Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bateson on common descent: No evidence but no alternative

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend writes to offer this excerpt from British biologist William Bateson (1861–1926):

In what follows it will be assumed that the Doctrine of Descent is true. It should be admitted from the first that the truth of the doctrine has never been proved. There is nevertheless a great balance of evidence in his favor, but it finds its support not so much in direct observation as in the difficulty of forming any alternative hypothesis. The Theory of Descent involves and
asserts that all living things are genetically connected, and this principle is at least not contrary to observation; while any alternative hypothesis involves the idea of Separate Creation which by common consent is now recognized as absurd. In favor of the Doctrine of Common Descent there is a balance of evidence; it is besides accepted by most naturalists; lastly if it is not true we can get no further with the problem; but inasmuch as it is unproven it is right that we should explicitly recognize that it is in part an assumption and that we have adopted it as a postulate. – From Bateson, W. 1894. Materials for the Study of Variation, Treated with
Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species. [online] Macmillan,
London.

That was the late 19th century view, for sure. But it assumes certain things, including that evolution is almost all Darwinian. But what if …

Craig Venter

Take that away, and we look at a very different picture. For example, genome mapper Craig Venter (no slouch he) made Richard Dawkins incredulous a couple years back by denying common descent. As William Dembski puts it there:

What’s significant is not so much whether Venter is right (I think he is), but what his dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy suggests about the disarray in the study of biological origins. If common descent is up for grabs, what isn’t? Imagine physics in the century after Newton questioning whether there even is such a force as gravity or suggesting that really it decomposes into several different types of gravitational forces.

Venter’s flight from orthodoxy is even more drastic. Common descent is the sanctum sanctorum of evolutionary biology. If scientists of Venter’s stature are now desecrating it, what’s next?

Well, come to think of it, Carl Woese (1928-2012), who discovered the domain of life called Archaea, and regretted that he had never fetched the vacuum cleaner for the spook of Darwin, was no fan either. Again, no slouch.

That’s a risk for a historical thesis that depends on the assumption that no alternative explanation makes any sense. Later, smart people can come up with alternative explanations in some cases. Then it’s all up for grabs.

And Bateson has only the likes of Panda’s Thumb or BioLogos to defend him.

