Evolutionary Theory vs Universal Common Descent
Evolutionary Theory is about the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Universal Common Descent is about the monophyly of life, i.e., how every organism we observe today shares a common ancestor: single celled organisms that developed from primordial goo.
While it is true that accepting Universal Common Descent requires accepting Evolutionary Theory, why do so many people think that accepting Evolutionary Theory requires accepting Universal Common Descent? Creationists can believe God created as He described in Genesis, while believing God built into His creation natural mechanisms for organisms to adapt.
18 comments
Lamarck proposed evolution without common descent, actually.
Universal Common Descent was the part of Darwin's theory accepted most readily, indeed, pretty much immediately, because it is the most inescapable of studying nature:
Evolution without Universal Common Descent is conceivable, but it is not true for life on Earth.
I suppose it is conceivable that life arose, through abiogenesis, several times in Earth's history and the current tree of life has several independent roots that have, somehow, merged to form the trunk. But that is pretty much as far as one *can* go with available evidence.
(On the Moon Landings ):
It is a magnificent testimony to the evolution of humankind
-Dr. Buzz Aldrin.
When there are Conservative Christians such as he who can reconcile their faith with proven scientific fact: and he never questioned the veracity of findings by NASA scientists on Moon rock samples brought back by his later Apollo astronaut colleagues, you know that your clinging to straw molecules whilst in a certain river in Egypt like this is the least of your problems.
The decision in a court case in late 2005 - by a judge who is also a Conservative Christian - made sure of that. So you voted Democrat in 1999 & 2003, NesterGoesByeBye...?!
"Universal Common Descent is about the monophyly of life, i.e., how every organism we observe today shares a common ancestor:"
While it is true that accepting Universal Common Descent requires accepting Evolutionary Theory, why do so many people think that accepting Evolutionary Theory requires accepting Universal Common Descent?
Because that's where science takes us. The deeper you dig the fossils you find are of simpler and simpler creatures.
Creationists can believe God created as He described in Genesis, while believing God built into His creation natural mechanisms for organisms to adapt.
I think we're starting to see the first cracks form in the hard faith of creationism. If they start believing in "microevolution but not macroevolution" and "God gave organisms the ability to adapt," they might start understanding evolution and eventually accept it.
Ooh, goody, new names for old ideas! What's the matter, "intelligent design" didn't fly?
The theory of evolution points squarely at "UCD" as an inevitable corollary. But if you want to think that the origin of that first cell is is "GDI" (goddidit), that's fine with me, because evolution is silent on the subject. I think that assumption is unnecessary, self-serving, fatuous, and is of course a blatant violation of Ockham's razor: now you've got the complication of explaining a god, and explaining the mechanism of cell formation by aforementioned god, and explaining how the various gods settle their argument of who has to take the blame for human beings.
<** Pssst! They have "natural disaster" competitions to see who is the most ingenious at wiping humans out. **>
Oh. Thank you.
Eh... I don't have a problem with this post. People can believe whatever they want - and, at least, this user is willing to accept some form of evolution. It becomes a problem only when you start demanding that it gets taught in schools everywhere.
checkmate and Kanna nailed everything I came up with and they did it better than I ever could.
I agree though that this is not neccessarily fundie.
The only issue that's on display here is that this assumption (Must accept common decent to accept evolution) is most commonly displayed by creationists, as evidence by their common attacks on common decent being used as evidence against evolution. Evolutionists, as far as I'm aware, see them as related, but ultimately separate theories.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
