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

Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't be stupid. This was England in the c.19th. Darwin was a contemporary of Charles Dickens!

Nobody had been burnt at the stake for over 200 years by then.

In any case, the notion that he delayed publication seems to be a modern myth. I quote the Wiki article:-

"Darwin had his basic theory of natural selection "by which to work" by December 1838, yet almost twenty years later, in June 1858, Darwin was still not ready to publish his theory. It was long thought that Darwin avoided or delayed making his ideas public for personal reasons. Reasons suggested have included fear of religious persecution or social disgrace if his views were revealed, and concern about upsetting his clergymen naturalist friends or his pious wife Emma. Charles Darwin's illness caused repeated delays. His paper on Glen Roy had proved embarrassingly wrong, and he may have wanted to be sure he was correct. David Quammen has suggested all these factors may have contributed, and notes Darwin's large output of books and busy family life during that time.[46]

A more recent study by science historian John van Wyhe has determined that the idea that Darwin delayed publication only dates back to the 1940s, and Darwin's contemporaries thought the time he took was reasonable. Darwin always finished one book before starting another. While he was researching, he told many people about his interest in transmutation without causing outrage. He firmly intended to publish, but it was not until September 1854 that he could work on it full-time. His estimation that writing his "big book" would take five years proved optimistic.[47]"
 
Eugene Shubert said:
The sophistication of Darwinist thought is clearly finite. It's about on the level of the pigeonhole principle in mathematics.
Click to expand...
That's a very sophisticated principle.

But even so, Darwinian evolution has it beat for profundity and scope. IMHO. It's clearly beyond your comprehension, for example, and you're a reasonably bright guy.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
That's exactly how mathematicians use the term.
Click to expand...
One of the differences between science and mathematics - the scientist's postulates answer to physical evidence and circumstance, as well as logical consistency and interesting consequences.

If you want to postulate that bananas and humans have no common ancestors, you have to explain the evidence that indicates they do.
 
exchemist said:
In any case, the notion that he delayed publication seems to be a modern myth. I quote the Wiki article:- etc. etc.
Click to expand...
By 1858 Darwin was still mulling over his ideas, contemplating a grand publication of everything he wanted to say on the subject, while Wallace was getting ready to publish a short article containing the main idea.
Wallace told Darwin of his intention, so Darwin wrote a short paper for the Linnaean Society.
Darwin's book appeared a year later, but it wasn't the on the "majestic scale" he'd originally intended.

It would therefore seem that, rather than delay publication, he actually went to press earlier than planned with a smaller book because of Wallace's contribution.

Quotes from Stewart and Cohen, The Science of Discworld.

No offence exchemist, I saw your post and replied to it (for further info on the subject) because the bozo your post was aimed is on my ignore list.
 
iceaura said:
If you want to postulate that bananas and humans have no common ancestors, you have to explain the evidence that indicates they do.
Click to expand...
Since it was asserted that Darwin's four postulates are independent of the common descent postulate, then I can only ask again for the middle school version of the commonly accepted proof of the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Since it was asserted that Darwin's four postulates are independent of the common descent postulate, then I can only ask again for the middle school version of the commonly accepted proof of the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture.
Click to expand...
Why are you under the impression that biology stopped at Darwin?
 
spidergoat said:
Why are you under the impression that biology stopped at Darwin?
Click to expand...
Your imagination is playing tricks on you. I'm under the impression that thinking stopped with Darwin. But what does that have to do with my very respectful request for the middle school version of the commonly accepted proof of the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Your imagination is playing tricks on you. I'm under the impression that thinking stopped with Darwin. But what does that have to do with my very respectful request for the middle school version of the commonly accepted proof of the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture?
Click to expand...
FOR YOUR PLEASURE? It's not worth the effort.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Since it was asserted that Darwin's four postulates are independent of the common descent postulate, then I can only ask again for the middle school version of the commonly accepted proof of the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture.
Click to expand...
This the the very common "argument from incredulity." "I cannot conceive of how mankind and bananas share an ancestors, therefore God did it." It doesn't really work, since other, more intelligent people do understand how that can happen.
 
This wholly predictable approach by Schubert is classic creationist coat-trailling and will get nowhere. He has no interest in any explanation. As they usually do, he avoids discussing the observational evidence, preferring, as they always do, to treat science as if consists of scriptural texts. Hence the focus on postulates, as if the fossil record, the way organisms retrace their family tree in development from the egg and DNA analysis are all beside the point. Finally of course there is that old chestnut of demanding "proof", when proof forms no part of any theory of science. We've seen it all before and it just gets tedious.

It is willed stupidity and as such is not amenable to argument of any sort.
 
exchemist said:
Schubert ... has no interest in any explanation ... avoids discussing the observational evidence, preferring ... to treat science as if [it] consists of ... postulates
Click to expand...
I have asked for a compelling argument that proves the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture that doesn't invoke the common descent postulate and I couldn't possibly avoid a discussion of observational evidence that I've never seen. Nevertheless, I am aggressively looking for the best arguments. Furthermore, I will be very happy to examine all link recommendations if the recommended links are to elementary, yet factual explanations.

For the record, I agree with David Hilbert and Albert Einstein. Science consists of postulates. http://everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
 
Last edited:
Charles Darwin was not originally an atheist.

Charles Darwin became an atheist after he lost two of his children in infancy, including his daughter Anne Elizabeth Darwin who died at the age of ten.

If 3 of my children were to die (assuming I had any) so young then I would become an atheist too.
 
Last edited:
Eugene Shubert said:
I'm not arguing. I'm asking for a middle school proof of the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture that doesn't invoke the common descent postulate.
Click to expand...
The "human ancestor evolving all the way up to the ordinary banana" IS the common descent postulate.

If you are seriously asking the above question, then you do not understand the basic concepts of evolution.
 
The origin of life is still a mystery (even the greatest minds do not know) because abiogenesis is still just a theory.

If abiogenesis really happened 4.28 billion years ago (take in mind that the earth is only 4.6 billion years old) then over the course of 4.28 billion years it could be quite probable how complex multicellular organisms could evolve from single-celled prokaryotic organisms into what humans are today.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
 
Eugene Shubert said:
I have asked for a compelling argument that proves the "human ancestor evolving all the way up to an ordinary banana" conjecture that doesn't invoke the common descent postulate and I couldn't possibly avoid a discussion of observational evidence that I've never seen. Nevertheless, I am aggressively looking for the best arguments. Furthermore, I will be very happy to examine all link recommendations if the recommended links are to elementary, yet factual explanations.

For the record, I agree with David Hilbert and Albert Einstein. Science consists of postulates. http://everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
Click to expand...
That makes no sense, humans and bananas are equally evolved.
 
spidergoat said:
That makes no sense, humans and bananas are equally evolved.
Click to expand...
Many creationists cannot accept that, and think that man is the pinnacle of evolution and that the banana is just an amusing (and useful) evolutionary mistake. This leads to a bit of "magical thinking" where they create pseudoscientific scenarios that show that God had a hand in making Man into that pinnacle.
 
billvon said:
Many creationists cannot accept that, and think that man is the pinnacle of evolution and that the banana is just an amusing (and useful) evolutionary mistake. This leads to a bit of "magical thinking" where they create pseudoscientific scenarios that show that God had a hand in making Man into that pinnacle.
Click to expand...
If man evolved from the banana, why are there still bananas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top