[_ Old Earth _] Why does Koonin consider the evidence for common descent to be "overwhelming?"

[Vaccine]

But as you learned, we're talking about a theory. Theories, remember are well-tested ideas that are supported by evidence.

This is from the link in the OP:

"A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming. "
It says hypothesis. There was overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesis vaccines caused autism. They removed mercury from the preservative and autism is still on the rise, discrediting that hypothesis. UCA is a hypothesis, the guesses of men dont bring any glory to God. Look what happened with the geocentric model.

I think the vision of this forum is to glorify God.
It would be nice if we could present the cases for and against Creationism and Darwinism, or present the merits of Intelligent Design theory and the Theory of Evolution in a Christian manner.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But as you learned, we're talking about a theory. Theories, remember are well-tested ideas that are supported by evidence:
A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it.

A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory.

This is from the link in the OP:

"A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming. "

As you see, the hypothesis of common descent is a theory, because it has been challenged and tested, and it has been supported by overwhelming evidence, as your guy admits.

That's how science works. It might seem wrong to you, but I can only point out that nothing works as well at understanding the physical universe.

It says hypothesis.

And now you understand why. The theory started out as a hypothesis, but once extensively tested and verified, it became a theory.

There was overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesis vaccines caused autism.

No, it was never accepted by most scientists.

FACT: The clear consensus in the scientific community is that there is no association between vaccination and autism. Research shows autism rates are the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Twenty-three studies have tested hundreds of thousands of children and found no link between autism and vaccines. The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, and World Health Organization have all maintained that there is no connection between vaccines and autism.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/COMMONMYTHSABOUTVACCINESDEBUNKED.aspx

Indeed, once it was tested, the claim was found to be completely without foundation. So as you see, a hypothesis becomes a theory if supported by evidence, but if not verified by testing, it is merely discarded.

UCA is a hypothesis,

Theory. Hypotheses that have been extensively tested and verified become theories.

the guesses of men dont bring any glory to God.

Which is why ID is so damaging to Christian faith; it replaces reason and evidence with faith in man's ideas.

Look what happened with the geocentric model.

Luther and Calvin angrily denounced heliocentrism as offensive to God and contrary to His word. They relied on their own imaginations and projected them onto God's word. But evidence won out. So it is with evolution.

I think the vision of this forum is to glorify God.

It might be time for you to acknowledge His power and wisdom in the way He created things, then.

It would be nice if we could present the cases for and against Creationism and Darwinism, or present the merits of Intelligent Design theory and the Theory of Evolution in a Christian manner.

Perhaps we could all agree not to talk about who is denying God's creation, and just focus on the facts. Can we do that?

 

[Vaccine]

It says hypothesis

And now you understand why. The theory started out as a hypothesis, but once extensively tested and verified, it became a theory.

Koonin clearly refers to universal common ancestry (UCA) as a hypothesis, but you still want to say it became a theory.

UCA and the theory of evolution are two different things.
The theory of evolution states:
Species adapt or change to their environment.

That's all, species change. We know species change, many believe those changes amount to common descent. UCA is a belief and Koonin plainly says so. Science doesn't operate in the realm of beliefs, it operates in the realm of knowns. Philosophy operates in the realm of beliefs.
Common descent is Darwin's philosophy, the philosophy of many scientists, but not Christ.

Perhaps we could all agree not to talk about who is denying God's creation, and just focus on the facts. Can we do that?

It certainly is a goal.

 

[Barbarian]

It says hypothesis

Barbarian observes:
And now you understand why. The theory started out as a hypothesis, but once extensively tested and verified, it became a theory.

Koonin clearly refers to universal common ancestry (UCA) as a hypothesis, but you still want to say it became a theory.

By definition. As you learned, a hypothesis, having been repeatedly tested and confirmed by evidence, is a theory.

Let's take a look at it again.

A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory.

This is from the link in the OP:

"A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming. "
As you see, the hypothesis of common descent is a theory, because it has been challenged and tested, and it has been supported by overwhelming evidence, as your guy admits.

UCA and the theory of evolution are two different things.
The theory of evolution states:
Species adapt or change to their environment.

That's all, species change.

No, that's only a tiny part of it. Even before the modern synthesis added genetics to it, Darwin's four points were much more than "species adapt."

Just so we're in the same place, do you know what Darwin's four points are?

Common descent is Darwin's philosophy, the philosophy of many scientists, but not Christ.

You might as well say "Gravitation is Newton's philosophy, the philosophy of many scientists, but not Christ." Seems completely absurd. As you know, common descent is confirmed by many independent lines of evidence. Would you like me to show them to you again?

Barbarian said: ↑

Perhaps we could all agree not to talk about who is denying God's creation, and just focus on the facts. Can we do that?​

It certainly is a goal.

See above. You can do better.

 

[Vaccine]

"A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming. "
As you see, the hypothesis of common descent is a theory,

I see this is just fruitless.

