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

Eugene Shubert said:
Apparently, all my opponents aren't willing to acknowledge the superficial evidences for incremental Windows XP to Windows 10 evolution.
Click to expand...
So what's the more likely explanation? That programmers upgraded XP to Windows 10 - or that a supernatural creator created both, and just made it appear as if it occurred during the normal software development process?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
As described by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron (2004),
Click to expand...
This shows evidence of originating from a quote mine.
First Edition was published circa 1998 http://www.textbooks.com/Evolutiona...0135680230/Scott-Freeman-and-Jon-C-Herron.php
Second Edition was published circa 2001 http://www.textbooks.com/Evolutiona...780130172914/Scott-Freeman-and-Jon-Herron.php
Third Edition was published circa 2004 http://www.textbooks.com/Evolutiona...780131018594/Scott-Freeman-and-Jon-Herron.php
Fourth Edition was published in 2007 https://www.pearsonhighered.com/product/Freeman-Evolutionary-Analysis-4th-Edition/9780132275842.html
Fifth Edition was published in 2014 https://www.pearsonhighered.com/program/Herron-Evolutionary-Analysis-5th-Edition/PGM296285.html

So it looks like after reading http://dererumnatura.us/archives/2007/04/barking-at-the.html
It was cut-and-pasted as this http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?t=2111#p6664 where the "4th edition" was added.
And then copied here.
 
billvon said:
So what's the more likely explanation? That programmers upgraded XP to Windows 10 - or that a supernatural creator created both, and just made it appear as if it occurred during the normal software development process?
Click to expand...
I didn't expect you to understand my point because it exposes the superficial thinking of those who imagine whatever evidence they need to confirm them in their beliefs.
 
Darwin and Wallace’s theory rests on four postulates.
• Postulate 1: Individual members of a population differ from one another.
• Postulate 2: Some differences among individuals are due to traits that may be passed from parent to offspring.
• Postulate 3: Some individuals in each generation survive and reproduce successfully but others do not.
• Postulate 4: The fate of individuals is not determined entirely by chance; an individual’s survival and reproduction depends upon its traits; advantageous traits lead to greater survival and more reproduction, a process known as natural selection.
Click to expand...
Source: hhh.gavilan.edu/jcrocker/documents/Unit4ReviewPresentation.pdf

To be compared to:
The postulates, which apply to populations of organisms, are as follows:
  1. Individuals within populations are variable.
  2. The variations among individuals are, at least in part, passed from parents to offspring.
  3. In every generation, some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing than others.
  4. The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; instead they are tied to the variation among individuals. The individuals with the most favorable variations, those who are better at surviving and reproducing, are naturally selected.
Click to expand...
Source: http://everythingimportant.org/devolution/
 
Eugene Shubert said:
I didn't expect you to understand my point because it exposes the superficial thinking of those who imagine whatever evidence they need to confirm them in their beliefs.
Click to expand...
Now there's a pot/ kettle/black scenario if ever there was one.
Another bonehead loon for the ignore list.
 
What are the four postulates presented in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species?

The four postulates presented by Darwin in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (eventually shortened to On the Origin of Species) are as follows:

1) Individuals within species are variable;
2) Some of these variations are passed on to offspring;
3) In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive; and
4) The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; the individuals who survive and go on to reproduce the most are those with the most favorable variation, and they are naturally selected. It follows logically from these that the characteristics of the population will change with each subsequent generation until the population becomes distinctly different from the original; this process is known as evolution.

Source: https://www.papertrell.com/apps/pre...tent/SC/52cb02a282fad14abfa5c2e0_default.html
 
Eugene Shubert said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am coming late to this circus, so I'm just gonna pick a few of Mr Shubert's more objectionable posts.
The answer to the question is a resounding No! The scientific rules would never allow an "adjoining" of an unprovable postulate to Darwin's four postulates (which to my knowledge, is probably the most researched scientific discipline of all), the same as it would not allow an unprovable postulate to be adjoined with any scientific theory.
Scientific Theory,
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Click to expand...
An unprovable postulate is not acceptable in science. It is in religion and that is what scientifically negates the concept of a sentient Divine Creator.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
For mathematicians, the word axiom simply means "fundamental assumption."
Click to expand...
Something like the axiom a + a = 2 x a ? It's fundamental but not an assumption.

The attempt to create an axiom that allows for an unprovable component is not allowed in science. It is in religion and that scientifically negates the concept of an axiom which allows for a sentient Divine Creator.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Isn’t the famous linguist Noam Chomsky well-known for concluding that there’s a universal grammar that controls all human languages?
Click to expand...
If he did, he was wrong.
There is one universal language, which we have translated into a common symbolic language. It's the language of mathematics.
 
billvon said:
Let's extend your example. Let's say a writer decides to write one book, and they are all similar. Then less gifted people copy his style and there are hundreds, then thousands of books, all sharing a style. Would a reasonable person conclude that since they were all similar in style, that God wrote them all? No, they would conclude that people did.
Click to expand...
Curiously, all religious scripture claim a different and exclusively true god. Apparently they were also written by different people. One thing is clear, God was not the author of all scripture.
 
Write4U said:
The attempt to create an axiom that allows for an unprovable component is not allowed in science.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you should know that mathematicians have the audacity to formulate very esoteric, unintuitive axioms for the purpose of studying their implications.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's why the first physical particles were H and HE, were at least H is a required component of all life, including a sentient Divine Creator. But of course that presents a contradiction.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
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.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't be happy about that at all. Darwin constructed a logically admissible AND (from the evidence that has survived some 3.8 billion years) very probable postulate.
What is the oldest life form?
The oldest known life form on earth (that still exists today) is a stromatolite found in western Austrlia, it is 3.8 billion years old.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top