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 387:489-493.
Baguñà, J., P. Martinez, J. Paps, and M. Riutort. 2008. Back in time: a new systematic proposal for the Bilateria. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1481-1491.
Balavoine, G. 1997. The early emergence of platyhelminths is contradicted by the agreement between 18S rRNA and Hox genes data. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie/Life Sciences 320:83-94.
Balavoine, G. 1998. Are Platyhelminthes coelomates without a coelom? An argument based on the evolution of Hox genes. American Zoologist 38:843-858.
Balavoine, G. and A. Adoutte. 1998. One or three cambrian radiations? Science 280:397-398
Balavoine, G., R. de Rosa, and A. Adoutte. 2002. Hox clusters and bilaterian phylogeny. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 24:366-373.
Boore, J. L. and W. M. Brown. 2000. Mitochondrial genomes of Galathealinum, Helobdella, and Platynereis: Sequence and gene arrangement comparisons indicate that Pogonophora is not a phylum and Annelida and Arthropoda are not sister taxa. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:87-106.
Boore, J. L. and J. L. Stanton. 2002. The mitochondrial genome of the sipunculid Phascolopsis gouldii supports its association with Annelida rather than Mollusca. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:127-137.
Bourlat, S. J., C. Nielsen, A. D. Economoua, and M. J. Telford. 2008. Testing the new animal phylogeny: A phylum level molecular analysis of the animal kingdom. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49(1):23-31.
Bourlat, S., C. Nielsen, A. Lockyer, D. T. Littlewood, and M. Telford. 2003. Xenoturbella is a deuterostome that eats molluscs. Nature 424:925-928.
Budd, G. E. and S. Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla. Biol Rev 75: 253–295.

A-B only for citations.

http://tolweb.org/Deuterostomia/2466
Deuterostomes
[indent]Jaime E. Blair, J. E. and S. B. Hedges. 2005. Molecular phylogeny and divergence times of deuterostome animals. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22:2275-2284.
Bromham, L. D. and B. M. Degnan. 1999. Hemichordates and deuterostome evolution: robust molecular phylogenetic support for a hemichordate plus echinoderm clade. Evolution and Development 1:166-171.
Bourlat, S., C. Nielsen, A. Lockyer, D. T. Littlewood, and M. Telford. 2003. Xenoturbella is a deuterostome that eats molluscs. Nature 424:925-928.
Cameron, C.B., J. R. Garey, and B. J. Swalla. 2000. Evolution of the chordate body plan: New insights from phylogenetic analyses of deuterostome phyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:4469-4474.
Castresana, J., G. Feldmaier-Fuchs, S. Yokobori, N. Satoh, and S. P?abo. 1998. The mitochondrial genome of the hemichordate Balanoglossus carnosus and the evolution of deuterostome mitochondria. Genetics 150:1115-1123.
Chea, H. K., C. V. Wright, and B. J. Swalla. 2005. Nodal signaling and the evolution of deuterostome gastrulation. Developmental Dynamics 234:269-278.
Dominguez, P., A. G. Jacobson, and R. P. S. Jefferies. 2002. Paired gill slits in a fossil with a calcite skeleton. Nature 417:841-844.
Halanych, K. M. 1995. The phylogenetic position of the pterobranch hemichordates based on 18S rDNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 4:72-76.
Henry, J. Q., K. Tagawa and M. Q. Martindale. 2001. Deuterostome evolution: early development in the enteropneust hemichordate, Ptychodera flava. Evolution and Development3:375-390.
Jefferies, R. P. S. , N. A. Brown, and P. E. J. Daley. 1996. The early phylogeny of chordates and echinoderms and the origin of chordate left-right asymmetry and bilateral symmetry. Acta Zoologica 77:101-122.[indent]

I hope you see where this is going with the citations so I'm not going to bother with them going foreward.
http://tolweb.org/Chordata/2499
http://tolweb.org/Craniata/14826
http://tolweb.org/Vertebrata/14829
http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843
http://tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990
http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845
http://tolweb.org/Therapsida/14973
http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040
http://tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997
http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963
http://tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293
http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299
http://tolweb.org/Homo/16418
http://tolweb.org/Homo_sapiens/16421

The evidence has existed for the last 100+ years and has only grown more robust over the last 50 and reached the point of undeniablity in the last 30. The explanations are there on each webpage I have linked to as are the citations. You have several months worth of reading for each node on the phylogenetic tree and ToLWeb doesn't even have links for all the clades that have been identified. Feel free to actually investigate the evidences and then comment on them rather than just ask for it's existance.

