Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Well I'm trying but I'm a getting lost in your perpetual contentless, one line replies that normally contain an insult. I've gone back seven pages and before I lost the will to live I found this which may be one of the things that surprised us.

sensai:

---

Every scientist who claims UCA is a fact, basically posts it as absolute truth, if you ask me. Do you agree on this or do you see it differently?

​

Dawkins does it, I think. Among many others.

---

Although you haven't yet been able to provide evidence of any scientist - including Dawkins - saying this, I'm sure someone probably said something resembling this sometime. In casual speech people tend to be less careful than in print or when carefully considering an answer to a technical question. But anyone claiming that the UCA is fact, or truth is factually wrong - and you can dismiss anything they say - s/he is not a scientist.fyi Here's a link to the wiki on the UCA.I did a word search. Number of words in the article containingproof - nil
truth - nil
absolute - nil
evidence - 123
hypothesis or hypotheses - 11Evidence of common descent - WikipediaI also asked Bing whether Dawkins has ever called the UCL a fact. This is its reply

Bing:

---

According to Wikipedia, Richard Dawkins has listed the “concestors” of the human lineage in order of increasing age, down to the last universal common ancestor (human– bacteria) in his book The Ancestor’s Tale1. He also stated that the evidence for this is that all organisms share the same genetic code and was not invented twice2. However, he also acknowledged that there are some variations in the genetic code among different organisms, such as some mycoplasmas that use a different codon for tryptophan2. He also admitted that the last universal common ancestor is a hypothesis, not a fact, and that there is no direct evidence for its existence2. Therefore, it seems that Dawkins has not claimed that the universal common ancestor is a fact, but rather a plausible inference based on the available data.

---

You can believe what you want to.I was just replying to dwise

dwise1:

---

Instead, it is theism that claims to have complete and perfect knowledge, whereas atheism is just saying "No, you don't have complete and perfect knowledge, especially about the supernatural."

---

And my comment was:

sensei:

---

There are people in science who are humble enough to recognize the limitations of our science. And there are people who are more haughty when posting scientific findings as absolute truth.

---

I understand your position. I'm merely pointing out that both sides more or less have their "absolute" truths. And maybe you disagree with "absolute" part. That's fine. We don't need to agree on every detail of how to describe it best, I suppose.

Damn did those goalposts move.

I've used UCA as umbrella term for common ancestry for life on Earth, with UCA as most promising among other theories, like seperate ancestors. Sorry, that I was not clear about this.

Care to clarify?

And there is where you fucked up. Scientists don't do this, and you can't show where anyone does. It's a total fabrication. A fucking lie, sensei.My efforts to tease you about your stupid absolute truth fell on a dull mind. No one of any scientific credit would ever refer to any absolute truth.

You admitted yourself that you accept UCA as fact. That is your truth. You may not call it absolute. But you sure argue like it is, disregarging any other view as invalid.

Except separate creation would not produce the clear nested hierarchy that life shows us. The lineages do not stop at separate terminuses. They cross species, families, even kingdoms.

Yes, I do see the LUCA hypothesis as a fact of evolution. I understand the formal definitions but there is nothing close to compete with the evidence and the logical inference of LUCA. For this world to show us what we see there would have to have been such a founding population. We just don't have enough absolute evidence to prove these absolute facts. No it's not an "absolute truth". No such damn thing exists in this universe. Get off the absolute crap, sensei. That is one of those things making you look the fool.As for arguing for LUCA as if it were fact, that is because it is. Or something very much like it, some common pool of simple primitive genetics, the progenitors of that which are in our genome today. The spread of the same genetic devices, the same codes being used for the same purposes all across all of lifekind is a strong telltale of common descent. There is too much similarity across lineages for there not to have been a common heritage.You offer no alternative explanations that produce the same result without resort to majik. When you evoke majik you lose.

AZPaul3:

---

Except separate creation would not produce the clear nested hierarchy that life shows us.

---

Well that's a whole different point.For you to make claims about what seperate creation would produce, you gonna need to clarify your assumptions for seperate creation.

quote:

---

No it's not an "absolute truth". No such damn thing exists in this universe.

---

I don't agree here at all. There is reality. How you perceive this reality and how certain you are about things of this reality, does not change the fact that it is there, the way it is.

UCA is a special case of CA. An evolutionary biologist will almost certainly tell you that while the UCA is a decent hypothesis we are far from certain that it's correct at the very base of the tree. One reason is the possibility of gene transfer in unicellular organisms.But the same biologists would tell you that CA is as certain as anything in biological sciences can be. I'm sure some would tell you that it is a fact, after all, you can create a family tree of your own family showing common descent. There is no alternate theory and enormous, unqualified support for it. This is how knowledge grows, we're sure of some things (speaking in general terms) and less sure of others depending on the evidence we have available to us.

Yeah, that's the view from evolutionist perspective. I agree with that (not with the perspective itself, just to be clear).

So what? The rest of the scientific consensus on this planet says you are wrong.Reality can be perceived, measured, but not to any arbitrary degree. QFT establishes limits on our knowledge and on our accuracy in measurement and perception. As a consequence, there is no certainty. No absolute truth.We going to go round with your numbers analogy again?

Well, science assumes that reality is real at least. Just that our perception of it is limited.

Again, look at heisenberg and the uncertainty principle. The limits to our perceptions of the cosmos are not due to our lesser brain or technology. They are due to the structure of the universe. It appears that at the most basic level of interaction the universe does not have a discernible reality but a spread of probabilities of certain random outcomes. The very structure of the cosmos limits the knowledge available.