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

[Write4U]

What's so impossible about a Creator choosing to use a common design strategy for the creation of all the various forms of life on earth? And how do you propose proving that there's no probability amplitude that could allow for the spontaneous creation of a vast array of extraordinarily complex living things having similar design structures?

Because mathematically only about 33 number symbols and a handful of equations are sufficient to create everything we see.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

That's exactly how mathematicians use the term.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Darwin constructed a ... very probable postulate.

The sophistication of Darwinist thought is clearly finite. It's about on the level of the pigeonhole principle in mathematics.

 

[Write4U]

Then it's possible that common descent is impossible. That's my fundamental theory. Thanks for agreeing.

No, you can't get away with that. There is sufficient evidence to assume that common decent is not only possible , but likely. Where is your evidence of that highly improbable creation event that made everything in one fell swoop.

 

[Write4U]

Sorry, you should know that mathematicians have the audacity to formulate very esoteric, unintuitive axioms for the purpose of studying their implications.

I believe that is called forming an experiment based on a hypothetical condition.
And when the study shows the flawed hypothesis , it is discarded. It is part of the process of falsification.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Where is your evidence of that highly improbable creation event that made everything in one fell swoop.

High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence. That's the view of all mainstream physicists. You can hear Sir Roger Penrose express that very orthodox belief at exactly 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the following Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur.

 

[Write4U]

The sophistication of Darwinist thought is clearly finite. It's about on the level of the pigeonhole principle in mathematics.

Considering the lack of evidentiary examples at that time, I consider Darwin to be a visionary genius. Note that he didn't even dare to publish for fear of being burned (burnt?) at the stake.

Darwin waited almost 23 years before publishing his theory of evolution in his book, Origin of Species. His voyage on the Beagle ended when he returned to England in 1836. He had developed his theory of evolution by 1838, but it was after another 20 years, in 1858, that he publicly announced it.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

There is sufficient evidence to assume that common decent is not only possible , but likely.

All emotionally committed Darwinists say that, based exclusively on religiosity.

 

[Write4U]

High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence. That's the view of all mainstream physicists. You can hear Sir Roger Penrose express that very orthodox belief at exactly 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the following Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur.

Yes physical reality can mathematically be created in a permittive condition. But it started in a state of chaos, which ordered itself by the cooling of the initial conflagration, which spontaneously created the first physical particles.
But

Physicists would prefer to say that energy is conserved, not matter. In relativity theory we can convert one to another but energy is always conserved. That statement is not in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that in a closed system any process can either keep the entropy constant or increase the entropy of the system. The key is the form of the energy. In the universe today there are processes all around us that are converting one type of energy or another into heat energy. So the question is, what happens when all the usable energy is converted into heat?

We go back to the beginning.

 

[Write4U]

All emotionally committed Darwinists say that, based exclusively on religiosity.

Really, how many fossils do we need to come to a evolutionary conclusion. So far we have found about 6000 fossilized remains of humans existing as early as 2.8 million years ago.

How many human fossils have been found?
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils.

The new Ethiopian fossil, announced online by the journal Science, pushes the arrival of Homo on the East African landscape back almost half a million years, to 2.8 million years ago. The date is tantalizingly close to the last known appearance, around three million years ago, of Australopithecus afarensis, an upright-walking, small-brained species best known from the skeleton called Lucy, believed by many scientists to be the direct ancestor of our genus. The new jaw, known as LD 350-1, was found in January 2013 just a dozen miles from where Lucy was found in 1974.

And for a list of transitional fossils (too many to quote)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

[Write4U]

Trusting atheists and their sources is always a risky business.

Not only is that an unwarranted ad hominem, it is also false as George Carlin so eloquently related. (warning, crude language)

 

[Eugene Shubert]

It started in a state of chaos, which ordered itself by the cooling of the initial conflagration,

That's a bold contradiction to what Sir Roger Penrose actually said.

 

[Write4U]

That's a bold contradiction to what Sir Roger Penrose actually said.

Well, he is just one scientist and no one has claimed that science has been perfected. I am sure Penrose will stipulate to that.
Religions make that claim.

The universe we know takes shape
Cosmologists suspect that the four forces that rule the universe — gravity, electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces — were unified into a single force at the universe's birth, squashed together because of the extreme temperatures and densities involved.

But things changed as the universe expanded and cooled. Around the time of inflation, the strong force likely separated out. And by about 10 trillionths of a second after the Big Bang, the electromagnetic and weak forces became distinct, too.

Just after inflation, the universe was likely filled with a hot, dense plasma. But by around 1 microsecond (10 to the minus 6 seconds) or so, it had cooled enough to allow the first protons and neutrons to form, researchers think.