 

[Barbarian]

Fruitless to argue against, I suppose. You know what the definition of "theory" is. And "hypothesis supported by overwhelming evidence", is exactly the definition.

 

[Rick W]

Fruitless to argue against, I suppose. You know what the definition of "theory" is. And "hypothesis supported by overwhelming evidence", is exactly the definition.

Theory

1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

 

[Asyncritus]

Koonin clearly refers to universal common ancestry (UCA) as a hypothesis, but you still want to say it became a theory.

Koonin says 'hypothesis'.

Barbarian says 'theory'.

Who are we to believe?

If there is any meaning to language, then a hypothesis cannot be a theory - because there are 2 separate and distinct words.

They are both distinct from 'fact', and that is what evolution and genomics don't have. Opinions aplenty, but common sense - no.

Dawkins calls evolution a 'fact' - he said that to me personally.

Everybody else calls it a 'theory'. Well, nearly everybody, besides the optimistic supporters!

Which do you support, barbarian?

 

[Barbarian]

Koonin says 'hypothesis'.

Well, let's take a look. Koonin says:
A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.

So why did the "overwhelming evidence" part get truncated? Maybe this:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
National Academy of Science

So Koonin says this hypothesis is a theory.

Barbarian says 'theory'.

Yep. As Koonin would tell you.

Who are we to believe?

Koonin and me. We actually know what "theory" means.

If there is any meaning to language, then a hypothesis cannot be a theory - because there are 2 separate and distinct words.

So a man can't be a scientist, because they are "2 separate and distinct words." You really want to argue that? As you see, a hypothesis, once supported by sufficient ("overwhelming" as Koonin says) evidence, becomes a scientific theory.

They are both distinct from 'fact',

Facts are evidence. Overwhelming evidence, as your guy says.

that is what evolution and genomics don't have.

Koonin knows a very great deal more about it than you do. And he says its "overwhelming." I only know a great deal more about it than you, but I know he's right.

Opinions aplenty, but common sense - no.

Common sense would dictate that you'd be wise to listen to someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Dawkins calls evolution a 'fact' - he said that to me personally.

Since it's directly observed, I guess that makes sense.

Everybody else calls it a 'theory'.

Because it's a hypothesis supported by overwhelming evidence. That's what a theory is.

Which do you support, barbarian?

I think the National Academy of science is right. If it's supported by evidence, it's a theory. That was Koonin's point.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Fruitless to argue against, I suppose. You know what the definition of "theory" is. And "hypothesis supported by overwhelming evidence", is exactly the definition.
Theory

1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

See above. We're talking about the scientific definition of the word. The colloquial usage of theory isn't the way it works in science.

 

[Asyncritus]

Koonin from OP: "A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis..."

I think everyone reading this thread can easily see the differences between hypothesis, theory and fact.

Here is some assistance from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Hypothesis:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:Darwin’s theory of evolution a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:

Fact:

a thing that is known or proved to be true:
Evolution does not come under the description: proved.

Koonin said 'hypothesis'.

You are completely confused about the meaning of the word, and so I trust that this little excursion into the OED has been of some assistance, and that you won't make this elementary little error again.

Here's the link, if you should need it:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact

Koonin is saying that the hypothesis has not been proved, and that proof may not be forthcoming. Here:

"A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry (1) hypothesis (2) has not been achieved and is (3) unlikely to be feasible in principle."

In other words,

(1) it is a hypothesis,

(2) it has not been proved, and

(3) proof is unlikely to be forthcoming.

 

[Barbarian]

Koonin from OP: "A formal demonstration of Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis..."

"A formal demonstration" in academic talk, is a logical proof. So he's quite right about that. Science doesn't deal in logical proofs. It can't, because we don't know all the rules in science. Proofs involve deduction, taking the rules and applying them to particular situations. Science is mostly inductive, inferring the rules from examining the particulars.

I think the three of you - Koonin, Dawkins and last but not least, you, should undergo some stringent tests in English comprehension, and more particularly, English Vocabulary.

Your belief is the result of not understanding what science means by "hypothesis" and "theory." Let's take it a step at a time, and see how that goes...

If you're not talking English, then that's your problem, not mine.

Every discipline has terms that are more tightly defined for that discipline than in common discourse. And that's what tripped you up, here.

I think everyone reading this thread can easily see the differences between hypothesis, theory and fact.

In science, a "fact" is evidence. Either collected data, or theories so well founded as to be considered essentially true. A hypothesis is a prediction, based on previous knowledge, about some phenomenon. As you learned, a theory is a hypothesis that has been so well-confirmed by evidence as to be accepted as true by the consensus of scientists in that discipline. If you try to talk science and use terms in ways they aren't used by scientists, you will be always misunderstood.

In case you need some help, here is some assistance from the Oxford English Dictionary, who clearly know a lot more English than you do:

Hypothesis:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:

Not bad, although it errs in assuming that there has to be evidence for it, when first proposed. It is based, as I said, on previous knowledge, but not necessarily by any evidence at all, when it becomes a hypothesis.

