|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 1:07:05 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Darwin did not make any predictions relative to universal common descent, because he only speculated and did not form any hypotheses.
Yes he did, his whole book made predictions based on the notion that UCD was true. His book tried to demonstrate UCD to be true.
quote:
Others have formed hypotheses which have been tested and have not been falsified. e.g. that if birds evolved from dinosaurs, at least some dinosaurs developed feathers. That prediction was made a decade before the first feathered dinosaurs were found.
We have discussed this in other threads. Some evolutionists predicted feathers, others predicted no feathers, and the ones that turn out to be right get remembered and the wrong ones get forgotten. None of this is evidence for the notion that UCD is falsifiable.
quote:
My question does not assume fossil evidence at all. Why did you jump to that? Fossil evidence is only one option among a variety of possibilities. The rest of your response is irrelevant filler.
Yes it does. The question, "So if one speculates that an amphibian such as a newt is the descendant of a group of fish-type ancestors, what intermediate stages would be hypothetically necessary?" assumes fossil evidence could adequately show UCD to be true.
quote:
Not necessarily. Let's deal with one criterion at a time. You originally asked for a multicellular organism with as many cells as an adult ant. I am asking if 50,000 cells would be adequate.
Depends (I want to make sure you don't twist the definition of a multicellular organism and that you aren't simply expressing already existing DNA since that doesn't account for the emergence of such DNA).
quote:
Of course not. But the question was, what empirical evidence convinced you that mutations occur and occur randomly?
You admit it is the case so it doesn't matter. I will work under the assumption that this is true.
quote:
However, when we start working out where the common ancestor of each kind is, then we start finding evidence that the biosphere is indivisible. You work back to the common ancestor of canids and find that early canids were remarkably like early ursids. (bears). It becomes hard to distinguish an ancestral wolf from an ancestral bear. You find fossils that could be either one. So you posit a common bear-dog ancestor. But this looks remarkably like something that could be a common bear-cat ancestor. So now we have a possible common bear-cat-dog ancestor. And before you know it, you have a common carnivore-rodent ancestor and a common rodent-bat ancestor.
Always, what appear to be distinct lineages merge into indistinguishable ancestral groups. So the evidence continually forces one toward common descent.
I think that fossils are subject to much interpretation and that it is the secular community that tries to force common descent. The fossil record shows stasis and is full of gaps. If you want to claim that UCD is true, show me that evolution can plausibly account for things like limbs, organs, organ systems, appendages, body plans, etc... since evolution claims to have accounted for such things.
quote:
Yes, and then the speculation is developed into a testable hypothesis and the empirical evidence for or against the hypothesis is sought. Given a speculated relationship between a rat and a squirrel, what empirical evidence would count for or against that relationship? Do you know how phylogenetic theses are tested?
How does one test a relationship? Checking for things like DNA similarities does not test relationship, it just shows that similarities exist.
quote:
Are you saying there is no such thing as biologically inherited traits?
No, I am saying that the notion that lineages between, say, us and bacteria exist is speculated.
quote:
No, but the question is, what convinced you?
You admit it is the case so it doesn't matter. I will work under the assumption that this is true.
quote:
No, let us not assume. Can you give me an example of natural selection which you found compelling?
Unless you are arguing that natural selection does not exist, there is no reason for us not to assume it does.
quote:
That makes more sense, and of course, that is not what I was saying.
I know, but you need to be more clear about what you meant, because that's how your words came out and I gave a literal answer to how you literally phrased it.
quote:
Sorry, I didn't see any explanation. Can you either repeat it or direct me to it?
Everything below the quote, "This would suggest gene regulation or something of that nature." explains why (want me to copy and paste it here?).
quote:
Let's first answer the question. Is the function of secreting molecules, cellulose, whatever inherited? Like the mammalian function of secreting milk for one's progeny? Or a rattlesnake's function of secreting venom?
Are you arguing that these functions are not?
quote:
So there is an observed plausible mechanism for unicellular organisms developing into a permanently multicellular form. Other mechanisms have also been hypothesized, but I don't know if they have been observed.
