Questions for Those Who Accept (Universal) Common Descent
-
OK if you accept universal common descent how do you test it to the exclusion of all alternatives?
How many mutations does it take to get a eukaryote starting with populations of prokaryotes- you can use each alleged symbiotic event as one genetic change/ mutation?
How many mutations does it take to get a chordate starting with populations of invertabrates?
How many mutations does it take to get a fish-a-pod starting with populations of fish? What genes are involved? Are any new genes required? If "yes" how many?
Science says that genes control traits- traits being eye color, hair color, ear-lobe style, etc. What is your evidence that being human is just a collection of traits?
And the killer question:
What makes an organism what it is? Without knowing that no one can say one type can evolve into another.
In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
The bottom line is people accept universal common descent for personal, not scientific, reasons. And the comments will bear that out.
OK if you accept universal common descent how do you test it to the exclusion of all alternatives?
How many mutations does it take to get a eukaryote starting with populations of prokaryotes- you can use each alleged symbiotic event as one genetic change/ mutation?
How many mutations does it take to get a chordate starting with populations of invertabrates?
How many mutations does it take to get a fish-a-pod starting with populations of fish? What genes are involved? Are any new genes required? If "yes" how many?
Science says that genes control traits- traits being eye color, hair color, ear-lobe style, etc. What is your evidence that being human is just a collection of traits?
And the killer question:
What makes an organism what it is? Without knowing that no one can say one type can evolve into another.
In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
The bottom line is people accept universal common descent for personal, not scientific, reasons. And the comments will bear that out.
posted by Joe G @ 5:00 PM
8 Comments:
At 4:05 AM,
Unknown said…
"OK if you accept universal common descent how do you test it to the exclusion of all alternatives? "
It's been tested for the last 150 years with the discovery of more and more fossils, DNA, etc. And, so far, no one has offered a better model of the observed evidence. Find some evidence which contradicts the model.
"How many mutations does it take to get a eukaryote starting with populations of prokaryotes- you can use each alleged symbiotic event as one genetic change/ mutation?
How many mutations does it take to get a chordate starting with populations of invertabrates?
How many mutations does it take to get a fish-a-pod starting with populations of fish? What genes are involved? Are any new genes required? If "yes" how many?"
It's spelled invertebrates by the way. Your spell checker not working then?
No one knows how many mutations it took. Why does the number of mutations matter? How many steps does it take for you to walk from your house to the nearest cinema? Does it matter? If you can't answer does it mean it can't be done? Does the number of steps vary? Just supposing you got an answer to one of those questions would you then shut up shop and go away? Can you provide details on the how and when of design implementation?
"Science says that genes control traits- traits being eye color, hair color, ear-lobe style, etc. What is your evidence that being human is just a collection of traits?"
Genes control body plans, organ development, etc. Your questions is silly.
"What makes an organism what it is? Without knowing that no one can say one type can evolve into another."
An individual organisms development is dependent on the genes it inherited from its parents and the environment in which it develops including in the womb or egg if it's that kind of creature.
"The bottom line is people accept universal common descent for personal, not scientific, reasons. And the comments will bear that out."
Uh huh. Now you're a mind reader.
And you accept design based on what specific evidence exactly? Do you know when design was implemented? Do you know how? Do you know why? You believe there is some extra coding substances in the cell for which there is no evidence.
Instead of spending your whole time trying to shoot down 150 year old ideas with almost universal support and casting aspersions on its supporters perhaps you'd be better off trying to find some indisputable evidence that design was implemented at particular times instead of just taking it all on faith based on the writings of a very few non-experts in the pertinent fields. You should learn to support your position to the same level of detail you demand of everyone else.
At 4:31 AM,
Unknown said…
How about this: do you think all modern breeds of dogs arose from a common group of ancestors? Most ID proponents are pleased to point out that dogs are all still one species. But it's obvious that there are severe morphological difference between the breeds. So, how many mutations did it take to get from the common stock to a Saint Bernard? Or a Greyhound? Does not being able to answer that question cast doubt on the fact that there is common descent amongst dongs?
Or how about the brassica plants?
Or how about you and The Elephant Man? How many mutations separate you? If you don't know does that cast doubt on your common ancestry?
How about you and chimpanzees? Probably less then 3% difference in your genomes . . .
I don't tell me ID is compatible with common descent without being specific about what kind of ID your promulgating. I'm not even sure what ID means most of the time: there is no THEORY of ID, just a bunch of objections and suppositions. The supporters can't even agree what it means. It's like every member of a football team calling his own play. Most of the time ID supporters are too cowardly to put their hypothesis on the line. They keep ducking and diving hoping people will get tired of trying to pin them down. And then they keep repeating the same old 'there's a gap in your knowledge' arguments as if that's going to bring the whole thing down. Merchants of Doubt don't make anything themselves, they just promote discord.