In the first three minutes after the Big Bang, these protons and neutrons began fusing together, forming deuterium (also known as heavy hydrogen). Deuterium atoms then joined up with each other, forming helium-4.

http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

 

[Michael 345]

That's exactly how mathematicians use the term.

I was under the impression the thread was about

evolutionary biology

Charles Darwin and

four 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

Silly silly me

Eugene Shubert
What's so impossible about a Creator choosing to use a common design strategy for the creation of all the various forms of life on earth?

Make the claim
Play the game
Give a reference
For the evidence

All emotionally committed Darwinists say that, based exclusively on religiosity

Did I miss the memo where Darwinism became a religion?

Eugene Shubert
So the question is, what happens when all the usable energy is converted into heat?

Well I am certain I won't be around but I understand the two main contenders are

Big Crunch or

the Universe flat lines with no matter left to convert into energy (this is my pick)

 

[Eugene Shubert]

So the question is, what happens when all the usable energy is converted into heat?

That's a wonderful question. Why did God create a universe that's obviously headed to unavoidable extinction? I believe that our universe was meant to be prophecy of the fall of angels and humankind and that we should take our own mortality seriously. But obviously, according to the prophets of God, the good news is that there will be a new heaven and a new earth for those who are accounted worthy.

 

[Write4U]

That's a wonderful question. Why did God create a universe that's obviously headed to unavoidable extinction? I believe that our universe was meant to be prophecy of the fall of angels and humankind and that we should take our own mortality seriously. But obviously, according to the prophets of God, the good news is that there will be a new heaven and a new earth for those who are accounted worthy.

Of course if god followed his original plan again it would take another 14.7 billion years to form, but ,other than that, I can generally agree with statement statement, except that new earth will be populated by that lowly little creature called ant. It was the first species that learned the benefits of practicing horticulture and husbandry a few hundred million years before humans came along. I call that being worthy of a divine reward, though I have a problem visualizing an ant heaven. Would that look something like an ant-farm? I had one as a boy and my ants , which I had saved from being exterminated, seemed very happy.

 

[billvon]

Don't tell me. Tell it to the religious nuts that are confident that they have an ancestor whose descendants eventually evolved into ordinary yellow bananas.

Ah yes. The inevitable descent into mockery and antagonism when the crank runs out of rational arguments.

 

[Write4U]

All emotionally committed Darwinists say that, based exclusively on religiosity.

Thank god, that doesn't include me. I'm an firm atheist, but I do believe in a fundamentally mathematical universe. But then as an ex accountant I am partial to the mathematical function which is able to create the most divine art forms, including the probabilistic Darwinian evolution of life forms.
By that standard I have adopted Darwinian evolution as the most mathematically plausible and probable universal creative functions.
When I see a peacock in full display, I think of the fractal mathematics that created such natural beautiful art forms.

You think of an invisible but sentient mythical being, which no one has ever seen.

 

[Michael 345]

That's a wonderful question.

Thank you

But it is hardly original

Why did God create a universe that's obviously headed to unavoidable extinction?

Wonderful question

Hardly original

Retorical?

I believe that our universe was meant to be prophecy of the fall of angels and humankind and that we should take our own mortality seriously. But obviously, according to the prophets of God, the good news is that there will be a new heaven and a new earth for those who are accounted worthy.

Arrr the old belief card

As I understand the BELIEF CARD trumps everything else in play

Never play cards with Thesist

No matter the cards you deal to them Thesist can convert any of them into a BELIEF CARD

Can I ask please?

If our Universe was made in 6 days what was the rush?

It seems to have a few billion years left to run before Universe 2.0 for the worthy comes right?

Would that look something like an ant-farm? I had one as a boy and my ants seemed very happy.

I had an ant farm also and they did appear happy

I do have trouble thinking of god in the image of an ant though

Eugene Shubert
Don't tell me. Tell it to the religious nuts that are confident that they have an ancestor whose descendants eventually evolved into ordinary yellow bananas

Please ask someone from that group to join the thread here please so it might be debated

 

[Write4U]

That's a wonderful question. Why did God create a universe that's obviously headed to unavoidable extinction? I believe that our universe was meant to be prophecy of the fall of angels and humankind and that we should take our own mortality seriously. But obviously, according to the prophets of God, the good news is that there will be a new heaven and a new earth for those who are accounted worthy.

You mean God made a mistake the first time and has to do it all over again?
Now who has the pigeonhole principle of mathematics? (your words).
He could have done right in the first place, no? Think of all the wasted billions of lifeforms that have come and gone. Carlin was undeniably correct in his analysis.

It's obvious you have a good mind, why waste it on a variation of the fable, "the emperor's new clothes".

"The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder),
is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that they don't see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as "unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent". Finally, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"
The tale has been translated into over 100 languages