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

[exchemist]

That makes no sense, humans and bananas are equally evolved.

Agreed. And Schubert's link is from a creationist source, so what it claims about physics being a mathematical discipline can safely be discarded as worthless.

 

[Michael 345]

If man evolved from the banana, why are there still bananas?

To remind us puny humans of our humble past and to thank our good lord that we are now masters of our destiny and not just hanging about waiting for (or to be) sundae

 

[iceaura]

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

I already posted the cellular biology evidence, above, which is overwhelming in itself, and available in middle school versions. Did you miss it?

For the record, I agree with David Hilbert and Albert Einstein. Science consists of postulates.

There is also the matter of evidence, data, experiment - you know, the "scientific method". The physical world in general tends to be important in some scientific fields.

 

[Write4U]

That makes no sense, humans and bananas are equally evolved.

Apparently he missed the concept of diversity in the evolutionary tree..

 

[Write4U]

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.

That is a false and superficial question. Bananas did not evolve from human ancestors. Humans evolved from hominid ancestors, who eat bananas.

But if you go back far enough, you will see that humans and bananas have a "common ancestral beginning"

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Bananas did not evolve from human ancestors.

When I wrote "the human ancestor ...", I meant or was thinking of an ancient ancestor of a human. See, for example, post #4 where I said it correctly.

 

[Write4U]

is the observation, combined with reasoning, that demonstrates that you have an ancestor whose descendants eventually evolved into plain, ordinary bananas?

That's still wrong. It goes back further than that.
The proper term for a common denominator of all living things on earth is named;

When I wrote "the human ancestor ...", I meant or was thinking of an ancient ancestor of a human. See, for example, post #4 where I said it correctly.

Not quite far enough back, I' afraid.
Contents

[1Classification of Living Things & Naming

• 2Eukaryotes & Prokaryotes

• 3The Three Domains

• 4The Six Kingdoms

• 5Origins of Diversity

• 6Phylogeny, Cladistics & Cladogram

• 7Classification of Living Things Practice Questions

• https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Gener...fication_and_Domains_of_Life#The_Six_Kingdoms
• ------------------------------

• That's where it begins.

• Life itself is a chemical function, and there are a lot of chemicals which yield a rich environment for diversity using the same ingredients, but creating an exponentially expanding variety and diversity within these varieties.

• It's not a question of its alive or its dead. Not true. There is a whole range of intermediate states. It just goes on down the line to pure chemistry and the mathematics of selection of "functional" abilities. Just look at a virus.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

That's still wrong.

No. Look up the dictionary definition of the word ancestor.

2. Biology. the actual or hypothetical form or stock from which an organism has developed or descended.
3. an object, idea, style, or occurrence serving as a prototype, forerunner, or inspiration to a later one.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Agreed. And Schubert's link is from a creationist source, so what it claims about physics being a mathematical discipline can safely be discarded as worthless.

See the cited references.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Humans and bananas share the same DNA code translation, eukaryotic cell structure, and cellular reproduction sequence. That is an enormous pile of evidence almost impossible to explain except via a common ancestral lineage of some kind.

I've already answered that. A superficial look at the astounding similarities between Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows 10 would have a Darwinist believe that the current version of Windows 10 developed from incremental alterations of source code from Windows XP.

Darwin wrote:

"Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by the short and sure, though slow steps." — Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Here was my rebuttal:

Start with Windows XP and from it create a sequence of operating systems such that each successive OS is viable and is only a small perturbation of the source code of the previous OS such that the last OS in the sequence is the current iteration of Windows 10.

Where is your definitive answer to my challenge of incremental Windows XP to Windows 10 evolution being possible? I point out that Windows 10 has a utility called Backup and Restore (Windows 7). Indisputably, that utility in Windows 10 is a carryover from Windows 7. Clearly, from your point of view, that's proof of incremental evolution.

Apparently, all my opponents aren't willing to acknowledge the superficial evidences for incremental Windows XP to Windows 10 evolution.