[Kristian Joense]

Consider the consider the following some honest questions, that have been nagging me a lot. I often see people use arguments to the effect that animal x has characteristic A, animal y shares that characteristic therefore animal x and y share a common ancestor. Why should I buy such lines of arguments? It seems to me there is some kind of hidden premise in all of them namely something LIKE this: 1. If two organisms share common characteristics they share a common ancestor or perhaps a more inductive approach 2. If two organisms share common characteristics they probably share a common ancestor. I realize supporters of such premises may want to nuance them a bit more.

So please don't take the aforementioned formulations of the premises too literally. But why should I support any such premise over against either chance or common design? Every time I go through lists of evidences of evolution it is either stuff that is completely undisputed by the likes of say Ken Ham or else it is based on arguments alot like the aforementioned premises. I don't see how you necessarily could distinguish between common descent and common design on an empirical basis.

I think it is dubious to claim something as evidence for "evolution" if either or both of the following are true: A)Someone like Ken Ham wouldn't object. B)It could equally well be said to be evidence . A) really is my "smell test" for calling something "evolution". Why I am wrong about that?

Take the fossil record for another example, the most common arguments regarding it seem to me to take a form that goes something like this:

Deductive form:
1a. If the fossil record exhibits a certain pattern X then evolution is true.
2. The fossil record exhhibits the pattern X.
Conclusion therefore evolution is true

Inductive form:
1b. If the fossil records exhibits a certain pattern X then evolution is probably true.
2. The fossil record exhibits the pattern X.
Conclusion therefore evolution is probably true.

Why can't I reject premises 1a or 1b(or whatever variant the particular evolution proponent wants to support)? Is there any evidence for any such premise?

I guess what I am taking a (potential) issue with is not the evidence but the argumentative step of going from the evidence to the conclusion. It has often been said the evolutionary theory makes certain predictions about empirical reality that have been found to be true. But that can only help us decide between the theory of universal common descent and the theory of common design, if the latter doesn't make the same predictions.

The same can be said about arguments against creationionism, they often take the form:

1. If creationism is true the X will be the case
2. X is not the case.
Conclusion creationism is not true.

But most often when I see such arguments premise 1 is clearly wrong and often is a straw man argument.

[phank]

I guess what I am taking a (potential) issue with is not the evidence but the argumentative step of going from the evidence to the conclusion. It has often been said the evolutionary theory makes certain predictions about empirical reality that have been found to be true. But that can only help us decide between the theory of universal common descent and the theory of common design, if the latter doesn't make the same predictions.

As you're probably aware, a truly impressive number of sources (with links) has been provided. I'm a fairly fast reader, but it would take me months to go through all of them -- were it not for the fact that after not too long, the pattern is self-evident and each additional source reinforces it.

Of course, these are scientific sources, and won't address any questions about "intelligent design". Such questions lie outside science, because they are not capable of being tested. You can wave your hands and say "the Designer simply chose to do it that way" and that's it.

As for going from the evidence to the conclusion, this represents a misunderstanding (and a failure to read any of the sources or most of the posts here). The theory of evolution is not a "conclusion", it is a proposed explanation that best fits the sum of all the available relevant evidence, without being contradicted by any. By now, you should realize that the "sum of all available evidence" is truly vast, overlapping biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, archaeology, and other fields. And all of it is internally consistent. And THAT means devising a better explanation for all of it is a challenge so difficult nobody has done so for over 100 years. "Common design", not being testable, is not an explanation, it is a doctrine.

