Common descent
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Common descent is the belief that all life evolved from a single, common ancestor or ancestor pool. By contrast, the creationist belief in the created kind holds that all species did not descend from a single common ancestor, but that a number of original forms of life were created separately, and that all life descended from those original kinds, undergoing differentiation and microevolution or what is essentially environmentally induced phenotypic change which is then naturally selected upon.
Contents |
Support
Belief in common descent is largely derived from the similarity among forms of life, particularly the common genetic makeup of many forms of life. For example:
- All cells are bound by a membrane
- All cells store heritable information as DNA.
- All cells adhere to the same basic mechanism of gene expression.
- All cells utilize the same metabolic pathways.
- All cells have ribosomes to produce protein.
From these similarities, an evolutionist infers that all life is related through one original life form that generated through abiogenesis naturally. Creationists on the other hand infer that life and the natural laws that sustain it were designed by a common Creator, namely God, Who supernaturally created many original kinds of animals.
It is important to note that creationists do not reject fully the idea of common descent, only in its ultimate evolutionary conclusion. Creationists rather propose a model in which many forms of original kinds were present, including one, or perhaps several that reflected bacteria.
Challenges
Challenges to the theory of common descent are numerous. It is especially important to realize that modern evolutionists are now refining their original theory of common descent to one that now includes more original life forms at the beginning.[1] They have argued against a single-celled evolution and thus posit the original existence of no less than three "loosely constructed cellular organizations."[2]
Tree of life
Charles Darwin's "tree of life" is not borne out in scientific observation. This is concluded through more modern research, on example of such coming from the Proceedings for the National Academy of Science (PNAS). The research found that "there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy" and that "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree."[3]
There are what are called evolutionary "bushes," but according to Public Library of Science (PLoS) research, these bushes do not support the conclusion of a single cause of a complete tree of life as proposed by Darwin.[4]
Abiogenesis
- Main Article: Abiogenesis
The asserted improbability and impossibility of this completely naturalistic mechanism is a severe problem for modern evolutionists. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous appearance of the first, self-replicating protocell which can be argued has neither been observed nor comprehensively explained.
Morphological gaps in the fossil record
- Main Article: Fossil record
Differences in morphology, or "gaps in the fossil record," exist, across which it is argued there is no fossil evidence of transitional forms. For example these gaps are glaring when the context between reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, or apes and men is understood.
Creationist conclusion
Given a purported absence of hard evidence to support belief in common ancestry under evolutionary conclusions, creationists typically argue that common descent is a philosophical belief, not scientific in essence. Such assertions made by evolutionists regarding common descent are not falsifiable and cannot be observed in nature or tested by experimentation. It therefore, falls outside the boundaries of the scientific method.
History
Common ancestry is an ancient idea, articulated by many pagan philosophers throughout history. In Europe, it fell from prominence when Christianity was dominant, but regained popularity in the 19th century, with secularization. It is an ancient idea, held by ancient pagan philosophers such as Anaximander as early as the 7th century BC, and returning to popularity in 19th century Europe.
- Plutarch, Symposiacs, Book viii, question viii: Anaximander founded the first school of Greek philosophy and lived circa 610-546 BC.
| “ | Anaximander says that fish and men were not produced in the same substances, but that men were first produced in fishes, and, when they were grown up and able to help themselves, were thrown out, and so lived upon the land. Therefore, as the fire devours its parents, that is, the matter out of which it was first kindled, so Anaximander, asserting that fish were our common parents, condemneth our feeding on them. | ” |
- Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759), Vénus Physique.
| “ | Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced... | ” |
- The Temple of Nature in 1802.
| “ |
| ” |
References
- ↑ Jeriström, Pierre. "Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?" Journal of Creation 14(2):11-13, August 2000. Accessed October 16, 2008.
- ↑ Barlow, Jim. "New cellular evolution theory rejects single cell beginning." News Bureau, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, June 17, 2002. Accessed October 16, 2008.
- ↑ Doolittle WF and Bapteste E. "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104(7):2043-2049, January 29, 2007. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610699104 Accessed October 16, 2008.
- ↑ Rokas A and Caroll SB. "Bushes in the Tree of Life." PLoS Biol 4(11):e352, November 14, 2006. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352 Accessed October 16, 2008.
External links
- Baraminology Study Group
- The metapopulation genetic algorithm: An efficient solution for the problem of large phylogeny estimation A word on the immense difficulties associated with compiling a complete phylogenetic tree of life
- Darwin or The Angel of the Lord: Who Guards the Tree of Life?
- Phylogenetic MCMC Algorithms Are Misleading on Mixtures of Trees
- Field Museum plays key role in massive project to map Tree of Life Costing $12 million, the project will take 15-20 years. (2002)
- UCLA molecular biologists uproot the tree of life
- Discordance of Species Trees with Their Most Likely Gene Trees Public Library of Science showing further difficulties in assembling genetic ancestry in DNA
- Scientists say Darwin's 'Tree of Life' not the theory of everything
- Darwin's Failed Predictions, Slide 9: "Saving the Tree of Life" (from JudgingPBS.com) by Casey Luskin. January 2, 2008.
| |||||||||||
