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

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

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,067
    Evidently, you have no opinion on the most compelling argument at the most elementary level. Is that because you've never seen anything like that, have no understanding of the science yourself and prefer to repeat religious dogma?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659
    I hope forever since I am sure you have investigated the subject and rejected it all and nobody will bother trying to provide you with more

    Without a heart you're nothing
    Without a dream you're lost
    You gotta keep on begging
    Gotta keep on begging
    Without a heart you're nothing
    And if all seems lost
    Just gotta keep on begging
    Gotta keep on begging

    Sincere Apologies to

    The Living End

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I handed the basics of one of the many mutually reinforcing arguments to you pages ago - the common structure and means of cellular reproduction based on a common coding of DNA implies a common ancestor. See any high school biology text.
    In science you need research and evidence. Math doesn't have to answer to the physical world - science does. Sanford's little theorem is in conflict with the evidence - so it's changed, or discarded.
     
  8. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Didn't you read my God-given dream where I have been selected by God to be His duly appointed prophet-trainee? http://everythingimportant.org/EugeneShubert
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659
    Yes

    And you suck at it

    If you're listening upstairs take my advice

    Put a ad in the Religion Weekly for a replacement

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I understand your claim. Every self-replicating molecular machine can transmute itself into every other self-replicating molecular machine.

    But that's the very definition of having an inheritable, maximally-magical DNA molecule.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I have never heard credible sources mention the miraculousness of transmogrification science. It seems that anything that bizarre should be widely known and talked about.
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659

    Nooooo

    Evolution is a slow division down different pathways

    Once the division is great enough the different pathways do not loop back

    It is

    Evolution is debated widely

    As it is not miraculous or bizarre it is not presented as such

    Religion has the patent on miraculous or bizarre

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,697
    OK. No one is proposing that thesis. Why do you bring it up?
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, that's not it. That's backwards.

    Reread the actual post - it's a simple declarative sentence, without clauses or complications. What it says is almost the opposite - that the difficulty, the extreme unlikelihood, of such a transmutation implies a common ancestor for all examples of sufficiently complex molecular machinery.
     
  15. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    The common descent postulate is logically equivalent to the thesis that all life is governed by inheritable, maximally-magical molecules.

    Please note: I didn't say how many steps would be required.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    IMO, that becomes difficult to ascertain. Life can originate in a variety of ways.
    However related species always have certain similarities which are lacking in other species.
    Thus if we find a species that have no apparent commonality with any other species, it is possible that it arose from a different precursor.
    Roger Hazen explains that this is a plausible scenario in the world of chemistry.
    But then, if life around a black smoker is so different from other surface life, then it stands to reason that bananas are also not descendants from those precursors.

    Thus we cannot verify that all life originated from a single location, but then they would lack the commonality in DNA and could be ruled out as having evolved from the same ancestor.
    Assuming that this actually is the case, certain indicators might suggest a different origin and evolutionary path.
    One such indicator might be the color of blood. All surface vertabrates have red blood, due to the iron based red blood cells. A cuttlefish (evolved deep ocean slug) has blue-green blood, due to the copper based blood cells.
    But as life itself started as a single cell, the probability that fundamentally all life comes from a single source is the accepted view in biology (I believe)
     
  17. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I didn't say anything about how long it should take.
     
  18. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Every child mathematician knows that the probability for a self-replicating molecular machine X to eventually produce self-replicating molecular machine Y is precisely the same probability for Y to eventually produce X. The existence of a reverse path is trivial. All the steps of incremental mutations of inheritable, maximally-magical molecules could simply undo all the previous mutations in a reverse order.
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659
    Surely if you have a maximally-magical DNA molecule

    the max defaults to 0

    After all its magical

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659
    Let me know when you return to being a banana or a one cell green slime

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Uh, no.
    Physical reality, remember? You always have to check in with physical reality.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,697
    Nope. No magic, maximal or otherwise, required.
     
  23. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Magic numbers are defined in chemistry and physics and magic squares are defined in mathematics. There are some atheists who refuse to use these phrases for religious reasons. Apparently, you are among those who are so fiercely devoted to atheism that you don’t want to violate the sanctity and purity of your religious faith.

    I believe that you do engage in magical thinking. That's why I've defined a certain molecular property to be magical.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017

Share This Page