Difference between revisions of "Common descent"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(not shown by article to be a scientific theory)
(clean up)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Common descent''' is an idea in [[Biology]] which is applied on two levels, with a [[clad]] (group of species) being said to share a recent common ancestor, or the broader conjecture which asserts that all organisms on earth originated from common ancestors. The idea of common descent is usually associated with Darwin's [[Theory of Evolution]].
+
'''Common descent''' is an idea in [[Biology]] which is applied on two levels, with a group of species being said to share a recent common ancestor, or the broader conjecture, [[universal common ancestry]], which asserts that all organisms on earth originated from common ancestors. The idea of common descent is usually associated with Darwin's [[Theory of Evolution]], but creationists often suggest it as a solution to the difficulty of the Ark capacity limit.
  
 
Darwin wrote:
 
Darwin wrote:
 
:"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the [[Silurian]] system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."
 
:"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the [[Silurian]] system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."
  
−
==Arguments for common descent==
+
==Common Descent Implausible==
−
 
+
−
There are several converging lines of argmuentation for common descent. These include but are not limited to:
+
−
 
+
−
*[[Homology | Anatomical homologies]]- The phenotype of organisms often share similar structure. This structure often doesn't serve a specific design function and is explained by constraints of common descent.
+
−
 
+
−
*[[Endogenous retrovirus | Endogenous retroviral insertions]] - These are inactivated viral genes believed to have been inserted by ancient [[retrovirus]]es. Having the same retrovirus inserted in the same location between two species can be explained by common descent.
+
−
 
+
−
*[[Pseudogene]]s - These are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a [[mutation]]. Species often share the same pseudogene, with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the [[L-gulonolactone oxidase]] which synthesizes vitamin c; humans and all simians share this pseudogene, but the guinea pig which also has an inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase gene has a different mutation.
+
−
 
+
−
*The convergence of [[phylogenetic tree]]s using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the tree are intact. If all of these methods were flawed you would not expect each of them to converge on the same tree.
+
−
 
+
−
*[[Embryology]] -  The [[pharyngula]] stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved over time. At this stage it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species.
+
−
 
+
−
==Objections to common descent==
+
 
   
 
   
−
Dr. Jonathon Wells published a book in 2002 entitled ''[[Icons of Evolution]]''.  Dr. Wells says that "the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180</ref><ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.com/</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref>
+
Dr. [[Jonathan Wells]] published a book in 2002 entitled ''[[Icons of Evolution]]''.  Dr. Wells says that "the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180</ref><ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.com/</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref>
 
Also, he says that many current biology textbooks use distorted pictures of vertebrate embryos to convince students that vertebrates share a common ancestor. [http://www.nmsr.org/jonwells.htm (Wells)]
 
Also, he says that many current biology textbooks use distorted pictures of vertebrate embryos to convince students that vertebrates share a common ancestor. [http://www.nmsr.org/jonwells.htm (Wells)]
  
Line 31: Line 17:
 
Creationist scientists have written regarding the nature of [[Haeckel]]'s work and how a prestigious German science journal published a work that they believe was invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747</ref>
 
Creationist scientists have written regarding the nature of [[Haeckel]]'s work and how a prestigious German science journal published a work that they believe was invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747</ref>
  
−
Most textbooks used in modern biology classes use photographs of real embryos now rather than the drawings. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html</ref>
+
Some advocates of ''Intelligent Design'' accept common descent. Most notably Michael Behe:
 +
"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent—the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 +
[[Category:Biology]][[Category:Evolution]]

Latest revision as of 04:20, June 23, 2016

Common descent is an idea in Biology which is applied on two levels, with a group of species being said to share a recent common ancestor, or the broader conjecture, universal common ancestry, which asserts that all organisms on earth originated from common ancestors. The idea of common descent is usually associated with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but creationists often suggest it as a solution to the difficulty of the Ark capacity limit.

Darwin wrote:

"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

Common Descent Implausible

Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells says that "the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."[1][2][3] Also, he says that many current biology textbooks use distorted pictures of vertebrate embryos to convince students that vertebrates share a common ancestor. (Wells)

On the other hand, noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[4]

Creationist scientists have written regarding the nature of Haeckel's work and how a prestigious German science journal published a work that they believe was invalid.[5][6]

Some advocates of Intelligent Design accept common descent. Most notably Michael Behe: "The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent—the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."[7]

References

  1. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180
  2. ↑ http://www.iconsofevolution.com/
  3. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
  4. ↑ http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm
  5. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp
  6. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747
  7. ↑ Darwin Under the Microscope
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Common_descent&oldid=1229254"