What would uniquely test or falsify Common Descent today?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

I’ve been thinking about questions of testability and falsifiability in evolutionary theory more and more lately, particularly in light of how modern evolutionary biology differs from the more strictly gradualist models often associated with Darwin’s original formulation.

Over time, evolutionary theory has incorporated concepts such as punctuated equilibrium, developmental constraints, convergence, neutral evolution, genomic conflict, and other mechanisms that make the modern framework much broader than what many people think of as “classical Darwinism.”

This has led me to a methodological question:

What observations, datasets, or analytical approaches would uniquely support Universal common descent over competing frameworks that also invoke biological organization, structural constraints, or archetypal patterns?

For example:

  • Nested hierarchies are often presented as strong evidence for Universal common descent.

  • Convergence can often be interpreted through either adaptive evolution or constraint-based perspectives.

  • Developmental constraints and evo-devo introduce organizational factors that can influence evolutionary outcomes.

So my question is not whether Universal common descent is currently the best explanation, but rather:

What evidence would be difficult or impossible to accommodate under alternative organizational frameworks, yet expected under Universal common descent?

Conversely:

What observations would seriously challenge Universal common descent if they were robustly established?

I’m especially interested in responses involving:

  • comparative genomics

  • phylogenetics

  • developmental biology

  • convergence

  • fossil patterns

  • philosophy of science

In short:

I’ve spent a considerable amount of time exploring whether alternative organizational or archetype-based frameworks can be formulated in ways that are operationally testable and scientifically distinguishable.

That has led me to a reciprocal question:

What makes Universal common descent uniquely testable and distinguishable from rival frameworks today?

In other words, what observations or patterns would be expected under Universal common descent but difficult to explain under alternative organizational or archetypal models?

And conversely, what findings would genuinely place Universal common descent under significant pressure if they were robustly established?

2

Not an expert, but I don’t think anybody sets out to test common descent. @RTBsupporter assumes it is common descent that drives the bus, so to speak. In reality it is more like a trailer on the back of the truck. It just comes along for the ride. It is a result, not an initial assumption that needs or can be tested.

As to the findings that would “place common descent under significant pressure” they would be required in multiple, independent lines of testing.

Edit to add:
I think I have told this story before, but just in case. Way back in my high school biology class over the course of the year we went over just about every major plant and animal you can think of. The course was structured to study each of the major systems like locomotion, respiration, digestion, etc. The words evolution or “common descent” were never used. I really didn’t know anything about Darwin. But at the end of that course it was quite easy to see how systems slowly changed as we moved from single cells to humans. So when I finally found out about evolution I understood why that was so.

5 Likes
3

Both excellent questions, but both rely on there being a description of your competing framework that is sufficiently detailed that it can be used to generate hypotheses about what will be observed.

There isn’t one.

Major discrepancies between the nested hierarchies generated by morphological features vs genetic features.

This could have happened when genomes and proteins were first sequenced, and could still happen as more genomes and proteins are sequenced. But it didn’t, and probably won’t.

Common descent was derived from observations and is supported by a massive amount of data and evidence. It makes predictions that can and have been thoroughly tested.

Your rival framework is based on wishful thinking and ‘supported’ only by ignorance and dishonesty. It is deliberately vague enough that it is ‘compatible’ with anything that might be found, and hence is completely useless.

2 Likes
4

I wonder what would result if the “rival frameworks” were be subjected to the same scrutiny as the OP suggests for common descent.

5

That’s simply not possible, because the ‘rival frameworks’ aren’t well enough defined.

1 Like
6

To compare it to my family reunion, where we all compare “everybody says, my nose is like my father’s; everybody says, I’m the image of Aunt Bee,” along with our (more recent) Ancestry.com DNA evaluations and nth degree cousin discovering, I’d have a hard time finding a falsifying argument that we are not related.

Thanks.

term_5_poems.pdf

7

Love the poems, Randy. Especially the spider one. And the nose poem.

There is such a huge amount of data that supports common descent, it is hard to think of what unknown thing to falsify it. I think that if we found an organism in a deep ocean vent that was based on something other than DNA or had a totally different coding system we would think it had a different origin, but would still not negate common descent for the bulk of creation. In a way, it is surprising that we do not have multiple origins for life, and common descent on a philosophical level is an argument for a common creator.

Had we discovered ERVs were incompatible with common descent when we developed the ability to sequence DNA, it would have, but it didn’t. So, I’ll leave it to those with more specialized knowledge and a better imagination to comment. Good question. Roy is right though, common descent is a conclusion, not something that is necessary for evolutionary theory.

2 Likes
8

I thought the data does suggest that we do have multiple origins of life through viral modularity. If I am mistaken, would you suggest that this would disprove the universal common descent theory?

Yeah but how does this uniquely support Universal common descent over rival frameworks because Owen’s theory or the USCWF framework already anticipated this data conceptually or qualitatively?

9

I am talking about universal common descent though.

10

My questions were referring to universal common descent. Obviously, I am sure everybody already agrees that dogs will always produce dogs and common descent is the best (if not the only) model to explain it.

How come this study I showed you before does not suggest this already:

C. Parins-Fukuchi, G.W. Stull, S.A. Smith, Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118 (2021)

Well, this is news to me coming from you. What makes you say that now?

11

A distinction without a difference. You are saying you agree with micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. And the only difference in the two is time and degree. Now if you want to disprove macro-evolution then you need to come up with a concrete reason why it can not happen.

12

Honestly, my recommendation is to slow down, don’t think you’ve found a secret that all of modern biology is missing, and go piece by piece through a paper like this. For example in the introduction they write:

Phylogenomic conflict, where gene trees disagree about species tree resolution, is common across genomes and throughout the Tree of Life (1–3). Conflict is often driven by population processes such as incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), hybridization, and rapid evolution. Regions of high conflict often coincide with the emergence of major clades, such as mammals (e.g., ref. 4), angiosperms (e.g., ref. 5), and metazoa (e.g., ref. 6).

Now, there’s a great article from 13 years ago on the main BioLogos site about incomplete lineage sorting to grab one of the items that outlines how such “phylogenomic conflict” actually helps support common ancestry, including being able to make specific predictions of how much phylogenomic conflict should exist with ILS. That’s one of the biggest features of standard evolutionary theory, with specific numbers and predictions of how different genomes should be, how much ILS should have impacted two closely related species, etc.:

https://biologos.org/series/evolution-basics/articles/incomplete-lineage-sorting

3 Likes
13

Owen’s theory says absolutely nothing about viruses (retro- or otherwise) or DNA, so could not possibly have anticipated data on ERVs in DNA.

14

Your well-documented history of citing sources you haven’t read which don’t say what you claim, and your repeated attempts to pretend Owen’s theory covers discoveries made after Owen died.

15

Originally I erroneously addressed this question to Roy. But I should have addressed it to @RTBsupporter and his OP. Which I do now.

16

This is what I was referring to when I said what I said………………….

Like what? Can you be more specific?

17

You can check out how it fairs here…………….

How much of Evolution is shaped by history vs underlying constraints? - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum

18

How about something you just said?

  1. Owen’s theory didn’t anticipate data which would have been impossible to even imagine.
  2. The USCWF framework can’t anticipate data which is already known.

RTB is trying to argue for a continuous creation model that just happens to look like universal common descent.

1 Like
19

There are two examples of you citing sources you haven’t read that don’t say what you claimed here.

20

I think you might have given me the wrong link because it is directing me to a completely different forum.