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

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

  1. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Furthermore, it's true that you don't care if your spiritual leaders have lived their entire lives as dupes of the prince of darkness.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    979
    Why can't you accept my acceptance of Darwin's extraordinarily trivial four postulates?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    979
    Yet Darwin had the good sense to be ashamed of spiritualism and its connection with the co-originator of evolution theory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Darwin isn't my spiritual leader. He established a theory that has only been reinforced with evidence over time. I challenge you to show the error. Personal attacks on Darwin don't concern me. Even the largest Christian organization existing acknowledges the fact of Evolution.
     
    Write4U and danshawen like this.
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    There was no co-originator.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Because you fail to recognize the true power and implications of one of the strongest theories in the history of science. Bow down to your great grandmother, the one celled organism.
     
  10. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Charles Darwin already gave major credit to his co-originator, spiritualist friend for the theory of evolution. I would think that all spiritualists should know this.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    It's all about who publishes first.
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    So if Charles Darwin gave major credit to a co-originator, spiritualist friend, then that means nothing to you?
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    What should it mean?
     
  14. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    332
    No, common descent doesn't "follow" from the "postulates" of natural selection, it's an independent thing.

    That is, you could have brand new species magically coming into existence out of nowhere, and still, they would evolve by natural selection, as long as they had inheritable variation that affected adaptation and consequently reproduction rates.

    Conversely, just there being a universal common descent wouldn't imply in natural selection if somehow there were no inheritable variation or somehow it never had any effect on adaptation.



    Common descent logically "follows" from the postulate of "biogenesis", that is, the negation of spontaneous generation. If organisms don't sprout of nowhere somehow, but come from the biological reproduction, then ultimately there would have been a common ancestor to all, unless all lineages were supposed to have been temporally infinite.

    But empirical evidence of biological relatedness in a "universal genealogical tree" pattern does a better job proving it than just the sheer logic.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2017
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,120
    But does that rule out the possibility that there may have been more than one point of origin and creating its own family tree, but based on the fundamental DNA /RNA function.
    https://www.upi.com/Science_News/20...undant-in-space-scientists-say/7301460116175/

    A small piece of the puzzle?
     
  16. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    332
    I believe that the consensus, for life on Earth at least, is that any kind of independent origins of life or proto-biotic systems must have fused symbiotically at some point, before the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Or at least the LUCA of "proper" living organisms, non-virus.

    If different "lineages" with spontaneously formed RNA and whatever else, arose at some point, whatever happened after that, resulted in all living organisms having still the same universal genetic code, or just minor variants.

    For total clarification, "genetic code" here isn't in the "genome" sense (which, albeit also is largely shared between lineages, isn't "universal"), but the relationship between codons, short DNA sequences that compose genes, and the amino acid synthesized from it. That's supposed to have been something that evolved, that could have been more different, not so much an inherent biochemical property.

    I think it's possible that there could have been somewhat radically different basal biochemistries/phisiologies even from the same instance of origin of life. So, here on Earth, we could have two (or more) lineages that split very early on, and they could differ so much that it would even be debatable whether there was a common origin, or whether more instances of the same general process happened at isolated sites, with more than one of these original life forms surviving to this day. But, as it seems to be the case, even the most unrelated organisms aren't so different that they can be argued to have had a separate origin.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,120
    And water is an efficient transport system to all regions on earth. Perhaps this is why Carnegie has endorsed research in DEW (Deep Earth Water) project to collect information from previously unexplored ocean and ocean floor environments. Similar to the Deep Earth Crust samples being collected for bio-chemical examination.
     

Share This Page