You still did not meet the criterion. The criterion is for you to show that evolution can plausibly produce what it claims to have produced (things like new appendages, limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, etc... or the DNA for them).
quote:
Well, sorry for being dense, but I still don't see the nub of the problem. You do agree that DNA programs the development of limbs, organs, etc in the developing embryo, right?
and I did add, or the DNA for them. You are confusing evolution with human development, a common mistake made by some evolutionists (which is why I specified RM + NS, to eliminate this mistake). Evolution does not account for the emergence of this DNA (at least as far as we can observe). Notice how I used the word "new" as in, not copied. Presumably, at one time, the DNA that codes for limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, etc... did not exist. At another time, it did exist. Show me that evolution (in nature) can plausibly account for its emergence. It claims to be able to, demonstrate.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/27/2008 12:46:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 2:37:09 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Darwin did not make any predictions relative to universal common descent, because he only speculated and did not form any hypotheses.
Yes he did, his whole book made predictions based on the notion that UCD was true. His book tried to demonstrate UCD to be true.
Better read the book again. It is about natural selection and the mutability of species. It barely mentions the possibility of common descent, much less universal common descent. His predictions were focused on natural selection.
quote:
None of this is evidence for the notion that UCD is falsifiable.
This seems to be your hobbyhorse. Yes, UCD is falsifiable. Here are a few possible falsifiers.
A living organism that builds proteins out of a different set of amino acids than the 22 used in all known organisms. (there are nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids)
A living organism that uses a different molecule than DNA for the storage of genetic information.
A living organism that uses a different genetic code than that found in all known organisms. We say "dog" while the French say "chien". Species that are not related could well use different base nucleotide sequences to code for the same amino acid. But all known species code for amino acids the same way.
A living organism that uses one of many available chemical alternates to ATP for the production of energy.
Find such an organism, and UCD has been falsified. For any organism with even one of these traits cannot be genetically related to any known species.
I can add more possible falsifiers if you need them.
quote:
Yes it does. The question, "So if one speculates that an amphibian such as a newt is the descendant of a group of fish-type ancestors, what intermediate stages would be hypothetically necessary?" assumes fossil evidence could adequately show UCD to be true.
No, you are assuming that "intermediate states" must be discoverable only through fossil evidence.
quote:
Depends (I want to make sure you don't twist the definition of a multicellular organism and that you aren't simply expressing already existing DNA since that doesn't account for the emergence of such DNA).
Mulitcellular organism=organism with more than one cell. Theoretically an organism with only two cells is multicellular.
DNA does not "emerge". It changes. Mostly the sequence of base nucleotides changes. A base is repeated, deleted, substituted or a short sequence reversed or transposed. On other occasions you have significant insertions or deletions or repetitions of sequences.
Alternately, you can also have chromosomal changes in which large sections of chromosomes or even whole chromosomes are re-arranged. In some cases you get a complete duplication of the whole set of chromosomes (polyploidy)
In short "new" DNA does not come out of thin air. It is derived from existing DNA.
quote:
How does one test a relationship?
Ever here of dubious paternity being settled with DNA evidence?
quote:
Checking for things like DNA similarities does not test relationship, it just shows that similarities exist.
so it is only by accident that children have DNA more like that of their biological parents than like that of any other adult human?
quote:
No, I am saying that the notion that lineages between, say, us and bacteria exist is speculated.
Actually, it is not, since no evolutionary biologist claims that bacteria are among our ancestors. Except insofar as our mitochondria may be descendants of captured bacteria.
quote:
quote:
Of course not. But the question was, what empirical evidence convinced you that mutations occur and occur randomly?
You admit it is the case so it doesn't matter. I will work under the assumption that this is true.
quote:
No, but the question is, what convinced you?
You admit it is the case so it doesn't matter. I will work under the assumption that this is true.
quote:
No, let us not assume. Can you give me an example of natural selection which you found compelling?
