Does Common Descent Follow Logically From Darwin's Four Postulates?

I did answer it. Are you unable to read, or just too lazy to look?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's no argument proving that an oak tree could evolve into a human in slow, sure steps such that each iteration is viable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't claim that could happen. I claimed that over billions of years an oak tree could evolve into something LIKE a human. You just don't understand the concept.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you should be ashamed of yourself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So in which post did you identify the law that prevents an oak tree from evolving into an unthinking loathsome creature with exactly your DNA as it exists at this very moment? Post # please?

 

An oak tree cannot evolve from an oak tree into ANYTHING at this very moment. Neither evolution nor physics works like that.

If you need a law, the second law of thermodynamics is merely one of a great many that will prevent anything like that from happening.

 

That's not a problem. Assume inheritable, maximally-magical molecules that have charmed lives and thus acquire all the external, maximally-favorable environmental conditions necessary.

 

Well to be truthful and to contradict billvon there is no law

In fact the process you discribe is happening right now

Follow the yellow brick road to La La Land and ask for Dr Woo Woo

He's the one who with the magic of electrical stimulation created life from dead bits

Last heard of working with oak trees

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sanford's theorizing conflicts with observation and evidence. So it's not useful in scientific inquiry.

The laws of probability.
The same laws that "prevent" all the electrons in your keyboard from responding to your posts by forming a small bolt of lightning and hitting you between the eyes with it.

 

You could also assume that tiny magic unicorns are pooping out cells and building human beings. Or that Star Trek like transporters are de-materializing trees and materializing people. But none of those three are real. Evolution is.

 

Mathematically speaking, there are possible events having zero probability of occurring.

 

You're not a scientist. Dr. John Sanford's fifth axiom is obviously an inescapably true universal principle.

 

Your response indicates that you feel threatened because I'm destroying your most cherished religious beliefs. How many times must I confess that I accept Darwin's four postulates?

 

I don't really care what you imagine about me or what you accept or don't accept. None of that changes reality.

You seem to do this when you are losing the argument - start with the "you must feel threatened" nonsense to try to derail the conversation. Why is that?

The premise of evolution is simple, and that premise has stood the test of time. We can trace our origins back through common ancestors as we split off from chimpanzees and bonobos, then the gorilla, then the orangutan, then the monkeys, then the mammals, all the way back to the ancient eukaryotic ancestor we share with modern plants that lived about 1.6 billion years ago. No magic molecules, no quantum creation, no impossible steps - just chemistry, biology and evolution.

 

Unanswerable.

 

Or negligible, you mean. Yes. That's one reason we do science by research and so forth, instead of sitting in a room and thinking really hard the way we do mathematics.

It doesn't matter whether I am a scientist. Sanford's theorizing conflicts with observation and evidence, research and reasoning, the ugly facts all around. So we change it or discard it, if we are doing science. Are we?

 

For more extraordinarily elementary questions that can't be answered, see page 2 of Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem.

 

No. For mathematicians, probability theory has a precise set-theoretic formulation. I'm referring to nonempty sets of measure zero, not itzy-bitzy or negligible numbers.

 

That is correct. You have a high priest and you only listen to him.

 

Sorry can't be bothered

No link no go

If it's already been determined the questions are unanswerable why would I bother anyway?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!