Rotten luck, but his achievements remain.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
SA: In my view, the competing views show this particular theory to be very weak. I had no doubt The fact that evolutionists themselves can attack their own theory and come up with ‘revolutionary new views’ or ‘radical new approaches’ (as the book titles say) means that they’re not convinced by the standard view. They are not completely convinced, as they should be, that it is the model is complete or not in error. It is a human construct. That is not unique to biology. Einstein's model of gravity replaced Newton's. Plate Tectonics replaced Continental Drift. Every competing theory exposes a weakness. It exposes a possible weakness you mean. But if a competing hypothesis fails, then it demonstrates the strength of the original. What I notice is that the ‘new thinkers’ who are all convinced evolutionists, will only claim that one part of the theory needs modification. There is a lot that is unexplained, that seems a logical place to spend your finite resources. Just because you question the whole theory doesn't mean everyone does. Everything else, apparently, is perfectly legitimate Or the evidence supporting it is very strong and they have no explanation which explains the data better. But the cumulative effect is that several different critics attack several different weak spots – each claiming theirs is the only real problem in evolutionary theory (for fear of having to be considered an anti-evolutionist?). You might have to provde some evidence for that. To sum up, critics weaken a theory but then they have to hold back unless they weaken it too much. Then why weaken it in the first place?velikovskys
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, You are trying to manufacture a great disagreement, where there is, at most, a rather subtle distinction. A distinction that brings zero solace to those who question evolution. Venter is quite clear, both in the video in question and elsewhere, that he finds the evidence for common descent compelling. What you conveniently omitted from your summary of the video was Venter's statement: "The tree, you know, there may be a bush of life." So the argument is over whether LUCA was a homogeneous population - a single "species" or whether LUCA was a heterogeneous population. Given the high levels of HGT and the many years that have passed, it`s tough to tell. Not that it matters, but even if there is NO UCA, and instead a number of separate trees exist (a position that Venter does not support, but like many scientists, he remains open to the idea that we may in the future find evidence to support other 'trees' of life), that still would not mean Darwin was wrong. Remember that he ended Origin of the Species thus:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
DNA_Jock
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Andre (quoting Venter): I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me. I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common. Yes, ancestors in common.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Andre: Craig Venter is clear about it he does not support Darwinian common descent. The pattern that Venter thinks the data supports is a branching tree back to at least the origin of Archaea. Before that, he thinks horizontal mechanisms predominated. However, that doesn't mean there are several origins for life. It's similar to how an individual human is a composite of genes from many ancestors, even if all those ancestors themselves share a common origin.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
WD400 I know you are very busy and don't have time to do details.... male some time for the details this time.. https://edge.org/conversation/craig-venter-life-what-a-conceptAndre
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
WD400 Craig Venter is clear about it he does not support Darwinian common descent. Your dishonesty here is very telling.Andre
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
There comes a time when even the most dishonest needs to assess their honesty.....Andre
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
You "job", SA, is to support your own claims. It seems you can't.wd400
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
wd400
He doesn’t. He questions the existence of a single common ancestor ...
@ 100 you stated that he questions common descent, which is equivalent to a single tree, which is why Dawkins pointed out that Ventner's view questions that "they're all related". Now you're very defensive, of course. Anybody should be able to see that. Common descent means a single common ancestor. Of course in the deceptive view of evolutionists, the term common descent is retained even though it means "not so common" and not ancestral. So the redundant modifier "universal" common descent is added because evolutionists do not know how many trees there are. One tree or multiple, single ancestor or multiple -- Evolutionary theory supposedly predicted one or the other. Here's a site called "Darwin was right"
Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in On the Origin of Species, twice stating the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms ... The theory asserts that all currently living organisms on Earth share a common genetic heritage with each being the descendant from a single original species ...
There's a pro-Darwin site stating that "The Theory" predicts all living organisms share heritage from a single ancestor. Evolutionary theory is quite clear - except even the site called "Darwin was Right" got it totally wrong somehow. I posted from the hyper-Darwinist Rational wiki that defined common descent as a single ancestor also. As I said, evolutionists don't know what they're talking about, and it doesn't matter -- any claim at all will do as long as blind, unintelligent materialism is the cause of everything. So, another evolutionist, Ventner and flatly denies (not questions - listen to the video) that a single common ancestor is correct. I point that out to you and you ask me for data to support Ventner's claim. The problem is yours, wd400. So far, you've said nothing about what evolutionary theory claims on this. You're pretending that there is no conflict with the theory and the data - and yet Ventner claims there is. Now, supposedly, it's my job to sort out the conflict between evolutionists. All I can say is that they're obviously confused. If there's no data to support Ventner's view -- that says quite a lot about him, doesn't it? Of course, as evolutionists are known to do -- you can redefine terms so that "common descent" does not indicate a Tree of Life, a point that shocked Richard Dawkins. But now, common descent actually means multiple ancestries. Common descent: An unknown number of trees. Ancestry is not shared. Groups of organisms descended from common ancestors. Humans are ancestors of humans, birds are ancestors of birds, orchids are ancestors of orchids. Evolutionist: "Got any data that conflicts with that, huh, huh?"Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
