Evolutionary Tree

[bennyboy]

Give an example where universal common descent was a necessary component of an evolutionary experiment. You're making a claim about necessary assumptions, you support it.

The study of fossils assumes everything biological is related and attempts to chart them accordingly.
The study of genetic mutation rates assumes everything is related and therefore rates of changes can be measured going back.
The study of parallel and convergent traits assumes (be definition) that a common ancestor did not have the traits being studied. 
The study of biological systems assumes everything is related so compares different systems in different species to find similarities to establish potential building blocks that could have evolved.

I could go on...but the point is that if common decent is disproved, there are ramifications in every sub-field--and many existing conclusions would have to be thrown out or at the very least, reexamined.

What you don't seem to understand is that the science of animals STARTED with their categorization-- they were organized into families according to their similarities, and those similarities, for the most part, were readily apparent: wolves are pretty obviously related to dogs; birds of all types obviously share similar features, etc.  It can be seen that among animals which produce milk, there are also OTHER similarities: a predominance of 5 fingers, for example-- even in whales! No assumptions are required-- animals ARE related, by their properties.

Now, it COULD be that a creator said, "I'm going to make a marine animal with flippers-- but just for kicks, let's give it the same number of hand bones as people."  Or it COULD be that whales are descended from animals which benefited from having multiple independently moving fingers.  It COULD be that God made monkeys and humans with very similar DNA, similar behaviors, similar brain parts, and so on, just for kicks.  Or it COULD be that the reason they have so many similarities because they are related.  It COULD be that some species have vestigial organs because God just wanted to test our faith in the Biblical accounts of creation.  Or it COULD be that those species are descended from others which benefited from those organs.


But I gotta tell you, and don't be insulted-- there's a very important difference between the Biblical account and the theory of evolution: the Biblical account is completely useless as a tool for investigation into the world, and the theory of evolution gives us all kinds of things to think about, to research, to hope for, and in general to use our giant monkey brains on.


And, as always, my usual disclaimer about real believers-- if you really believe God made the universe, and you are unwilling to draw connections and to seriously consider how living things are related because of what some 5000 year-old desert-dweller texts tell you, you are not only against science-- you are against God.  If God is truth, then only through seeking truth, and not trying to word-salad your way around it, will you actually be attempting to draw closer to the Lord.

So be a better Christian, and try to learn something about the world.

[Whateverist]

Science is the study of the natural world.  It literally doesn't deal with the supernatural by definition.  That's not an a priori bias.  That's just the nature of the inquiry.

And please, do give us an example where an a priori bias against the supernatural has interfered with a scientist's ability to follow the evidence.  I'm sure we could all use a good laugh.

I'd be a little more blunt and say that science deals in reality while the supernatural deals in unreality.

Right!  It is all natural, man!  Atoms, dreams, belief in gods, skepticism, hallucinations.  Real, real, real and real.  It isn't natural vs supernatural, it is natural vs nonexistent.

[SteveII]

The study of fossils assumes everything biological is related and attempts to chart them accordingly.
The study of genetic mutation rates assumes everything is related and therefore rates of changes can be measured going back.
The study of parallel and convergent traits assumes (be definition) that a common ancestor did not have the traits being studied. 
The study of biological systems assumes everything is related so compares different systems in different species to find similarities to establish potential building blocks that could have evolved.

I could go on...but the point is that if common decent is disproved, there are ramifications in every sub-field--and many existing conclusions would have to be thrown out or at the very least, reexamined.

What you don't seem to understand is that the science of animals STARTED with their categorization-- they were organized into families according to their similarities, and those similarities, for the most part, were readily apparent: wolves are pretty obviously related to dogs; birds of all types obviously share similar features, etc.  It can be seen that among animals which produce milk, there are also OTHER similarities: a predominance of 5 fingers, for example-- even in whales!  No assumptions are required-- animals ARE related, by their properties.

Now, it COULD be that a creator said, "I'm going to make a marine animal with flippers-- but just for kicks, let's give it the same number of hand bones as people."  Or it COULD be that whales are descended from animals which benefited from having multiple independently moving fingers.  It COULD be that God made monkeys and humans with very similar DNA, similar behaviors, similar brain parts, and so on, just for kicks.  Or it COULD be that the reason they have so many similarities because they are related.  It COULD be that some species have vestigial organs because God just wanted to test our faith in the Biblical accounts of creation.  Or it COULD be that those species are descended from others which benefited from those organs.


But I gotta tell you, and don't be insulted-- there's a very important difference between the Biblical account and the theory of evolution: the Biblical account is completely useless as a tool for investigation into the world, and the theory of evolution gives us all kinds of things to think about, to research, to hope for, and in general to use our giant monkey brains on.


And, as always, my usual disclaimer about real believers-- if you really believe God made the universe, and you are unwilling to draw connections and to seriously consider how living things are related because of what some 5000 year-old desert-dweller texts tell you, you are not only against science-- you are against God.  If God is truth, then only through seeking truth, and not trying to word-salad your way around it, will you actually be attempting to draw closer to the Lord.

So be a better Christian, and try to learn something about the world.

You misunderstand my point. I am not a literal 6-day creationist. I am agnostic on the subject. My point way back was genetics studies have rendered the traditional Tree of Life, not just wrong, but obsolete by finding that individual species have within their genes conflicting evolutionary histories. If this turns out to be a long-term mystery and the theory of common decent has certain facts that do not support it, what does this mean to the greater Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis)? So far I have heard that it won't affect it at all. I think that is rubbish.