(And you might reflect on Linnaean taxonomy. This system was devised well over a century before Darwin, and what it does is places all life forms into a tree-structure, that is, a grand nested hierarchy. WHY did that work? The realization that all classifications above the species is just a grouping-label is kind of an AHA experience. Such "higher" classifications only recognize that groups of organisms have things uniquely in common, and groups of groups have common characteristics, and groups of groups of groups, etc. How could this have happened? And with the advent of genetics (the detailed understanding arising a century after Darwin's death), it's possible to see truly deep similarities right down to the molecular level. And these similarities almost invariably match the gross morphological similarities used by Linnaeus. And this too must be explained by something more testable than "the Designer just works that way, that's all!")

[magellan004]

Indeed. I spotted a lot of dust on top of one of my cupboards this morning. It is evidence of dust blowing into my room from outside, and flecks of skin falling from my body. It is also evidence of Intelligent Design, by the same designer you appeal to.

Yes. And you spotted the dust using eyes that started out as some light sensitive cells in a jelly fish. This light sensitive cell was a rare beneficial mutation that had the edge over other blind jelly fish and all those blind jelly fish got wiped out because the new jelly fish has a niche and a dinosaur that loved only blind jelly fish came along etc etc

Pretty stupid without a test - isn't it?

Magellan

[Tiggy]

Yes. And you spotted the dust using eyes that started out as some light sensitive cells in a jelly fish. This light sensitive cell was a rare beneficial mutation that had the edge over other blind jelly fish and all those blind jelly fish got wiped out because the new jelly fish has a niche and a dinosaur that loved only blind jelly fish came along etc etc

Pretty stupid without a test - isn't it?

Magellan

Your inputs to most any topic on NS301 are pretty stupid Clownshoes.

I was almost proud of you too - almost. You managed to go a whole week without your usual asinine trolling of a science thread. But now you're back being your normal clueless idiot self. Oh well.

- T

[Kristian Joense]

Phank,

""Common design", not being testable, is not an explanation, it is a doctrine."

The how can common descent be testable? When there are only two possibilities and one of them is falsified that leaves the other one. So if one is not testable then the other isn't testable either. Take this argument:

1. If all life shares characteristic X it does so on account of either common design or common descent.
2. It doesn't share characteristic X on account of common descent.
Conclusion therefore it shares characteristic X on account of common design.

What is wrong with such an argument? I see how you could argue for adding chance as a possibility to premise 1 but couldn't you rule that out with statistical tests? At least in principle? So if common descent is testable then premise 2 is testable. But if premise 2 is testable then the conclusion is testable and hence common design is testable. What is wrong with that argument?

"By now, you should realize that the "sum of all available evidence" is truly vast, overlapping biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, archaeology, and other fields. And all of it is internally consistent. And THAT means devising a better explanation for all of it is a challenge so difficult nobody has done so for over 100 years."

Can you name a signal prediction that the hypothesis of universal common descent makes that is not made by the hypothesis of common design. I am talking about the hypothesis that all life is ultimately created by the same creator/designer. I am not talking about YEC or OEC or so called or anything else here. I am not talking about the origin of the universe or of life or anything like that really. I am simply asking about why similarities among all or most living organisms(Like say the fact that they all store genetic information in DNA and not some other system) MUST mean that they likely share a common ancestor? This is a set of QUESTIONS. I have no idea what to make of this all any more, even though I call my self a YEC still. Why prefer one hypothesis or theory over the other if ALL the predictions they make are 100% identical?

"And this too must be explained by something more testable than "the Designer just works that way, that's all!")"

Why?

[Scrawly]

Hey guys, terribly sorry but I'll have to abandon this thread due to pressing circumstances. However, I will read over the material that has been submitted to me in the near future and perhaps re-join this thread (if it's still live) or create a new one for further discussion. However, before I fade from Tweb for the next little while, I would appreciate some comments on Dr. Craig's concerns:

1) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scept...inian-paradigm

2) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scept...ism-re-visited

This is not an argument via web link. I am merely interested in what you guys think of the points he makes (it's by no means heavy reading, just a brief Q&A).

Thanks, God bless.