You claimed Ventner didn’t deny common descent, which he does, so it’s clear to me that you had a problem with this.
He doesn't. He questions the existence of a single common ancestor at the very root of the tree of life. Moreover, he uses the concept of common descent among distantly related species in his own research.
Now, rather than post a correction to your false statement, you laugh and ask me to produce data which supports Ventner’s claim (which you didn’t even admit that he made).
No. I ask you to produce data to support your own claim.You said the data doesn't fit the mainstream evolutionary position, so far you provided no data...wd400
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You claimed Ventner didn’t deny common descent, which he does, so it’s clear to me that you had a problem with this. He denied a single common ancestor in lieu of a common ancestral population. Ventner: I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me. I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
wd400
You’re the one confidently claimed the evidence didn’t fit with common descent.
You claimed Ventner didn't deny common descent, which he does, so it's clear to me that you had a problem with this. Now, rather than post a correction to your false statement, you laugh and ask me to produce data which supports Ventner's claim (which you didn't even admit that he made). Merry-go-round is a nice term for it. Again, you're the expert, not me.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
I'm sorry, SA, but I can't help but laugh. You're the one confidently claimed the evidence didn't fit with common descent. When asked to back this up you point not to evidence, but to someone else' opinion (and, others have pointed out, without quite understanding what was being said). You've not pointed to any evidence, and, all the while you've been going on about the existence of "thousands of trees" that are alike but not ancestral without ever explaining what you mean by this, which, again, doesn't accord to any evidence I know of. After all that you accuse me of a merry-go-round argument? As I say,laughable.wd400
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
velikovskys
So the question is, do competing views show weakness? Or they show show the strength of a theory by critical analysis?
In my view, the competing views show this particular theory to be very weak. The fact that evolutionists themselves can attack their own theory and come up with 'revolutionary new views' or 'radical new approaches' (as the book titles say) means that they're not convinced by the standard view. Every competing theory exposes a weakness. What I notice is that the 'new thinkers' who are all convinced evolutionists, will only claim that one part of the theory needs modification. Everything else, apparently, is perfectly legitimate. But the cumulative effect is that several different critics attack several different weak spots - each claiming theirs is the only real problem in evolutionary theory (for fear of having to be considered an anti-evolutionist?). They blithely come along and dismiss huge segments of the standard theory. This discussion itself on Ventner and common descent is a perfect example of the confusion and weakness surrounding evolutionary claims. I just went with one comment from Ventner where he said he "doesn't necessarily buy common ancestry". In the video linked here he says flatly: "There is no tree of life". Common descent is as I showed in the definition -- all life came from a single common ancestor. Ventner flatly denies this, contrary to wd400's claim that he just "questions" it. Notice how you evolutionists here deal with that. Common descent: Tree of life, all from a single ancestor Ventner: "There is no tree of life." SA: He denies common descent. Wd400: he doesn't deny it, he just 'questions' it. Zachriel: he doesn't question common descent. You, velikovskys, now say he doesn't question it -- "he differs in his view of the nature of common descent and wonders if there are multiple ancestors". But if multiple, then not common descent, by definition. Dawkins' objection is ignored (except for goodusername who admitted that Dawkins viewed it as questioning common descent). Dawkins (from the video): "I'm intrigued by Craig [Ventner] saying that the Tree of Life is a fiction. I, I, I mean ... the DNA code of all creatures that ever been looked at is all but identical. Surely that means they're all related ... doesn't it?" Panel: Laughter. Dawkins sees this clearly. Ventner's denial (not questioning) of common descent, obviously denies the common ancestry of all 'creatures' (Dawkins' word). I don't really need to hear your guys' confusion and spin-tactics, I can see the problem in the video myself. That's merely one of the problems with evolutionary theory (whatever that is supposed to be). You guys don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what happened at the origin of life or through the developoment of life on earth. Even your speculative guesswork conflicts with what your fellow-evolutionists have to say. wd400, a biologist, asks me for data -- but he hasn't even dealt with what Ventner and Dawkins exposed on the video. In fact, wd400 misrepresented Ventner's position (as all the other evolutionists here did) -- and it was Dawkins who exposed what it actually is, and what it means. If you're trying to show that evolutionary claims (or your own opinions on them) are well supproted and worthy of some trust from a non-specialist like myself ... then you're doing a very bad job of it so far.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Common descent is the scientific theory that all living organisms on Earth descended from a common ancestor.
It can't be a scientific theory as it cannot be scientifically tested.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Baraminology posits common ancestors- plural.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Ventner: I don't necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me. I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common. He points to "common ancestors". It's plural, but still in common. This is not the same as saying there are a multiplicity of disjoint trees. Rather, he posits rampant gene exchange before the age when vertical descent predominates.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
