There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

originally posted by: chr0naut


If scientific methodology has, to date, proven damn near useless in making determinations in their regard, and they existed well prior to scientific methodology, the fault doesn't lie with them, does it?

.

Scientific theory and methodology has no place with regards to the supernatural. Many things existed prior to scientific methodology. Let me point to Heroic medicine. Let me bleed your homours and give you a purgative. You will possibly eventually feel better

Don't be obtuse.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
I am really not sure if you are serious or not, even though you claim seriousness. Your question is a lot like asking "What version of a 'car' are you referring too? I have heard about it being invented in the 1890's and updated ever since but as far as I can tell I can tell those claims are nonsense."

Serious, yes. The difference between what you're saying and what I said, is that the MES hasn't been updated. If it was why do you suppose that biologists like Pagliucci, Jablonka, Laland, Stewart, Koonin, Woehl, Mueller, Noble, and many many more, have called for the EES?

If the MES was an amalgamation of, as you say, "basically all of biology - literally every new thing in biology is a new thing in the MES." then there wouldn't be this mounting effort to propose changes to it.

I think many people here might have the wrong idea about the state of the MES and what it actually says. The conceptual framework it established is no longer able to accommodate the other mechanisms and systems at play. While some of the mechanisms that make up its central tenets are still very much important facets of evolutionary biology, the emphasis the MES puts on those as the primary way in which evolution happens is no longer tenable.

The central framework of the MES is as follows:

- the primary source of phenotypic variation is from small genetic mutations
- the primary inheritance mechanism is via Mendelien Inheritance Systems i.e vertical/ hard inheritance of DNA from parent to offspring
- Natural Selection is the primary and most important mechanism of adaptation, variety and changes in species
- evolution happens gradually over very long periods of time

Every one of these tenets can be challenged, quite easily, with regards to importance given the new data and research we have at our disposal.

It's not as much about genetic mutations as it is about genetic regulation. It's not one phenotype to one genotype, it's multiple phenotypes that can arise from a single genotype. It's not always about requiring hundreds of generations to evolve, but in many cases only a couple. Inheritance doesn't just happen vertically, but in multiple ways. Natural Selection does not account for all the variety and adaptations we see. It's been shown now that phenotypic adaptations can precede genotypic changes thanks to plasticity and epigenetics. It's thinking less about survival of the fittest and more about the "arrival of fittest". In other words, groups of organisms can adapt via direct interaction with their environment, without natural selection.

originally posted by: rnaa
This wiki article is a short list of major events in the development of the MES. It does not address the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of articles that have added to the knowledge embedded in the MES.
source

"the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of articles that have added to the knowledge embedded in the MES."
I'm going to call fake news on this ^. It sounds like you're suggesting all of the latest advances in evolutionary/biological thinking since the turn of the 21st century have been subsumed or is already covered by the MES. I find that to be completely false, but it could be I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

originally posted by: rnaa
The synthesis is one of disciplines recognized as playing major roles in our knowledge of evolutionary biology. It is not a 'definition' of evolution.

It's the conceptual framework, the model, by which scientists studying evolution were basing their research from. It provided scientists of that time a lens to view evolution. Whatever you want to call it, the "Theory", the 'Discipline", the "Framework", the "Definition"; it is to this day what most people refer to as the meaning or theory of evolution. But most don't realize what they're actually referring to - an incomplete and antiquated view of evolution.

originally posted by: rnaa
They continued to expand and strengthened the synthesis as they did so.

Up until the 1970s.

originally posted by: rnaa
Notice that this 'EES' is does not through out the KNOWLEDGE that is the MES, it is an attempt to revisit Huxley's work, including more scope and perhaps changing emphasis. In that way it is an 'evolution' of the story of evolution, not a revolution.

It is absolutely a revolution in the way we think about evolution and how it operates. It's why the EES has been met with so much headwind in its effort to be advanced as the new way to view evolution. The traditionalists like Coyne, Moran, Fukuyama and many others don't want that to happen.

originally posted by: rnaa
The bottom line in all this is that as our knowledge grows, so the Synthesis grows.

