Single best evidence for common descent

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I'd like to ask those who have some knowledge or expertise in evolution to comment and modify (evolve? hah!) the following, which is a simplification of the double nested hierarchy explanation at talkorigins.

The most essential piece of evidence for common descent is that the nested hierarchy of traits (morphological and genomic) in all organisms indicate that a historical process, and not a designed process, produced the nested hierarchy.

Consider an organism with morphological traits symbolized by A B C D E. Each of these traits is distinct from each other, which is what the capital letters signify. Descent with modification says that offspring with the following morphological traits might be produced
ABCDE

ABCDe
where the lower case letter “e” indicates a modification of the trait E.

In contrast to a historical process, a design process would not have to necessarily involve modification of previous traits. For instance, under a design hypothesis, one could see organisms such as
ABCDE

ABCDX

But this is what we do not ever see. When organisms are classified by morphological traits, we find a nested hierarchy in which all organisms fit. That is, if there are organisms with traits

ABCDE
ABCDe

JKLMN
JKLMn
JKLmn
JKLmñ

QRSTU
QRStu
QRstu
Qrstu

we never see an organism with

ABCtn

which would be possible under a design hypothesis.

Furthermore, when the DNA of organisms is similarly classified, it creates a nested hierarchy or organisms that matches the morphological hierarchy of traits.

It would be possible to hypothesize that the double nested hierarchy was designed, but that hypothesis fails Occam's razor because it requires an additional factor - the designer - that is not required under the hypothesis of a historical process. This is a close parallel to the situation in which the French scientist LaPlace's showed Napoleon his model of the solar system moved and operated, and when Napoleon asked LaPlace where was God in his model, LaPlace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Similarly, there is no need for a designed to be hypothesized to account for the double nested hierarchy: a historical process is all that is needed.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I would add that your observation is generally true, but is modified in a few ways by
a) Horizontal gene transfer, especially among prokaryotes but also between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and occasionally between eukaryotes, (though not between metazoa, unsurprisingly) .
b) Evolutionary "degenerative" forms, such as transmissible cancers, and parasitic clades where genetic material is shed, and structural complexity is reduced, which can be difficult to place in a morphologic nested hierarchy.

These modifications don't exactly revolutionize the whole structure, and in no way challenge the notion that (for instance) we are more closely related to bats than we are to snails, so it isn't as though they are a huge blow to the system...
 

ferengi

Well-known member
All false - there is no common ancestor because the first life did not evolve because chemical evolution never happened because random interactions between non-living chemicals cannot create information - so there was never a first cell to mutate from - and mutation does not create the massive amounts of information required for one species to mutate into another species.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I'd like to ask those who have some knowledge or expertise in evolution to comment and modify (evolve? hah!) the following, which is a simplification of the double nested hierarchy explanation at talkorigins.

The most essential piece of evidence for common descent is that the nested hierarchy of traits (morphological and genomic) in all organisms indicate that a historical process, and not a designed process, produced the nested hierarchy.

Consider an organism with morphological traits symbolized by A B C D E. Each of these traits is distinct from each other, which is what the capital letters signify. Descent with modification says that offspring with the following morphological traits might be produced
ABCDE

ABCDe
where the lower case letter “e” indicates a modification of the trait E.

In contrast to a historical process, a design process would not have to necessarily involve modification of previous traits. For instance, under a design hypothesis, one could see organisms such as
ABCDE

ABCDX

But this is what we do not ever see. When organisms are classified by morphological traits, we find a nested hierarchy in which all organisms fit. That is, if there are organisms with traits

ABCDE
ABCDe

JKLMN
JKLMn
JKLmn
JKLmñ

QRSTU
QRStu
QRstu
Qrstu

we never see an organism with

ABCtn

which would be possible under a design hypothesis.

Furthermore, when the DNA of organisms is similarly classified, it creates a nested hierarchy or organisms that matches the morphological hierarchy of traits.