Unless you are arguing that natural selection does not exist, there is no reason for us not to assume it does.
Your unwillingness to provide an answer suggests to me that you do not have an answer.
quote:
quote:
Sorry, I didn't see any explanation. Can you either repeat it or direct me to it?
Everything below the quote, "This would suggest gene regulation or something of that nature." explains why (want me to copy and paste it here?).
No need, since it really doesn't answer the question. What suggested gene regulation to you?
quote:
quote:
Let's first answer the question. Is the function of secreting molecules, cellulose, whatever inherited? Like the mammalian function of secreting milk for one's progeny? Or a rattlesnake's function of secreting venom?
Are you arguing that these functions are not?
I am not arguing anything. I am asking for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question.
quote:
quote:
So there is an observed plausible mechanism for unicellular organisms developing into a permanently multicellular form. Other mechanisms have also been hypothesized, but I don't know if they have been observed.
You still did not meat the criterion.
Like I said, let's take one criterion at a time. We have observed one plausible mechanism by which a unicellular species becomes multicellular. Since multicellularity appears to have occurred several times in different species, it is not likely the only plausible pathway, but it is a verified pathway.
Now obviously we do not go magically from a multicellular algae to an ant. In fact we don't go from algae to an ant at all. We could go to a redwood tree, though. Ants, being animals, derive from a different instance of multicellularity.
But ants are a long way off yet. How about sponges first? Or some Ediacaran animals? What is new about these compared to an organism that only a generation ago was unicellular?
quote:
quote:
Well, sorry for being dense, but I still don't see the nub of the problem. You do agree that DNA programs the development of limbs, organs, etc in the developing embryo, right?
and I did add, or the DNA for them. You are confusing evolution with human development,
Not really. A human embryo per se does not evolve. It develops. But there is an aspect of evolution called evolutionary development that looks at the interface between development and evolution.
So, at the moment we have agreement that in the embryo, it is DNA that programs the development of limbs, organs, organ systems, appendages, etc.
Next question. Is it agreed that individual differences in these characteristics are due to differences in the DNA that codes for their development. (I am speaking of inheritable differences, not environmentally conditioned differences in expression like tanning on exposure to sunlight).
quote:
Notice how I used the word "new" as in, not copied.
If you are talking about DNA that is not copied, you are not talking about inherited DNA. Evolution works through inherited DNA. No organism's DNA comes out of thin air. It is either a true or slightly altered copy of the DNA of its parent(s).
quote:
Presumably, at one time, the DNA that codes for limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, etc... did not exist.
Sure it existed. It just didn't code for them yet. The first animal with appendages inherited its DNA from its parent. It wasn't "new" DNA. It was modified DNA.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 10:04:00 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Better read the book again. It is about natural selection and the mutability of species. It barely mentions the possibility of common descent, much less universal common descent. His predictions were focused on natural selection.
quote:
A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species (1859), and later in The Descent of Man (1871).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
quote:
In 1846 the veteran geologist N. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published in an excellent though short paper ("Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy Bruxelles,' tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification than that they have been separately created: the author first promulgated this opinion in 1831.
Origin of species
Darwins book sets out to show, "that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification than that they have been separately created," in other words, that they all share a common ancestor.
quote:
A living organism that builds proteins out of a different set of amino acids than the 22 used in all known organisms. (there are nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids)
A living organism that uses a different molecule than DNA for the storage of genetic information.
A living organism that uses a different genetic code than that found in all known organisms. We say "dog" while the French say "chien". Species that are not related could well use different base nucleotide sequences to code for the same amino acid. But all known species code for amino acids the same way.
A living organism that uses one of many available chemical alternates to ATP for the production of energy.
There is no reason why any of this should falsify UCD. Just because you allege it would does not mean that it would.
More on that here
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Talkorigins_refutation
For example, the only reason we predict that future organisms would use ATP is not based on common ancestry, it's based on the fact that all past organisms observed use ATP. For instance, if I throw a ball in the air several times and it comes back down, I can predict that it will come back down if I throw it in the air in the future. This prediction is not based on common ancestry or cosmological evolution, it's based on past observations. There is no reason why UCD should predict that all organisms would use ATP.