SA: velikovskys helped with this: It sort of debunks the monolithic structure of the evolutionists. Venter is not shunned or persecuted. You're welcome, so you agree that my point. Ventner’s ‘questioning’ is good because it means there is some diversity – and he debunks the idea that there’s a monolithic structure or he breaks the monolithic structure that may really exist – either way. He is free to dissent against common descent without persecution. To be more precise he differs in his view of the nature of common descent and wonders if there are multiple last common ancestors . The monolithic structure is the consensus. “Yes, there is a force as gravity” – consensus. The monolith is debunked because there is a reason for it. There is a consensus because the the supporting evidence is overwhelming. The acceptance of that evidence could be said to be monolithic especially for anti-gravitationists “I don’t necessarily buy that there is a force as gravity”. That would be ‘questioning’ in your terms. Providing the evidence and the argument would be the issue, one can say anything. Multiple views show the weakness and uncertainty of the theory. All human knowledge is conditional therefore all theories are uncertain. So the question is ,do competing views show weakness? Or they show show the strength of a theory by critical analysis?velikovskys
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
This continues to be informative: Common descent: Common descent is the scientific theory that all living organisms on Earth descended from a common ancestor. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent Ventner: I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. wd400: Venter doesn’t deny common descent … he questions it. goodusername: Venter states that he question(s) common ancestry ... Dawkins seemed to jump on Venter for this Zachriel: No. Venter questions the tree metaphor, not common descent.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You say Ventner doesn’t deny descent, he only ‘questions’ it. No. Venter questions the tree metaphor, not common descent. While the tree is strongly supported across most taxa, there are anomalies at the base of the tree that imply a pre-tree evolutionary period, and that horizontal evolution is the primitive condition.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
velikovskys
Or perhaps the origin of those trees are not a extremely rare event.
Ok, but that's entirely unknown. The idea that there is a single tree is doubted by Ventner. If the origin of a single tree is an extremely rare chance, then the origin of multiple could be even more rare. However, if the origin of trees is not rare, as you suggest, then it's like puddles after a storm - it would be more rare to find just one. For my purposes, this shows how little is really known - in spite of claims of certainty ("There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory"). I just notice the defensiveness (not with you but elsewhere) when the fact that there is dissent and uncertainty about this is shown.
My question is why design dead ends? Efficiency is an attribute human design strives for.
For those inclined towards engineering, science, mechanics and related disciplines, "design" would mean efficiency. My academic background is oriented more towards the field of the arts, so "design" for me includes efficiency but also beauty. So beauty comes from variety, harmony, abundance and surprise. A work of drama or painting is designed - it shows a contrast between dark and light, a tension between sadness and joy. Repetition of patterns creates a beautiful effect. Intuitively, billions of people can see design in nature on that basis alone. I think one has to be over-educated in a very narrow discipline to think that the incredible design evidence in the entire biosphere on earth, including in human life, is the result of blind, unintelligent, unguided processes. So, I'd think multiple starting points, each with a very low probability of occurrence, points more to design - especially if the following developments are similar but not directly related. We don't know what happened at the origin of life on earth. Some people find that hard to admit, but it's true.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
What's informative, wd400 is how you dance around the issue. 1. You ask if there's any data that doesn't line up with common descent. 2. I point to Ventner 3. You say Ventner doesn't deny descent, he only 'questions' it. 4. I say, then Ventner must have data or some reason for questioning it. 5. You then ask if there's any data that doesn't line up. Therefore, you avoided the problem. That's very clear. This is a merry-go-round argument, with some Definition Deficience Disorder mixed in. When someone like Ventner, who is a specialist in this area, "questions" common descent, that means that the data does not support it. You simply avoided that. Ventner's "questioning" means that Dr. Dembski's comment was insightful and correct:
What’s significant is ...what his dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy suggests about the disarray in the study of biological origins. If common descent is up for grabs, what isn’t? Imagine physics in the century after Newton questioning whether there even is such a force as gravity or suggesting that really it decomposes into several different types of gravitational forces.
So, that was a good example. Perhaps I should continue to listen to my fellow-travellers after all because in trying to learn something from you, a professional in the field of biochemistry, all I got was a run-around and dodging the issue. velikovskys helped with this:
It sort of debunks the monolithic structure of the evolutionists. Venter is not shunned or persecuted.
Ventner's 'questioning' is good because it means there is some diversity - and he debunks the idea that there's a monolithic structure or he breaks the monolithic structure that may really exist - either way. He is free to dissent against common descent without persecution. The monolithic structure is the consensus. "Yes, there is a force as gravity" - consensus. The monolith is debunked because there is a reason for it. "I don't necessarily buy that there is a force as gravity". That would be 'questioning' in your terms. Multiple views show the weakness and uncertainty of the theory. I'll conclude, wd400, you don't know if there is one tree or thousands of trees. And you're the one who is a specialist in this field. If you want to disagree with Ventner, this might not be the best forum for that. You could email him your debating points and then post back his reply here if you want. Perhaps you could convince him. Until then, there are divergent views which tell me, a non-specialist, that the data doesn't line up with the theory.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