It would be possible to hypothesize that the double nested hierarchy was designed, but that hypothesis fails Occam's razor because it requires an additional factor - the designer - that is not required under the hypothesis of a historical process. This is a close parallel to the situation in which the French scientist LaPlace's showed Napoleon his model of the solar system moved and operated, and when Napoleon asked LaPlace where was God in his model, LaPlace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Similarly, there is no need for a designed to be hypothesized to account for the double nested hierarchy: a historical process is all that is needed.
Hardline speculationism. "We never see" presupposing you see everything. Your hierarchy memes are arbitrary labeling schemes.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
All false - there is no common ancestor because the first life did not evolve because chemical evolution never happened because random interactions between non-living chemicals cannot create information - so there was never a first cell to mutate from - and mutation does not create the massive amounts of information required for one species to mutate into another species.
Would you care to address the ideas in the OP?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Already did - read my post.
I meant the specific ideas in the OP. What part of the evidence and reasoning for common descent from the OP is wrong?

You're arguing that the conclusion of the OP - that common descent is true - is wrong. I'm asking you to identify what part of the OP that leads to that conclusion - not the conclusion itself - is wrong.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
There is no such thing as common decent - because life did not evolve
We can reasonably conclude, then, that you can not refute the details of what is in the OP (not its conclusion about common descent, but what leads up to that conclusion) because, when given the chance and the direct invitation, you declined to do so.

However, you can still refute what is in the OP at any time, and we can change our minds.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The Darweenie movement is based on hardline speculationism. None have a clue what uninterrupted and uncontaminated chain of evidence requires.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I'd like to ask those who have some knowledge or expertise in evolution to comment and modify (evolve? hah!) the following, which is a simplification of the double nested hierarchy explanation at talkorigins.

The most essential piece of evidence for common descent is that the nested hierarchy of traits (morphological and genomic) in all organisms indicate that a historical process, and not a designed process, produced the nested hierarchy.

Consider an organism with morphological traits symbolized by A B C D E. Each of these traits is distinct from each other, which is what the capital letters signify. Descent with modification says that offspring with the following morphological traits might be produced
ABCDE

ABCDe
where the lower case letter “e” indicates a modification of the trait E.

In contrast to a historical process, a design process would not have to necessarily involve modification of previous traits. For instance, under a design hypothesis, one could see organisms such as
ABCDE

ABCDX

But this is what we do not ever see. When organisms are classified by morphological traits, we find a nested hierarchy in which all organisms fit. That is, if there are organisms with traits

ABCDE
ABCDe

JKLMN
JKLMn
JKLmn
JKLmñ

QRSTU
QRStu
QRstu
Qrstu

we never see an organism with

ABCtn

which would be possible under a design hypothesis.

Furthermore, when the DNA of organisms is similarly classified, it creates a nested hierarchy or organisms that matches the morphological hierarchy of traits.

It would be possible to hypothesize that the double nested hierarchy was designed, but that hypothesis fails Occam's razor because it requires an additional factor - the designer - that is not required under the hypothesis of a historical process. This is a close parallel to the situation in which the French scientist LaPlace's showed Napoleon his model of the solar system moved and operated, and when Napoleon asked LaPlace where was God in his model, LaPlace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Similarly, there is no need for a designed to be hypothesized to account for the double nested hierarchy: a historical process is all that is needed.
On a new ID the Future episode, Discovery Institute paleontologist Günter Bechly talked with host Andrew McDiarmid about recent fossil finds that scramble yet again what scientists thought they knew about human origins. They discuss the discovery of remains of Homo luzonensis on Luzon Island in the Philippines, hailed as a new human species and dated to between 50,000 and 67,000 years old.

A fascinating question is how the creatures got there, considering that Luzon is not now and was not then connected to the mainland. A hypothesis that they had the skill and intelligence to sail runs up against, among other problems, the fact that the oldest preserved boat, a canoe, is just 8,000 years old. It’s another reminder of what a “mess” (Dr. Bechly’s characterization) the fossil record is. Bechly explains:

"There is no well-established tree of fossil humans, contrary to the impression you might get if you look at many textbooks. And that’s mostly because there is a very chaotic rather than an orderly distribution of these primitive and modern characters in various fossil humans. So the character pattern does not align well with a nested hierarchy."

Meaning that it does not fit, either, with Darwinian expectations, though evolutionists seek to keep that fact decorously veiled from the public. Download the podcast or listen to here. See also, “New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions.”

 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I'd like to ask those who have some knowledge or expertise in evolution to comment and modify (evolve? hah!) the following, which is a simplification of the double nested hierarchy explanation at talkorigins.

