Talk:Common descent/archive 2007

Page move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. Patstuarttalk 01:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was moved without discussion. The move also resulted in broken links to the archive.. I am going to move it back pending consensus on the issue. Guettarda 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure we don't need to discuss a move as obvious as this. The article is clearly referring to universal common descent and only contains a definition of common descent...nothing more. See for yourself Help:Moving_a_page, I am completely within my jurisdiction. Now if you want to argue against the move then fine by me, we can have a discussion. Unfortunatly though your primary cause for reverting is, "the page was moved without discussion", which is not required for a move. One of two things should happen from you: remove the article to the way it was, or give an argument against the move and we can start a discussion. Which is it going to be? Pbarnes 08:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Help tells you how to do something (from a technical point of view). WP:RM says "Normally, logged-in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found at the top of every page...a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." (emphasis added).  An uncontroversial move is obvious.  I don't see this move as obvious.  Please make a case for a move so that we can discuss it and reach a consensus.  Guettarda 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase "universal common descent" already redirects here. And, if the page was moved, "common descent" would have to redirect there.  I don't see a justification for such a move.  Especially as any distinction between truly universal common descent, and hypothetical not-quite-universal common descent from a pool of similar microbes more than 3 billion years ago, is a rather petty one.  And what creationists accept as "common descent" is irrelevant for several reasons ("undue weight" in a science article, and the fact that they reject all the evidence for all common descent except for a very tiny part: it would be misleading to imply that they "accept common descent" as it is generally understood). --Robert Stevens 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who cares what redirects to what, this article is about "universal common descent" not "common descent". Furthermore, the "hypothetical pool of similar microbes" is not the only alternative to universal common descent. The primary creationist view is that there are a number of created kinds which will undergo evolution. One example to help you understand would be the relationship between a wolf, a fox, and a dolphin. Most creationist believe a wolf and a fox are related by a common ancestor but believe it is ridiculous to think a dolphin and a wolf share a common ancestor. Therefore "common descent" is a part of both creationist's pseudoscience, and evolutionist's real science while universal common descent is only believed by evolutionist. The two things are not interchangable and if the article is describing "universal common descent", which it does, then it should be titled such. Pbarnes 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be admitting that this move is motivated by creationism. Who cares what the "primary creationist view" is?  This isn't an article about creationism!  And a dolphin and a wolf do indeed share a common ancestor (regardless of creationist opinion), and that's science.  This is a science article. --Robert Stevens 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to miss a crucial part of the emphasized sentences. "...a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." It doesn't say all moves are controversial. This move was revert without reason beside a misconception on how to move. That is not an acceptable reason for it to be reverted. Pbarnes 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the move was reverted and then questioned is a clear indicator that it is a controversial move and should be discussed further. Doc  Tropics  22:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the reverter, it was reverted because it wasn't discussed...not because it was controversial. Pbarnes 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmmm...no. That is incorrect.  I reverted because I disagreed with the move and because there had been no discussion.  If there had been discussion prior to the move and rough consensus for it I would have still disagreed, but I would not have undone the move.  Guettarda 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article deals with 'universal common descent', then the article should be restructured. I'm just not sure a simple move will be helpful, as that would mean we would have no article on common descent itself, and only an amalgamated article on universal and common descent at 'universal common descent'. -- Ec5618 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble seeing anything that deals with common descent other than the fact universal common descent relies on common descent. I suggest moving the lone definition of common descent to wiktionary and moving the page to universal common descent. Pbarnes 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict]There is no "misconception" on my part regarding how to move a page. I understand the guidelines quite well.  A move that isn't controversial can be done without discussion (although it's always better to discuss things first).  But how are you asserting that the move was uncontroversial when it was challenged?  Guettarda 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pbarnes, I think your own earlier "wolf, fox and dolphin" example illustrates the issue nicely. As you pointed out, many creationists accept the common origin of wolves and foxes, but not wolves and dolphins. However, it is perfectly possible for a scientist to reject universal common descent (e.g. proposing that viruses, or certain types of microbe, arose separately) while accepting the common ancestry of wolves and dolphins. This degree of common descent occupies a very broad "middle ground" between creationist "fixed kinds" and truly universal common descent. So, what should we call it? Surely, "common descent"? Hence, if creationists reject this, they reject "common descent" (as a general principle, even if they accept it in limited cases). To argue otherwise, and claim that creationists "accept common descent", is rather like arguing that atheists "accept the truth of the Bible" if they believe that the city of Jerusalem exists. --Robert Stevens 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Move Survey

 * Move - This article is primarily describing "universal common descent" and since there are beliefs that disregard "universal common descent" but accept "common descent" I feel the name should be changed. The only thing referring to common descent specifically is the definition at the beginning of the article, the rest of the article is about "universal common descent." Pbarnes 21:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Examples: The first sentence in the history section is referring to universal common descent specifically: "The first suggestion that all organisms may have had a common ancestor and diverged through random variation and natural selection..." The sections "universality and similarity" and "the argument from irrelevant differences" are all arguments for or against universal common descent not universal AND non-universal "common descent". Pbarnes 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ec. Guettarda 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ec, the proper remedy for the article's perceived shortcomings is to add content. Doc  Tropics  04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are no scientific "beliefs that disregard universal common descent". The two terms are basically synonymous.  The views of creationists are utterly irrelevant to this article, and should be disregarded, as per the guidelines on "undue weight". --Robert Stevens 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Split into Two Articles
I propose we split the current common descent into "universal common descent" and "common descent". Although these two topics are very similar...they are not the same, and they are definitely not synonyms.

