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

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

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Agreed. And Schubert's link is from a creationist source, so what it claims about physics being a mathematical discipline can safely be discarded as worthless.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,689
    To remind us puny humans of our humble past and to thank our good lord that we are now masters of our destiny and not just hanging about waiting for (or to be) sundae

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    I already posted the cellular biology evidence, above, which is overwhelming in itself, and available in middle school versions. Did you miss it?
    There is also the matter of evidence, data, experiment - you know, the "scientific method". The physical world in general tends to be important in some scientific fields.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,103
    Apparently he missed the concept of diversity in the evolutionary tree..
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,103
    That is a false and superficial question. Bananas did not evolve from human ancestors. Humans evolved from hominid ancestors, who eat bananas.

    But if you go back far enough, you will see that humans and bananas have a "common ancestral beginning"
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    When I wrote "the human ancestor ...", I meant or was thinking of an ancient ancestor of a human. See, for example, post #4 where I said it correctly.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,103
    That's still wrong. It goes back further than that.
    The proper term for a common denominator of all living things on earth is named;
    Not quite far enough back, I' afraid.
    Contents
    • That's where it begins.
    • Life itself is a chemical function, and there are a lot of chemicals which yield a rich environment for diversity using the same ingredients, but creating an exponentially expanding variety and diversity within these varieties.
    • It's not a question of its alive or its dead. Not true. There is a whole range of intermediate states. It just goes on down the line to pure chemistry and the mathematics of selection of "functional" abilities. Just look at a virus.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  11. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    No. Look up the dictionary definition of the word ancestor.

    2. Biology. the actual or hypothetical form or stock from which an organism has developed or descended.
    3. an object, idea, style, or occurrence serving as a prototype, forerunner, or inspiration to a later one.
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    See the cited references.
     
  13. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I've already answered that. A superficial look at the astounding similarities between Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows 10 would have a Darwinist believe that the current version of Windows 10 developed from incremental alterations of source code from Windows XP.

    Darwin wrote:

    "Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by the short and sure, though slow steps." — Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

    Here was my rebuttal:
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,103
    Yes and that did not start with mammalian ancestors, but long before then these evolutionary paths had already split into millions of other species, adapted to their environment, some paths becoming mammalian and the pinnacle of man, other paths producing insects, which today in spite of their small size have about the same total biomass as humans.

    Humans evolved from a evolutionary branch of mammals, plants from another branch, bacteria, and the most curious life around black smokers, and other deep ocean dwellers, all having split into family branches, each with their own varieties.

    I don't see the mystery in such an evolutionary progression, whereas young earth creationist ignore all scientific evidence that points directly to Darwin's initial concept of evolution and natural selection, regardless of how incomplete his hypothesis.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  15. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,689
    Are the similarities present because Windows wishes to maintain compatibility with older Windows programs?

    Just asking

    Nothing like introducing a new Operating System which does not run customers old programs forcing customer to buy new programs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    And a non-superficial look would discover the mechanism of that inheritance, which involves engineers - human programmers. As well as a common ancestry, btw - the attribution of common ancestry as the most likely explanation of many of the similarities is sound and well supported.

    That's what the non-superficial look (it's called "scientific research") at cellular biology discovered: the mechanism of that inheritance, which supports even more strongly the attribution of common ancestry - because it does not involve engineers of any kind.
     
  17. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Pretend all you like that you understand engineering life-code when you obviously refuse to acknowledge your ignorance about computer science.

    "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P. Feynman.
     
  18. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Right. You went to ancestry.com and found one of your ancestors whose descendants are certified bananas. Amazing.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    The researchers are looking in the rocks and in the cells - not in books and websites. You might follow their example - their track record is pretty good.
     
  20. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    And this definition of science demands that we test Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem, which, of course, is built on testable axioms.
     
  21. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,689
    If the current testing of genomes shows evolution is progressive

    it automatically rules out requiring testing for degeneration

    With my quick reading of this mathematical ' rant ' there appears to be a defect

    IF changes in the genome are to slow to create advantages

    making any small changes lead to degeneration

    because the changes do not confer a benefit

    WHY ARE WE HERE?

    Nothing succeeds like success

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/261100.html

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,103
    What is the single common denominator of every computer? A fundamental similarity, but which offers a variety of functions. A processor!!!!

    All life has common denominators, which are fundamental to perform a variety of functions or form a variety of patterns. And spectacularly successful at that.
     
  23. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Imagine speciation for all species on an ancient, imaginary world taking place at an undeniably fantastic rate. Assuming that life began on this ancient world with a specific number of distinct species, how could you measure the initial number of original species?
     

Share This Page