 

[Write4U]

No. Look up the dictionary definition of the word ancestor.

2. Biology. the actual or hypothetical form or stock from which an organism has developed or descended.
3. an object, idea, style, or occurrence serving as a prototype, forerunner, or inspiration to a later one.

Yes and that did not start with mammalian ancestors, but long before then these evolutionary paths had already split into millions of other species, adapted to their environment, some paths becoming mammalian and the pinnacle of man, other paths producing insects, which today in spite of their small size have about the same total biomass as humans.

Humans evolved from a evolutionary branch of mammals, plants from another branch, bacteria, and the most curious life around black smokers, and other deep ocean dwellers, all having split into family branches, each with their own varieties.

I don't see the mystery in such an evolutionary progression, whereas young earth creationist ignore all scientific evidence that points directly to Darwin's initial concept of evolution and natural selection, regardless of how incomplete his hypothesis.

Charles Darwin's Tree of Life sketch shows his early theoretical insight of how a genus of related species might originate by divergence from a starting point (1).

 

[Michael 345]

I've already answered that. A superficial look at the astounding similarities between Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows 10 would have a Darwinist believe that the current version of Windows 10 developed from incremental alterations of source code from Windows XP.

Are the similarities present because Windows wishes to maintain compatibility with older Windows programs?

Just asking

Nothing like introducing a new Operating System which does not run customers old programs forcing customer to buy new programs

 

[iceaura]

I've already answered that. A superficial look at the astounding similarities between Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows 10 would have a Darwinist believe that the current version of Windows 10 developed from incremental alterations of source code from Windows XP.

And a non-superficial look would discover the mechanism of that inheritance, which involves engineers - human programmers. As well as a common ancestry, btw - the attribution of common ancestry as the most likely explanation of many of the similarities is sound and well supported.

That's what the non-superficial look (it's called "scientific research") at cellular biology discovered: the mechanism of that inheritance, which supports even more strongly the attribution of common ancestry - because it does not involve engineers of any kind.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

( "Scientific research") at cellular biology discovered: the mechanism of that inheritance, which supports even more strongly the attribution of common ancestry - because it does not involve engineers of any kind.

Pretend all you like that you understand engineering life-code when you obviously refuse to acknowledge your ignorance about computer science.

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P. Feynman.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

As well as a common ancestry, btw - the attribution of common ancestry as the most likely explanation of many of the similarities is sound and well supported.

Right. You went to ancestry.com and found one of your ancestors whose descendants are certified bananas. Amazing.

 

[iceaura]

Right. You went to ancestry.com and found one of your ancestors whose descendants are certified bananas. Amazing.

The researchers are looking in the rocks and in the cells - not in books and websites. You might follow their example - their track record is pretty good.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P. Feynman.

And this definition of science demands that we test Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem, which, of course, is built on testable axioms.

 

[Michael 345]

And this definition of science demands that we test Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem, which, of course, is built on testable axioms.

If the current testing of genomes shows evolution is progressive

it automatically rules out requiring testing for degeneration

With my quick reading of this mathematical ' rant ' there appears to be a defect

IF changes in the genome are to slow to create advantages

making any small changes lead to degeneration

because the changes do not confer a benefit

WHY ARE WE HERE?

Nothing succeeds like success

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/261100.html

 

[Write4U]

Right. You went to ancestry.com and found one of your ancestors whose descendants are certified bananas. Amazing.

What is the single common denominator of every computer? A fundamental similarity, but which offers a variety of functions. A processor!!!!

All life has common denominators, which are fundamental to perform a variety of functions or form a variety of patterns. And spectacularly successful at that.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

I don't think common descent does logically follow from these alone, no. One could envisage a world in which several strands of life arose in parallel, and then evolution could have operated on each strand independently.

Imagine speciation for all species on an ancient, imaginary world taking place at an undeniably fantastic rate. Assuming that life began on this ancient world with a specific number of distinct species, how could you measure the initial number of original species?