Again, Darwin proposed UCD and he turned out to be wrong on a lot. It did not falsify UCD which suggests the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.
quote:
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species.
...
I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species.
Origin of Species
Again, he claims UCD to be true.
quote:
I can add more possible falsifiers if you need them.
You can also allege, "if we find the sky to be purple, it would falsify UCD." There is no reason that your alleged falsifiers would falsify UCD. Darwin was wrong about a lot, yet it did not falsify UCD, which demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD. Evolutionists simply changed the falsification schema and there is no reason to assume they won't do it again.
quote:
No, you are assuming that "intermediate states" must be discoverable only through fossil evidence.
Are you saying there is a living person that is half bacteria, half human?
quote:
In short "new" DNA does not come out of thin air. It is derived from existing DNA.
Exactly.
quote:
Ever here of dubious paternity being settled with DNA evidence?
These are based on DNA variances that we can observe occur. We observe the variance of DNA from a parents to a child, so we can know what kinds of changes would occur and how many similarities would remain relative to someone who is not a parent. We never observed changes from some (non human) common ancestor of a human to a human and just because we share commonalities does not mean we share a common ancestor.
quote:
The reason why we can make genetic inferences in this situation is because we can observe evolution creating certain kinds of genetic differences from generation to generation. However, we haven't been able to observe what genetic or morphological differences it would create after millions of years, that is only speculated.
Link
quote:
so it is only by accident that children have DNA more like that of their biological parents than like that of any other adult human?
No.
quote:
quote:
No, I am saying that the notion that lineages between, say, us and bacteria exist is speculated.
Actually, it is not, since no evolutionary biologist claims that bacteria are among our ancestors. Except insofar as our mitochondria may be descendants of captured bacteria.
So are you saying that we don't share a common ancestor with bacteria?
quote:
Your unwillingness to provide an answer suggests to me that you do not have an answer.
Even if true, irrelevant. I do not want to explain things that are irrelevant, it's a waste of unnecessary time.
quote:
No need, since it really doesn't answer the question. What suggested gene regulation to you?
Already explained. It may not answer the question to your satisfaction, but it answered the question.
quote:
I am not arguing anything. I am asking for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question.
I do not see any reason to answer.
quote:
Ants, being animals, derive from a different instance of multicellularity.
A statement that only tries to avoid the problem of unicellular organism to ant evolution. Again, evolution claims that molecule to ant evolution has occurred. Instead of making up excuses why it won't happen again, substantiate the notion that evolution can plausibly account for such things by demonstrating.
quote:
So, at the moment we have agreement that in the embryo, it is DNA that programs the development of limbs, organs, organ systems, appendages, etc.
None of which explains how this DNA originated, something you are still avoiding.
quote:
If you are talking about DNA that is not copied, you are not talking about inherited DNA. Evolution works through inherited DNA. No organism's DNA comes out of thin air. It is either a true or slightly altered copy of the DNA of its parent(s).
New DNA that, at one time did not code for appendages, organs, limbs, organ systems, body plans, etc... and at a later time did. I am not merely referring to the expression of already existing appendages. Evolution claims to account for such things, please demonstrate.
quote:
Sure it existed. It just didn't code for them yet. The first animal with appendages inherited its DNA from its parent. It wasn't "new" DNA. It was modified DNA.
Ditto.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/27/2008 10:26:04 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 10:28:16 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1427
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
A living organism that builds proteins out of a different set of amino acids than the 22 used in all known organisms. (there are nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids)
“Life as we know it is composed, at the molecular level, of the same basic building blocks. For instance, all life forms on earth use the same four nucleotides to make DNA. And with few exceptions, all known forms of life use the same common 20 amino acids -- and only those 20 -- to make proteins.” - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040512040149.htm
Do these “few exceptions” falsify evolution?
Has evolution been falsified or is your example not an actual falsification scenario?
