Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[HitchSlap]

Don't dodge the question.

What part of "yes" confuses you? I'm not xian, so my yes means "yes," and my no means "no."

 

[Dizredux]

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.

ED

Yet, he notes that evolution can make "testable predictions about the past (especially quantitative ones)" tricky at best.

No question on this but testable predictions about the past are made on a regular basis.

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?

Out of my range so I cannot address this.

With the discovery of archaea as the third major domain of life—in addition to bacteria and eukaryotes—many microbiologists became more dubious of a single common ancestor across the board.

This has been known for quite a while. It is now fairly well accepted that a population or several populations are the UCA not just a single individual.

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.

Nothing new here. It is pretty much standard scientific thinking on the subject. A number of things and assumptions can be questioned but that is where science works.

I am not very sure how this relates to what I wrote and I guess it came from the the article on 29+ evidences for macroevolution by Douglas Theobald. It would be nice to give some idea of what you are discussing so the rest of can have a clue.


Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

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

If there were multiple starts to life then we would expect different domains of life that used different codons. We only see one set of codons.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Why isn't shared genetic features evidence of shared ancestry? How do you think a DNA paternity test works?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

You missed it again. It would be the same person that won 30 times. Not thirty different people.

 

[Loudmouth]

You missed it again. It would be the same person that won 30 times. Not thirty different people.

You missed it again. The probability of one person winning 30 times in a row is the same as the probability of 30 specific people winning in a specific order.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why isn't shared genetic features evidence of shared ancestry? How do you think a DNA paternity test works?

Shared genetic features is evidence of shared ancestry. I am not talking about shared ancestry. I am talking about "the" UCA. Not the hypothetical symbol of it but the actual one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Shared genetic features is evidence of shared ancestry. I am not talking about shared ancestry. I am talking about "the" UCA.

Shared features are universal which is evidence for universal common ancestry.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If there were multiple starts to life then we would expect different domains of life that used different codons. We only see one set of codons.

Has anyone ever observed the UCA? Can it be observed by fossils? Can it be found and observed today? NO. There is no empirical evidence "of" the UCA. There is evidence that points to that but there is no evidence of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Shared features are universal which is evidence for universal common ancestry.

There are no fossils of the UCA. There has been no observation of the UCA. The shared features which are universal provides supportive evidence for the existence of the UCA. See.

 

[Loudmouth]

Has anyone ever observed the UCA?

We have observed the evidence which indicates UCA. It is called science, not observation. If you have a problem inferring conclusions from observations, then perhaps science is not the thing for you.

Can it be observed by fossils? Can it be found and observed today? NO.

The genetic evidence for UCA can be observed today. Genetic evidence is way better evidence for shared ancestry than fossils are.

There is no empirical evidence "of" the UCA.

Genetic evidence is that evidence.

There is evidence that points to that but there is no evidence of it.

Empirical observations that point to UCA is called empirical evidence. You see, we don't use weasel words like you do. When we say we have observations that support UCA, we actually mean it. We don't have to be wishy washy with the meanings of words like you do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You missed it again. The probability of one person winning 30 times in a row is the same as the probability of 30 specific people winning in a specific order.

What do you mean by specific? That the names were someone imprinted in the stars in a certain order and then they one in that way?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have observed the evidence which indicates UCA. It is called science, not observation. If you have a problem inferring conclusions from observations, then perhaps science is not the thing for you.

Indicates...that is something other than the empirical observation of something. No one and I repeat no one has observed the UCA. The evidence that we have provides support to the conclusion that one existed.

The genetic evidence for UCA can be observed today. Genetic evidence is way better evidence for shared ancestry than fossils are.

Fine, but no one has empirically observed the UCA. Never. The evidence we have for its existence provides support for the conclusion there was a UCA.

Genetic evidence is that evidence.

It is not evidence of the UCA. It is evidence that supports the conclusion that there was a UCA.

Empirical observations that point to UCA is called empirical evidence.

Yes, but it is not empirical observations of the UCA.

You see, we don't use weasel words like you do. When we say we have observations that support UCA, we actually mean it. We don't have to be wishy washy with the meanings of words like you do.

Ah but you are. In Science only that which can be observed objectively is considered empirically observed. UCA is not, was not and has not ever been empirically observed.

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you mean by specific? That the names were someone imprinted in the stars in a certain order and then they one in that way?

Since we are assuming that the winners were the planned winners, then it would be the specific people who won. If Susan, John, and Ralph won the lottery in that order, the probability of those people winning are 1 in 150 million to the third power, or 1x10^24. It is the same probability as Susan winning three times in a row.

 

[Loudmouth]

Indicates...that is something other than the empirical observation of something.

No, it isn't. Observation of evidence is observation of evidence.

Fine, but no one has empirically observed the UCA. Never. The evidence we have for its existence provides support for the conclusion there was a UCA.

Here come the weasel words.

It is not evidence of the UCA.

And there are the weasel words.

Yes, it is evidence of the UCA. When Rutherford observed particles that were deflected by gold foil that was evidence of positively charged atomic nuclei EVEN THOUGH RUTHERFORD DID NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE NUCLEI.

When forensic scientists present DNA evidence from a crime that no one witnessed, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME.

It's as if you refuse to understand the most basic words in the English language so that you can continue with your fantasies.

Ah but you are. In Science only that which can be observed objectively is considered empirically observed. UCA is not, was not and has not ever been empirically observed.

The UCA is evidenced. Shared genetic characteristics is evidence of the UCA.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it isn't. Observation of evidence is observation of evidence.



Here come the weasel words.



And there are the weasel words.

Yes, it is evidence of the UCA. When Rutherford observed particles that were deflected by gold foil that was evidence of positively charged atomic nuclei EVEN THOUGH RUTHERFORD DID NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE NUCLEI.

When forensic scientists present DNA evidence from a crime that no one witnessed, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME.

It's as if you refuse to understand the most basic words in the English language so that you can continue with your fantasies.



The UCA is evidenced. Shared genetic characteristics is evidence of the UCA.

So you are claiming that even though the UCA can not be observed it still existed?
So you are claiming that even though Rutherford didn't observe the Nuclei it still existed?
So you are claiming that even though something is not seen it can be shown by the evidence that points to it...right?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are claiming that even though the UCA can not be observed it still existed?

I am claiming that the UCA existed because that is what the evidence indicates.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am claiming that the UCA existed because that is what the evidence indicates.

Are you claiming that evidence then can indicate something existed even if that something can not be observed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you claiming that evidence then can indicate something existed even if that something can not be observed?

Are you saying that you have evidence for the existence of God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you saying that you have evidence for the existence of God?

I believe I asked you a question.