Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,654 Year: 4,911/9,624 Month: 259/427 Week: 5/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023

Message 476 of 507 (910936)
05-26-2023 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Tangle
05-25-2023 3:16 PM

It's the prevailing theory, a conclusion that falls straight out of descent with modification.
Problem is, people who defend this prevailing theory, lay people as well as the experts, are using dubious claims like this all the time.
By modification, you mean, that descendents have mutations or just a different sample set of the ancestor genes, or both, and you believe that leads straight to the conclusion that all life descended from single celled ancestors?
If your claim was valid, then all you have to do to proof common ancestry, is finding difference between parent and child. And all the research papers trying to proof it, are not even necessary. Of course, that is not the case! It does not work like that. Science does not work like that.
The evidence for it is enormous and available to anybody that types a simple search term, gets a book out of the library or visits a decent museum.
More of the typical evolutionist tactic, trying to impose, and appealing to "overwhelming" or "enormous" data. Yet, so few of you actually follow the scientific method, that, even though not perfect, at least tries to be objective: formulate your hypothesis, specify the quantity that you have measured and at which level you would accept or reject your hypothesis. And then compare measurement with this critical level.
It is that ultimate universal common ancestor that our creationists have been demanding detailed solid evidence of. They will reject anything less than that, misrepresenting it as proof against evolution (whatever that's supposed to mean coming out of their mouths, but they ain't saying).
Science demands proof, when a scientific claim is being made. If you cannot present your proof, then better not make the claim. Especially when you claim that it's fact that all live evolved from single celled ancestors. Then you need to do more than just showing that allele frequencies are not constant over time. Gene pools follow dynamic processes. Nobody disputes that life is ever changing and species have abilities to adapt, some more than others.
We need an honest discussion of this subject, not the typical creationist attempts at "got-cha!"
That's fair. But on the evolutionist side, typical attitude is replying to everything with "evolution is fact, you don't understand it. There is so much evidence, got-cha!". But I suppose that is what we usually get, when both sides believe they are right 100%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Tangle, posted 05-25-2023 3:16 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Theodoric, posted 05-26-2023 8:52 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 478 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2023 4:04 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 481 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2023 4:54 PM sensei has replied

Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023

Message 482 of 507 (911006)
06-01-2023 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Granny Magda
05-29-2023 4:54 PM

The fact that all living creatures share the same basic genetic code on the other hand, that would count as strong evidence of UCA.
You call it "strong" evidence and I get that. Just how can we make this more objective. I know it's hard to put a p-value on this.
What alternatives to UCA are we considereing? What would we expect to observe then?
Some have been considering one or two or an unspecified few number of distincted common ancestors. Other theories are origins from outer space, creation by intelligence. Last one may be hard to compare as it needs specification on how life could have been created.
What type and level of evidence would you accept as sufficient to accept UCA? What would that look like?
We would need plausible evolutionary paths with evidencial support for some critical processes in species we see today. These things are often overlooked, as they seem so common. Lets take a look at one example: life cycle of butterflies, transformation to the last stage. We would need an evolutionary path to how this transformation started from the butterfly ancestor. As we see now, pupa's body structure is almost completely incinerated internally, to give way of forming a whole new butterfly appearance.
Do you have any plausible path of how this gradually changed in smaller steps from the ancestor without this transformation, upto the butterfly species we see today, in all its varieties?
I would lean towards intelligent creation, rather than gradual steps of evolution. Also due to the fact that I would expect a line of gradual evolution to produce more branches, other than just the "fully" completed butterfly species. But it's hard to know what exactly to expect, when it is not clear what intermediate species would be like. What could be in between full transformation (for the butterfly) and no transformation at all (for the butterfly ancestor who at some point starting to evolve towards transformation)?
As there are many examples like this, without any plausible intermediates, being as objective as possible, evidence is in favor of intelligent creation over gradual evolution. I don't think it's scientific to cling onto a theory that is not plausible, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2023 4:54 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2023 7:28 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 484 by Theodoric, posted 06-01-2023 8:28 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 485 by Granny Magda, posted 06-01-2023 10:22 AM sensei has replied

Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023

Message 489 of 507 (911023)
06-02-2023 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by Granny Magda
06-01-2023 10:22 AM

Well, if that's so, the idea that multiple lineages of life emerged using exactly the same chemical processes must be even more astronomically unlikely.
Yes, I agree. That is why UCA seems to be the only viable option for science to consider. If UCA fails, we need to reconsider our origins.
How many branches do you want?
We have branches of species with larvae gradually changing into their adult form, and branches of species where larvae/caterpillars that completely rid of their larvae form to grow their adult appearance. So I would expect to find many species in between, or at least some branches originating from these intermediate species. Or would you suggest it was fast evolution without many intermediate steps, instead of a gradual evolutionary process that took millions of years or longer with many intermediate species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by Granny Magda, posted 06-01-2023 10:22 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Percy, posted 06-02-2023 8:08 AM sensei has replied
 Message 491 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2023 10:49 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 495 by Granny Magda, posted 06-03-2023 4:56 AM sensei has not replied

Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023

Message 492 of 507 (911026)
06-02-2023 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Percy
06-02-2023 8:08 AM

Well, every ancestor of a common ancestor is still a common ancestor. So the first biological cell should be a UCA. Or there had been multiple events where a biological cell formed.
Now consider this: the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes (and bacteria) is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per cell generation. So any living unicell would produce around 300 exact clones on average before producing one mutated cell.
Unicells capable of surviving and succelfully multplying, would leave many offspring around, unaltered and unchanged, populating the whole globe. What's stopping them?
We should be able to find many unicell species from the beginning, that are plausible ancestors of plants as well as animals and fungi and insects, with indications that they are clones of the same UCA cell.
But guess what. We find nothing of such type! UCA fails for sure.
Even if mutation rates where 10 times higher in earlier days. Cells would still procuce 30 times more exact clones than mutated ones. The exact clones would always remain in majority, if all cells keep multiplying. No extinction event would wipe out the whole globe to rid it from all of the unicell species of the first era.
So again, looking at data objectively, UCA is not very plausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Percy, posted 06-02-2023 8:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2023 3:53 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 494 by Percy, posted 06-02-2023 9:10 PM sensei has not replied

Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023

Message 497 of 507 (911059)
06-07-2023 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Theodoric
06-03-2023 10:29 AM

