Oh, wait, I found the reply . . .
I don't mean to sound rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm one of those university scientists, and the picture you're trying to paint of what's going on in genetics has no connection to reality. I've worked on or witnessed at close hand pretty much every major project in human genetics in the last 15 years. I've looked at thousands of genetics papers, attended hundreds of talks, collaborated with hundreds of geneticists and talked to many more, and in that time I have never, even once, encountered one who had any doubt about or dispute with the core of evolution. It just does not happen.
Sure, there are disagreements about details of evolutionary history and evolutionary theory, and they're a big deal to the participants, but the idea that these would somehow undercut common descent is ludicrous.
Perhaps they could do taxonomy better if they ignored evolution entirely. What of it? The advocates of transformed cladism certainly didn't think that they were undercutting common descent; they just thought that for pragmatic reasons it was easier to classify organisms based purely quantitatively, rather than also using inferred descent. In any case, the field of taxonomy as a whole didn't think that was the case, and transformed cladism disappeared pretty quickly, pretty much after the 1980s, as far as I can tell. What does this have to do with recent developments in genetics, since it isn't recent, or loss of faith in common descent, since it doesn't affect common descent?
Well you see you are qualified and have had vast experience and i would say most of us dont have that level of knowledge. We will understand and give our opinion at varying levels of knowledge. So long as you try to learn and understand as you go on then thats all you can do. But unfortunately some of us have to rely on the experts to find out and they can be wrong as well. In between this you have to sift through sites and try to find ones without any religious attachment as this is rejected straight away even if they may have a point. Then you have to find opinions that push the boundaries so that you can see what others are saying besides the mainstream which may not always want to think outside the box. After all it is a theory that is being developed.
No wonder people get confused, there are so many different sites saying different things. But i have said in the past that the theory may not be totally false and i dont discount it all together but some want to hold onto ideas that have had evidence that it is not necessarily the case anymore. They dont even admit that parts of the theory need to be revised. They say it is all true 100% there is no doubt. This is what I was trying to point out more than anything else.
Perhaps i am not have explaining myself properly and this is only from my own limited understanding. I am not necessarily saying that common decent is untrue but rather the way some interpret it as being challenged. If you look at my past posts you will see i have said this.
My understanding of common descent is ultimately we come from a single celled organism. But we also formed groups and sub groups and they can be linked in related groups and gene pools. Evolution says that to build these groups we basically transformed from one species to another over time. The traits that were beneficial for adaptation and survival were taken on eventually by the group. Those traits can be traced back through species and the links can be made and so the tree of life is built.
Many on hear have used the fossil records and the anatomy of creatures to show the connections by similar traits that they say were taken on by the evolving animals. ie the skull shape of a chimp shows connection to other apes that came before it and a connection to humans they have transformed into. This can be seen through out all past living animals.
So i am not saying that there is now evidence for common decent but rather the way that some have interpreted how we are connected and what species were linked to each other. Since genetics have come on the scene it has showed that the predictions that were being made were sometimes wrong based on the fossil record. It is taking some of the species out of those connections they made and it is placing others in places that were unexpected. Hence the branches they made on the tree have been broken or are being re arranged.
An example would be the genetics that show that a gorilla which was said to be our 2nd cousin is now pushed down to about our 5th closet ancestor. In the past the connections were done through the fossil records by showing the similarities in the skeleton and anatomy showing how the skull or the shape of the hips related to the animals before and after and in doing so shows the transitions. But now genetics points to a different picture and now the Macaque is our 2nd closet relative and they have different shapes again which dont fit with the other links. Even though you can say they are still apes it has shown all the talk about the gorilla having this and that and see how it all fits in. The new linkage doesn't necessarily have the same related connections.
