args

Universal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms

Thanks to Pro for his opening argument. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the readers that it isn't my job, in this debate, to refute every single piece of evidence that Pro presents. My burden here is to show how the conclusion of Universal Common Descent (UCD) is a pseudo-science, as per the definition provided. Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro's opening argument is a perfect example of the pseudo-scientific nature of the arguments presented for UCD. At face value, it seems that he has presented scientific evidence, along with statistical analysis. That all seems scientific, but as this round progresses I will show how it is the "conclusion of UCD" that is pseudo-scientific even though the evidence itself, may or may not be considered scientific. Both C1 and C2, in Pro's opening, as well as most evidence presented by adherents to the UCD theory, stem from the same general argument, the argument from homology. That is to say that similarities in body structures between different organisms, provide evidence for ancestry, or common descent [1]. This assumption is problematic for numerous reasons, here are just a few: 1. Though it is presented as such, similarities do not show that similar organisms "descended" from each other. For that to be a scientific deduction there must be a process, shown to exist, that shows that it is possible for one type of organism to evolve into another type, through gradual changes over time [2]. Evolutionists argue that such a process exists. The most prevalent hypothesis is that random mutations, genetic drift, etc., combined with natural selection, provides just such a mechanism [3]. Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis, feels that such a mechanism doesn't work. She believes what she calls Symbiogenesis [4], is the driving factor. Other scientists, such as Geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins [5], don't believe that an evolutionary mechanism exists. He is an Intelligent Design advocate and works as a research scientist with the Institute for Creation Research, and has published numerous peer-reviewed papers. One might ask, "How are all these different views relevant to this debate?" The answer is simple. It shows that scientists aren't even in agreement that UCD happened, much less being in agreement on a process that makes it possible. Furthering the need for evolutionists to show an actual process that works to produce the claims they make, is the fact that UCD is contrary to what we observe everyday, in the natural world. What we observe is that organisms reproduce the same kinds of organisms, both morphologically and genetically. With a plethora of observational evidence to refute UCD, how can Pro claim that his is the scientific conclusion, as per the definition provided?? Like other advocates of UCD, he is forced to make assumptions, and use circular reasoning, in his arguments, neither of which are scientific methods. In Pro's C1 he states, "A specific method of organizing nested hierarchies is the cladistic method which is based on common descent". Nested hierarchies and phylogenetic trees, when used as evidence for UCD, is nothing more than circular reasoning. The conclusion is assumed by the evidence, and the evidence doesn't exist without UCD being assumed. With no specific process that shows a mechanism, and being contradicted by observable evidence which requires no interpretation, Pro's C1 is unsupported and pseudo-scientific, in spite of the seemingly scientific nature of his evidence. Pro's argument about statistical significance of phylogenies suffers from the same fate. In spite of a seemingly scientific argument, if animals can't evolve into different kinds of animals, the likelihood of the phylogenies being an accurate reflection of reality is exactly 0. Unfortunately for UCD, that's where the case stands at this time. It can only be assumed by believers, and is at best, pseudo-science. Pro makes the same mistake in C2, he uses the conclusion of UCD to present the fossil record and vestigial organs, as evidence. Without first assuming the truth of UCD, there is no such thing as a vestigial organ. Without showing that whales can even evolve from another animal, such as Elomeryx, he is simply asserting the conclusion of UCD as evidence for his conclusion about whale evolution. Any argument using the fossil record as evidence is void until Pro can show that animals can evolve from different kinds of animals. Until that is shown, evolutionists are just lining up fossils that show some similarities, and asserting that they are related, as if it were established fact. That process however, does not establish an evolutionary relationship between any two sets of bones. Pro's C2 is another example of pseudo-science. 2. Similarities between organisms can be evidence for more than one conclusion. Similarities can be evidence of a common designer. Unless one theory can be disproved, and the other proved, homology does not "uniquely" lead one to the conclusion of UCD. The assumption of UCD doesn't even scientifically support itself, much less disprove any other hypothesis. As Kent Hovind likes to say, the lugnuts from a Pontiac will fit a Chevy but that doesn't mean Pontiacs and Chevys both evolved from a Honda 140 mya, it means they both had a common design team (GM). 3. Arguments from homology focus on certain, sometimes minor similarities between organisms, while ignoring massive differences that exist. In C1 Pro states, " Humans and chimpanzees however have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence." Again he is focusing on one single similarity, while ignoring major discontinuities. No one denies that there are similarities between primates and humans, however that is not warrant to assume an evolutionary relationship. Is it surprising or noteworthy to learn that the protein sequence is similar between organisms that are similar?? Of course not. As we become more knowledgeable about genetics, we are discovering more and more differences between organisms that we once thought to be very genetically similar. In his comparison of the human and chimp genomes, Jeffrey Tomkins concludes the following: "Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."[6] In summary, all the evidence presented by Pro is wasted by the fact that there is no observable, testable, reason to believe that one animal can evolve into another kind of animal. Until that ability can be shown, all arguments that have been provided are merely examples of circular reasoning. One must assume the conclusion before even having any evidence to support that conclusion. That is not a valid scientific process, or a sensible way to determine how nature actually works. UCD is at best, a pseudo-scientific conclusion. 1.http://www.biology-online.org...; 2.http://www.biology-online.org... 3.http://evolution.berkeley.edu...; 4.http://discovermagazine.com... 5.http://designed-dna.org... 6.http://www.answersingenesis.org...