Not true. As our knowledge has grown the Synthesis has remained stagnant and will hamper advancement in our understanding without a more formal update and revision of its central tenets. As you said a review of the emphasis - which is greatly needed.

originally posted by: rnaa
The biologist Eugene Koonin wrote in 2009 that "the new developments in evolutionary biology by no account should be viewed as refutation of Darwin. On the contrary, they are widening the trails that Darwin blazed 150 years ago and reveal the extraordinary fertility of his thinking."

Nice cherry picked quote by Koonin.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

By definition, when a hypothesis has been tested experimentally, it becomes a theory.

NO. Not 'by definition'. Testability is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

If it fails the test, it does not become a theory, or part of a theory (duh!).

If it passes the test, but is more complicated than some competing hypothesis that also passes, it does not become a theory or part of a theory (Occum's Razor: simpler is better).

If it passes the test, but does not explain the particular phenomenon as well, or as fully, or is applicable to fewer use cases as some competing hypothesis, it does not become a theory or part of a theory. (General completeness: General applicability is better that special cases).

Which is interesting, since the entirety of evolutionary theory in its present construct rests on a hypothesis - i.e. descent from one common ancestor.

a reply to: neoholographic
There was a theory of Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"), the "missing link" between ape and man. And it was a big discovery...

Until 41 years later it is proven to be the greatest hoax in paleoanthropological history.

Artist make a lot interpretation on bones.

Hopefully they don't make themselves a laughing stock like 41 years ago.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Many people have recorded "testing their faith", via various methods, some in fairly scientific double blind tests.

Although the results have not always been unquestionable, and there is always room for interpretation, there has been enough affirmative evidence for most people.

This is complete and utter BS. Nobody has recorded any scientific tests AT ALL regarding faith or religion or god. Do you really think praying for rain and it happening once is evidence for god???? By that standard, any time ancient tribal people did rain dances, and then it rained aftwards proves their gods.

There is no way to test ANY of that, you just assume out of confirmation bias. Just because an idea does not conflict with existing evidence, doesn't make an idea viable. You need to be able to test it directly. Evidence doesn't rely on interpretation.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Which is interesting, since the entirety of evolutionary theory in its present construct rests on a hypothesis - i.e. descent from one common ancestor.

Nope. Evolution is directly testable. Just because you can't watch it for billions of years, doesn't mean it's a hypothesis, there is literally mountains of evidence that all points in that same direction, and nothing has ever conflicted with it despite it being fully falsifiable with every fossil find and mapped genome.

The semantic BS in this thread is going to make my head explode. Why nitpick science? What is accomplished by that?

a reply to: Barcs



Nope?

First off, you compelled me to use emojis, which I hate doing.

Secondly, if you’re going to direct any remarks to me specifically, it would behoove you to actually read, digest, and comprehend what I’ve said. If you don’t understand it then ask for clarification before posting your commentary. Does that work for you?

To help clarify - The bloodline of evolutionary theory relies on descent with modification originating from one common ancestor. The idea of a LUCA is at best, afaik, a hypothesis, although I’m not even sure how testable that is other than assuming it’s because of the conservation of certain genetic networks shared amongst all organisms.

Of course we all should know by now that the earliest organisms traded DNA horizontally which muddies the waters of common descent quite a bit. Regardless, point being, all of evolution absolutely depends on the idea that we all come from one ancestor some billions of years ago. If it’s ever shown not to be the case then what do you suppose happens to the theory of evolution as currently constructed?

Anyway, you often bring some valuable insight here but sometimes you’re too quick to jump the gun on your comments to others - in my case supposing some semantic argument when one wasn’t made.

Now if you have anything to offer about the topic and the interpretation of the MES then I’d love to hear it.

originally posted by: Barcs
Evidence doesn't rely on interpretation.

Just saw this, and had to ask: are you so sure about that?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Which is interesting, since the entirety of evolutionary theory in its present construct rests on a hypothesis - i.e. descent from one common ancestor.

WRONG.

The idea of one common ancestor is an "extrapolation" from applying the theory to observed evidence.

It could also be termed a "prediction" that according to hypothesis one common ancestor could in principle be identified.

The MES is NOT constructed on the basis of the one common ancestor hypothesis, it is exactly the opposite.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

You make arguments that consistently rely on false premises, and you have had these things explained for you often enough that you should be starting to get some clue by now.

So, either you do know this and don't care, which makes you a troll with a mission to 'repeat a lie often enough that someone will believe you'; or alternatively, you have absolutely no ability to learn anything, which just makes you an unfortunate example of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Of course we all should know by now that the earliest organisms traded DNA horizontally which muddies the waters of common descent quite a bit.