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 10:42:29 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 778
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
A living organism that builds proteins out of a different set of amino acids than the 22 used in all known organisms. (there are nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids)
“Life as we know it is composed, at the molecular level, of the same basic building blocks. For instance, all life forms on earth use the same four nucleotides to make DNA. And with few exceptions, all known forms of life use the same common 20 amino acids -- and only those 20 -- to make proteins.” - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040512040149.htm
Do these “few exceptions” falsify evolution?
Has evolution been falsified or is your example not an actual falsification scenario?
Unc, surely you can tell the difference between 20 and 22.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 11:20:20 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Like I said, let's take one criterion at a time. We have observed one plausible mechanism by which a unicellular species becomes multicellular.
The problem here is that you confuse things like the expression of already existing genes and human/animal/organism development with evolution. I am not referring to the expression of existing genes, I am referring to what originated things like organs, body plans, organ systems, appendages, limbs, etc... and what originated their genes. If you want to claim evolution did so, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate by demonstrating.
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Unc, surely you can tell the difference between 20 and 22.
You seem to have missed the point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 3:50:56 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
A living organism that builds proteins out of a different set of amino acids than the 22 used in all known organisms. (there are nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids)
“Life as we know it is composed, at the molecular level, of the same basic building blocks. For instance, all life forms on earth use the same four nucleotides to make DNA. And with few exceptions, all known forms of life use the same common 20 amino acids -- and only those 20 -- to make proteins.” - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040512040149.htm
Do these “few exceptions” falsify evolution?
Has evolution been falsified or is your example not an actual falsification scenario?
Unc, surely you can tell the difference between 20 and 22.
Just to clarify on the numbers. Of nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids, 20 are used by all living organisms. An additional 2 are used by some species. So total number of amino acids found in living organisms is 22 with 20 of them universally used.
The question is, why are only such a small number of amino acids found in living cells? Many other amino acids have similar properties to those which occur in living beings and could plausibly function in much the same manner.
If life emerged or was designed more than once, why would the same set of amino acids be used in all cases?
It is of course, possible to have more than one origin of life using only one design or one evolutionary pathway. So this does not prove a single common ancestor. However, the use of a different set of amino acids would definitively prove more than one ancestor and falsify universal common descent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 5:20:46 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
In 1846 the veteran geologist N. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published in an excellent though short paper ("Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy Bruxelles,' tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification than that they have been separately created: the author first promulgated this opinion in 1831.
Origin of species
Darwins book sets out to show, "that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification than that they have been separately created," in other words, that they all share a common ancestor.
I have bolded Darwin's actual terms. "Descent with modification" rather than "separately created". This is what he constantly referred to. Descent with modification via natural selection is what he insisted on, whether the original creation was of one or 100 or 1000 species. He never claimed that all species had the same originally created ancestor. He did claim that many species had been generated through the modification of ancestral species and were neither separate nor fixed creations. So, to add "universal" common descent is to add your own interpretation.
Did he speculate that universal common ancestry was a possibility? Yes, but he never went beyond speculation and did not incorporate it as essential to his theory.
The current acceptance of universal common ancestry is based on evidence, not theory. The theory of evolution does not require universal common ancestry.
quote:
quote:
A living organism that builds proteins out of a different set of amino acids than the 22 used in all known organisms. (there are nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids)
A living organism that uses a different molecule than DNA for the storage of genetic information.
A living organism that uses a different genetic code than that found in all known organisms. We say "dog" while the French say "chien". Species that are not related could well use different base nucleotide sequences to code for the same amino acid. But all known species code for amino acids the same way.
A living organism that uses one of many available chemical alternates to ATP for the production of energy.
There is no reason why any of this should falsify UCD. Just because you allege it would does not mean that it would.
And so you prove that you do not know what falsification looks like. btw, these are not my personal allegations.
Tell me--how would a species with set A of amino acids produce offspring with set B of amino acids? How would it be possible for species with completely different sets of amino acids to share a common ancestor?
