Re: Evolution and natural selection which is the cause and effect

On Jan 18, 11:28 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 18, 11:35 pm, peter <prath...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 18, 8:38 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 18, 8:29 pm, peter <prath...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 18, 5:46 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Again, Common Descent is a hypothesis based on evolutionary
principles, and intelligent intervention isn't an evolutionary
principle. It is antithetical to evolutionary principles, actually. If
an organism is changed by intelligent intervention, it is not "common
ancestry" that is passed down.

Glenn, do you have any children? If you do I presume you consider
that they share common ancestry with you and that they are an example
of common descent from an ancestor, namely you. And that's true even
if they (as most humans) have several random mutations in their
genetic makeup which are not present in either your own genome or that
of your partner.

Now imagine that some future biologist figures out a way to give your
child one more mutation, say one conferring immunity to the family of
influenza viruses - and that this mutation is administered in such a
way that it will be passed along to the child's offspring. Wouldn't
you still consider your child to share your ancestry and wouldn't your
child (and his/her children) still include you in drawing up a family
tree history of their descent from their ancestors. The fact that a
portion of their genome was changed through the "intelligent design"
agency of the clever biologist wouldn't affect this any more than the
possible random mutations already present naturally do.

I think I would regard their ancestry to include not only myself,
spouse and offspring, but the "interventionist" as well.

Ok, but I think you'd be in a rather small minority who include the
genetic engineers of tomorrow when drawing up their family tree.

Perhaps, but were say a gene drawn from frogs to provide bugeyes to my
offspring the case, I suspect they would think of a frog as an
ancestor. An absurd example, for sure. But made to get your attention.

Really? I imagine they might not think highly of the responsible
researcher, but I sincerely doubt they'd think of adding a frog to
their family genealogy charts.

But I don't
think my descendents would consider the interventionist to have been a
member of "common" descent or ancestor.

At least they would be more in the mainstream.

I would think they would be in the mainstream, but who knows. You
can't compare tomorrows mainstream to today. But inserting a gene by
an interventionist is no different in this context of common descent
than is horizontal gene transfer, and that is only considered included
in common descent with respect to all life, as opposed to a specific
lineage, which was the subject of your question.



You and John seem to be taking
your eye off the "evolutionary" ball here. Common Descent is based on
evolutionary principles of random mutation and natural selection, not
directed mutation or artificial selection.

That's because they're separate concepts and there's no need for them
to be linked just because one particularly bright guy in the 19th
century promoted both of them.

The concepts are not separate or separated. CA is an hypothesis, or
theory if you please, and theories are *explanations*, not a statement
of alleged fact. It is true that evolutionists try to separate those.
But I don't see how you can separate the explanations, or the use of
those explanations to evidence CA, however:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The fact that a specific argument may provide support for both A and B
is not sufficient to show that the reality of A depends on B or vice
versa. OTOH, if separate arguments can be made or the two concepts

It's entirely plausible and self-
consistent for someone to believe that all species were created
separately (i.e. no common descent) and have since changed over time
through the processes of mutation, natural selection, and genetic
drift. It's also possible and self-consistent for someone to believe
that there was a common ancestor for all life and that subsequent
diversification was entirely the result of a supernatural intelligence
tweaking the genome with intelligently planned mutations and no role
played by random mutations and natural selection.

Probably many scenarios are plausible and self-consistent. Yet we are
addressing Common Descent.

And the above examples show that common descent and evolution are
separable. One can believe in either one, neither one, or both.

Based on reading Behe's books, he appears to have an intermediate view
that there's strong evidence for common descent of life from an
original common ancestor and also that some of the subsequent change
and diversification can be explained by random mutation, natural
selection, and drift. However he feels that these natural agents are
inadequate to explain all the diversification and change and that some
other agency, presumably the supernatural creator, must have played an
active role in modifying the genomes at various times.

Yes, and he insists that Common Descent be separated from random
mutation + natural selection.

Yes, because they are separable concepts as discussed above. Of
course most biologists consider both to be valid descriptions of
reality, but there is no inherent reason that would preclude finding
evidence that would support (or refute) one of them but not the other.

He also claims that CA is "trivial".
Behe is however not the ultimate authority, I make my own arguments.
But I doubt, if he had his way, that he would use the words common and
descent, but rather "Intelligent design".

In his book, Edge of Evolution, he repeatedly uses the term "common
descent" and indicates that it has strong evidence supporting it. Of
course he also discusses intelligent design, but as a supplement to
evolution through random mutations, natural selection, etc., not as a
replacement for the concept of common descent.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and natural selection which is the cause and effect
    ... is conflating evolution by natural selection with "the overall ... "Common Descent" to Behe likely does not exactly match your idea. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Theory Has Scientificly Collapsed
    ... Thus, if study of evolution at the PCR level is sound, ... speciation from a common ancestor occurred as ReMine does, ... which is whether species are related by common descent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What evidence is there for Evolution?
    ... convincing evidence for Evolution. ... Common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection ... If an observation is predicted by one theory, and merely allowed by a second "theory", then the observation is evidence for the first theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Archaeopteryx
    ... >>>boolean metric where two species either share a common ancestor ... >> Are you saying that common descent isn't a fact? ... Two species are either related ... But modern birds are by definition those birds ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and natural selection which is the cause and effect
    ... an organism is changed by intelligent intervention, it is not "common ... of common descent from an ancestor, ... It is true that evolutionists try to separate those. ... And the above examples show that common descent and evolution are ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading