Headline: Universal Common Ancestry Confirmed

At Physorg.com the following headline was posted:

”Of microorganisms and man: First large-scale test confirms Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry”

Is this true? Let’s examine the details of the article.

This “test” turns out to be a computer simulation. It starts with four stated assumptions:

1. "…genetic copies of a protein can be multiplied during reproduction, such as when one parent gives a copy of one of their genes to several of their children."

2. " …a process of replication and mutation over the eons may modify these proteins from their ancestral versions."

3. "These two factors, then, should have created the differences in the modern versions of these proteins we see throughout life today."

4. "…genetic changes in one species don't affect mutations in another species—for example, genetic mutations in kangaroos don't affect those in humans."

The question being asked is this:

”It is clear, say, that these processes are able to link the shared proteins found in all humans to each other genetically. But do the processes in these assumptions link humans to other animals? Do these processes link animals to other eukaryotes? Do these processes link eukaryotes to the other domains of life, bacteria and archaea?

In order to answer these questions, a Bayesian probability analysis was done, using eukaryote genome data and a supercomputer. While the exact algorithmic process is not revealed, the assumptions give us a clue: most likely the 23 essential proteins were de-mutated using the computer.

How the de-mutation was done is not discussed, other than it was Bayesian. But since the hypothesis is that evolution is random mutation acted on by natural selection, it is difficult to see a reversing algorithm that could decompose, first by the unknown environments of each eukaryote genomic line at each historical stage; second, by unknown selection criteria within those environments; third by the random mutation that supposedly enabled the better fit to the environment, and fourth, the likelihood that the mutation actually would occur during that environmental existence. Except for the environmental change, these unknowns are not even rigidly proven to exist; they are presumed forcing elements.

So what we have is this: a set of four presuppositions, acting on four presumed unknowns and unknowables. From this we get a ”Confirmation”?

"The answer to each of these questions turns out to be a resounding yes."

This is beyond dubious. Even ignoring the fact that science never “confirms”, it always merely fails to falsify, the idea that any meaningful conclusion can be drawn from this set of presuppositions acting on multiple unknowable presumptive variables is without logical merit. Especially by computer simulation.

It is certainly not a confirmation of anything, other than that computers can do more silly stuff faster than ever before.