As I told him before personal incredulity is no basis for a scientific argument.
You should remain silent, as you have nothing to contribute.
I apologize that we were confusing. Granny Magda shortened LUCA to UCA, I don't know why. We're actually talking about the Last Universal Common Ancestor, also known as the Most Recent Common Ancestor.
No, we are talking about any UCA. Why does it need to be the last?
Your argument assumes the availability of unlimited resources, and the absence of environmental hazards that might have driven the UCA to extinction.
First cells must have lived off of non-living material, don't you think? As being the first life, it had nothing else to feed on.
Though I can imagine changing metabolism to feed on new sources, could cause faster reproduction. However, they would not be competing for the same resources then. Perhaps the "food" of the first life cells ran out anyway?
Is that enough mutations for you?
I was clearly talking about the ratio between unaltered and mutated. Your point about absolute numbers does not really address my point.
I think it very unlikely that any LUCA clones could have survived until today.
Hard to say, as we can only hypothesise what LUCA was like. Though I find it perculiar that the whole top part of the tree above fungi, insects, animals, etcetera, vanished without trace.
We see many groups of species being able to survive relatively unaltered for hundreds of millions of years, around 1/10th or 1/20th of time since first life began. Crocodiles, snakes, spiders, musquitos, all existed in roughly the same form few hundred million years ago.
So what happened to the whole branch leading upto the latest common ancestor of all mammals? The whole lineage of gradual changes, from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, from egg hatching to placental birth, from horizontal spine movement to vertical (and those are just the obvious changes), and side branches, all vanished without trace again? So much, that we can only guess and hypothesise about the order in which all these changes gradually happened. And why so many drastic changes happened to be all occuring in the same lineage, does not really fit the "random" mutation narrative.
Same as we see how so many beneficial mutations just happen to be in the lineage of the single primate group with fused chromosomes. Not very likely, under the model that any drastic mutation could happen in any of the many primate groups.
And the first primate with fused chromosomes left no unaltered descendents or descendents with only minor alterations, still showing most resemblance to the primate group before fusion, more than to human appearance today.
Common ancestry fails on every level, to match with observable data.
If you want to topple common descent, you'll have to provide an observation that completely falsifies it.
No, for discussing how likely or how plausible common descent is, we can just look at all observations, objectively. There is no complete falsification that works for everybody. People can always tweak and adjust model assumptions and parameters, so that it somehow fit observations in their model.
Sounds reasonable to me.
That's the problem with theory of common descent. It's basically a reasonable narrative, full of hypothesese of how things came to be.
It may somewhat explain just the changes in adult form by random mutation, but it poorly explains the exact timing of cells, to initiate complete transformation in perfect unison, orgistrated in all the details of every transformed body part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Theodoric, posted 06-03-2023 10:29 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2023 5:56 AM sensei has replied
 Message 499 by Tangle, posted 06-07-2023 6:28 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 500 by Theodoric, posted 06-07-2023 7:44 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 501 by Percy, posted 06-07-2023 9:29 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 502 by Granny Magda, posted 06-07-2023 11:03 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 503 by Percy, posted 06-09-2023 6:41 AM sensei has not replied

Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023

Message 504 of 507 (911125)
06-11-2023 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by PaulK
06-07-2023 5:56 AM

You have not addressed the issue of environmental hazards.
Do you have any concrete evidence of environmetnal harards that happened to kill off all UCA and all closely related UCA species, globally?
All of these methods point to the same conclusions.
That is cute, but UCA is still far from logical and plausible, if one really bothers to look at data and test hypotheses, instead of sheepishly conforming to mainstream narrative.
But your objection is formed from a religious belief, not scientific evidence.
What part of the data or arguments that I posted, is religious?
You still have not made any rational scientific argument. You are still stuck at personal incredulity.
You are ignored, as you make false claims about me. Or you are just not capable of doing anything but repeating some of same the evolutionist handbook arguments, no matter how irrelevant. Typical evolutionist fool!
It can be UCA if you like, but you seem to be confusing it with first life
You think first life was not an ancestor of todays life? Or only ancestor of some of todays life? Tell me, where is my confusion?
You can't pretend the covid virus mutations didn't replace previous less competitive versions of the virus in short order, mere months
You do know, that a virus is not even biologically considered to be alive, do you? It's not even a cell. And it's a parasite that needs hosts for survival.
The most ancient life is down by the roots. The most modern life is out by the ends of branches. The top part of the tree is today.
Trees can be drawn with either side up or down or left or right.
And you're expressing doubt about common descent but cannot come up with a single example of life that isn't a result of common descent.
Examples are plenty. You just refuse to accept them, and twist the data to fit into your ad hoc narratives. And then you evolutionists claim that common ancestry of life is a fact, while it's highly dubious at best.
Look at all the life systems that are present in todays species, for nervous system, oxygen distribution, food digestion, reproduction system, etc, also present in species of hundreds of millions of years ago. There is no sign of gradual improvement. All systems were fully present from start, in single celled species as well as in microfauna, upto all larger animals.
The huge variety of all life systems is evidence for intelligent origin. If it all came from random mutation, we would find most life systems to share some similar ancestral template, not fine tuned to the exact needs of every single species alive, from the very start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2023 5:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2023 2:21 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 506 by Theodoric, posted 06-11-2023 9:33 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 507 by Percy, posted 06-11-2023 9:47 PM sensei has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024