How would a species whose inheritable information is stored in DNA produce offspring that uses a totally different molecule for this purpose? How could species which use different forms of information storage share a common ancestor?
As I said in a previous post, the fact that these characteristics are universal do not prove common ancestry. But if they were not universal, that would definitively falsify common ancestry.
If you cannot see the logic of that, you simply do not understand either falsification or the role of inherited material in evolution. Probably both.
quote:
More on that here
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Talkorigins_refutation
Your source obviously does not understand falsification either.
Two examples:
"Most organisms use DNA to store information except some viruses (which may not be considered living), which uses RNA instead. Does this falsify evolution? Of course not."
Right. Of course not. They have obviously missed the point that it is not evolution which these items intend to falsify, but common descent, which is a different matter. And they have missed the point that common descent would be falsified if even one species did NOT use DNA (or the closely related RNA) as the molecular carrier of inheritable information.
The fact that most organisms do use DNA does not falsify anything, either common descent or repeated use of the same pattern of special creation. NOT using DNA all the time would falsify common descent.
"If anything, this is evidence for a common creator (or at the very least, a group of creators working together) because if there were multiple creators working independently, there is no reason for them to all choose ATP."
Exactly. Multiple creators working separately might well make different choices and that would definitively falsify common descent. But the same applies to one creator who creates multiple times each creation independent of the others. He may choose ATP every time, but he does not need to. He could make a different choice each time he begins a new, separate, independent creation.
Had he done so, that would definitively falsify common descent.
Again the universality of ATP does not prove common descent. It is also consistent with a creator who chooses not to vary his creations on this point. But the non-universality of ATP would falsify common descent.
quote:
There is no reason why UCD should predict that all organisms would use ATP.
Universal common descent requires that all organisms inherit ATP if their common ancestor used ATP. You very consistently avoid the whole matter of inheritance which is essential to any understanding of evolution.
quote:
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species.
...
I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species.
Origin of Species
Again, he claims UCD to be true.
See the bolded points. No mention of UCD. The largest taxonomic group named is the genus. The phrase "species are not immutable" is key. Most modern creationists overlook this because modern creationists no longer hold to the concept of the fixity of species. They allow for modification within the created kind. But this was not the case in 1859. Most biologists and all creationists did hold that species were immutable. So that was the key idea Darwin set out to disprove.
quote:
You can also allege, "if we find the sky to be purple, it would falsify UCD."
But I could not show logically that it does. See above for real falsifiers.
quote:
Are you saying there is a living person that is half bacteria, half human?
Silliness gets you nowhere.
quote:
quote:
In short "new" DNA does not come out of thin air. It is derived from existing DNA.
Exactly.
So why do you expect evolution to produce new DNA? Evolution occurs when modified DNA increases its presence in the gene pool of the population.
quote:
quote:
Ever here of dubious paternity being settled with DNA evidence?
These are based on DNA variances that we can observe occur.
Does it follow that DNA which is not observed does not vary?
quote:
We observe the variance of DNA from a parents to a child, so we can know what kinds of changes would occur and how many similarities would remain relative to someone who is not a parent.
Does this apply in all species or only humans? (I know, only humans dispute paternity, but that is not the issue.) The question I am getting at here is whether DNA similarities as used in paternity cases are known to be consistent with biological relationships. And is this true only in humans or in all species?
For example, in the post you linked me too you stated:
I would not expect to have a cousin be genetically more similar to me than a brother.
Why not? Can the same be said of an owl?, a kelp? an amoeba?
quote:
quote:
so it is only by accident that children have DNA more like that of their biological parents than like that of any other adult human?
No.
Basically the same question then. Why isn't it? Because when you decry similarities as evidence of relationship, you are basically saying that such similarities are accidental and have nothing to do with biological inheritance.
quote:
So are you saying that we don't share a common ancestor with bacteria?
No, I am saying that bacteria are not our ancestors. But we can still share a common ancestor. Just as your cousin is not your ancestor, but you share a common ancestor.
quote:
I do not want to explain things that are irrelevant, it's a waste of unnecessary time.