At 9:23 AM,
Joe G said…
It's been tested for the last 150 years with the discovery of more and more fossils, DNA, etc. And, so far, no one has offered a better model of the observed evidence. Find some evidence which contradicts the model.
Neither the fossil;s nor DNA support universal common descent.
No one knows how many mutations it took.
Then it cannot be measured nor quantified, meaning it ain't science.
Genes control body plans, organ development, etc.
Nope, genes influence development but they do NOT determine what will develop.
An individual organisms development is dependent on the genes it inherited from its parents and the environment in which it develops including in the womb or egg if it's that kind of creature.
Nice non-sequitur.
And you accept design based on what specific evidence exactly?
All the evidence I have provided in my blog PLUS the fact that no one can produce any positive evidence for any alternative.
Do you know when design was implemented? Do you know how? Do you know why?
Please tell me why I have to know those answers before I can determine design.
You believe there is some extra coding substances in the cell for which there is no evidence.
You don't know what evidence is.
Instead of spending your whole time trying to shoot down 150 year old ideas with almost universal support
There isn't any support, that is the whole problem.
And look asswipe, ypur position sez it has a mechanism of gradual change. So don't blame me because it cannot support that claim.
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
How about this: do you think all modern breeds of dogs arose from a common group of ancestors?
Dogs "evolving" into dogs doesn't help you.
How about you and chimpanzees? Probably less then 3% difference in your genomes . . .
Most likely closer to 10% or more. But even that doesn't help as there isn't any evidence that we are the sum of our genomes.
And fuck you asshole, I have plenty of posts supporting ID. OTOH no one can support unguided evolution. YOU definitely cannot produce testable hypotheses with testable predictions for unguided evolution.
Ya see asshole, if someone, anyone, could just step up and support the claims of teh anti-IDists, ID would go away. But no one can do so and it upsets you.
At 8:23 AM,
MNb said…
"OK if you accept universal common descent how do you test it to the exclusion of all alternatives?"
This question shows ignorance. A fossil of a cat from 80 million years ago definitely would falsify the Evolution Theory. Instead all fossils are found where Evolution Theory predicts they can be found.
What's more - speciation has been observed since more than 100 years ago. One minute of googling would have taught you so.
Finally about dogs - technically they still belong to the same species as wolves. They can produce fertile offspring. Give it another 10 000 years or so and they definitely will be separated - just like Evolution Theory predicts.
Now two questions for you. Which empirical data can convince you that Evolution Theory might be correct? Which empirical data can convince you that ID is wrong? If you can't answer these questions - and no crea ever could - you confirm that ID is pseudoscience.
At 8:28 AM,
MNb said…
"OK if you accept universal common descent how do you test it to the exclusion of all alternatives?"
The right question is: how to falsify common descent? A fossil of a cat of 80 million years old will do.
Then speciation has been observed since more than 100 years ago. One minute of googling would have taught you so. And speciation means common descent.
Now two questions for you. What kind of empirical evidence could convince you that Evolution Theory is correct? What kind of empirical evidence could convince you that ID is wrong? If you can't - and you can't - you confirm that ID is pseudoscience.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
This question shows ignorance.
The safe bet is the ignorance is all yours.
A fossil of a cat from 80 million years ago definitely would falsify the Evolution Theory.
What "evolutionary theory"? Please link to it so I can see what will falsify it.
Instead all fossils are found where Evolution Theory predicts they can be found.
Except of course Tiktaalik which was found after tetrapods were already around.
What's more - speciation has been observed since more than 100 years ago. One minute of googling would have taught you so.
Speciation is accepted by YECs- IOW it isn't being debated. As I said it is your ignorance at work here.
Finally about dogs - technically they still belong to the same species as wolves. They can produce fertile offspring. Give it another 10 000 years or so and they definitely will be separated - just like Evolution Theory predicts.
There isn't any evolutionary theory and it doesn't make that prediction.
Now two questions for you. Which empirical data can convince you that Evolution Theory might be correct? Which empirical data can convince you that ID is wrong?
I have already answered those questions. As I said all you have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce multi-protein configurations and new body plans and ID falls. But you can't and your posts prove that you have nothing.
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
The right question is: how to falsify common descent? A fossil of a cat of 80 million years old will do.
No, it won't as that is not a valid scientific research project. Also you need a way to positively test the claim and you don't have any.
Post a Comment
<< Home