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

C1) The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses Con claims that my evidence and calculations “seem” scientific but the conclusion is actually a pseudoscience regardless of the evidence. He fails to consider that science does in fact “seem” like science. How do we evaluate common descent as a science or pseudoscience in this debate? The three major criteria for differentiation presented are:- Adherence to the Scientific method (as shown below)- Basis on empirical evidence (such as analysis from fossil record and genetics)- Testability/falsifiability (as I will illustrate) I've provided a simplified flowchart of common descent right from Darwin to modern research to show how it matches the scientific method based on just one test. This is not the only test but one simplified example. Figure 6: Application of the scientific method to common descentHypotheses could of course be true by co-incidence which is why a scientific method needs to account for these. I've shown in round 1 how the probability of our hypothesis being true randomly is infinitesimally small. Con claims that an intelligent designer did it. If that is the case, the designer planted false evidence to make it look like there was common descent. Despite ubiquitous proteins being functionally redundant, he matched the morphological and molecular evidence to a degree of certainty that science would logically reach a conclusion of common descent. He then planted fossils of the required type of ancestor at the required geologic time scales to make scientists believe that their hypothesis was corroborated. C2) Evidence from Multiple Nested Hierarchies is not circular Con claims that my C1 in round 1 is based on homology which isn't the case. My C1 shows that if we group organisms based on morphology (form and structure) assuming common descent, there is a single unique tree or a statistically small number of them. If I stopped there and said that because we could produce a unique tree, common descent is true, Con's claim of circularity might have some merit. However, I continue with molecular evidence and show that unique trees can be created based on molecular similarities independent of morphological evidence. Since both trees are unique and independently generated, the chance that they overlap is infinitesimally small. As [15] shows, there are 10^38 different possible trees. Out of 10^38 possibilities, if the two independent methods did not yield the same tree within error, common descent would be falsified.Con's primary attack is that similar morphologies yield similar genetic information. Biologists account for this by specifically choosing ubiquitous genes which exist in all living organisms like the cytochrome c found in the mitochondria of cells. It transports electrons for the purpose of oxidative phosphorylation [25], the metabolic process through which cells generate energy and has no relation to morphology. Cytochrome c is functionally redundant i.e. many different sequences of proteins all form the cytochrome c electron transport protein. It has been shown that when the cytochrome c gene of yeast is deleted and replaced with Cytochrome c of other animals such as human, tuna, pigeon and horse, it is functional despite human and yeast cytochrome c differing in about 40% of the protein. A study by Herbert Yockey shows 2.3 * 10^93 functional cytochrome c sequences. Without common descent, there is no reason to assume that any two organisms will have similar cytochrome c sequences as it is completely unrelated to morphology and human cytochrome c functions in yeast. There is a 1 out of 10^93 chance of finding the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence in human and chimpanzees [6]. Con cites a study from answersingenesis saying that there is DNA sequencing discontinuity between chimps and humans. It makes no attempt to find ubiquitous genes. Humans and chimps are morphologically different. If they had the exact same DNA overall, they would look exactly the same. Con's source also doesn't extend the analysis to phylogenic trees or attempt to falsify common descent by showing phylogenies that don't match. My source considered ubiquitous genes that bear no relation to morphology to corroborate common descent. Add this to my analysis on matching trees and we have compelling observable, testable, and empirical evidence of common descent. C3) Processes of evolution Speciation is a lineage splitting event that produces two or more separate species [28]. Speciation has been widely observed in bacteria [30][31]. Furthermore, micro-evolution is generally accepted as fact among critics of evolution. Evolution of new species of animals is a result of small, gradual changes. There is no limiting factor to micro-evolution and no specific point at which species can no longer diverge. If Con claims that one exists, it rests on him to substantiate the claim. Accepting micro-evolution and speciation while claiming that there is no mechanism for evolution is contradictory without presenting a limiting factor. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution describe identical processes on different time scales [32]. Con dismisses the fossil record and calls it void but he can't just make the fossils go away. The geologic time period in which the fossils resided can be independently measured through radiometric dating [29]. Extend my analysis on Archeopteryx and whale evolution, para-homology, vestigial organs, and transitional links. Furthermore, evolution isn't sudden. A land mammal didn't suddenly gave birth to a whale. Figure 7: Whale evolution tree [33]Figure 7 shows the evolution of whale-like species from common ancestors (represented by the nodes of the tree). The first whales such as Pakicetus were terrestrial yet their skulls strongly resembled living whales as shown above and in Figure 5 (round 1). Ambulocetus on the other hand had more aquatic adaptations than its predecessors with shorter legs and paddle-like hands and feet which is supported by stratigraphic evidence. The geographic and geologic locations of the fossils suggests either common descent or a highly deceptive designer who wanted to make it look as though common descent occurred by carefully planting a sequence of fossils in different strata to show earlier strata of terrestrial whales and later strata of primitive aquatic whales. Common descent could be falsified if the whales and archeopteryx contradicted it.C4) Scientific agreementa) Scientists in agreement about common descent: 99.9% of scientists support evolution. To pre-empt Pro's response of difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, I'd like to point out that that micro-evolution doesn't explain the origin of species and doesn't contradict creationism so the statistics are for evolution as a whole. Further, the majority of scientific organizations issued press releases supporting evolution. Pro's examples of Lynn Margulis and Jeffrey Tomkins are among those 700 out of 480,000 scientists that don't believe in common descent. b) Symbiogenesis: Pro's source actually works for my side. Lynn Margulis who he cites says “All scientists agree that evolution has occurred—that all life comes from a common ancestry, that there has been extinction, and that new taxa, new biological groups, have arisen. The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? Is it the driver of evolution?” She says that all scientists agree that all life comes from a common ancestry and merely proposes a different mechanism of common descent than the generally accepted one. Symbiogenesis has been dismissed by scientific community according to Con's source. Sources[24] http://tinyurl.com...[25] http://tinyurl.com...[26] http://tinyurl.com...[27] http://tinyurl.com...[28] http://tinyurl.com...[29] http://tinyurl.com...[30] http://tinyurl.com...[31] http://tinyurl.com...[32] http://tinyurl.com...[33] http://tinyurl.com...