Do we KNOW 'that the earliest organisms traded DNA horizontally'?

If we do accept 'that the earliest organisms traded DNA horizontally', in what way does that 'muddies the waters of common descent'.

The fact that the MES includes the idea that modern life on earth could be traced back to 'one common ancestor' does not necessarily imply that that 'one common ancestor' was the very first and only life form on earth. The 'OCA' may well have had several ancestors if you accept that horizontal transfer was traded horizontally.

Sure, the 'new' understanding that horizontal DNA transfer is a 'thing' makes life more interesting, but it is only a problem for those who are only interested in absolutes and cannot accept that in Science understanding one thing just highlights the next question.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
a reply to: neoholographic
There was a theory of Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"), the "missing link" between ape and man. And it was a big discovery...

Until 41 years later it is proven to be the greatest hoax in paleoanthropological history.

Artist make a lot interpretation on bones.

Hopefully they don't make themselves a laughing stock like 41 years ago.

LOL. Piltdown Man BS again!

For those who came in late here is the timeline of the hoax ... source

1908: Dawson claims discovery of first Piltdown fragments.
1912 February: Dawson contacts Woodward about first skull fragments.
1912 June: Dawson, Woodward, and Teilhard de Chardin form digging team.
1912 June: Team finds elephant molar, skull fragment.
1912 June: Right parietal skull bones and the jaw bone discovered.
1912 November: News breaks in the popular press.
1912 December: Official presentation of Piltdown Man.
1913: David Waterston concludes that the sample is an ape mandible and a human skull.
1914: Talgai skull (Australia) found, considered, at the time, to confirm Piltdown.
1915: Marcellin Boule concludes that the sample is an ape mandible and a human skull. Gerrit Smith Miller concludes the jaw is from a fossil ape.
1923: Franz Weidenreich reports the remains consist of a modern human cranium and orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.
1925: Edmonds reports Piltdown geology error. Report ignored.
1943: Fluorine content test is first proposed.
1948: The Earliest Englishman by Woodward is published (posthumously).
1949: Fluorine content test establishes Piltdown Man as relatively recent.
1953: Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.
2003: Full nature of Charles Dawson's career in fakes is exposed.
2016: Study reveals method of Dawson's forgery.

Notice what is happening in the years 1913, 1914, 1915 : ACTUAL scientists (not amateur hoaxers) report that the 'Piltdown Man' is NOT what Dawson claims. That is NOT a hoax that took 41 years to discover. It took less than 3 years. For most scientists, this essentially closed the book.

Many casts were made and distributed to museums around the world. Gerrit Miller of the Smithsonian Institution flat out called it a hoax - the mandible was from a modern chimpanzee. A few people were taken in sure: W.P Pycroft wrote a book in defense of it, and Gerrit Miller tore it to shreds. Yet, it was still in the popular press being touted as the 'Missing Link' - it just wouldn't go away. In general, actual paleontologists didn't think it was worth their time to investigate 'properly' - it had already been satisfactorily debunked.

Now consider what happened on 28 July 1914. There wasn't much interest in paleontology for quite a few years - and many scientists went off to war and didn't come back. Francis Vere ("The Piltdown Fantasy", Cassel and Company, London, 1955) comes to the conclusion that the original 'find' was a practical joke that went out of control, and the hoaxer then planted a second hoax find that was so obviously wrong that the whole thing would be exposed immediately. The second find was supposedly made 'in early 1915' it was not reported until 1917. The perpetrator of the hoax died in 1916, so he never had the chance to come clean.

There was however one very convinced, and very respected, scientist who continued to tout the importance of the 'discovery' - Sir Arthur Keith, author of "The Earliest Englishman". So occasional interest continued. As you can see from the timeline, Franz Weidenreich debunked it yet again in 1923, and the geology was debunked in 1925. Notice that, except for Sir Arthur, scientists (but not necessarily the public) are in no doubt during this time - Piltdown man is a hoax.

In 1938, the 'honorary editor' of the Sussex Archeological Society (SAS) said that it was his 'firm belief' that Charles Dawson perpetrated the hoax: that Dawson 'was a man who would enjoy making fools fo people'. Dawson was well known to the SAS, he was a member and apparently financed the purchase of their headquarters building.

