Talk:Common descent

message: Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis' account of divergence through random variation and natural selection sounds very much to me like something that Empedocles said much earlier.  I thought it should be included, but I didn't want to be presumptuous. Neopergoss 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: In scientific and general parlance, unless specified otherwise, "common descent" and "universal common descent" are essentially synonymous. "Common descent" gets about 240K google hits, "universal common descent" only gets about 700. The concept of "non-universal common descent" is almost always called "sharing a common ancestor" (~133K google hits, compare to ~7K for "have common descent" -many using it with a different meaning- and <1K for "share common descent"). The fact is worth noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Arelatensis (talk • contribs) 
:"Common descent" and "universal common descent" are not synonmous because descent is not always from a common ancestor, therefore it is not always universal. The article is about "common descent" and that is what the emphasis should be on. Yet, the subject of "Evidence of universal common descent" appears primary before "Evidence of common descent."  Furthermore, if you're going to include phylogenetic trees as evidence for universal common descent, then mention should be equally made that this view is under scrutiny, and the more up-to-date alternative "Ring of Life" phylogenetic diagram and multiple origin concept should be introduced, else get rid of the entire category of "Evidence for a universal common descent.  All four concepts introduced to support this concept, actually support common descent, not universal common descent.Valich 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common descent" usually means "Universal common descent" 

message: I'm against it, because I don't see the harm in a small, yet informative section like this. People seem to be biased against all forms of creationism. This is completely related to the article and I don't feel it is undue weight given the context. If the article on earth can include references to flat earth, why can't this article refer to certain aspect of creationism? Pbarnes 02:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, frankly, this is a modern, manufactured excuse that I doubt even the proponents really believe. Adam Cuerden talk 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? You believe creationist don't believe what the information describes? Pbarnes 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look at some of their articles on it. They're deliberately obfuscatory, and, since you don't normally write obfuscatory if you have clear reasoning, I strongly suspect these are cynical PR pieces to try and bamboozle people into thinking that it's a valid conclusion they just aren't clever enough to understand, while the creators are likely clearly aware how little substance is in it. Hell, half of it seems to be defining terms so as to make it even harder, and each article invents a few new terms. If not a cynical way of diverting attention from what they're really saying, then what is it? If it is, then why, if they believe it's true, are they carefully concealing their logic in invented terms? Adam Cuerden talk 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this is deliberately obfuscatory. It reads to  me more like the products of people who don't know how to write well, don't know how to think logically and don't understand science.  JoshuaZ 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...That's just sad. Adam Cuerden talk 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter if it's merged with created kinds or just deleted (after all, it's content that the community decided was inappropriate for Wikipedia).  But it isn't about common descent, and it isn't scientific, it's cruft.  Guettarda 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when was this article determined to be strictly "scientific"? And where was it decided "it's content that the community decided was inappropriate for Wikipedia." Pbarnes 03:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is science and creationism is religion (or some approximation of it). See the afd referred to above. And it seems you are in violation of WP:3rr, in case you would like to undo your last revert. Cheers, Vsmith 03:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And the reasoning for this is because...? Pbarnes 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... undue weight and the promotion of the religious views of a noisy group of individuals pushing pseudoscience nonsense. Vsmith 11:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This may seem mean, but you sound like a bitter old man in ever comment I have ever read from you. Pbarnes 02:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bitter?  Nope.  Just extremely frustrates with your total contempt for your fellow editors.  You have been nothing but rude and dishonest from the start.  Despite community consensus that this material was unsuitable for Wikipedia you have re-created the material at least half a dozen times and re-inserted it in here.  Guettarda 02:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, explain how the information provided in the section is "unsuitable for Wikipedia". Pbarnes 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, having participated in the deletion debates, if something fails AfD, it is because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia.  If it is to be reused somewhere else, then it is closed as a merge.  The consensus was to delete these articles.  You re-created them repeatedly, which shows contempt for the opinion of the community and Wikipedia policy.  Now you have re-inserted the material here.  You can't circumvent an AfD by sticking the material in another article.  Guettarda 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it failed because of non-notability. According to wikipedia, information which does not warrant it's own article can and should be included in other, broader, articles. The section on the common descent article is hardly non-notable. Pbarnes 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." Wikipedia:Content_forking Pbarnes 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, what has that got to do with this? --Michael Johnson 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is content forking to separate a religious section about common descent from the scientific sections unless there are legitimate reasons for doing so, such as keeping the article on evolution from being too long for wikipedia's standards, therefore the article was made to be strictly scientific. This article on common descent is hardly too large for this information. Pbarnes 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science and Religion are very different subjects, so forking hardly applies. --Michael Johnson 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Created Kinds Section Merge