The most essential piece of evidence for common descent is that the nested hierarchy of traits (morphological and genomic) in all organisms indicate that a historical process, and not a designed process, produced the nested hierarchy.

Consider an organism with morphological traits symbolized by A B C D E. Each of these traits is distinct from each other, which is what the capital letters signify. Descent with modification says that offspring with the following morphological traits might be produced
ABCDE

ABCDe
where the lower case letter “e” indicates a modification of the trait E.

In contrast to a historical process, a design process would not have to necessarily involve modification of previous traits. For instance, under a design hypothesis, one could see organisms such as
ABCDE

ABCDX

But this is what we do not ever see. When organisms are classified by morphological traits, we find a nested hierarchy in which all organisms fit. That is, if there are organisms with traits

ABCDE
ABCDe

JKLMN
JKLMn
JKLmn
JKLmñ

QRSTU
QRStu
QRstu
Qrstu

we never see an organism with

ABCtn

which would be possible under a design hypothesis.

Furthermore, when the DNA of organisms is similarly classified, it creates a nested hierarchy or organisms that matches the morphological hierarchy of traits.

It would be possible to hypothesize that the double nested hierarchy was designed, but that hypothesis fails Occam's razor because it requires an additional factor - the designer - that is not required under the hypothesis of a historical process. This is a close parallel to the situation in which the French scientist LaPlace's showed Napoleon his model of the solar system moved and operated, and when Napoleon asked LaPlace where was God in his model, LaPlace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Similarly, there is no need for a designed to be hypothesized to account for the double nested hierarchy: a historical process is all that is needed.
ID proposes not common descent but rather common design. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/b...ncestry-for-explaining-the-pattern-of-nature/
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
On a new ID the Future episode, Discovery Institute paleontologist Günter Bechly talked with host Andrew McDiarmid about recent fossil finds that scramble yet again what scientists thought they knew about human origins. They discuss the discovery of remains of Homo luzonensis on Luzon Island in the Philippines, hailed as a new human species and dated to between 50,000 and 67,000 years old.

A fascinating question is how the creatures got there, considering that Luzon is not now and was not then connected to the mainland. A hypothesis that they had the skill and intelligence to sail runs up against, among other problems, the fact that the oldest preserved boat, a canoe, is just 8,000 years old. It’s another reminder of what a “mess” (Dr. Bechly’s characterization) the fossil record is. Bechly explains:

"There is no well-established tree of fossil humans, contrary to the impression you might get if you look at many textbooks. And that’s mostly because there is a very chaotic rather than an orderly distribution of these primitive and modern characters in various fossil humans. So the character pattern does not align well with a nested hierarchy."

Meaning that it does not fit, either, with Darwinian expectations, though evolutionists seek to keep that fact decorously veiled from the public. Download the podcast or listen to here. See also, “New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions.”

Do you have any comment or critique on the evidence and reasoning given in the OP, other than to disagree with its conclusion (that common descent happened)?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Do you have any comment or critique on the evidence and reasoning given in the OP, other than to disagree with its conclusion (that common descent happened)?
A common descent tree will easily fall on a common design tree if you ignore the discrepancies. The discrepancies have been explained away with lateral gene transfer, convergent evolution and differential gene loss with all new species having to get cookie cut into the tree. It ignores the fact that most of the major groups appear suddenly without ancestors or fossil records. The secular community gives no ground and wishes to hold on to its public adherents like a church to its laity. So that difficulties with the common descent tree are not public knowledge.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
A common descent tree will easily fall on a common design tree if you ignore the discrepancies. The discrepancies have been explained away with lateral gene transfer, convergent evolution and differential gene loss with all new species having to get cookie cut into the tree. It ignores the fact that most of the major groups appear suddenly without ancestors or fossil records. The secular community gives no ground and wishes to hold on to its public adherents like a church to its laity. So that difficulties with the common descent tree are not public knowledge.
I'm am not clear at all which part of the OP - that is, any of the specific evidence or reasoning in the OP that leads to the conclusion of common descent, and that is not the conclusion that common descent happened - you are disagreeing with.

Can you just quote the section from the OP that your comment above addresses, and leave out anything else, just so we can be clear exactly what part of the OP you are addressing.
 
Top