Work in Progress Articles:
 * User:Pbarnes/common_descent
 * User:Pbarnes/universal common descent

Merging these two into one article is about as sensical as merging "common descent" into "macroevolution". Sure they would fit together, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Pbarnes 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is too much overlap to split these articles at this point in time. It would just confuse matters.  Guettarda 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia The reason you think they overlap right now is because all the information is from the SAME article (which is improperly named given the content, but you guys are harder to convince than getting a bunch of southern conservatives to not be racist.) All I ask is if you think progression should be made to optimize the two articles. Pbarnes 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel that you'll be able to create two separate articles that do not give creationism undue weight, fit with the way the term common descent is currently used, and will convince a majority of editors that they should replace the current singular article, then please continue. -- Ec5618 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that there would be sufficient material to justify two separate pages. And where would the "wolf-dolphin common ancestry" variety end up?  Logically, this isn't synonymous with universal common descent, as I have already pointed out.  So we'd be implying that creationists reject universal common descent, but broadly accept wolf-dolphin common descent, human-chimp common descent... ??? --Robert Stevens 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you still afraid of giving undue weight to creationism. If anything explaining the problems with creationism will do a lot more good then simply removing them at any chance you get. And where did you get the idea that "we'd be implying that creationists reject universal common descent, but broadly accept wolf-dolphin common descent, human-chimp common descent..." I never claimed this and creationist don't claim this. They DONT believe there was a wolf-dolphin common descent, or a human-chimp common descent...they only believe there was a polar bear-sun bear common ancestor, and so on. Pbarnes 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. If creationists reject "universal common descent", but nevertheless accept "common descent" WITHOUT the "universal" qualifier, then they SHOULD accept wolf-dolphin and human-chimp common descent: because this isn't universal common descent.  Wolves and dolphins are fairly closely related (they are both Eutheria, placental mammals), and humans and chimps are very closely related (closer than wolves and foxes, or African and Indian elephants).  It isn't just universal common descent that they reject: it is virtually ALL common descent.  You are proposing a split into two views, BOTH of which are rejected by creationists.  And the views of creationists are not relevant to science articles anyhow: certainly not so relevant that they should dictate the structure and presentation of science articles in Wikipedia! --Robert Stevens 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For one, the original article doesn't talk about wolf-dolphin ancestry. This is one reason why they should be split. Universal common descent assumes common descent happens and takes it a step further based on evidence like cell structure and the similarity of DNA. As of right now, there is nothing on common descent besides a definition and a few lines of history. The current article should be moved to the properly named universal common descent and then create an article on common descent talking about wolf-dolphin ancestry and what ever you would like. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Furthermore, I'm not proposing inclusion of creationist ideas as to be NPOV, I'm proposing inclusion so that they may be able to see why science tells them they are wrong. Pbarnes 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Current arrangements seem fine. I see no need for splits or merges. Doc  Tropics  17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Common descent and the creation-evolution debate
How is the theory of universal common descent related to the (largely Anglo-American) political debate over creation and evolution?

Are there any creationists or religious leaders / groups which accept common descent - in whole or in part?

If a church accepts common descent, does this mean they necessarily accept unguided evolution, or do some churches accept common descent but insist on supernatural intervention (i.e., miracles) guiding the descent? Uncle Ed 14:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that God is within all things, at all times, there is no need for Him to intervene; He's already here.


 * Most creationists and Biblical literalists accept common descent. It's the only possible explanation for Noah's Ark: instead of packing millions of different species into one ship, they argue that he packed only a few "kinds", which subsequently procreated the diversity of species (variation within "kinds") we see today. To quote Answers in Genesis: "God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits."  The variation itself is unguided. I think that's generally the accepted position. bcasterlinetalk 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, most creationists and Biblical literalists do not accept common descent in the relevant sense here, that is universal common descent. Descent from "a few kinds" -- e.g. baraminology -- is not common descent in the sense discussed by modern biology.


 * Modern biological research strongly suggests universal common descent; that is, a single tree of ancestry for all known terrestrial life forms. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for universal common descent, and no known counterexample, despite the efforts of "creation scientists" to falsely manufacture one.


 * An excellent exploration of the subject of universal common descent is Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale. --FOo 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)