Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Then you are mistaken. There is no evidence of the UCA. No fossil of it and no UCA exists today.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)
- Thread starter paul becke
- Start date
- Status
Then you are mistaken. There is no evidence of the UCA. No fossil of it and no UCA exists today.
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Nope, I am totally aware.
Irrelevant. There is no fossil of the UCA nor does it exist today.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Are you trying to be obtuse? I meant one person winning more than over 30 times. It would be considered rigged. That is how the universe is, it is not once it had to win but over 30 times.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Let me ask you this...is the UCA as the sole start of all life on earth an empirical fact?
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
No. The article even says there is no real answer.
And then this: "By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models,..."
Wow. Talk about rigged.
Upvote
0
As science defines fact it is fact.
In science fact is considered to be confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
By this definition, UCA is considered to be a scientific fact and no one working in the field of biology that I have ever heard of disputes it.
Dizredux
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
A fact in Science is something that is observed and can be over and over again.
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
Yet, he notes that evolution can make "testable predictions about the past (especially quantitative ones)" tricky at best.
In the course of his research, Theobald had been bumping against a common but "almost intractable evolutionary problem" in molecular biology. Many macromolecules, such as proteins, have similar three-dimensional structures but vastly different genetic sequences. The question that plagued him was: Were these similar structures examples of convergent evolution or evidence of common ancestry?
With the discovery of archaea as the third major domain of lifein addition to bacteria and eukaryotesmany microbiologists became more dubious of a single common ancestor across the board.
Most people and even scientists operate under the premise that genetic similarities imply a common relation or ancestor. But as with similarities in physical appearance or structure, these assumptions "can be criticized," Theobald notes.
"So we should never stop considering some new approach we haven't thought of yet."
------------------------------------------------
(Except for Intelligent Design that is.)
Upvote
0
You have just demonstrated that you don't understand probabilities. The chances of a specific group of 30 people winning the lottery in a specific order is the same as the probability of one person winning 30 straight times. If we use the same exact assumption you are using, that the results were the planned intent of the process, then you would have to conclude that the lottery was also fine tuned.
I will even do the math for you. The odds of winning the lottery are about 1 in 150 million. The chances that a specific person will win is 1 in 150 million. The chances that 40 specific people will win is 1 in (150E6)^40, or nearly 1 in 10^500, the same odds that you keep throwing around for the chances of our universe being the way it is. All we need to do is have 40 lottery winners, and the same assumption that the results were planned, and we have fine tuning.
Upvote
0
It is more basic than that. The talkorigins article does a really good job of explaining it.
One common objection is the assertion that anatomy is not independent of biochemistry, and thus anatomically similar organisms are likely to be similar biochemically (e.g. in their molecular sequences) simply for functional reasons. According to this argument, then, we should expect phylogenies based on molecular sequences to be similar to phylogenies based on morphology even if organisms are not related by common descent. This argument is very wrong. There is no known biological reason, besides common descent, to suppose that similar morphologies must have similar biochemistry. Though this logic may seem quite reasonable initially, all of molecular biology refutes this "common sense" correlation. In general, similar DNA and biochemistry give similar morphology and function, but the converse is not truesimilar morphology and function is not necessarily the result of similar DNA or biochemistry. The reason is easily understood once explained; many very different DNA sequences or biochemical structures can result in the same functions and the same morphologies (see predictions 4.1 and 4.2 for a detailed explanation).
As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer languageBasic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programsit is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer languageBasic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programsit is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