Finally, because Sir Arthur just wouldn't concede, Kenneth Page Oakley applied the flourine absorption test to extablish that the jaw and mandible were of the order of 50,000 years old - definitive proof of the hoax. This was in 1949, still less than '41 years' even if the popular press reports didn't get published until the 50's.

The whole upshot of this affair is this:

1) The hoax was not unrealized for 41 years - it was recognized almost immediately that it was published.

2) The hoax may have been definitively extinguished earlier if the perpetrator (Dawson) had not died (in 1916, during, not in, the war) before he had the chance to come clean.

3) It was scientists that recognized the truth early on, it was scientists that proved it definitively at the end.

4) It is human nature that some will be fooled and cannot bear to give up their misconceptions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Einstein couldn't bear Quantum Physics. The Catholic Church couldn't give up the idea of an Earth Centric Universe.

Thank you for the opportunity to write this debunking summary again. I really enjoy redoing it every couple of years.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: PhotonEffect
WRONG.

The idea of one common ancestor is an "extrapolation" from applying the theory to observed evidence.

It could also be termed a "prediction" that according to hypothesis one common ancestor could in principle be identified.

The MES is NOT constructed on the basis of the one common ancestor hypothesis, it is exactly the opposite.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

The idea of one common ancestor existed well before any formalized theory of evolution. Darwin espoused common descent and the thought that all life radiates from one source first, prompting him to develop the theory of natural selection to help explain how this can happen.

Common descent and LUCA are not predictions necessarily inferred from the theory of evolution, it's the other way around. The ToE was born out of this very idea. Unlike the Big Bang, which was an extrapolation from the mathematics of the laws of physics. There is no Big Bang without the framework of physics having existed first. Same can't be said about the ToE.

So in this particular case it seems the cart and the horse are right where there should be.

originally posted by: rnaa
You make arguments that consistently rely on false premises, and you have had these things explained for you often enough that you should be starting to get some clue by now.

How so? Honestly. Before this, I hadn't been posting on ATS in several months. If you're referring to previous discussions I'd appreciate you pointing me to them so I can see where I've been told these things. Whatever I post is usually backed by supporting research. Now if Ive interpreted things differently then that's certainly open for further discussion.

originally posted by: rnaa
So, either you do know this and don't care, which makes you a troll with a mission to 'repeat a lie often enough that someone will believe you'; or alternatively, you have absolutely no ability to learn anything, which just makes you an unfortunate example of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

This is misdirected criticism.

I do care about this stuff, more so than I probably should really. But what "lies" am I repeating? I'm not a creationist nor do I harbor those beliefs in a higher being. Evolution is absolutely the truth of how life proceeds. It's an amazing process that I take a deep interest in.

My problem has always been with the way the theory is presently constructed. I never liked the assertion that genetic mutation and natural selection were the predominant mechanisms by which evolution happens. It never made no sense to me. Finally, after the hard work being done by scientists across the field, new discoveries are showing that I am right to think the way I do, and actually have a lot of support from other prominent scientists who share the same outlook.

If I came off as a troll, that wasn't my intent.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: PhotonEffect
Do we KNOW 'that the earliest organisms traded DNA horizontally'?

If we do accept 'that the earliest organisms traded DNA horizontally', in what way does that 'muddies the waters of common descent'.

Common descent is based upon vertical transmission of genetic material. The phylogenetic tree, taking HGT into account, begins to take on more a bushy framework.

originally posted by: rnaa
The fact that the MES includes the idea that modern life on earth could be traced back to 'one common ancestor' does not necessarily imply that that 'one common ancestor' was the very first and only life form on earth. The 'OCA' may well have had several ancestors if you accept that horizontal transfer was traded horizontally.

The MES absolutely relies on one common ancestor. But as you say, who is to know for sure if the OCA had multiple ancestors. HGT clouds the picture. Now if that's the case, then isn't it conceivable that life could have had multiple origins or lineages? Convergence can lend some support to this idea.

originally posted by: rnaa
Sure, the 'new' understanding that horizontal DNA transfer is a 'thing' makes life more interesting, but it is only a problem for those who are only interested in absolutes and cannot accept that in Science understanding one thing just highlights the next question.

