Do you believe in universal common descent?

[pgp_protector]

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

You're not a decedent of your parents?

 

[shernren]

The way I normally put it is that I accept universal common descent (and evolution) as the best current explanation for observed patterns in biodiversity.

 

[Chesterton]

You're not a decedent of your parents?

Not as long as you see me posting here.

 

[pgp_protector]

Not as long as you see me posting here.

sorry
descendant not decedent

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Not as long as you see me posting here.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

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

Except that the fossil record does not support UCD anywhere remotely near to the extent that it should, taking into consideration the multi-billion in between forms that are required of virtually all species in earth's history. Not to mention that these forms would have to be both inextricably unique and vastless numerous, yet they are nowhere to be found.

Who knows what these "mythical" evolutionary mechanisms that seemingly accomplished UCD could possibly entail, but truthfully it doesn't matter. That somehow, these mythical mechanisms were able to produce variations in genetic information that led to "new" information, and that this new information was somehow finetuned and assembled in a manner that is nothing short of miraculous to produce incredibly complex organs such as the human brain, eyeball, spleen, pancreas, kidney, etc.

That God was absolutely forced to use strict, naturalistic means to produce all life, and that he wasn't allowed to do anything else. That God is not allowed to step out of the bounds of what is logical to us and intellectually palatable. What a joke

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

Except that the fossil record does not support UCD anywhere remotely near to the extent that it should, taking into consideration the multi-billion in between forms that are required of virtually all species in earth's history. Not to mention that these forms would have to be both inextricably unique and vastless numerous, yet they are nowhere to be found.

Um, first, you need to undestand the scientific field of taphonomy - which shows (with real experimental data) what most of us already know, which is that nearly all animal bodies decompose to nothing within a matter of years, bones and all. Since everything decays, a fossil record that shows nothing would be reasonable.

Luckily, we have literally thousands of transitional fossils. You wrote "nowhere to be found". What a massive understatement. Here are just some of them: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 and

and even more are found here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

In fact, geologists know about these many, many transitional fossils, as this quote shows:

Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology. Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)


At the same time, there are independant lines of evidence supporting evolution from genetics, anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, biogeography, embryology, and more. Because of all this evidence, evolution would be established beyond a shadow of a doubt even if the fossil record was a complete blank.

Who knows what these "mythical" evolutionary mechanisms that seemingly accomplished UCD could possibly entail, but truthfully it doesn't matter. That somehow, these mythical mechanisms were able to produce variations in genetic information that led to "new" information,

New information is shown to occur all the time, especially by the process of gene duplication and subsequent modification of one of the redundant copies. If you seriously think that new information is some kind of a problem, we can get into the details, either on this thread or on a new thread. It's a good thing to discuss because a lot of people are unaware of how easy new information is to make, and how often this has been observed.

and that this new information was somehow finetuned and assembled in a manner that is nothing short of miraculous to produce incredibly complex organs such as the human brain, eyeball, spleen, pancreas, kidney, etc.

Not only is the mechanism for the formation of a complex organ like the eye fully predicted (even in Darwin's origin of species, from 1859!), we have transitionals of many of the steps for things like the brain, eye, feather, and so on. Simply understanding natural selection is all that is needed to see how easily it naturally "assembles" and is "fine tuned". Yes, natural selection is nothing short of miraculous!

That God was absolutely forced to use strict, naturalistic means to produce all life, and that he wasn't allowed to do anything else. That God is not allowed to step out of the bounds of what is logical to us and intellectually palatable. What a joke

That God was absolutely forced to use strict, naturalistic means to form me in my mother's womb, and that he wasn't allowed to do anything else. That God is not allowed to step out of the bounds of what is a natural and observable gestation process. What a joke! I mean, it's obvious that every time a baby is born, God must be going into the womb and making little divine interventions to form the baby, since natural means obviously couldn't make organs and structures, after starting from a single cell!

Papias

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Happy wrote:

Um, first, you need to undestand the scientific field of taphonomy - which shows (with real experimental data) what most of us already know, which is that nearly all animal bodies decompose to nothing within a matter of years, bones and all. Since everything decays, a fossil record that shows nothing would be reasonable.