And that makes you a poor judge of what is and is not relevant.
quote:
quote:
Ants, being animals, derive from a different instance of multicellularity.
A statement that only tries to avoid the problem of unicellular organism to ant evolution.
No, just says that ants are not descended from algae. If they were, they would be able to photosynthesize their energy needs. Since we have one observed and many plausible scenarios for the adoption of multicellularity, the fact that we do not know specifically whether the one that led to animal life was a response to predation or to some other condition is not a reason to reject that it occurred.
So we can take an event of multicellularity as possible, plausible and probable. Next step: we need tissue differentiation. A multicellular form like the algae we have been discussing has many cells, but they are all alike. Animals, however, have differentiated cells which produce different sorts of tissue for different purposes.
Is it possible for a homogeneous multicellular form to develop differentiated tissues? Do we have plausible examples of this development?
quote:
quote:
If you are talking about DNA that is not copied, you are not talking about inherited DNA. Evolution works through inherited DNA. No organism's DNA comes out of thin air. It is either a true or slightly altered copy of the DNA of its parent(s).
New DNA that, at one time did not code for appendages, organs, limbs, organ systems, body plans, etc... and at a later time did. I am not merely referring to the expression of already existing appendages. Evolution claims to account for such things, please demonstrate.
Are you having a hearing problem? Evolution works with modified DNA, not "new" DNA that miraculously appears with no ancestry. The DNA that now codes for the features you mentioned had an ancestry. It was not "new" in that it appeared from nowhere. It may have coded for some different function or different feature before it was modified.
Stop asserting that evolution claims what it manifestly does not claim. Descent with modification presumes inherited DNA, not "new" DNA. It presumes DNA that may have been imperfectly copied, with deletions, duplications, substitutions or transpositions, not DNA invented out of whole cloth.
"New" DNA magically appearing whenever you need a new limb would be a godsend to evolutionary theory. Explaining the emerging development of new features on the basis of existing DNA is the challenge evolution faces. Claiming otherwise misrepresents the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 5:25:22 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6717
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are you having a hearing problem? Evolution works with modified DNA, not "new" DNA that miraculously appears with no ancestry. The DNA that now codes for the features you mentioned had an ancestry. It was not "new" in that it appeared from nowhere. It may have coded for some different function or different feature before it was modified.
Welcome to the forums, glaudys, before you precede, may I suggest you re-think your treatment of people you do not yet know before you go on; I can guarantee it will go better for you here. Just a friendly suggestion.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 5:26:52 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
A living organism that builds proteins out of a different set of amino acids than the 22 used in all known organisms. (there are nearly 400 naturally occurring amino acids)
“Life as we know it is composed, at the molecular level, of the same basic building blocks. For instance, all life forms on earth use the same four nucleotides to make DNA. And with few exceptions, all known forms of life use the same common 20 amino acids -- and only those 20 -- to make proteins.” - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040512040149.htm
Do these “few exceptions” falsify evolution?
Has evolution been falsified or is your example not an actual falsification scenario?
Doesn't even falsify common descent. A few additional amino acids along with the common 20 means nothing. But NOT using those same common 20 amino acids would falsify common descent. Do you have a candidate in mind?
And falsifying common descent would still not falsify evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 5:34:41 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6717
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is of course, possible to have more than one origin of life using only one design or one evolutionary pathway. So this does not prove a single common ancestor. However, the use of a different set of amino acids would definitively prove more than one ancestor and falsify universal common descent .
This is a bit like arguing that the fact that all English literature uses the same 26 letters, it must be that all books share a common ancestor; that would seem to be rather specious logic.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 6:00:24 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
It is of course, possible to have more than one origin of life using only one design or one evolutionary pathway. So this does not prove a single common ancestor. However, the use of a different set of amino acids would definitively prove more than one ancestor and falsify universal common descent .
This is a bit like arguing that the fact that all English literature uses the same 26 letters, it must be that all books share a common ancestor; that would seem to be rather specious logic.