[magellan004]

Your inputs to most any topic on NS301 are pretty stupid Clownshoes.
I was almost proud of you too - almost. You managed to go a whole week without your usual asinine trolling of a science thread. But now you're back being your normal clueless idiot self. Oh well. - T

I'll keep an Insult Tally for this thread:
So far Phank 1, Tiggy 1.
Let's see how it evolves.


Magellan

[wattsr1]

Yes. And you spotted the dust using eyes that started out as some light sensitive cells in a jelly fish. This light sensitive cell was a rare beneficial mutation that had the edge over other blind jelly fish and all those blind jelly fish got wiped out because the new jelly fish has a niche and a dinosaur that loved only blind jelly fish came along etc etc

Pretty stupid without a test - isn't it?

Magellan

Pretty stupid to claim that the idea you parody above is not tested, right Mags? Were you claiming that it is not tested?

Would you like another small sermon from the Bible about bearing false witness? I believe God hates it.

[wattsr1]

Phank,

""Common design", not being testable, is not an explanation, it is a doctrine."

The how can common descent be testable? When there are only two possibilities and one of them is falsified that leaves the other one. So if one is not testable then the other isn't testable either. Take this argument:

1. If all life shares characteristic X it does so on account of either common design or common descent.
2. It doesn't share characteristic X on account of common descent.
Conclusion therefore it shares characteristic X on account of common design.

What is wrong with such an argument? I see how you could argue for adding chance as a possibility to premise 1 but couldn't you rule that out with statistical tests? At least in principle? So if common descent is testable then premise 2 is testable. But if premise 2 is testable then the conclusion is testable and hence common design is testable. What is wrong with that argument?

"By now, you should realize that the "sum of all available evidence" is truly vast, overlapping biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, archaeology, and other fields. And all of it is internally consistent. And THAT means devising a better explanation for all of it is a challenge so difficult nobody has done so for over 100 years."

Can you name a signal prediction that the hypothesis of universal common descent makes that is not made by the hypothesis of common design. I am talking about the hypothesis that all life is ultimately created by the same creator/designer. I am not talking about YEC or OEC or so called or anything else here. I am not talking about the origin of the universe or of life or anything like that really. I am simply asking about why similarities among all or most living organisms(Like say the fact that they all store genetic information in DNA and not some other system) MUST mean that they likely share a common ancestor? This is a set of QUESTIONS. I have no idea what to make of this all any more, even though I call my self a YEC still. Why prefer one hypothesis or theory over the other if ALL the predictions they make are 100% identical?

"And this too must be explained by something more testable than "the Designer just works that way, that's all!")"

Why?

Here is an example of what you might be talking about, a reptile with a "duck's bill":-



It was posted, somewhat tongue in cheek, by a YEC on another forum, under the title "But there is a crocoduck!!!!".

The poster also linked us to the following Wiki article which describes why simple similarity does not cut it:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatosuchus

As I explained to the YEC:-

Creationists often laugh because we argue (so they say), that if two things are similar then they must be related by common descent. But the real argument is more subtle than that and your picture illustrates why.

That snout does indeed look like a duck's bill, but that's more or less where the important similarity ends. A real ducks bill is made of keratin. The snout in the animal you picture, is made of bone.

So while that snout might look like the bill of a duck, it's not really. It's made of something that is very different to keratin.

No biologist will look at the similarity of the snout and the duck bill and say from there that the animals must be related by common descent. It's a superficial similarity only, not one reflecting an evolutionary relationship.

A common designer could (if it were omnipotent, omniscient etc), presumably, make a reptile with a duck's bill, that is, one made from keratin.

However, common descent with modification is not going to make a reptile with a ducks bill. Because reptiles descended from other tetrapods that had bone for snouts, then the snout on this reptile will also be bone.

If a common designer was the correct answer, and, in the absence of knowing the rules by which such a designer operated, you could reasonably expect such things as reptiles with snouts of bone and reptiles with snouts of keratin. But under the common descent hypothesis, animals with bone give rise to animals with bone. You would expect a reptile with a snout to have it made of bone.