Luckily, we have literally thousands of transitional fossils. You wrote "nowhere to be found". What a massive understatement. Here are just some of them: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 and

Thousands? Like I said, both frequency and uniqueness. Evolutionary theory wants to both infer UCD and control the outcome of how the evidence is interpreted. If the evolutionary mechanisms that accomplished UCD exist, then definitive forms are not the norm and transitional forms should be dominating completely. How come the fossil record shows it is the other way around? Claiming thousands of transitional forms to have been found is the understatement. If UCD were true, how come the fossil record does not prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt? So we use the rarity of fossilization as an excuse, but when we find fossil evidence we consider "relevant" to the theory (while discarding the rest) we gladly use it as "evidence".

New information is shown to occur all the time, especially by the process of gene duplication and subsequent modification of one of the redundant copies. If you seriously think that new information is some kind of a problem, we can get into the details, either on this thread or on a new thread. It's a good thing to discuss because a lot of people are unaware of how easy new information is to make, and how often this has been observed.

Natural selection or any other known mechanisms do not remotely have the ability to be able to produce these intricate, complex organs through any known means. It is not just a matter of new information. They are products that are assumed to have been produced via evolution, and the entire science revolves around this assumption. Regardless of how little is known about a specific biological system, or how shallow our understanding is of it, we assume evolution is the cause of its existence, even if we have absolutely no idea the processes that brought it to its completion.

Not only is the mechanism for the formation of a complex organ like the eye fully predicted (even in Darwin's origin of species, from 1859!), we have transitionals of many of the steps for things like the brain, eye, feather, and so on. Simply understanding natural selection is all that is needed to see how easily it naturally "assembles" and is "fine tuned". Yes, natural selection is nothing short of miraculous!

Natural selection does not account for how a macroscopic ancestor evolved to give complex beings such as humans, with limbs and organs that weren't present previously. Natural selection accounts for species being selected naturally for survival, a-duh. And where can this be applied to prove the mechanisms (as unknown as they are) that accomplished UCD are true?

That God was absolutely forced to use strict, naturalistic means to form me in my mother's womb, and that he wasn't allowed to do anything else. That God is not allowed to step out of the bounds of what is a natural and observable gestation process. What a joke! I mean, it's obvious that every time a baby is born, God must be going into the womb and making little divine interventions to form the baby, since natural means obviously couldn't make organs and structures, after starting from a single cell!

Papias

What you fail to understand is that the inception of a human is a miracle in and of itself, and far from simply a naturalistic event. I am simply refusing to be blinded strictly to the materialism of the matter. A fetus forming bears no significance to UCD, we are talking about the methods God used to create all things. Based on what I know and what is clear from scripture, it would simply be methods that can very well be real and complex but not fully known nor defined by man.

Can you logically explained how God made a metal axe head float?

Maybe you can also explain how God managed to form Adam (theoretically the "first" human) when he wasn't even alive via evolution, as he became a living soul only after God had finished forming him.

 

[98cwitr]

given the common genetic traits between us and say....a banana...I voted yes.

As the species of [whatever] gets more advanced, the closer the DNA corresponds to human DNA, there is gene trending in a linear fashion, and this trend convinces me of macro-evolution

 

[theFijian]

The way I normally put it is that I accept universal common descent (and evolution) as the best current explanation for observed patterns in biodiversity.

Snap! Except I add '...based upon current evidence'.

 

[Phaedros]

given the common genetic traits between us and say....a banana...I voted yes.

As the species of [whatever] gets more advanced, the closer the DNA corresponds to human DNA, there is gene trending in a linear fashion, and this trend convinces me of macro-evolution

Unfortunately out understanding of genetics is nowhere near advanced enough to determine how similar they really are or what it would take for one species to become another at the genetic and molecular level (i.e. protein machines and DNA regulation and information processing).

 

[gluadys]

Unfortunately out understanding of genetics is nowhere near advanced enough to determine how similar they really are or what it would take for one species to become another at the genetic and molecular level (i.e. protein machines and DNA regulation and information processing).

Actually, it is. The problem is not with our knowledge of genetics, but with your image of what evolution is.

Evolution doesn't really involve one species becoming another; it involves one species dividing itself into two or more distinct groups. As each group takes on more distinct characters, it becomes a different species from the other group or groups. We do know the genetic basis of speciation.

 

[shernren]

Snap! Except I add '...based upon current evidence'.

Hence ...

I accept universal common descent (and evolution) as the best current explanation for observed patterns in biodiversity.

The "current" is short for your (very appropriate) clause.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you believe in universal common descent?

I believe in universal uncommon descent.

(I believe God did something special at some point, but I don't when or where.)

 

[mindlight]

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

Oh I thought you meant all humans are descended from Adam. So guess I voted for the wrong option then.