Darwin's Tree of Common Descent is Useless to Applied Science

I did. If one didn’t accept the common origin of the mouse and human immune systems, one would be committing murder when one lethally irradiated the patient, an essential part of the treatment.

What don’t you understand about the common ancestry of the immune system and hematopoiesis?

Why so little? Why do you have no confidence in your grand claim?

You have a penchant for evading questions by providing vague and meaningless answers. If you can’t explain how the common ancestry of humans and mice has proven useful in bone-marrow transplants, that doesn’t surprise me one little bit, because your claim in most likely nonsense.

Okay, but it may have to wait until another day. I have to go soon.

1 Like

Please, Edgar. I did not evade and explained clearly:

What don’t you understand? It’s perfectly clear to me. Are you questioning whether lethal irradiation is not an essential part of BMT?

How can you make claims without any evidence, and why do you repeatedly try to pass off the burden of proof? It’s all on you.

Elliptical orbits exist regardless of Einstein’s theory of relativity and Newton’s laws of gravity. Does this mean those concepts are worthless and should be ignored? Or are they useful in explaining why planets have the orbits they do?

Again, why do you lack curiosity? Aren’t you interested in life’s history?

Yes, what you propose is a form of common descent. (Note that, to be consistent with genetic evidence, the newly created organisms would have to be created as a substantial population with genetic variation rather than as a single pair.)

The tree is the same, regardless of what you label it. Assuming you allow species to evolve before the next one is created from it, that is.

Well, it’s a practical use in my meaning of ‘practical’: it let’s me learn things I couldn’t otherwise learn. As it happens, I think these uses are likely to contribute to medically useful advances eventually, but the path there is long. First use: this paper. (This one is not conceptually simple and it’s pretty mathematical in execution.) We came up with a way of estimating how uniform recombination is in the human genome, based on how similar rates of genetic diversity are as you look along a chromosome. To apply it, though, we had to correct for local variation in mutation rate. We did this by comparing human DNA to that of other species, to estimate the mutation rate at different points in the genome. This solution only makes sense if the genetic differences between the species are the result of mutation, i.e. it relies on common ancestry. (This paper was the first systematic demonstration that recombination is focused in hot spots in the genome, which has been crucial in finding genetic risk factors for many diseases.)

Second use: this paper (and many others). Here, we just needed to know what the “original” state of human DNA was where there is a genetic variant in the population – which variant is the result of mutation and which was there before? Once again, we determine this by comparison with other species, since the variant that’s the same as in chimpanzee, say, is likely the original and the alternative represents a mutation.

3 Likes

For those who are interested, phylogenomic techniques which incorporate data from many different species (from human to armadillo) are being used to model gene networks involved in Alzheimer’s Disease.

“The use of ASAP2 enabled the generation of a first view of a gene network based on an integrated phylogeny of AD-associated genes. The results suggest that SA techniques may have utility in the development of network perspectives of large-scale studies that aim to model the evolutionary development, transmission, and interaction of disease associated gene sets.”
Chen et al. 2016

2 Likes

The square root of E^2 could be +E or -E. Positive or negative energy. Fascinating.

Wow, that is … freaky. Thank you for making me aware of it.

Okay thanks, I get it now. But you’re barking up the wrong tree (excellent pun, no?) here: The fact that chimps are genetically closer to humans than baboons doesn’t depend in any way on Darwin’s tree of common descent. Theories don’t change facts. So the doctor’s rejection of common descent is irrelevant in this case.

Hey Edgar, I haven’t been following this thread as much as your previous one. Just curious if you think it has been helpful to argue with professional biologists over the practical import of common ancestry when they are the ones with the thorough grasp of their field of study. I think I might be taken aback if someone argued for the irrelevance of a claim I thought was foundational to my specialty of medicine if they lacked the same expertise. But that said, I’m glad you’re still around for lively discussions. :wink:

2 Likes

Your point is completely valid, but I am all too aware that I am the bumbling amateur here. In fact, I think I would easily win two categories on the BioLogos forum - 1. Least Knowledgable; 2. Least Intelligent.
However, is my argument rendered invalid simply because I’m not an expert in the field? As yet, despite several challenges, it seems that no one has proven my argument wrong - that is to say, no one has demonstrated an established* practical use for Darwin’s tree in applied biology.
(* I must respect glipsnort’s claim that he has found the D-tree practically useful in his research, but it’s my understanding such a use hasn’t yet been incorporated into any established form of applied biology.)