If you then take this and apply it to the whole tree then there begins to be many species that are being revised and repositioned according to the genetics. Now though this doesn't necessarily say that common decent is untrue it does begin to question the predictions and interpretations that have been made and used. To me it also says that if species are being connected that perhaps dont look like they come from a previous ancestor then the idea that the fossil record that has been used to show transitions is unreliable. A species that is suppose to be linked together individually or in groups by how similar it looks is now being linked with some that look like they dont belong. It sort of questions the the whole idea of nested hierarchy and some of the transitions that have been put forward.
Sorry if i am not explaining it clearly or properly but this is my understanding and if some of that has come from sites that say they are science then they have got it wrong as well. To me it is still open for interpretation and we are yet to really map out the tree of life through the genetics and this is going to bring up a new tree which will have links that look like they dont belong according to how evolution has been predicted in the past.It may also produce more gaps which will make it harder to show a nice neat tree of life that is all linked by the similarities in the fossil record and anatomy that evolutionist have promoted in the past.
Now to me i begin to suspect that if the connections start to be violated enough then you begin to question the idea of how we view evolution. It may point to others possibilities. Like i said im not saying common decent is untrue but maybe individual design is possible and that there is just a lot of variation within the tree of individual species. Just like some of the statements that have been made that evolutionists maybe mistaking new species for variation of individual species. The species can still have common decent but they were individually designed and the more variations than we think.After all in the dog species we have a chiwawa and we have a great Dane. If they were dug up as fossils then i can see how some would say they are two different species that evolved. They have parts in common yet look completely different.
My main disagreement is that many dont acknowledge that the traditional tree is in question because of the genetic and they dont even want to acknowledge this.
Yes, they're wrong. Unpublished papers by creationists who are not geneticists are really not doing much to advance your claim about genetics.
Well there you go, looked like a science site.
No, he's not wrong, although he's intentionally overstating things a little for polemical purposes. He's describing inadequacies with evolutionary theory as it existed in the mid-20th century; he advocates a more complex and nuanced set of evolutionary models (which have, in fact, by and large been accepted by biologists). By what kind of insane logic does this suggest that common descent is wrong?
No, they're not wrong. Improved data and methods are continually changing details of our accounts of evolutionary history, and many of those details will continue to change, since the evidence is often slim. That's why scientists still have jobs: there's still lots of stuff that isn't well understood. What does this have to do with questioning common descent?
Well your almost agreeing with what i am saying that the evidence is slim. So these statements that it is 100% correct and not in doubt are not true. Yes it is continually being updated but some hold on to old ideas like its gospel.
Evolution news is an intelligent design site. Since it is, it is best to assume that anything they say is a distortion in some way. Yeah, there are holes in evolutionary theory; it's a simple for model for a very complex phenomenon. Again, so what? The review they're appealing to has this to say about evolution itself (rather than the theory describing it): "The evidence for evolution itself is robust as it comes from the three independent lines that each tells the same story: history (fossil record and isotope dating), morphology (taxonomic relationship and comparative embryology in living organisms - evolutionary change starts off as developmental change) and molecular sequence relationships." If you think this is a reliable source, are you willing to agree with that statement?
Well thats partly what i was saying earlier that the genetics is contradicting some of the predictions made from comparing the fossil records and taxonomy. The genetics is placing some species that dont look like they belong in a sequence line. Well according to some of the stuff i have read anyway. To me the developmental change may also just be variation within a species not a species developing into another species. It is still a form of evolution or morphing but within a species.
The links you've provided show precisely zero doubt about common descent among working geneticists. Would you like to try again?
As i said earlier it wasn't so much common descent but the interpretation of it and the conclusions they have come to. And it wasn't just about common decent but the interpretation of transitions and variations. Isn't still possible to have common descent in creation. If species were created individually from a blue print that is the same for all organisms but with varying genetic make ups they can still be traced and connected to each other. They all can be linked and traced back to each group of animal but those groups didn't necessarily evolve from each other or come from a single common organism.
I have faith in God too. That doesn't mean I have to accept falsehoods just because they're told in his name.