SA, Why don't you answer the orignal question -- what evidence do have that speaks common descent. What's you done with that, can you explain what you are on about wiht
If there were, as wd400 puts it, “thousands of trees” which are similiar but not ancestral, then this is more difficult to explain through a blind, unguided process. THe thousands of trees is your own quote, FIWIW, but what are these thousands of similar trees that you think exist?
wd400
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
SA: If each outcome is not merely a winning hand, but a lucky hand — then we can see the problem. Winning and lucky can be the same thing, the more lucky hands there are the less improbable getting one is. Getting one lucky hand has a certain probability. Getting several lucky hands has a different probability. True, if the frequency of lucky hands is greater the probabilty of both is greater, Mt Improbable is more easily reached. If there were, as wd400 puts it, “thousands of trees” which are similiar but not ancestral, then this is more difficult to explain through a blind, unguided process. Or perhaps the origin of those trees are not a extremely rare event. My question is why design dead ends? Efficiency is an attribute human design strives for.velikovskys
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Venter states that he question common ancestry right after explaining that he has a "much more a gene-centric view than even a genome-centric view". Also, in the quote regarding "a single ancestor" he doesn’t mention the first life-form, but “the most recent common ancestor” which are two very different things: “One question is, can we extrapolate back from this data set to describe the most recent common ancestor. I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me. I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common.” I believe the statement about having a gene-centric view of organisms, and not buying a single ancestor are related. Using language as an analogy can help explain why. If one looks at language trees, the most recent common ancestor of English and German is proto-German. But if one has a "word"-centric view of language, than it all becomes much more complicated. IIRC, modern English has more words inherited from French (a different language family) than from Old English, and we’ve inherited words from probably over a hundred other languages. So in a sense there is no “single ancestor” of English and German, but many. (It’s interesting that Dawkins seemed to jump on Venter for this in the video, because Dawkins actually helped promote this gene-centric view in works like The Selfish Gene and River Out of Eden. I recall Dawkins explaining that each gene followed its own path to get to where it is today.)goodusername
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
wd400
The claim that Venter “denies” common descent is supported by that quote — the closest you can get is that he questions it.
He questions it - so perhaps that can help answer your comment, as I initially proposed. 1 SA: the observed data does not fit ... 2 wd400: Don’t suppose you can mention any of this data that doesn’t fit common descent SA? 3 SA: If Ventner denies common descent, he might have some data that doesn’t fit. 4 wd400: Venter doesn’t deny common descent ... the closest you can get is that he questions it. Let's try again, therefore. I will restate #3 for us: "If Ventner questions common descent [by stating that he doesn't necessarily buy it] he might have some data that doesn't fit."Silver Asiatic
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
The greater divergence means there are many more ” winning hands” , more chances the more probable an outcome. How does it affect the common design hypothesis?
If each outcome is not merely a winning hand, but a lucky hand -- then we can see the problem. Getting one lucky hand has a certain probability. Getting several lucky hands has a different probability. If there were, as wd400 puts it, "thousands of trees" which are similiar but not ancestral, then this is more difficult to explain through a blind, unguided process. The creation of thousands of trees, all of which produce similar but not directly ancestral life forms is a pattern kmown from design and not from random chance outputs.Silver Asiatic
March 29, 2015
March
03
Mar
29
29
2015
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
SA: so, some official evolution guy should come up with the official definition of what common descent is, because some people think is means “common”, as in shared by all, “descent” meaning ancestry. He suspects there are lots of common ancestors , sharing a common mechanism it seems. It sort of debunks the monolithic structure of the evolutionists. Venter is not shunned or persecuted. But how does the tremendous divergence of genetic material support design? The greater divergence means there are many more " winning hands" , more chances the more probable an outcome. How does it affect the common design hypothesis?velikovskys
March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
SA, The claim that Venter "denies" common descent is supported by that quote -- the closest you can get is that he questions it. But when you read the context, he's talking about environmental sampling of prokaryotes and the tangle at the root of the tree of life (or perhaps about undiscovered kingdoms). In any case, there is absolutely not reason to think that, even if there were "thousands of trees" that they conveniently evolved.wd400
March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Common descent: Common descent is the scientific theory that all living organisms on Earth descended from a common ancestor. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent Ventner: I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. wd400: Venter doesn’t deny common descent ... Whether there were thousands of trees, all convergently evolved, or a single one from one ancestor, should have a significant impact on evolutionary claims, but apparently that's not the case. Also, some official evolution guy should come up with the official definition of what common descent is, because some people think is means "common", as in shared by all, "descent" meaning ancestry. While others think it means "common", not shared by all but call it common anyway, ancestry.Silver Asiatic
March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply