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

[Eugene Shubert]

Thank you for getting this show back on the road with some proper science, rather than puerile arguments

You must be referring to the puerile arguments that you can't answer.

That's no argument proving that an oak tree could evolve into a human in slow, sure steps such that each iteration is viable.

I didn't claim that could happen. I claimed that over billions of years an oak tree could evolve into something LIKE a human.

So in which post did you identify the law that prevents an oak tree from evolving into an unthinking loathsome creature with exactly your DNA as it exists at this very moment? Post # please?

Feel free to jump in exchemist to help billvon answer honestly.

 

[billvon]

So in which post did you identify the law that prevents an oak tree from evolving into an unthinking loathsome creature with exactly your DNA as it exists at this very moment? Post # please?

Post 246.

BTW thank you for posting the basis of the method we use to validate that humans and bananas share a common ancestor.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

If you need a law, the second law of thermodynamics is merely one of a great many that will prevent anything like that from happening.

The second law of thermodynamics essentially says that the fantastically improbable doesn't happen, which is not a fundamental law of physics.

 

[billvon]

The second law of thermodynamics essentially says that the fantastically improbable doesn't happen, which is not a fundamental law of physics.

So you asked for a law. I posted a law. Now you claim it's not a "fundamental law."

In that case let me ask you a question. What law prohibits you from changing from a clueless creationist to an intelligent, informed poster?

(And again, thanks for posting the basis of the method we use to validate that humans and bananas share a common ancestor.)

 

[Eugene Shubert]

The second law of thermodynamics essentially says that the fantastically improbable doesn't happen, which is not a fundamental law of physics.

So in the language of inheritable, maximally-magical molecules that live charmed lives by definition, common descent isn't testable because any life form could eventually produce any other kind of life form. Consequently, common descent is not falsifiable and Darwinism is not a science.

 

[origin]

So in the language of inheritable, maximally-magical molecules that live charmed lives by definition,

Why do you keep bring up the falsified Eugene molecule?

common descent isn't testable because any life form could eventually produce any other kind of life form. Consequently, common descent is not a falsifiable scientific idea.

Evolution is falsifiable.
Evolution is only questioned by blinded religious zelots or idiots. I have notice that there is alot of overlap in those 2 groups.

 

[billvon]

So in the language of inheritable, maximally-magical molecules that live charmed lives by definition, common descent isn't testable because any life form could eventually produce any other kind of life form.

Correct. If you add your imaginary magic Eugene molecules to any theory it becomes untestable because they don't exist.

Consequently, common descent is not falsifiable and Darwinism is not a science.

Common descent is indeed falsifiable. Find one organism with a completely different method of encoding genetic information and it is proven false.

So can you find that one organism? Millions have been studied. Surely it shouldn't be hard to find that one organism that proves common descent false.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Evolution is falsifiable.

So you don't know the difference between evolution and common descent. Fasicinating.

 

[origin]

So you don't know the difference between evolution and common descent. Fasicinating.

Not a single thing you have written is fascinating nor even minimally thought provoking. Just a typical troll wasting everyones time.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Find one organism with a completely different method of encoding genetic information and it is proven false.

If two or more distinct life forms developed independently such that each of those life forms could eventually evolve into each other, then there would be no way to determine the original number of distinct life forms. Consequently, and for that reason, common descent is not falsifiable.

 

[origin]

If two or more distinct life forms developed independently such that each of those life forms could eventually evolve into each other, then there would be no way to determine the original number of distinct life forms. Consequently, and for that reason, common descent is not falsifiable.

Billvon is absolutely correct. I assume this is just your trolling with your mind numbingly stupid dismisal of his point. I would hate to think you are that lost...

 

[billvon]

If two or more distinct life forms developed independently such that each of those life forms could eventually evolve into each other, then there would be no way to determine the original number of distinct life forms. Consequently, and for that reason, common descent is not falsifiable.

I asked you to find a single organism with a completely different method of encoding genetic information. That would prove common descent false. Can you do it? Simple question.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

If two or more distinct life forms developed independently such that each of those life forms could eventually evolve into each other, then how could we determine the original number of distinct life forms? Simple question.

 

[billvon]

If two or more distinct life forms developed independently such that each of those life forms could eventually evolve into each other, then how could we determine the original number of distinct life forms? Simple question.

I will answer your question once you answer mine.

I asked you to find a single organism with a completely different method of encoding genetic information. That would prove common descent false. Can you do it?

 

[spidergoat]

If two or more distinct life forms developed independently such that each of those life forms could eventually evolve into each other, then how could we determine the original number of distinct life forms? Simple question.

That's impossible. Even convergent evolution doesn't say that their DNA will be identical. But it does leave clues to it's origins. Common descent from a single life form is a reasonable conclusion from available DNA.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

I asked you to find a single organism with a completely different method of encoding genetic information. That would prove common descent false. Can you do it?

Conceivably, all organisms that can possibly exist can only encode genetic information essentially one way. Thus, you may be following a non-falsifiable religion.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

If two or more distinct life forms developed independently such that each of those life forms could eventually evolve into each other, then how could we determine the original number of distinct life forms?

That's impossible.

Thanks for confirming my claim of non-falsifiability.

 

[billvon]

Conceivably, all organisms that can possibly exist can only encode genetic information essentially one way. Thus, you may be following a non-falsifiable religion.

So you cannot answer my simple question. No wonder you don't understand common ancestry.

And again, thank you for posting the basis of the method we use to validate that humans and bananas share a common ancestor.

 

[spidergoat]

Conceivably, all organisms that can possibly exist can only encode genetic information essentially one way. Thus, you may be following a non-falsifiable religion.

That's not true, we already know about alternative methods of encoding biological information like RNA.

Thanks for confirming my claim of non-falsifiability.

It is a falsifiable theory. DNA carries a kind of history of it's development, and it's impossible for two organisms to arise in identical conditions. Even identical twins are different.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

That's not true, we already know about alternative methods of encoding biological information like RNA.

Let's see a picture of the complete animal. How was it created? Where is it living now?