In response to your query, my argument may actually be helpful, because I think this thread demonstrates a curious phenomenon amongst scientists that I noticed years ago, which may be symptomatic of a fundamental flaw in their approach to biology:

Modern biology is thoroughly dominated by Darwin’s tree of common descent - every explanation of every observation seems to be viewed through this lens. This may or may not be problematic; nevertheless it has produced a very odd intellectual effect: Theories and explanations based on Darwin’s tree are equated with understanding, knowledge, learning and fact. Hence, scientists believe that Darwin’s tree is absolutely essential to all forms of biology and is therefore eminently “useful”.

But it’s my experience that:
When a biologist says, “Darwin’s tree is useful for learning more about biology”, what he really means is, “Darwin’s tree is useful for theorising about biology.”
When a biologist says, “Darwin’s tree is the unifying concept of all biology”, what he really means is, “Darwin’s tree is the unifying concept of macroevolutionary theory.”
When a biologist says, “Our knowledge of the history of life on earth rests on the knowledge of Darwin’s tree”, what he really means is, “The evolutionary theory of how the history of life on earth proceeded rests on the theory of Darwin’s tree.”

This logic-bending love affair with the D-tree is all too evident in this thread - so far, every “practical use” of Darwin’s tree that has been proffered is either:

  1. An explanation of observations based on the D-tree … ie, a theory, not a practical use; or
  2. A practical use of applied biology indeed, but one that is not in any way dependant on the D-tree of common descent.

I find it quite bizarre and a little disquieting that so many formidably-intelligent, formidably-educated, formidably-knowledgeable people can’t seem to differentiate between a theory and a practical, useful application of a theory.

Sure, I know what you mean. Incidentally, are you implying that Darwin’s tree of common descent is foundational to the medical profession?

Okay Mr. Phil; since you are certain of this, would you be so kind as you explain how Darwin’s tree of common descent has proven practically useful in the field of heart surgery?

No, I was speaking about any concept I thought foundational. This actually happens when patients challenge standard practice because of what they read online that makes them an expert and contradicts all current research.

@Edgar as Christians we all agree that the Bible’s interpretation of who made us and how we got here, and why, is very important. How much does that affect how we actually do our work, raise families, and interact? An interesting parallel.

I can assure you that you would not win this award. (And I have 39 days of read time to back this up. :wink: ) Plenty of learners and sub-geniuses here, you are in good company.

3 Likes

Sex is a good mechanism for that. Praise God for sex! He invented it.

3 Likes

Best. Christian. Site. Ever.

2 Likes

This is fascinating. Why would not accepting the common origin of mouse and human immune systems potentially result in lethally irradiating the patient?

… and we can safely assume that the term “evolutionary development” here refers to microevolution - ie, facts relating to the here and now - and has nothing to do with the dim, distant past according to the theory of Darwin’s tree.

Also note the words, “MAY have utility”.

Thank you very much for going to the trouble of providing this information. I appreciate it. It’s all rather fascinating.

Steve, with all due respect, I don’t think it’s a good idea to involve other species when you’re trying to understand the human genome. Relying on the theory of common descent introduces too many uncertainties into,the equation: We aren’t sure by what means God caused the evolution of life - unknown supernatural factors may well have been involved in the process; and the Fall could have affected the DNA of creatures in ways that we will never know. So here’s my advice: Forget about involving non-human creatures and get Darwin’s tree out of your head - pretend you’d never heard of it. These measures will simplify your research and reduce uncertainties.

In this case, you’ve used the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Well, because we are unsure if this true, this assumption immediately introduces a massive uncertainty. Based on this massive uncertainty you seem to have added another uncertainty - that an aspect of chimp DNA is in some way the original state of some aspect of human DNA. If so - no, no, no; I seriously advise against using this approach; best to chuck that theory right out the window and start again, I think. As with the previous case, when dealing with human DNA, forget about comparing it to that of chimps or any other non-human creature, coz that’s just muddying the waters and isn’t going to produce beneficial results.

Remember Edgar’s axiom: Nothing in Applied Biology Makes Sense in the Light of Darwin’s Tree.

And don’t worry, Steve; I’m not going to charge the Broad Institute for this advice - it’s completely free! (… although I will accept a coffee when I visit your laboratory.)

I started another thread for this topic, “Does Genetic Science Support this Pogressive Creation Model” - see the link at post 80 above.

Genesis 2:7 says Adam was created from inanimate matter, so there was no sex involved in his case.
Do we know for certain that God used a contiguous process of sexual reproduction to produce the history of life?