message: Merge, or some other mutually agreeable way to get rid of this section  and replace it with a passing mention of creationism. There is no need to devote a whole section to a fringe theory, even less so to explain several microvariations within it. Let us just mention that most creationists deny common descent, except "within kinds", despite massive cross-corroborating evidence (morphological, biochemical, fossil and molecular) in support of it.--Thomas Arelatensis 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the reasoning for this is because...? Pbarnes 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... undue weight and the promotion of the religious views of a noisy group of individuals pushing pseudoscience nonsense. Vsmith 11:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This may seem mean, but you sound like a bitter old man in ever comment I have ever read from you. Pbarnes 02:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bitter?  Nope.  Just extremely frustrates with your total contempt for your fellow editors.  You have been nothing but rude and dishonest from the start.  Despite community consensus that this material was unsuitable for Wikipedia you have re-created the material at least half a dozen times and re-inserted it in here.  Guettarda 02:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, explain how the information provided in the section is "unsuitable for Wikipedia". Pbarnes 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, having participated in the deletion debates, if something fails AfD, it is because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia.  If it is to be reused somewhere else, then it is closed as a merge.  The consensus was to delete these articles.  You re-created them repeatedly, which shows contempt for the opinion of the community and Wikipedia policy.  Now you have re-inserted the material here.  You can't circumvent an AfD by sticking the material in another article.  Guettarda 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it failed because of non-notability. According to wikipedia, information which does not warrant it's own article can and should be included in other, broader, articles. The section on the common descent article is hardly non-notable. Pbarnes 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." Wikipedia:Content_forking Pbarnes 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, what has that got to do with this? --Michael Johnson 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is content forking to separate a religious section about common descent from the scientific sections unless there are legitimate reasons for doing so, such as keeping the article on evolution from being too long for wikipedia's standards, therefore the article was made to be strictly scientific. This article on common descent is hardly too large for this information. Pbarnes 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science and Religion are very different subjects, so forking hardly applies. --Michael Johnson 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Should "examples of common descent" come before "evidence of universal common descent"?
One editors feels it shouldn't because of importance and triviality...both reasons are subjective in relation to this topic. I feel it should remain as suggested because when explaining theories, one always starts with the observable facts which are fundamental to the theory when available and then builds from those using other evidence to suggest something much broader. Common descent is PROVEN because it has been observed. That is the best evidence we have for universal common descent and this is why it should be at the top of the article. Pbarnes 00:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument has nothing to do with a seperate definition of "common descent" and "universal common descent". Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my previous comment. The best evidence we have for "individuals sharing a late last common ancestor" is the fact that we have observable proof that there are "individuals sharing common descent". Darwin didn't have all this DNA/fossil information you so insistently want to make most important, yet he still was able to provide a solid argument on the best evidence around...and that is examples which demonstrate the theory. I think "examples of common descent" should come before "evidence of universal common descent". Pbarnes 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have said the best evidence was the Universal Genetic Code, and the fact that everything arranges into trees with high consistancy, no matter what test you use. Adam Cuerden talk 11:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This article is about common descent, not universal common descent. "Examples of common descent" should not only come come before "Evidence of universal common descent," but the later needs to be omitted completely. Read my comments in the first two talk sections above. This split confuses the subject. Universal common descent leads into talk about Universal Common Ancestor (UCA) Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) or Last Common Ancesor (LCA), and these are unrelated topics that deal with origins of life. They should not even be mentioned here, except for external links. Furthermore, as stated above and elsewhere numerous times, at the single cell microbial level, at the deepest branchings of any phylogenetic analyses, there never was a last universal common ancestor because of the enormous amount of lateral gene transfer taking place between genomes, gene transfer, and genome fusions. Wiki is at the forefront of scientific knowledge and how we offer and present it to the world.  This article does not pass and needs major category reworking.  Any reference to LUCAs and LCAs belongs in those articles and phylogenetic trees belong in the phylogeny and evolution articles. Valich 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: ...when used correctly.  This is horrendous:
"In biology, a group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor is the most recent individual or population which is an ancestor of all of the species being referenced. The theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[1] It is the accepted theory for the origin of modern biological species among biologists."
The rest of the article is pretty much just as bad. •Jim62sch• 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of talk pages is to work on improving articles, not merely to complain about them. Please suggest an alternate phrasing -- or better yet, just change it in the article. --FOo 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English is a nice language... 