I can't argue with this. It's why I bring up the questions in the first place. The MES is that "absolute" and doesn't allow for other ways to view evolution. HGT is not a part of the framework. Microbes, which make up the largest group of organisms by numbers and mass, and have existed the longest, rely a lot on HGT. And let's not forget about the role viruses may have played in all of this, which is also not compatible with the MES.

Have you ever read the works and writings of the Carl Woese? If not you should have a look.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

The idea of one common ancestor existed well before any formalized theory of evolution. Darwin espoused common descent and the thought that all life radiates from one source first, prompting him to develop the theory of natural selection to help explain how this can happen.

The idea of evolution existed well before Darwin too. Darwin's contribution was natural selection. But there was no 'Theory of Evolution' until the 1930's at the earliest.

The idea that we all come from one common ancestor is derived from the idea of evolution. If evolution didn't support OCA, then the idea of OCA would have been abandoned.

Evolution implies OCA. OCA does not imply evolution.

Common descent and LUCA are not predictions necessarily inferred from the theory of evolution, it's the other way around. The ToE was born out of this very idea.

This is simply not true.

The idea of evolution was around a long time before the Theory of Evolution. Evolution was quite obvious to anyone who looked close enough. Darwin was just one of many who were trying to explain it. His contribution was the hypothesis of natural selection. Mendel described the workings of genetics. Many others contributed. Many ideas were rejected. The earliest actual theory didn't begin to take shape until the 1930's.

Yes, the idea of common descent was around before the theory, but so was the idea of evolution. One of the reasons that evolution was (and is) resisted by some folks is precisely because evolution IMPLIES the OCA (which is antithetical to Genesis).

How can you possibly imagine a scientist (however far back in history) coming up with the idea of OCA before the concept of evolution? It just doesn't make sense when there is obvious evidence of evolution all around him in nature, and zero obvious evidence for OCA. Darwin spent a lifetime documenting the evidence for evolution and delayed publication of his hypothesis for years because he was worried about that implication and how it would be received - and how to reconcile it with his own lifetime beliefs.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

The MES absolutely relies on one common ancestor. But as you say, who is to know for sure if the OCA had multiple ancestors. HGT clouds the picture. Now if that's the case, then isn't it conceivable that life could have had multiple origins or lineages? Convergence can lend some support to this idea.

Of course it does, and that doesn't cloud the picture of the OCA in any way.

The idea of all modern life having one common ancestor does not say anything at all about what came before that one common ancestor. It only says somewhere along the line there was one species of life forms from which all current life on earth descended.

It doesn't say whether or not there were other other life form lineages that went extinct or whether or not several earlier lineages 'converged' into our OCA before the parent lineages went extinct.

This is not rocket science.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Common descent is based upon vertical transmission of genetic material. The phylogenetic tree, taking HGT into account, begins to take on more a bushy framework.

Yes. And bushes resolve to one trunk eventually (not necessarily true, but this is an imperfect metaphor).

What is the difference if it is a "bush of life" instead of a "tree of life"?

If a speciation occurs due to HGT, both of the contributors were themselves part of the same phylogenetic tree at some point lower down the bush. HGT makes it more interesting, but doesn't negate anything, it doesn't invalidate the MES, it doesn't invalidate OCA.

Have you any evidence that a life form from the phylogenic 'bush' where all modern life exists engaged in HGT with a life form from an entirely separate phylogenic 'bush'. No, you haven't. Any evidence of HGT is between life forms in OUR bush, which IN THEORY can be traced back to one common ancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor.

If HGT and Epigenetics and other new stuff is part of evolution, then HGT and Epigenetics and other new stuff is part of evolution, end of story. The MES will have make room for it, in exactly the same way that Physics had to make room for Relativity and Quantum Physics and other new stuff.

If you need to call that accommodation the EES instead of the MES so be it. NOBODY (with more than two brain cells to rub together) has EVER said that the MES is complete, perfect, or unchangeable.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
To help clarify - The bloodline of evolutionary theory relies on descent with modification originating from one common ancestor. The idea of a LUCA is at best, afaik, a hypothesis, although I’m not even sure how testable that is other than assuming it’s because of the conservation of certain genetic networks shared amongst all organisms.

It's really not, though. Many common ancestors have been discovered in the fossil record, and genetic similarities between the 2 organisms can be shown as well and directly correlates to how far back in history the ancestor is. It is consistent every time. Obviously you can't test the entire evolutionary history on earth, but that is not necessary considering all the evidence points to common ancestry all over the fossil record and history of life on earth, and nothing has really contradicted it.