(It's why things like nested hierarchies of characters (characters nesting within characters) are such good evidence for common descent with modification (evolution). Without knowing the rules by which an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent designer actually operates, there is no reason to expect such hierarchies of characters nesting within characters to be observable. However, we do know that in the world of nature, there is only one process that naturally and necessarily gives rise to these kinds of hierarchies. It's any process that involves common descent with modification. We don't know of any other process that necessarily does this. Common designers can do it. But then they cannot as well. In fact common designers can throw things all over the place, such as reptiles bills made of keratin as well as their bills made of bone. Probably could do steel as well. It would depend on what the designers were trying to do, and how jovial they might have been feeling on any particular day, even.)

[phank]

Phank,

""Common design", not being testable, is not an explanation, it is a doctrine."

The how can common descent be testable? When there are only two possibilities and one of them is falsified that leaves the other one. So if one is not testable then the other isn't testable either.

I don't understand what you're saying yet. There might be many possibilities, not just two. Any possibility that science cannot test, cannot be either accept or rejected within the purview of science. If one possibility can't be tested, this says nothing about the testability of any other possibility.

Take this argument:

1. If all life shares characteristic X it does so on account of either common design or common descent.

Or for some other reason. Such as coincidence, accident, etc.

2. It doesn't share characteristic X on account of common descent.

This must be established, however. If you just assert it, you make no progress.

Conclusion therefore it shares characteristic X on account of common design.

Nope. This is like saying either 2+2=22, or 2+2=42. And if it's not 22, it must be 42.

In science, nothing is actively supported simply by being declared to be the default if something ELSE doesn't work out. Instead, one must produce solid, documented positive evidence for anything. Science is empirical, not a formal logic system. And this is because there are so many different possibilities for everything.

What is wrong with such an argument? I see how you could argue for adding chance as a possibility to premise 1 but couldn't you rule that out with statistical tests? At least in principle? So if common descent is testable then premise 2 is testable. But if premise 2 is testable then the conclusion is testable and hence common design is testable. What is wrong with that argument?

Common design can't be tested. It can be asserted, but that's not the same thing. To establish common design empirically, you must PRODUCE a designer, and a design process, and show them in action, and demonstrate that design is happening. You can't just use process of elimination.

Can you name a signal prediction that the hypothesis of universal common descent makes that is not made by the hypothesis of common design. I am talking about the hypothesis that all life is ultimately created by the same creator/designer. I am not talking about YEC or OEC or so called or anything else here. I am not talking about the origin of the universe or of life or anything like that really. I am simply asking about why similarities among all or most living organisms(Like say the fact that they all store genetic information in DNA and not some other system) MUST mean that they likely share a common ancestor? This is a set of QUESTIONS. I have no idea what to make of this all any more, even though I call my self a YEC still. Why prefer one hypothesis or theory over the other if ALL the predictions they make are 100% identical?

We are still talking about testability here.

Common design can never be ruled out empirically. Neither can Divine Guidance, magic, indetectible aliens, etc. All might explain every possible observation without exception. But they are unhelpful, because they make no useful predictions. If you were trying to develop a vaccine, or a pesticide, or drought-resistent corn, you need some theoretical basis for performing tests and making decisions. You can't just cross your fingers and hope for an unexplainable miracle.

The genetic similarities traceable through lineages do not mean that they MUST all have a common ancestor. We are still looking here for an explanation that fits the evidence best. And sure, magic fits all the evidence perfectly, but "magic" is not an explanation, it's an admission that you have no explanation. But the notion of a common ancestor was crafted to explain why there are these similarities, and why some are closer than others, and why critters similar in many ways tend to be also more similar genetically. And why all these nested hierarchies exist, and how they could have come to pass. Sure, common design might "explain" nested hierarchies, but it would also "explain" non-nested hierarchies, or no hierarchies at all. It was just designed that way! And if we started finding violations of the principle of nested hiearachies, than we would likely have to abandon common ancestroy - and much of evolutionary theory as well!

(And I might ask you if you can name a single prediction the hypothesis of common design actually makes. Think about this. Common design might predict that everything we find swimming around rapidly in the water has a fairly common hydrodynamic shape. But would common design predict that dolphins and sharks, fairly similar in shape, would have vastly different genetics? Why or why not? And if some research showed this vast difference, how would the hypothesis of common design deal with it?)

If you're satisfied with a natural world resulting from incomprehensible forces for unknown purposes. science is not the right field for you to look at.

[wattsr1]

Here is an example of what you might be talking about, a reptile with a "duck's bill":-



It was posted, somewhat tongue in cheek, by a YEC on another forum, under the title "But there is a crocoduck!!!!".

The poster also linked us to the following Wiki article which describes why simple similarity does not cut it:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatosuchus

As I explained to the YEC:-

Creationists often laugh because we argue (so they say), that if two things are similar then they must be related by common descent. But the real argument is more subtle than that and your picture illustrates why.

That snout does indeed look like a duck's bill, but that's more or less where the important similarity ends. A real ducks bill is made of keratin. The snout in the animal you picture, is made of bone.

So while that snout might look like the bill of a duck, it's not really. It's made of something that is very different to keratin.

No biologist will look at the similarity of the snout and the duck bill and say from there that the animals must be related by common descent. It's a superficial similarity only, not one reflecting an evolutionary relationship.

A common designer could (if it were omnipotent, omniscient etc), presumably, make a reptile with a duck's bill, that is, one made from keratin.

However, common descent with modification is not going to make a reptile with a ducks bill. Because reptiles descended from other tetrapods that had bone for snouts, then the snout on this reptile will also be bone.

If a common designer was the correct answer, and, in the absence of knowing the rules by which such a designer operated, you could reasonably expect such things as reptiles with snouts of bone and reptiles with snouts of keratin. But under the common descent hypothesis, animals with bone give rise to animals with bone. You would expect a reptile with a snout to have it made of bone.


(It's why things like nested hierarchies of characters (characters nesting within characters) are such good evidence for common descent with modification (evolution). Without knowing the rules by which an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent designer actually operates, there is no reason to expect such hierarchies of characters nesting within characters to be observable. However, we do know that in the world of nature, there is only one process that naturally and necessarily gives rise to these kinds of hierarchies. It's any process that involves common descent with modification. We don't know of any other process that necessarily does this. Common designers can do it. But then they cannot as well. In fact common designers can throw things all over the place, such as reptiles bills made of keratin as well as their bills made of bone. Probably could do steel as well. It would depend on what the designers were trying to do, and how jovial they might have been feeling on any particular day, even.)

Another point I forgot to mention when I explained why that reptilian "duck's bill" - something one could expect from a common designer in the absence of knowing the rules by which such a designer operates, is not at all like a duck's bill.

Look at the structure of the snout. On close examination, you will find that the snout has the structure of the reptilian snout. For example, it has teeth.

Duck's bills don't have teeth!

So in the study of evolution, simple similarity is not used as the indicator of common descent with modification. It's the pattern of similarities that tells us of common descent.

Another way of putting it - that you can find someone around who looks somewhat like you, does not mean that you are necessarily related.

However, there are tests that can be done, that are based on similarity that actually do prove your relationship (or otherwise) to certain people.


My point is, that there are some kinds of similarity that do demonstrate relatedness - even YECs understand this. And there are some kinds of similarity that don't necessarily demonstrate relatedness - and evolutionists certainly understand this, despite what YECs and IDers claim. The "duck bill" reptile illustrates that point. The duck bill similar shape does not mean that the reptile is related to the duck. The fact that the jaw is made of bone and has teeth, and has the structure of the reptile snout, indicates that it is related to other reptiles, notwithstanding the duck bill shape.

[Kristian Joense]

Phank,

"Common design can't be tested. It can be asserted, but that's not the same thing. To establish common design empirically, you must PRODUCE a designer, and a design process, and show them in action, and demonstrate that design is happening. You can't just use process of elimination."