message: Pbarnes, this is getting out of hand. The above discussion shows a clear consensus to (at the very least) reduce the "fringe theory" section. I counted 8 against 2 to either merge or keep the current, "shorter" version of the section. You are deliberately ignoring this clear consensus and trying to impose your own, isolated view on the matter. Fringe theories should get a short mention and a link to related articles (e.g. baraminology), perhaps a few (purely bibliographic) references, certainly not several lines of quotations! Detailed exposition of fringe viewpoints does not belong in this article. 
In short: Please stop extending the section, except perhaps for providing concise, quote-less references. Thank you. --Thomas Arelatensis 13:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing fringe theory section - Again!

message: Logically it makes far more sense to move from generalities to specifics - thus, specific examples should go after general explanations.  Guettarda 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed. You can add you opinions if you want and maybe we can get some kind of consesus. Talk:Common_descent#Formatting - Pbarnes 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: The note says that Raven et al. said: "all produced from a single specie of plant".  Is this a misquote, or a typo on their part?  Guettarda 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see anything wrong with it. Pbarnes 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...specie?  Guettarda 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You see that in old texts, sometimes; I believe it was more accepted in the past than it is now. Adam Cuerden talk 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is a quote from a 2005 textbook.  Guettarda 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I received this quote from an email conversation from my botany professor. I will talk to her about it on Tuesday. Pbarnes 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brassica 

message: I've rewritten this section completely - it was totally off-topic, talking about one single confounding factor for some molecular trees exclusively, explicitly excluding morphological trees, and ignoring completely the evidence provided by either type Adam Cuerden talk 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A large improvement over the original.  I edited a bit for clarity. •Jim62sch• 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! Adam Cuerden talk 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my comments above in the first two talk sections. This artilce is not about phylogenetic trees and this subject should not even be introduced here.  Phylogenetic trees show taxonimic groupings, evolutionary branchings and evolutionary descent but are not about common descent. Phylogenetic trees do not show common ancestors. Unlike cladograms, phylogentic trees do not have nodes that represent common ancestors.  This is not what the base of the branches represent. Yes, it is a very well-wriiten section, but it belongs in evolution, not here. By contrast, cladistics shows derived characteristic traits from common ancestories represented by nodes and at the base of cladogram is a common ancestor. The reason why there are so many dissimilar phylogenetic tees is because of the disagreement about the chronology and the taxonomic groupings of evolutionary branchings, not common descent.Valich 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogenetic trees 

message: Can we lose this section? This isn't a long article, and to give space to a fringe creationist belief seems excessive. This just doesn't seem the place. Adam Cuerden talk 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course.  Guettarda 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fully supportive - thanks, Vsmith 12:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism and common descent 

message: As stated under microorganisms, "Microbes freely exchange genes by conjugation, transformation and transduction between widely-divergent species. This horizontal gene transfer, coupled with a high mutation rate and many other means of genetic variation, allows microorganisms to swiftly evolve (via natural selection) to survive in new environments and respond to environmental stresses. This rapid evolution" did not involve a common ancestor or LUCA. Mentioning links to unicellular organisms, microbes and viruses, that did not have an LUCA, greatly expands this article with enrichening, progressive and factual content not found elsewhere, and this leads the reader to a greater, more  realistic, understanding of life, how it came about, and how it works.Valich 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Descent Breaks Down at the Single Cell Level 

message: Evolution holds that individuals do not evolve, but species do evolve.
You have on your microscope plate a single cell.  It reproduces by fission: splitting into two. Obviously, since it does not have sexual organs and look around for a cell of the opposite sexual configuration (gender).
In order to make the transition, the cells must start to stick together instead of separating to go their own ways. They must be able to continue to reproduce into two separate organisms each made of groups of cells instead of single cells, until their sexual organs become functional. Put simply, it just does not seem possible for a multi-cellular, diffentiated-cell organism, whose sexual reproductive organs have not quite yet "evolved" to a functional condition, to be able to reproduce (i.e. avoid extinction) by splitting into two neat copies (which may be the first to have the genetic evolutionary step of being sexually fertile) of the original... and be the same gender!
To me, this, and the many missing transitional life forms that have not been found in the record, is why evolution is only a theory. Nobody was there 3.9 billion years ago who's alive today and say, "yep, that's what I saw over the last 3.9 billion years of my life". GBC 22:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for the discussion of improvements to the article. It is not a forum for debates or for argument from personal incredulity. However, we do have articles on colony organisms and the evolution of sex. --FOo 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many organisms that are "intermediate" between single-cell and multi-cell, it's just that you don't know about them (Volvox is fun, but sponges are more interesting because they have close single-cell relatives). Also, you seem to be confused about sex, which (believe it or not) does not require sexual organs. All that is required is the capacity to fuse genetic material between cells, and even asexual organisms do that routinely (see plasmids). Yeasts can undergo sexual reproduction; could you tell me what is the "sexual organ" of a yeast cell ? ;) --Thomas Arelatensis 09:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word 'theory' has multiple meanings depending on its context.  In science, a theory is a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.  In everyday language, a theory is an unproven conjecture.  Note that these two definitions are very different from one another.  Therefore, it does not make sense to say that evolution is "only a theory".  In science, theory is the highest level that any idea can obtain.  The closest word to conjecture in science is probably 'hypothesis'. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How does single cell "evolve" to multi-cellular differentiated structures?

