Does Common Descent Follow Logically From Darwin's Four Postulates?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Eugene Shubert, May 10, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,749
    6

    Yah

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    How does that even matter?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,470
    Your toy models of evolutionary processes don't work. They conflict with research and observation. Change, or discard.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Would you buy a pig in a poke?
     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    What's a poke?
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
  10. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Yes, there are many silly laws, such as don't travel faster than light because it confuses passengers. Interestingly however, according to your presuppositions, as you interpret them, the prominent physicist George Gamow should have been imprisoned for denying the second law of thermodynamics in chapter 9 of MR TOMPKINS IN WONDERLAND.

    And that reminds me of a hilarious prophecy about me by Douglas Adams:

    “It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass.”
     
  11. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,749
    I thought it was god who was supposed to return from the dead

    Not a smartass

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,823
    So the laws of thermodynamics are "silly" but your maximally-magical Eugene molecule is real.

    Perhaps try a fantasy board instead of a science board next time?
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,470
    People playing silly games can do so in a page or two - 16 is too many. I'm sorry about my contribution, and I promise never to feed this troll again.
     
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,749
    I call the game Ping Pong and your tolerance of 2 pages is well over my tolerance level of 3 Pings

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    What about DNA? There is more than one kind, and yet we only see one kind in all life forms on Earth, evidence of a common ancestor that happened on one form accidentally and passed it on.
     
  16. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    More precisely, the second law of thermodynamics is very much like the speed limit on freeways, which was devised, in part, with optimal safety in mind. Some cars move faster than the posted limit and some cars move slower. On the average however, the majority of cars obey the central limit theorem. One thing is certain though, the central limit theorem has no power over nonconformists.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,823
    It would be interesting to see you try to apply your "nonconformism" to, say, designing a power plant. You could begin the process all cocky, proud of your refusal to bow to the religion of thermodynamics. You could claim that with your genius and out of the box thinking, you could avoid the traps of the efficiency limits imposed by thermodyamics. It would then be fun to watch reality hit you - very hard - in the face. And you'd be left standing there wondering what the hell just happened, while real engineers and scientists fix your lousy design.
     
  18. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Unanswerable.
     
  19. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    It's not unreal. It's just fantastically improbable.
     
  20. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,749
    Have your MMEM

    undergone any scrutiny and testing like say

    Law of Thermodynamics?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Very wise in my view.

    But one thing has come up that intrigues me, apropos some of the things that are attributed to Gamow. This is the idea, which I have encountered in several places, in (usually) school-level descriptions of the kinetic theory of matter, that there is no reason - in principle at least - why all the molecules in an object should not suddenly move in the same direction at once, causing the object to leap into the air or something. According to these descriptions, it is just a matter of the infinitesimal probability of this that causes us not to see it ever happening in real life.

    I have always thought this was utter ballocks, because, as molecules exchange momentum during their random collisions and momentum is conserved, there is no way whatsoever for such an event to take place. If the total net momentum of all the component parts is zero at the start it must be still zero at any time thereafter.

    I wonder if this is among our poster's numerous misapprehensions. But not having Gamow's book am unable to see for myself what he actually said about all this.
     
  22. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,009
    I agree, what a waste of time.
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Every life form is unique, and anyway it's a trick question because the answer is always one. Because that's how speciation works.
     

Share This Page