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:
    3,675
    May be

    I took his idea of universal grammar to be contained within each language

    NOT

    a universal grammar equal in all different languages

    But if you think differently and can explain it better please do

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    So your belief is - a self-evident truth (FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION) that requires no proof - which is unprovable

    Care to try again?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,639
    Deserved contempt is NOT a declaration that "common descent is the only possible conclusion".
    And you don't have a theory.

    You obviously have difficulties with rationality.

    Whatever that link is meant to show - it doesn't.
    The claims therein are deeply flawed on several levels.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    This bloke is a real nutter. See this: http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/dupery.htm

    And then there is this, from some other nutters he has feuded with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seventh-day_Adventist_Church/Graham_Maxwell

    It's pretty hopeless, really

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Not at all.
    Because there is no evidence that such a creator is required. Existing theories adequately explain abiogenesis.

    Let's extend your example. Let's say a writer decides to write one book, and they are all similar. Then less gifted people copy his style and there are hundreds, then thousands of books, all sharing a style. Would a reasonable person conclude that since they were all similar in style, that God wrote them all? No, they would conclude that people did.

    In the above example the writer is nature; the physical world. The people who copy the style is evolution - taking an existing form of life and causing significant phenotypical changes. There is no need to invoke a supernatural entity.
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Chomsky argued that the human brain contains a limited set of constraints for organizing language. This implies in turn that all languages have a common structural basis: the set of rules known as "universal grammar". -- Wikipedia.
     
  10. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I said nothing about self-evident truth. I only spoke from acquired knowledge. For mathematicians, the word axiom simply means "fundamental assumption."
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    I have no such belief. I have four times stated that I regard everything you have suggested as possible. I also recognize many other possibilities.
    One of these possibilities currently has overwhelming evidence and several lines of sound argument (including a demonstrated sufficient mechanism) supporting it. The others (including yours) do not. So that one is much more persuasive to me, even though another might make a better story in some ways.
    The evidence that it happened is so overwhelming that figuring out how it was possible - if that had not been accomplished - would be the scientific challenge of our time. Fortunately, we have a wonderful theory already that has provided at least one sufficient answer. We know one way it was possible, that fits our evidence that it happened. Whether that is the only and entirely exhaustive way it did happen we do not know - but that is an historical question, mostly.
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
  13. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Then it's possible that common descent is impossible. That's my fundamental theory. Thanks for agreeing.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    No. "A is possible" does not mean "B is impossible" if A and B are mutually exclusive. Simple example - it is possible for a car to be blue. That does not mean it is impossible for a car to be red.
     
  15. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Let me give you a much simpler scientific challenge. Start with Windows XP and from it create a sequence of operating systems such that each successive OS is viable and is only a small perturbation of the source code of the previous OS such that the last OS in the sequence is the current iteration of Windows 10.
     
  16. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I'm clearly asserting the possibility that common descent is impossible. That's my fundamental theory.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    Now all you need is evidence, argument, and so forth. To back up the assertion, see? Because right now you are in the same position as someone who asserts that airplanes are impossible.
     
  18. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    The evidence for the scientific theory represented by Darwin's four postulates plus common descent is just as abundant as the evidence for Darwin's four postulates plus the negation of common descent.

    Where is your definitive answer to my challenge of incremental Windows XP to Windows 10 evolution being possible? I point out that Windows 10 has a utility called Backup and Restore (Windows 7). Indisputably, that utility in Windows 10 is a carryover from Windows 7. Clearly, from your point of view, that's proof of incremental evolution.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Yes, that is your theory. There is no evidence for your theory.

    I could assert a great many theories - I could claim the moon is made of cheese, for example. It would then be a theory. There is simply no evidence to support it.
     
  20. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    Was not aware the discussion is about mathmatics

    "Fundamental Assumptions. Quantum mechanics is our current model of the microscopic world. Like all models, it is created by people for people. Quantum mechanics divides the world into two parts, commonly called the system and the observer. The system is the part of the world that is being modeled.

    http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/qm1/modules/m1/assumptions.htm

    Or quantum mechanics

    Silly me thought

    An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

    The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

    OR

    axiom
    [ak-see-uh m]
    noun
    1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

    2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/axiom

    So unless you are Humpty Dumpty I will take the Dictionary definetion of AXIOM

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Hinzen summarizes the most common criticisms of universal grammar:

    • Universal grammar has no coherent formulation and is indeed unnecessary.
    • Universal grammar is in conflict with biology: it cannot have evolved by standardly accepted neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles.
    • There are no linguistic universals: universal grammar is refuted by abundant variation at all levels of linguistic organization, which lies at the heart of human faculty of language.[16]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

    And you would be fundamentally incorrect

    Sort of almost finally by my count you are at my normal bail out limit of 3 Pings

    However I will grant you one more if you provide

    wait for it

    EVIDENCE of that

    common descent is impossible

    I will click the iggy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    It is far more abundant.

    Meanwhile, where's your theory, and where is your evidence?
     
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,934
    Unlike Darwin, we have the DNA. And DNA related techniques like the molecular clock, which can estimate when two species diverged from a common ancestor.
     
  23. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Apparently, all my opponents aren't willing to acknowledge the superficial evidences for incremental Windows XP to Windows 10 evolution.
     

Share This Page