Does common descent follow logically from Darwin's four postulates or is common descent a logically independent fifth postulate?
I don't think common descent does logically follow from these alone, no. One could envisage a world in which several strands of life arose in parallel, and then evolution could have operated on each strand independently. Perhaps in fact it did arise several times, independently. I don't think we know one way or the other.
. I suppose for you it makes a break from feuding with various 7th Day Adventist churches in Texas, or whatever. I merely reply so that any other readers don't get the idea that this forum accepts creationist nonsense without challenge.Common descent is compatible with Darwin's four postulates. That does not mean that multiple abiogenesis events would NOT be compatible, though - Darwin's theories work for life no matter how it comes about.
You have answered correctly. Furthermore, since Darwin’s four postulates are thought to represent a scientific theory, then adjoining Darwin’s four postulates to the negation of the common descent postulate also constitutes a scientific theory.
For those who understand quantum physics, it’s also possible to imagine the fantastically improbable, virtually instantaneous quantum creation of many varieties of life all sharing a similar design structure.
I’d like to read about the foundational observations and unquestionable reasoning. Is it producible, well-documented evidence? And what is producible evidence? Is it a really good-sounding just-so story that is easily repeated and believed or something so persuasive and so clear that it makes the mightiest religionists squirm, furious or flustered? Where, for example, as a defense of popular claims, is the observation, combined with reasoning, that demonstrates that you have an ancestor whose descendants eventually evolved into plain, ordinary bananas?
You have spoken truthfully. Darwin's four postulates are consistent with quantum creationism.
No, Darwin's postulates do not constitute the theory, for the reasons I have explained.
I stand corrected. Darwin’s four postulates are thought to represent a scientific theory; consequently, adjoining Darwin’s four postulates to the negation of the common descent postulate should only be taken as representing a debatable scientific theory, unless you can prove by logical reasoning or otherwise demonstrate conclusively that you have an ancestor whose descendants eventually evolved into bananas.
I believe that Seventh-day Millerites, circa 2017, have a very powerful understanding of the Christian faith. http://everythingimportant.org/God
Indisputably, if there was an easily understandable argument proving that human ancestor to yellow banana evolution occurred, it would be so laughable that it would be quoted by everyone. Where is it?
No, that doesn't follow.
I corrected my poor wording in post #7.
No. "Quantum creation" would have no bias towards any specific biological structure, since quantum mechanics is not biased towards specific biology.
The observation is that we share the same basic DNA structure and many of the same DNA sequences. Further observation of molecular clocks allow us to assign a rough time to the point at which our ancestors split into the Opisthokonta (later leading to man) and the Primoplantae (later leading to bananas) kingdoms. (Alternatively Plantae and Animalia; choose your favorite taxonomy.)
You didn't fix your problem. You still have to deal with the requirement that a scientific theory must agree with physical evidence. Logical reasoning is not good enough.
I'm not claiming that the fantastically improbable would have a bias for the creation of life. And I obviously assert that a spontaneous random creation must be extraordinarily rare, given that the spontaneous creation of extraordinarily complex living structures must be fantastically improbable.
That's not a respectable argument to prove you have an ancestor whose descendants eventually evolved into yellow bananas. Furthermore, fundamentalist creationists have no problem believing in a God that used a common design strategy for the creation of all the various forms of life on earth. And as a quantum creationist, I'm very happy to admit that the spontaneous creation of a vast array of extraordinarily complex living things having similar design structures is logically admissible, albeit fantastically improbable.
Yes, it is.
All the physical evidence summarized in Darwin's four postulates haven't disappeared with the observation that there is no credible argument proving the human ancestor to yellow banana conjecture.
In all fairness, if Darwin's four postulates adjoined with the unprovable common descent postulate represents a scientific theory, then Darwin's four postulates adjoined with the negation of the unprovable common descent postulate also represents a scientific theory.
But there is plenty of evidence, very persuasive and uncontradicted mountains of it. And the argument is sound.
That is false. You would need to formulate the theory itself, in accordance with those "postulates"(dozens are possible, none currently exists afaik). Then you would need physical evidence supporting sound argument in agreement with it, as you have for the current Darwinian theory.
I'm still waiting for a link to the compelling schoolchild proof of the human ancestor to yellow banana conjecture but will enthusiastically accept your easily understandable middle or high school version of the argument.
