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

[billvon]

It's not unreal. It's just fantastically improbable.

No, "maximally magic" Eugene molecules that are "unbelievably charmed" such that "virtually every mutation of that magical molecule represents a viable form of life" is a figment of your imagination. They do not exist in reality.

Were those words too big? It's bullshit. Is that short enough for you?

 

[iceaura]

I have always thought this was utter ballocks, because, as molecules exchange momentum during their random collisions and momentum is conserved, there is no way whatsoever for such an event to take place.

As I imagined it, when considering things, the deal would involve collisions with the walls, and then not colliding with each other in certain ways, only others. (If it turns out you have to have a few high momentum particles banging between the crowd wall and the vacuum one along a narrow column, so "all" turns into "almost all", that would not alter the basic situation).

 

[Eugene Shubert]

I wonder if this is among our poster's numerous misapprehensions. But not having Gamow's book am unable to see for myself what he actually said about all this.

MR TOMPKINS IN WONDERLAND by George Gamow is a clickable link. I referred to chapter 9 as a support to my thesis.

 

[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.

Would anyone else like to try to answer this?

 

[Michael 345]

Would anyone else like to try to answer this?

Lets see

Two distinct life forms

Lets call them

LOCOMOTIVE and

JUMBO JET

Stage 1 Take a bit off the Locomotive

Stage 2 Take a bit off the Jumbo Jet

Stage 3 Exchange bits

team Loco exchanges their bit for

team Jumbo bit

Keep going until team Loco has all the Jumbo bits and team Jumbo has all Loco bits

Reassemble Locomotive and reassemble Jumbo Jet

Done

Do you mean two distinct life forms as per different planet life?

No Dorothy you're not in magical land of Oz where anything can happen

There is no Mr Spock hybrid Human / Vulcan

Unless like the Loco / Jumbo experience you stop half way through and build a hybrid LoJum with pointed ears

Good luck with that

 

[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?

Indisputably, the possibility that two or more distinct life forms might have developed independently on earth, far from each other, such that each of those life forms could eventually have descendants strikingly similar to the descendants of the other original life forms, refutes a very mighty world religion.

 

[billvon]

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? Would anyone else like to try to answer this?

No two life forms can "eventually evolve into each other." Their DNA will be different.

So that doesn't happen, and we CAN determine the original number of distinct life forms.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Indisputably, the possibility that two or more distinct life forms might have developed independently on earth, far from each other, such that each of those life forms could eventually have descendants strikingly similar to the descendants of the other original life forms, refutes a very mighty world religion.

And how shall we describe the willful blindness of those in that world religion? A good comparison is the myth that says 'lightning never strikes the same place twice.'

 

[Michael 345]

Why do we have a poster who answers their own post?

 

[Michael 345]

Why do we have a poster who answers their own post?

Because they are the only one smart enough to answer them

 

[Eugene Shubert]

And how shall we describe the willful blindness of those in that world religion?

Indisputably, believing in one instance of the creation of life is the only conceptualization of miraculousness they can muster. And they insist that there wasn't anything miraculous about that event at all. On the other hand, if they had the courage to answer honestly, having to believe in two or more spontaneous creation events is going too far, since that level of miraculousness defies the second law of thermodynamics.

1 creation event is not miraculous.
2 or more creation events is inconceivably miraculous.

 

[Michael 345]

Indisputably, believing in one instance of the creation of life is the only conceptualization of miraculousness they can muster. And they insist that there wasn't anything miraculous about that event at all. On the other hand, if they had the courage to answer honestly, having to believe in two or more spontaneous creation events is going too far, since that level of miraculousness defies the second law of thermodynamics.

1 creation event is not miraculous.
2 or more creation events is inconceivably miraculous.

Not sure if this constitutes talking to oneself

But it is a tad worrying and creepy

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Not sure if this constitutes talking to oneself
But it is a tad worrying and creepy

Yes, you babbling to yourself is very creepy.

 

[Michael 345]

If virtually every random mutation of that molecule would represent a viable form of life, then it's perfectly acceptable to say that that molecule is magical.

Except they don't

More "potential" life has never been born
than currently exist

More "potential" lives are lost every day than are born

If quote

If virtually every random mutation of that molecule would represent a viable form of life, then it's perfectly acceptable to say that that molecule is magical

except most random mutations are NOT viable

And it certainly NOT acceptable to claim ANY molecule is magical

Can one life form evolve into any other life form?

Many one life forms have split into 2 life forms in the past

But is your question referring to a current life form evolving into another current life form?

NO

However there is at least one wild life form as I recall where evolution was observed to take place followed by a reversal of the change

It involved a light grey moth which settled on the bark of a tree and blended into its surroundings

As the city became industrialised the bark of the tree became darker from pollution

As the lighter colours moths were eaten the surviving months reproduced until the colour again blended with the bark

Later when the air became free of polution and the polution on the trees was cleaned off by wind and rain the moths reverted back to being light coloured

If you accept light colour moths as one form and dark colour moths as another form then YES it can happen and has even been observed to happen

Not by magical molecules but by evolution and survival of the adaptable (a franchise of the fittest )

 

[Eugene Shubert]

But is your question referring to a current life form evolving into another current life form?

No. Can any conceivable DNA-based life-form evolve into any other conceivable DNA-based life-form? For example, can an oak tree of today have human descendants and can all the descendants of humans living today be oak tress in the distant future?

 

[Michael 345]

No. Can any conceivable DNA-based life-form evolve into any other conceivable DNA-based life-form? For example, can an oak tree of today have human descendants and can all the descendants of humans living today be oak tress in the distant future?

You started by saying no

Then gave examples which indicate you meant yes

However with the examples you give

NO

Oak trees will not have human

descendants

and humans will not have oak tree

descendants

The divergence between plant and animal happened to far in the past and the lost DNA each suffered would not be replaceable

I have heard of people turning into arseholes and some arseholes reverting back to being human

But that's more a case of single entities showing various aspects of their make up

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Oak trees will not have human descendants

Don't tell me. Your disagreement should be with Billvon. See post #220.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

No two life forms can "eventually evolve into each other." Their DNA will be different.

And what fundamental law says that? Is it Billvon's law?

 

[Michael 345]

Don't tell me. Your disagreement should be with Billvon. See post #220.

I write my post on a 5" screen and a Andrew operating system

For some reason post in this format lack numbers

Sorry

No two life forms can "eventually evolve into each other." Their DNA will be different.

billvon is already on board with

NO

Oak trees will not have human

descendants

and humans will not have oak tree

descendants

You however asked the question

No. Can any conceivable DNA-based life-form evolve into any other conceivable DNA-based life-form? For example, can an oak tree of today have human descendants and can all the descendants of humans living today be oak tress in the distant future?

And what fundamental law says that? Is it Billvon's law?

Evolution

 

[billvon]

And what fundamental law says that? Is it Billvon's law?

Simple statistics. The human genome, for example, is about 3 billion base pairs long. That means that there are roughly 4^3000000000 possible combinations - and those are the odds of two otherwise-identical DNA based life forms just "evolving into" each other.

But two organisms that evolve separately, of course, will not be otherwise identical. There are billions of possible ways of moving material around a cell other than a standard reticulum. There are billions of possible methods of protecting a cell other than a human cell membrane. There are billions of ways a cell can absorb food, convert it to energy and excrete waste products. And all of THOSE things can be different, too - and many are not encoded in nuclear DNA.

They might LOOK similar, of course, in the same way a stick bug might look like a stick. But they will not be the same, nor will they "evolve into each other."