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

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

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Because mathematically only about 33 number symbols and a handful of equations are sufficient to create everything we see.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    979
    That's exactly how mathematicians use the term.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    979
    The sophistication of Darwinist thought is clearly finite. It's about on the level of the pigeonhole principle in mathematics.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    No, you can't get away with that. There is sufficient evidence to assume that common decent is not only possible , but likely. Where is your evidence of that highly improbable creation event that made everything in one fell swoop.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    I believe that is called forming an experiment based on a hypothetical condition.
    And when the study shows the flawed hypothesis , it is discarded. It is part of the process of falsification.
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence. That's the view of all mainstream physicists. You can hear Sir Roger Penrose express that very orthodox belief at exactly 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the following Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur.

     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Considering the lack of evidentiary examples at that time, I consider Darwin to be a visionary genius. Note that he didn't even dare to publish for fear of being burned (burnt?) at the stake.
     
  11. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    All emotionally committed Darwinists say that, based exclusively on religiosity.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Yes physical reality can mathematically be created in a permittive condition. But it started in a state of chaos, which ordered itself by the cooling of the initial conflagration, which spontaneously created the first physical particles.
    But
    We go back to the beginning.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Really, how many fossils do we need to come to a evolutionary conclusion. So far we have found about 6000 fossilized remains of humans existing as early as 2.8 million years ago.
    And for a list of transitional fossils (too many to quote)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
     
    exchemist likes this.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Not only is that an unwarranted ad hominem, it is also false as George Carlin so eloquently related. (warning, crude language)
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  15. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    That's a bold contradiction to what Sir Roger Penrose actually said.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Well, he is just one scientist and no one has claimed that science has been perfected. I am sure Penrose will stipulate to that.
    Religions make that claim.
    http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  17. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    I was under the impression the thread was about

    evolutionary biology

    Charles Darwin and

    four postulates, which apply to populations of organisms, are as follows:
    1. Individuals within populations are variable.
    2. The variations among individuals are, at least in part, passed from parents to offspring.
    3. In every generation, some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing than others.
    4. The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; instead they are tied to the variation among individuals. The individuals with the most favorable variations, those who are better at surviving and reproducing, are naturally selected
    Silly silly me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Eugene Shubert
    What's so impossible about a Creator choosing to use a common design strategy for the creation of all the various forms of life on earth?

    Make the claim
    Play the game
    Give a reference
    For the evidence

    Did I miss the memo where Darwinism became a religion?

    Eugene Shubert
    So the question is, what happens when all the usable energy is converted into heat?

    Well I am certain I won't be around but I understand the two main contenders are

    Big Crunch or

    the Universe flat lines with no matter left to convert into energy (this is my pick)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    That's a wonderful question. Why did God create a universe that's obviously headed to unavoidable extinction? I believe that our universe was meant to be prophecy of the fall of angels and humankind and that we should take our own mortality seriously. But obviously, according to the prophets of God, the good news is that there will be a new heaven and a new earth for those who are accounted worthy.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Of course if god followed his original plan again it would take another 14.7 billion years to form, but ,other than that, I can generally agree with statement statement, except that new earth will be populated by that lowly little creature called ant. It was the first species that learned the benefits of practicing horticulture and husbandry a few hundred million years before humans came along. I call that being worthy of a divine reward, though I have a problem visualizing an ant heaven. Would that look something like an ant-farm? I had one as a boy and my ants , which I had saved from being exterminated, seemed very happy.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Ah yes. The inevitable descent into mockery and antagonism when the crank runs out of rational arguments.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    Thank god, that doesn't include me. I'm an firm atheist, but I do believe in a fundamentally mathematical universe. But then as an ex accountant I am partial to the mathematical function which is able to create the most divine art forms, including the probabilistic Darwinian evolution of life forms.
    By that standard I have adopted Darwinian evolution as the most mathematically plausible and probable universal creative functions.
    When I see a peacock in full display, I think of the fractal mathematics that created such natural beautiful art forms.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You think of an invisible but sentient mythical being, which no one has ever seen.
     
  22. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,675
    Thank you

    But it is hardly original

    Wonderful question

    Hardly original

    Retorical?

    Arrr the old belief card

    As I understand the BELIEF CARD trumps everything else in play

    Never play cards with Thesist

    No matter the cards you deal to them Thesist can convert any of them into a BELIEF CARD

    Can I ask please?

    If our Universe was made in 6 days what was the rush?

    It seems to have a few billion years left to run before Universe 2.0 for the worthy comes right?

    I had an ant farm also and they did appear happy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I do have trouble thinking of god in the image of an ant though

    Eugene Shubert
    Don't tell me. Tell it to the religious nuts that are confident that they have an ancestor whose descendants eventually evolved into ordinary yellow bananas

    Please ask someone from that group to join the thread here please so it might be debated


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    You mean God made a mistake the first time and has to do it all over again?
    Now who has the pigeonhole principle of mathematics? (your words).
    He could have done right in the first place, no? Think of all the wasted billions of lifeforms that have come and gone. Carlin was undeniably correct in his analysis.

    It's obvious you have a good mind, why waste it on a variation of the fable, "the emperor's new clothes".
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017

Share This Page