Why? Isn't it sometimes the case the there are only two possibilities? The proposition "There are always more than two possible competing explanations or hypothesis" strikes me as both pretty radical and well frankly false. As far as I can tell there would be nothing unscientific about an argument of approximately this form:

1. Either hypothesis X or hypothesis Y are true.
2. If hypothesis X is true we would make observation A.
3. We don't make observation A.
Conclusion therefore hypothesis Y is true.

Why can that NEVER be the case in science? Can't two hypothesis be mutually exclusive and exhaustive at the same time?

I am proposing that the case with universal common descent and common design is something like this:

1. We observe certain similarities between all living organisms. (I should note that this observation is a prediction of both of the hypothesis, but it may count against other hypothesis such as some form of uncommon/multiple designer hypothesis)
2. These similarities can either be due to chance(What you call coincidence, accident, etc), universal common descent or common design.
3. These similarities are not due to chance(That can be ruled out by statistical measures).
Conclusion therefore these similarities are either due to common design or common descent.

Why can't something like that be the case?

"Common design can't be tested."

Why? So far you have just asserted this. Not shown it.

"To establish common design empirically, you must PRODUCE a designer, and a design process, and show them in action, and demonstrate that design is happening."

Why? I see no reason to accept that. Also by that logic to establish [b]universal[b] common descent empirically you have to show universal common descent in action? How can you demonstrate that descent happened with all life?

" But would common design predict that dolphins and sharks, fairly similar in shape, would have vastly different genetics?"

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity doesn't make any predictions about this situation, should that count against it? I should make it absolutely clear that I am only talking about universal common descent here. Not say common descent between domestic cats and tigers for examples. But the hypothesis that all of life shares a common ancestor. Keep in mind that no party to this discussion is casting any doubt upon the process of descent with modification as such. There are plenty of undisputed examples of that. I should hope everyone here will agree with that. But it simply doesn't follow that all life is related by that means. Does it? If so how?

"This must be established, however. If you just assert it, you make no progress."

Well I am talking in principle here. But actually I my self doubt it. I tend to prefer the position that both universal common descent AND common design are untestable. As far as I can tell that does not matter for practical purposes. I am not convinced that there is any application of science that uniquely depends on universal common descent(or common design for that matter) as opposed to just particular similarities between particular organism.

On a different note I am curious, what observation would according to you falsify the hypothesis of universal common descent?

Edit:

Wattsr1, thanks for the example. I realize thinks change radically when we talk about specific organisms. But that has not been my issue in this thread. I may not have been clear enough before. But I am specifically talking about the common descent of all life. Specifically the attitude I often see people having is that common design is *inconsistent* with the evidence and therefore people are under some epistemic duty to give up their belief in common design. But as far as I can tell there is nothing in biology or its cognate fields that compels me to give up that belief. Nor do I see any hindrance for say medical professionals that adopt such a belief. They can easily take the stance that drug testing on animals is relatively effective because animals and humans share some common characteristics due common design. There is always this implication that people who deny universal common descent are somehow stupid ignoramuses. But I think people who take such positions are mistaken because they conflate denying a theory used to explain some data with the actual data itself. As as I can tell there is really nothing stopping an adherent of common design from taking a instrumentalist approach to the thesis of universal common descent and saying it may not be true and but it can produce some useful results. Denying universal common descent to me doesn't seem to imply denying a single iota of evidence. Is any of this wrong? If so why?

"My point is, that there are some kinds of similarity that do demonstrate relatedness - even YECs understand this. And there are some kinds of similarity that don't necessarily demonstrate relatedness - and evolutionists certainly understand this, despite what YECs and IDers claim. The "duck bill" reptile illustrates that point. The duck bill similar shape does not mean that the reptile is related to the duck. The fact that the jaw is made of bone and has teeth, and has the structure of the reptile snout, indicates that it is related to other reptiles, notwithstanding the duck bill shape."

I don't think I have a problem with any of this really. Not in principle any way. I know far far too little about the specific case to make any claims about it.

Edit:

For further clarification as I don't post very often, certainly not in this sub-forum: I hereby disclaim any agreement with any point made by Magelan004 or Jorge unless specifically stated otherwise.