Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

Oncedeceived · Oct 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Why isn't someone calling it rigged when the chances of winning just once are 1 in 150 million?

Also, it does happen over and over 30 times. More than 30 people have won the lottery.

The evidence is the shared genetic and metabolic systems. Already discussed several times now. I do claim it is evidence, and stand by it as evidence. I don't shrink away and claim that I don't have evidence, and then turn around and say that the UCA is supported. I don't use weasel words like you do.

Then you are mistaken. There is no evidence of the UCA. No fossil of it and no UCA exists today.

Loudmouth · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Then you are mistaken. There is no evidence of the UCA. No fossil of it and no UCA exists today.

I guess you are unaware that genetics can be used to determine common ancestry?

Oncedeceived · Oct 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
I guess you are unaware that genetics can be used to determine common ancestry?

Nope, I am totally aware.

Irrelevant. There is no fossil of the UCA nor does it exist today.

Loudmouth · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Nope, I am totally aware.

Irrelevant. There is no fossil of the UCA nor does it exist today.

Why is genetic evidence irrelevant?

Oncedeceived · Oct 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Why is genetic evidence irrelevant?

It is irrelevant as it is not evidence of the actual UCA.

justlookinla · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
It is irrelevant as it is not evidence of the actual UCA.

This.

bhsmte · Oct 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Why isn't someone calling it rigged when the chances of winning just once are 1 in 150 million?

Also, it does happen over and over 30 times. More than 30 people have won the lottery.

The evidence is the shared genetic and metabolic systems. Already discussed several times now. I do claim it is evidence, and stand by it as evidence. I don't shrink away and claim that I don't have evidence, and then turn around and say that the UCA is supported. I don't use weasel words like you do.

Is this what you mean?

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life - Scientific American

HitchSlap · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Then you are mistaken. There is no evidence of the UCA. No fossil of it and no UCA exists today.

Yet, that's what ToE predicts. Wait for it.

Oncedeceived · Oct 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Why isn't someone calling it rigged when the chances of winning just once are 1 in 150 million?

Also, it does happen over and over 30 times. More than 30 people have won the lottery.

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.

Oncedeceived · Oct 22, 2014

HitchSlap said:
Yet, that's what ToE predicts. Wait for it.

Let me ask you this...is the UCA as the sole start of all life on earth an empirical fact?

HitchSlap · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Let me ask you this...is the UCA as the sole start of all life on earth an empirical fact?

All empirical facts suggest "yes."

EternalDragon · Oct 22, 2014

bhsmte said:
Is this what you mean?

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life - Scientific American

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.

Dizredux · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Let me ask you this...is the UCA as the sole start of all life on earth an empirical fact?

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

Oncedeceived · Oct 22, 2014

HitchSlap said:
All empirical facts suggest "yes."

Don't dodge the question.

Oncedeceived · Oct 22, 2014

Dizredux said:
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

A fact in Science is something that is observed and can be over and over again.

justlookinla · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
A fact in Science is something that is observed and can be over and over again.

Yeppers.

EternalDragon · Oct 22, 2014

Dizredux said:
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

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.)

Loudmouth · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
Are you trying to be obtuse? I meant one person winning more than over 30 times.

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.

HitchSlap · Oct 22, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
A fact in Science is something that is observed and can be over and over again.

Wrong.

Loudmouth · Oct 22, 2014

bhsmte said:
Is this what you mean?

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life - Scientific American

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

Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Counselor

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Counselor

Contributor

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency