An article from Evolution News that takes a statement from an evolutionist who supports common descent, and then then refutes it point by point.
Here’s the case for common descent:
UCA is now supported by a wealth of evidence from many independent sources, including: (1) the agreement between phylogeny and biogeography; (2) the correspondence between phylogeny and the palaeontological record; (3) the existence of numerous predicted transitional fossils; (4) the hierarchical classification of morphological characteristics; (5) the marked similarities of biological structures with different functions (that is, homologies); and (6) the congruence of morphological and molecular phylogenies.
(Douglas L. Theobald, “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry,” Nature, Vol. 465:219-222 (May 13, 2010).)
And here’s a response to each of those points:
- (1) Phylogeny and biogeography don’t always agree.
- (2) Phylogeny and paleontology don’t always agree.
- (3) Transitional fossils are often missing (or the “predicted” transitional fossils fall apart on closer inspection).
- (4) Hierarchical classifications often fail.
- (5) “Homologous” structures often have different developmental pathways or different structures often have “homologous” developmental pathways.
- (6) Morphological and molecular phylogenies are often incongruent.
Before I read this post, I only knew about 3, 4, 5 and 6.
I thought that I would post this because I haven’t said much about common descent before. I’m against it.