I might be, but probably not. This isn't my first rodeo. Ive been debating origins for over 40 years.
I make no demands. I do not expect anyone's minds will change. This is a discussion forum, and this topic is a popular subject for discussion.
No need to be sorry. ..Nor premptive strikes and warnings. How about we discuss a topic that is:
1. Controversial
2. Emotional
3. Allegedly empirical
4. Polemical
5. Interesting
..with as much rationality and empiricism as we can? A novel concept, in opinion forums, but why not?
Ok. This is your belief, that the existence of DNA, somehow proves common descent.
My rebuttal: It does not. That is an asserted belief, with no evidence.
Yes, so you believe. And while common descent is a religious belief, we are not doing a comparative religion thread. This is specifically about UCD, not other theories or beliefs of origins.
If you have no evidence or valid arguments, you can still heckle and disrupt from the sidelines.. but i won't always reply.
..similar to the DNA! assertion, mentioned earlier. But it is incumbent on you to show HOW 'Nested hierarchies!', is evidence. Merely stating phrases isn't much of an argument..
Yes, you can pile on with criticisms of me, but the subject is still plain & simple. If you don't know the subject, or don't like it, you don't have to contribute.
Good reply. Someone is finally attempting to present actual evidence for this theory.
Here's the problem with this statement.
1. 'Genealogy of species', is just another way of saying common descent. It is circular reasoning. 'Organisms descended. They look related, and you can see similarities. Therefore, evolution!'
2. DNA analysis does not confirm morphology. That is a subjective, "looks like!', argument. DNA is unique and locked in with each species/haplogroup. Genetics is a problem, not a supporter, of common descent. Everything we are learning about genetics screams, 'NO!' to ucd. Gene don't do that..
Exactly. There are other possibilities than 'common descent!' Similarity of construction and materials does not prove descent.
They are functionally the same, and close enough for this debate. If you want to parse nuances from each, to make a point, do it!
Not at all. That is the central problem.. assumption.. for the theory.
Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a
False Equivalence. It is argued that since living things change
within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but believed as proven fact.
The argument for common descent is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.
For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon..
Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.
In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure.
That is observable, repeatable science.
The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Simply asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major changes in the genetic structure
see above. Perhaps i will post that argument in a separate post, for easier rebutting.
Yes, many people believe in pseudo science, or science by decree. They do not have the mental discipline to follow scientific methodology.
Fine. Don't participate in this discussion, if it triggers you so..
Not at all. There are HUGE differences between birds and reptiles. 'Looks like!' descendancy is an argument of plausibility, not evidence.
1. Warm blood vs cold.
2. Light, hollow bones vs heavy ones.
3. Scales vs feathers.
It is not enough to ASSERT 'descendancy!', it must be shown, scientifically, that it could happen. HOW do you get to the massive changes in the DNA?
Yes, as evidenced in threads like this:
1. Jihadist zeal
2. Religious bigotry for competing beliefs
3. Neglect of science and reason, for assertion and dogmatic insistence
..this is about common descent. A scientific theory must stand on its own merits. Comparative religion is not useful in that examination.
