1.6% of the North American population says, If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common.
This is simply not the case. While it’s true that organisms MIGHT have one or more traits in common, on the theory of evolution there is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages. In the absence of specification for a mechanism of descent, there is no way to tie the traits of the descendants to those of the common ancestor.
While “common traits” which we see in nature does fit with the theory of a common Creator, common traits are not necessary for the theory of universal common ancestry.
“The belief that evolution predicts biologic universals is one of evolution’s major illusions.” (ReMine, 92.)
On evolution, after life’s origin, nothing prevents life from branching and leading separate lineages that are entirely lacking the known biologic universals. If evolution is true, then distant ancestors and descendants can be totally different. While evolution can accommodate biological universals it never did predict them.
It is only because we see common traits that 1.6% of the population insist that common traits would be predicted by the theory of common ancestry.
Even though these people say that without observation and verification nothing can be believed, and even though common ancestry is not a predictor for the common traits that we see, these people will believe with a deep and fervent faith in common ancestry to their dying day.
That’s just that way these people are. It’s how they think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nothing to do with religion/atheism.
ReplyDeleteUr just an ignorant douchebag who pretends to know biology more than biologists themselves.
Are you suggesting that what I've said in this post is wrong?
ReplyDeleteYes, both wrong and irrelevant, with respect to both the Theory of Evolution and Atheism.
ReplyDeleteConcerning your quote from ReMine...
"Walter ReMine is the author of the book entitled The Biotic Message and is also known for advancing Haldane's dilemma which still hasn't been adequately resolved by evolutionists. He is a electrical engineer with a BSEE and MSEE degrees from the University of Minnesota in 1974 and 1977"
- (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
trueorigin.org claims themselves that he is NOT a biologist, yet YOU, and THEM, both prefer to use his views on biology.
So you're saying that the theory of common origin DOES predict common traits? You're saying that if the theory of common ancestry is true, it would prevent life from branching and leading to separate lineages that might lack biologic universals? Is that what you're saying? Any you're complaining about MY lack of knowledge re: biology / natural selection?
ReplyDeleteYou guys are priceless. You really are.
no, not what I am saying
ReplyDeletefirst, i'm saying your a douche bag for linking atheism and the theory of evolution
second, ur an idiot for using an electrical engineer as a reliable source on biology
third, the points you mention do not go against the ToE, you are wilfully ignorant
your stupidity amazes me; priceless indeed
I love these 1.6% Solution posts. According to Mak, 98.4% of the population believe in supernatural miracles. Two points:
ReplyDelete1. That statistic is bullshit. I contend that only a minute fraction of those who identify themseleves as Christians truly believe the fudamental tenets of their supposed faith. By fundamental tenets, I mean the following beliefs: that God is a supernatural deity who actively intervenes in the world (such as through the power of prayer), the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ. I don't arrive at this anecdotal contention lightly. It is the product of hundreds of conversations with professed religious believers.
2. Argumentum ad populum. In fact, this is one of the best sites I have found to provide textbook examples of fallacial reasoning. At first it's amusing but it soon gets tired.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteIsn't fascinating that he asks "Is that what you're saying?" when we know that he does not give a shit, and will keep pretending that this is what Atheists say/think, because... 'That’s just that way these people are. It’s how they think.'
I don't know if you noticed another thing concerning his views on scientific ideas, he goes the wrong way... he always start with conclusions and try to find ideas to support them. Because he does so himself, he thinks that everybody does that too, including evil biologists who are all in that field in order to prove God does not exist of course...
For example, in this post, he starts with "If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common". Of course, nobody ever proposed such a wild hypothesis to start with... What happened in real life is that biologists realized over the years that certain kind of animals share common traits, and proposed the idea that they could share a common ancestor. The more observations they did, the more common traits they found, even between species that were once considered far apart. Eventually, with the help of genetic/molecular biology, scientists came to the conclusion that ALL life forms share one, or very few, common ancestors. That is now a simple biology fact incorporated in the large Theory of Evolution.
At this point, proposing a unique designer as an explanation for the common ancestor is not absurd, it is completely possible. The problem is... what would it explain? Sweet nothing of course... but the creationists don’t care, because they already have their conclusion that this designer exists, so as long as their pet argument does not contradict his existence, they don't care.
@ The Atheist Missionary
Hey long time no see ;)
It is freaking amusing, but ya it gets tired... if you try to discuss directly with the author! I decided to stop doing that recently, but I could not stop reading and here I am commenting again. Do I suffer from addiction to logical fallacies?
Google “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Douglas Theobald” and you will see that people do in fact use the phrase “If universal common ancestry is true, then . . . "One of more common traits" being just one of 29 endings given.
ReplyDeleteGoogle "If universal common ancestry is true" and you will find 5 results, ALL being a critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"
ReplyDeleteSo ya, some people, creationists like you, do use that phrase... what's your point exactly?
but that's not how scientists came to discover common ancestry.
ReplyDeleteevidence first.
conclusion later.
not rod's method:
conclusion first,
twist evidence later.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
ReplyDelete"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html "
ReplyDeleteso???
There is no "If universal common ancestry is true" over there; they explain why common ancestry is a FACT based on observations.
1.6% of the North American population says, “Common ancestry" as though that somehow excludes Creator God. It does not. A claim of universal common ancestry is compatible with all mechanisms of common descent, including divine direction.
ReplyDeleteDid ANYONE say common ancestry meant that gods don't exist?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right Anon...
ReplyDeleteCan I quote myself from... hum... a few lines above...
========
At this point, proposing a unique designer as an explanation for the common ancestor is not absurd, it is completely possible. The problem is... what would it explain? Sweet nothing of course... but the creationists don’t care, because they already have their conclusion that this designer exists, so as long as their pet argument does not contradict his existence, they don't care.
========
Oh but sorry, he is the one who knows how 'these people think' so what I said myself must be wrong. I must have meant the opposite...
Oh, I guess what he confuses this with is the fact that common ancestry means that we, humans, also descend from coming ancestry, making the concept of original sin completely symbolic, thus in turn making Jesus' sacrifice symbolic, or at best, not exactly what it was supposed to be for... I mean, did he die for the sins of Homo Sapiens, or just Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Which humans were the lucky ones to be saved first?
ReplyDeleteHugo said..."At this point, proposing a unique designer as an explanation for the common ancestor is not absurd, it is completely possible. The problem is... what would it explain? Sweet nothing of course... but the creationists don’t care, because they already have their conclusion that this designer exists, so as long as their pet argument does not contradict his existence, they don't care."
ReplyDelete"what would it explain?" ...Wouldnt really explain why this creator would bother creating kiwi birds with wings they can never use. ..Wouldnt explain why some animals need to keep trying to escape sharp teeth of other hungry animals,did they get fooled by a talking snake too?.Wouldnt explain why might have created a Dodo bird to be so very stupidly dumb,was the idea to have it face extinction?
The creation idea creates something that seems unrealist.
Creationist dont realize there actually is much within this world, that doesnt suggest much about "intelligent design".