message: I was going to start up an article on "cenancestor", but would it be better if the term pointed to this article? And, is "cenancestor" still commonly used in the literature? StevePrutz (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a redirect in the meantime. StevePrutz (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cenancestor? 

message: Maupertuis' assertion is not clear about universal common descent. Actually, judging by this quote alone, we can't even say that he accepted common ancestry at any level evidently meaningfully wider than that of some concept of species of his time. The quotation is not outright incompatible with universal common ancestry, but could be also equally compatible with the idea of multiple spontaneous generations of organisms with crazy features -- even with no common ancestry at all. And the scientific challenges for spontaneous generation were just starting to appear, at his time. From evolution-textbook.org, "Although this theory seems to us close to modern genetics, de Maupertuis emphasized spontaneous generation of life from the chance aggregation of these particles—a view very different from those of both Mendelian inheritance and Darwinian evolution. See Bowler (1989, Chapter 3)". If the context makes an argument for universal common ancestry clear, I think it should be prioritized over the rough notion of brute natural selection over variation that could be either wildly saltationist or plain spontaneous generation. --Extremophile (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's something more specific and less ambiguous to common descent: "Could we not explain in this manner [of fortuitous changes] how the multiplication of the most dissimilar species could have sprung from just two individuals? They would owe their origin to some fortuitous productions in which the elementary parts [of heredity] deviated from the order maintained in the parents. Each degree of error would have created a new species, and as a result of repeated deviations the infinite diversity of animals that we see today would have come about. (Systèm de la Nature 2:164, quoted in Terrell 2002:338) - John Wilkins' blog "evolving thoughts". I've not even read the whole blog post where it was posted; again by itself, it's still possible that he's talking about a more limited degree of common ancestry. The creationist idea of "evolution within kinds", the idea that species of a genus share a common ancestor, is not very new, it was sketched as soon as it was clear that there were too many species to fit within the ark and to Adam have named (but spontaneous generation was another auxiliary ad hoc hypothesis). It's never the less something that could be seen as more clearly pre-evolutionary, anyway. Actually, the blog post is titled "the man who invented evolution". --Extremophile (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Maupertuis really propose universal common descent? 

message: Rogue-pilot recently changed the second sentence from:
::In modern biology, it is generally accepted that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
to
::In modern biology, much effort is expended modeling all living organisms on Earth as descending from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
The edit was undone, but it keeps being restored.  I don't want to get into an edit war, but the original version has been stable for a long time, indicating a de-facto consensus, and the change has not been sourced (not to mention that it seems specious), so I'm just checking here to see if there is consensus to go back to the stable version. Rogue-pilot, it would be great if you could discuss it here instead of changing the article repeatedly without sources or explanation.  Dawn Bard (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to lede 

message: What did the common ancestor between man and monkey look like?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.12.28 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common ancestor between man and monkey 

message: There was a paper out on Nature about the likelihood of there being one common ancestor vs. many. See . GoEThe (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical evidence for common descent 

message: One can easily discern between human cognitive selection and selection made by mechanical or computer generated means. For reasons of clarity it is my belief that a clear distinction should be made.
So. Roll over 'artificial selection'.
Artificial selection. = Selection made by machine or computer.
Human cognitive selection = What it says on the tin.
Would you agree?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.205.215 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial selection. 

message: Aren't variations in Darwin's Finch Beaks directly induced by changes in environment?  (phenotypic plasticity)   
Chalking them up to Natural Selection suggests they are a result of DNA mutations.  Is there any evidence of this? 184.153.187.119 (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Darwin's finches--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finch Beak Variations and Plasticity 

message: "Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which heritable traits that increase an individual's fitness become more common, and heritable traits that decrease an individual's fitness become less common."
This is a bit misleading, and food for creationist debates. It should be population instead of individual. While traits are ultimately eliminated on an individual level; the inter-generational context of natural selection should be stressed.
DocLeonard (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Selection