[The Grand Nudger]

Without wasting my time correcting what you on -any- point of fact, it doesn't mean anything at all.  Modern Synthesis is the theory that explains how and why life evolves.  If you wish to refer to conflicting evolutionary histories, you are explicitly accepting Modern Synth in doing so. As has already been explained to you, assuming multiple and disparate evolutionary "families", if you will, exist.......they still have and do evolve. If we found aliens, ffs, aliens....that are in no way related to us, we have still, and still do..evolve. Modern Synth...the theory that explains -this-....still explains this.

You, for example...won't suddenly stop inheriting things from your parents, nor will you suddenly stop mutating throughout the course of your life, nor will your environment suddenly stop selecting for or against you or a particular trait you do or don't have...if it tuns out that you didn't inherent something from someone else's parents. Is this even remotely difficult to understand?

[Esquilax]

The study of fossils assumes everything biological is related and attempts to chart them accordingly.
The study of genetic mutation rates assumes everything is related and therefore rates of changes can be measured going back.
The study of parallel and convergent traits assumes (be definition) that a common ancestor did not have the traits being studied. 
The study of biological systems assumes everything is related so compares different systems in different species to find similarities to establish potential building blocks that could have evolved.

I could go on...but the point is that if common decent is disproved, there are ramifications in every sub-field--and many existing conclusions would have to be thrown out or at the very least, reexamined.

If you think any of those things are assumptions, instead of conclusions we've reached based on a wide breadth of observations, then I don't know what to tell you, since you're clearly ignorant of even basic history of science.

See, we have these things we do, called observations, that allow us to make deductions about the nature of the world around us. So when we see, say, that organisms closely related to one another tend to look like one another, that leads us to the conclusion that physiology is an indicator of relation. And when we discovered the genetic code and found that- why, would you look at that?- genetic similarities, which are expressed as physiology, tend to match with that previous deduction of ancestry, we have yet further confirmation of our initial deduction. And then we go further, we look at genetics from organisms we definitely know are related, and we confirm our thinking yet further because their genes have specific similarities and even identical pieces, so now we know that those things are suggestive of common ancestry. There's more, but the point is that, from these disparate points of knowledge, we can string together a definite pattern that allows us to conclude that common ancestry, probabilistically, fits the available data best.

You don't assume common ancestry for any of this, because you don't need to. Each individual "assumption" you see is, in actuality, buoyed up and supported by the relevant facts of that specific field, the understood biological mechanics that we've seen play out countless times that, while they add up to support of the common descent idea, are individually just... things that demonstrably happen in biology. So when you say that the study of biological systems "assumes" everything is related, you're questioning common ancestry, but in a more immediate sense you're questioning genetic testing, and what we know about shared genes in related organisms, up to and including simple paternity, which would be ludicrous.

If you have to question precepts of biology so well understood that they amount to legal proof in a court in order to make your point, well, your point would probably be better of not made.

[SteveII]

Without wasting my time correcting what you on -any- point of fact, it doesn't mean anything at all.  Modern Synthesis is the theory that explains how and why life evolves.  If you wish to refer to conflicting evolutionary histories, you are explicitly accepting Modern Synth in doing so.  As has already been explained to you, assuming multiple and disparate evolutionary "families", if you will, exist.......they still have and do evolve.  If we found aliens, ffs, aliens....that are in no way related to us, we have still, and still do..evolve.  Modern Synth...the theory that explains -this-....still explains this.

You, for example...won't suddenly stop inheriting things from your parents, nor will you suddenly stop mutating throughout the course of your life, nor will your environment suddenly stop selecting for or against you or a particular trait you do or don't have...if it tuns out that you didn't inherent something from someone else's parents.  Is this even remotely difficult to understand?

Condescension aside, you are simply explaining the fact that "decent with modification" is not contingent on "common decent". I agree, decent with modification is certainly a fact (in the strongest sense of the word).

However, if some genes say we are related to chimpanzees and some genes say we are not, and that conflict is not resolved, that would significantly weaken the theory of common decent. My point was and continues to be that if common decent is called into question in the long run, every other part of the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) that is not an observable fact (in the strong sense of the word) is undermined (which is most of it).

[The Grand Nudger]

You've reasserted a point that you -just- conceded...by reference to the very point you wish to call into contention.  

Can I be any clearer?

[The Grand Nudger]

-because I have to say it

In light of this, as in this entire thread....but ofc this isn;t limited to just this thread...it doesn't -matter- what facts you have or what we may one day discover.  It honestly and truly doesn't...because this is what you, and those likeminded -do- with those facts, real or perceived.  

In one of those rare moments where a similarly affiliated criticism actually has something behind it.....we don't spend enough time teaching people -how- to think, and far too much teaching them what to think.  Great for a standardized test, fatal to understanding.  The failure of your viewpoint is complete and impressive, a failure on both counts.....but even if someone, somehow managed to educate you in regards to modern synth...it wouldn;t change a thing.  You still wouldn;t know how to string your thoughts together into a cogent point...and obviously this doesn't stop you from claiming to possess a point of any kind.  This really harshes my "human mellow", I really do want to think that we're going to be fine, that we have alot going for us...that a mutual understanding will someday be reached even if agreement or consensus isn't.  The very existence of this sort of dialogue calls into question my appraisal of human beings as little more than the sort of thing I habitually rail against....while simultaneously conforming my least generous suspicions about the human condition..what we are, what we can and can't do, what we do or don't have. It makes you, and us, seem like a machine with a stuck register.

[Esquilax]

However, if some genes say we are related to chimpanzees and some genes say we are not, and that conflict is not resolved, that would significantly weaken the theory of common decent. My point was and continues to be that if common decent is called into question in the long run, every other part of the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) that is not an observable fact (in the strong sense of the word) is undermined (which is most of it).

So your point is one huge argument from ignorance. Gotcha.

[Cyberman]

While you're looking up the difference between "decent" and "descent", you might want to check what an observation is in a scientific context. I guarantee you it's not what you think.