Replies

What biological or genetic function fails to work if some forms of life arose independent of some others?

The genetic codes of organisms make no sense unless there is common descent. There would simply be a huge number of unexplained regularities and differences. Without common descent, we couldn't predict the gene or protein sequence for a gene in an unsequenced organism. Common descent is the organizing and unifying principle that underlies the field of genomics.

BTW, a good friend of mine is completing his doctorate in molecular biology, and he told me he does not embrace common descent. I think he may understand biology and genetics since a major medical institution is employing him to research cancer.

Yeah, yeah, we've heard the standard tales of brothers in law who are supergeniuses in a biological field and don't believe in evolution. If you seriously want this to be believed, have him post, and say for himself why he believes this.

"The genetic codes of organisms make no sense unless there is common descent."

Then they are not subject to being falsified. You are unwilling to be wrong and therefore confuse dogma with science.

It would be reasonable to say that common descent is a good explanation for certain features or data. It is unreasonable to say that no other explanation can be considered.

"There would simply be a huge number of unexplained regularities and differences."

So it's the regularities that prove UCD... oh, except when there are irregularities, then that proves UCD.

"Without common descent, we couldn't predict the gene or protein sequence for a gene in an unsequenced organism."

The scientifically correct way to state this is that UCD leads us to predictions of gene and protein sequences which are confirmed by testing. The question is whether other possibilities are supported by the same predictions. A correlation between structure and gene sequences, or a correlation between function and gene sequences hardly amounts to UCD being essential. It could just as easily support common design.

"Common descent is the organizing and unifying principle that underlies the field of genomics."

It's even more amazing that taxonomic nomenclature fits so nicely with evolutionary theory. Oh, but wait a second, the theory played a role in it all along. Circular. Just because scientific institutions have become infatuated with the theory does not in any way support the contention that this makes it essential. You can use almost anything as an "organizing principle" in that sense. You can use the alphabet. You could use any arbitrary syllabus. You could even build mnemonics from nursery rhymes. The issue is that UCD is not essential to science, and nothing fails to work if UCD proves false.

"Yeah, yeah, we've heard the standard tales of brothers in law who are supergeniuses in a biological field and don't believe in evolution. If you seriously want this to be believed, have him post, and say for himself why he believes this."

I will suggest it, especially since he votes conservatively. But anyone can claim anything on a forum. The proof is in the pudding. You could claim to already have your doctorate in molecular biology. The difference is that I know my friend. I don't know you. (And you don't know me.) So what is claimed on this forum is reasonably taken with a grain of salt.

Someone can say that all scientists accept UCD. Maybe that is true of many scientists, including 100% of the ones you know. But those I know do not. But then again I am not in that profession. All this proves to me is that claims of all scientists buying UCD is not true from my experience. Your experience may be otherwise.