Talk:Evidence of common descent/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Logical and other inconsistencies in the article

As is noted in the archival discussion pages, the beginning of this article is a lengthy summary without any citation. Although most of this opening section is supported by citations within the article, it could possibly be pared down to something more manageable and directly supported for a tertiary source like WP. That said, there are several logical flaws contained within the opening which should probably be addressed sooner, to wit:

1. Modern evolutionary theory presupposes widespread common descent (though not necessarily universal common descent). As such, proof for common descent will also bolster evolutionary theory, but the existence of a single common ancestor is not required and only implies "that evolution occurs." (For example, cumulative mutation degeneration of "unused" DNA sections supports common descent, but can be used to either support or refute the idea that natural selection is capable of creating usable proteins.)

   Possible alternative text: "The supporting evidence for common descent theory also forms a significant portion of the basis on which evolutionary theory rests, and illustrates the path that evolutionary processes have most likely followed in creating Earth's biodiversity."

2. "Phylogenetically close organisms" are similar in genetic sequences because that is largely how things are phylogenetically classified. The statement "Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant," now (the evidence was not quite so clear when this statement was written) displays circular logic because scientists have sequenced an awful lot of DNA in the past 8 years and shifted the base of comparison mostly to DNA and other genetic structures.

   Possible alternative text: "Phylogenetics, the study of evolutionary history and relationships between individuals or groups of organisms, points toward a common source for all living organisms by providing a geologic-scale timeline of the progression from a small number of common genes to the wide variety of genetic material on Earth today.

3. Proving speciation... by natural selection... through antibiotic resistance, animal coloration, etc.... by (intentional and unintentional) selective breeding and population isolation... is getting a bit far afield of what I perceive to be the point of this article. It feels a bit like dumping a massive pile of stuff in the middle of the room so that creationists have to wade through the haystacks in search of the needles to poke the evolutionists with. Perhaps instead of jumping through so many hoops on this page it is time to consider spreading the evidentiary wealth by including links to evidence sections within respective topic specific articles and providing the evidence there.
4. Further down the article, in section 5.1 under "experimental evolution" are some aged citations about the Lenski E. coli experiments which have been more or less revised or retracted since their inclusion in this article. The citrate metabolizing strains have been acknowledged by Lenski to be a resurrection of "unused" DNA already extant within the genome which is partly expressed in several strains of E. coli in the wild. The experiment, it would seem, has much to offer in understanding the implications of common descent, so if the group thinks it appropriate, I could probably come up with something else that doesn't pertain to the arm of the experiment mentioned here??
5. The quote from Jerry Coyne in the same section reads like a gratuitous stick in the eye of any creationists who might read this article. It should probably be removed as it adds little or no insight on common descent.
6. Reading back on points 4 and 5, I am wondering if the experimental evolution content should be extensively rewritten or removed entirely.

I hope this is helpful. I will wait for some consensus before making edits to the article. Trfeick (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I formatted the above but haven't yet had time to examine the points raised. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/928407875 probably answers much, —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)