Of course we all should know by now that the earliest organisms traded DNA horizontally which muddies the waters of common descent quite a bit.

How could anybody possibly know that for sure? It was my understanding that scientists think they reproduced asexually and you are referring to a time when it was most likely proto-RNA based life, not DNA based life. That is according to the leading hypotheses regarding the origin of life and DNA. Obviously those parts aren't proven because they are still hypotheses, but evolution is much much much further beyond that in terms of evidence and testability.

Regardless, point being, all of evolution absolutely depends on the idea that we all come from one ancestor some billions of years ago. If it’s ever shown not to be the case then what do you suppose happens to the theory of evolution as currently constructed?

Evolution will update its understanding and move on. That's what science does when conflicting information is found. Sure, we all shared a common ancestor at some point, but that is not necessarily the very first life on earth. It is possible that there were multiple versions of early life, and our type ended up winning out.

Just saw this, and had to ask: are you so sure about that?

Yes, in a scientific theory, the evidence points where the evidence points. You can't subjectively state things unless it is actually supported by the evidence. They test something and see what the test says. Now that is separate from filling in the gaps of the big picture, because there will always be some transitions and some mechanisms we may not fully understand, but when it comes to the testable evidence, there isn't interpretation. It either supports something or it does not. That's the whole idea of testing hypotheses. They are trying to rule them out.

originally posted by: Noinden

originally posted by: chr0naut


If scientific methodology has, to date, proven damn near useless in making determinations in their regard, and they existed well prior to scientific methodology, the fault doesn't lie with them, does it?

.

Scientific theory and methodology has no place with regards to the supernatural. Many things existed prior to scientific methodology. Let me point to Heroic medicine. Let me bleed your homours and give you a purgative. You will possibly eventually feel better

Don't be obtuse.

You are right about science an inapplicable tool in regards to the supernatural. That was what I said before.

Also, I think that medicine discovered that bleeding was ineffective well before the codification of the scientific method in the 19th century.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Many people have recorded "testing their faith", via various methods, some in fairly scientific double blind tests.

Although the results have not always been unquestionable, and there is always room for interpretation, there has been enough affirmative evidence for most people.

This is complete and utter BS. Nobody has recorded any scientific tests AT ALL regarding faith or religion or god. Do you really think praying for rain and it happening once is evidence for god???? By that standard, any time ancient tribal people did rain dances, and then it rained aftwards proves their gods.

There is no way to test ANY of that, you just assume out of confirmation bias. Just because an idea does not conflict with existing evidence, doesn't make an idea viable. You need to be able to test it directly. Evidence doesn't rely on interpretation.

Nonsense.

People do it all the time.

Judges 6:37-40 is one (quite ancient) example.

Performing repeatable, double blind experiments seems fairly trivially achievable. The belief that no-one ever has done so is just laughable.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Which is interesting, since the entirety of evolutionary theory in its present construct rests on a hypothesis - i.e. descent from one common ancestor.

Nope. Evolution is directly testable. Just because you can't watch it for billions of years, doesn't mean it's a hypothesis, there is literally mountains of evidence that all points in that same direction, and nothing has ever conflicted with it despite it being fully falsifiable with every fossil find and mapped genome.

The semantic BS in this thread is going to make my head explode. Why nitpick science? What is accomplished by that?

Single common ancestor - untestable.
Gradual process reaching back millions of years - untestable.

Sorry, but if evolution is testable in all its sub-processes, then so is Intelligent Design, usually by the same criteria.

Also, something the scientificmethod is NOT good at is at weeding out theories and hypotheses that are evidenced against.

... like the fact that there is evidence against a single common ancestor, like vastly different branches of the phylogenetic tree where RNA transcription does not follow the same rules as other branches and particular codon sequences represent different stop encoding or different amino acids. That evidences against a single common ancestor somewhat.

... or where we see rapid heritable genetic change (epigenetic change) appearing in a population faster than a heritable trait can spread. That evidences against gradualism somewhat.

... or where we can see issues in achieving speciational change because the act/s of speciation would also remove breeding capability from the 'newly minted' organisms, making the speciated genome a genetic dead end, somewhat.

and so on.