Do you believe in universal common descent?

[Ortho_Cat]

That is, all life on earth is related to each other and shares a common ancestor with the first living cell(s)?

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes.....but....will just lurk for awhile

 

[Supreme]

Yes. All scientific evidence I've ever seen supports such a theory.

 

[Papias]

Perhaps a minor clarification is needed.


Some evidence suggests that the very lowest level has some "messyness" to it - that there was originally a community of organisms, some of which ate others, and some of which gained genetic material by horizontal transfer. As such, there may not be a single bacterium at the very root of the tree of life, but that if this original community, or single celled organisms descended from this community, are considered a "universal common ancestor", then UCD is true.

This small amount of fuzzyness at the most basic level is very different from denying, say, that all plants, animals and fungi have a single common ancestor, which is supported by so much evidence that it is undeniable.

So I voted yes, with the minor caveat about the very lowest level. It might we worth it to point that out in your posts, because it is unavoidable that some creationist will deny UCD of animals, and then falliaciously cite the fuzzyness at the root level, as if that were relevant.

Papias

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Perhaps a minor clarification is needed.


Some evidence suggests that the very lowest level has some "messyness" to it - that there was originally a community of organisms, some of which ate others, and some of which gained genetic material by horizontal transfer. As such, there may not be a single bacterium at the very root of the tree of life, but that if this original community, or single celled organisms descended from this community, are considered a "universal common ancestor", then UCD is true.

This small amount of fuzzyness at the most basic level is very different from denying, say, that all plants, animals and fungi have a single common ancestor, which is supported by so much evidence that it is undeniable.

So I voted yes, with the minor caveat about the very lowest level. It might we worth it to point that out in your posts, because it is unavoidable that some creationist will deny UCD of animals, and then falliaciously cite the fuzzyness at the root level, as if that were relevant.

Papias

Thank you for that, Papias. I actually thought about it but didn't know if it was worth mentioning, but since you did, I will clarify.

 

[Assyrian]

The OP says "a common ancestor with the first living cell(s)", that predates the wild abandon of swapping DNA like it was 1967, and all the different types of single celled organisms involved would still have evolved from the earlier common ancestor.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The OP says "a common ancestor with the first living cell(s)", that predates the wild abandon of swapping DNA like it was 1967, and all the different types of single celled organisms involved would still have evolved from the earlier common ancestor.

I don't follow...can you rephrase that?

 

[shernren]

It is one thing to acknowledge that the Tree of Life may have roots matted and gnarly and interwoven every which way; it is quite another to look down upon its canopy and think that there are instead fifteen or fifty separate trees represented in the leaves.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It is one thing to acknowledge that the Tree of Life may have roots matted and gnarly and interwoven every which way; it is quite another to look down upon its canopy and think that there are instead fifteen or fifty separate trees represented in the leaves.

Care to explain that parable?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

More votes, please!

 

[Dark_Lite]

It's not something one "believes" in. I believe it like I believe in gravity.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It's not something one "believes" in. I believe it like I believe in gravity.

I don't think belief is necessarily the wrong word to use here. For example, I find this definition of belief to be relevant to the subject matter:

"Belief: The conviction of the mind, arising from evidence received, or from information derived, not from actual perception by our senses, but from the relation or information of others who have had the means of acquiring actual knowledge of the facts and in whose qualifications for acquiring that knowledge, and retaining it, and afterwards in communicating it, we can place confidence."

 

[RibI]

That is, all life on earth is related to each other and shares a common ancestor with the first living cell(s)

Of course not.
The relation of all life is in it's common creator.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I don't think belief is necessarily the wrong word to use here. For example, I find this definition of belief to be relevant to the subject matter:

"Belief: The conviction of the mind, arising from evidence received, or from information derived, not from actual perception by our senses, but from the relation or information of others who have had the means of acquiring actual knowledge of the facts and in whose qualifications for acquiring that knowledge, and retaining it, and afterwards in communicating it, we can place confidence."

Generally, in creationism vs evolution debates, the word "belief" is applied in an attempt to put evolutionary theory on the same level as creationism--as if they were both faith-based propositions. It's yet an another attempt to turn evolution into a religion.

If you're going strictly by the definition you have provided, it's fine, but the connotations of the word in the creationism vs evolution context will broadcast a very different message to most readers.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Generally, in creationism vs evolution debates, the word "belief" is applied in an attempt to put evolutionary theory on the same level as creationism--as if they were both faith-based propositions. It's yet an another attempt to turn evolution into a religion.

If you're going strictly by the definition you have provided, it's fine, but the connotations of the word in the creationism vs evolution context will broadcast a very different message to most readers.

You are most likely correct. How would do you think it would have been better to word the question? "Do you think common descent is true?" or perhaps "Is common descent true"?

 

[Chesterton]

I wonder how it came to be called "descent" and not "ascent".

 

[Dark_Lite]

You are most likely correct. How would do you think it would have been better to word the question? "Do you think common descent is true?" or perhaps "Is common descent true"?

Yes, those would probably be more accurate.

 

[pgp_protector]

I wonder how it came to be called "descent" and not "ascent".

Because you're a descendant of those that came before you.

 

[Mr Dave]

I voted before I read the OP, I just read the question and made assumptions about what you were asking, forgive me Never sensible.

Change mine to yes, instead of no.

Again

 

[Chesterton]

Because you're a descendant of those that came before you.

I disagree. I'm very obviously an ascendant of those that came before.