You are also missing the point. You are right in saying that a common alphabet, common DNA, common amino acids, etc. do NOT demand a common origin. They are consistent with a common origin, but they do not require it.
But if you have an original work written with the cyrillic alphabet, you know it is NOT English literature.
So, if you did NOT have common DNA, a common DNA code or common amino acids, you would know that you did NOT have a common ancestor. That would be a falsification of common descent.
Remember that this was raised because a poster alleged that universal common descent is not falsifiable. So you have to understand that the discussion is not about whether shared characteristics support evolution. It is about the fact that common descent is falsified if species do not share characteristics which they must jointly inherit from a common ancestor.
If a common ancestor encodes its genetic information in DNA, it can only pass that information to its descendants via DNA. All its descendants will use DNA to encode their genetic information.
If we find a species in which the genetic information is encoded on a different molecule, we know that it is not a descendant of that ancestor, and must therefore have a different ancestor. Different ancestors=falsification of common descent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 7:56:05 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1427
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
quote:
Do these “few exceptions” falsify evolution?
Has evolution been falsified or is your example not an actual falsification scenario?
Doesn't even falsify common descent. A few additional amino acids along with the common 20 means nothing.
That is the answer I suspected you to give. YOU provide a falsification method and when the criterion you provided is met you deny it falsifies evolution. You strengthen the argument that evolution is not falsifiable.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/27/2008 10:20:51 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6717
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, if you did NOT have common DNA, a common DNA code or common amino acids, you would know that you did NOT have a common ancestor. That would be a falsification of common descent.
The problem with that (apart from your right assertion that it does not in and of itself require a common origin) is that if we believe that the code arose unguided to begin with, why wouldn’t we expect other codes? Why not a multitude of organisms with various different codes? Why would there only be one organism with one type of code?
It might be that this is the only code which can actually substantively convey the necessary information for living systems – in which case, we would also expect all life to share it.
And of course, as all life is necessarily interrelated as a product of ecology, we also know that a significantly different chemistry would put an organism outside of that ecology – in effect that organism would be alien to our environment.
So there are a multitude of reason why organisms share certain codes and proteins, and if we assume common descent is the primary reason, we risk missing a wider, more complete explanation.
That being said, as an IDist I do not dismiss CD based on ID principles, merely note that CD itself is not evidence against the involvement of intelligence in the development of living systems.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/28/2008 12:21:22 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
So, if you did NOT have common DNA, a common DNA code or common amino acids, you would know that you did NOT have a common ancestor. That would be a falsification of common descent.
The problem with that (apart from your right assertion that it does not in and of itself require a common origin) is that if we believe that the code arose unguided to begin with, why wouldn’t we expect other codes? Why not a multitude of organisms with various different codes? Why would there only be one organism with one type of code?
For all we know there were. But none of them left descendants did they?
quote:
It might be that this is the only code which can actually substantively convey the necessary information for living systems – in which case, we would also expect all life to share it.
And of course, as all life is necessarily interrelated as a product of ecology, we also know that a significantly different chemistry would put an organism outside of that ecology – in effect that organism would be alien to our environment.
So there are a multitude of reason why organisms share certain codes and proteins, and if we assume common descent is the primary reason, we risk missing a wider, more complete explanation.
Yes, as I said, this type of similarity does not mean that common descent is the only possible explanation. The point was to respond to the allegation that common descent cannot be falsified.
It has not been falsified. But in principle it can be. If, as you originally suggested, life began as a multitude of organisms with various codes and at least two of these were represented among their modern descendants, that would be an absolute falsification of universal common descent.
Since that situation does not exist, common descent is not falsified, but it is, in principle, falsifiable.
quote:
CD itself is not evidence against the involvement of intelligence in the development of living systems.
Nothing in science excludes divine involvement. The notion that evolution is an exception to this principle is an error. It wouldn't be so bad if this error were promoted only by atheists. The tragedy is that so many believers also subscribe to it.
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