Now let's see how it's used in science:
Hypothesis

noun, plural: hypotheses
A supposition or tentative explanation for (a group of) phenomena, (a set of) facts, or a scientific inquiry that may be tested, verified or answered by further investigation or methodological experiment.

A scientific hypothesis that has been verified through scientific experiment and research may well be considered a scientific theory.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hypothesis

Let's see what your non-scientific source says about theories:

Theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:biggrinarwin’s theory of evolution a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:

That is the accepted definition in legal matters. In law, a "theory" is a legal argument not yet established by statute or stare decisis.
Now, let's see what it means in science.
Scientific Theory, noun
A concept that has been well tested, and is accepted as an explanation to a wide range of observations.http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory

And not the idea about "fact."

Fact:
a thing that is known or proved to be true:

So, Async, let's see your logical proof for the sun coming up tomorrow. Or are you unsure whether it will come up or not?
Does that give you some idea why they put the "or" in there?

Evolution does not come under the description: proved.

It does come under the definition of "known", which is sufficient as the dictionary tells you. Perhaps the problem is what you think "or" means. You seem to have confused it with a different conjunction; "and."

Koonin said 'hypothesis'.

Actually, he said that it was a hypothesis supported by overwhelming evidence. And as scientists know, and as you just learned, a theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence.

You are completely confused about the meaning of the word, and so I trust that this demonstration of the meaning of the word in science will help you, and you won't make this elementary little error again.

I gave you the links, in case you need them.

Now I've re-read the OP, I can see that a charge of misrepresentation could easily be proved against you.

As you suggested above, Koonin and I are of one opinion on this. You thought that we had the word wrong, but of course you were simply ignorant of what the word means in science.

Koonin is saying that the hypothesis has not been proved, and that proof may not be forthcoming.

That's a safe bet. Science doesn't involve logical certainty.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

What Koonin is saying is that we can't do a logical proof of common ancestry, but the evidence for that hypothesis is overwhelming. And, as you learned, that's what a theory is.

Here:
A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.Eugene Koonin: The common ancestry for Life
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/5/1/64

In other words,

1. It's a hypothesis which is supported by overwhelming evidence, which is the definition of a theory
2. Nothing in science is proven, even facts like the sunrise this morning. We are just very, very confident about some of these things like sunrises and common descent (as Koonin wrote)
3. Which is why Koonin considers common ancestry to be a fact.

Understand, now?

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm afraid you're wrong.
Extract from:

DOES SCIENCE NEVER ABSOLUTELY PROVE ANYTHING?
http://www.nars.org/Voice_of_Science_Articles/Does Sciences Ever Absolutely Prove Anything.pdf

It is with a great deal of reluctance that we are responding to a Letter to the Editor of
Science

.We were hoping that someone else would address the letter by Gleick et al(2010) that was signed by about 250 members of the(US) National Academy of Sciences.

That letter includes the statement “All citizens should understand some basic
scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.”

Unfortunately, we must disagree.

We are also confused by the statement included in the letter that concedes the existence of scientific “facts.” Obviously whereas the authors agree that there are facts, they do not agree that science can prove anything. The letter includes the statement:

“...when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of ‘well-established theories’ and are often spoken of as ‘facts.’”

Let us use some examples of “absolutely” proven science:
1.
There is no reason to doubt the laws of physics governing acceleration and
momentum. These laws are the basis for a large number of industrial operations,
transportation and numerous other activities.

2.
Constituents of an atom include protons, neutrons (except for
1H) and electrons.
Nuclear power, nuclear medicine and numerous other industries are based on this
proven structure.
3.
There is no question that moon rotates around the earth and earth around the sun.

4.
The elemental composition of a large number of chemical compounds is known
and is the basis for the chemical, pharmaceutical, and numerous other industries.

5.
The gross anatomy of humans is well-established and beyond dispute. Normal
humans have two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears, and one nose. They also
have brains, lungs, kidneys, livers, and stomachs.

6.
Under standard conditions water freezes at 0 oC and evaporates at 100 oC

7.
Human genetic material is composed of DNA which includes two complementary
strands and undergoes transcription and translation
.
8.
The reaction of silver nitrate and sodium chloride at sufficient concentrations
produces a precipitate consisting of silver chloride.
9.
Whereas certain diseases are caused by viruses, some others are caused by
bacteria.

It would be fruitless to describe other examples. Virtually every high-school student can
identify many other examples.

What happened? We are familiar with the scientific accomplishments of several
signatories of the letter and have difficulties understanding why such a large number of
exceptionally distinguished and accomplished individuals would sign a letter containing such a fundamental error.

Our only explanation is that the urge to perform what they considered to be a noble cause was responsible for overlooking the error.

The conventional evolution of scientific knowledge often starts with a hypothesis whose merit has to be evaluated by experiments and other tools.

Often a theory is the next step after adding scientific evidence to a hypothesis. A
theory can also be the start of the process if sufficient evidence is provided in its formulation.
[Kindly note that a hypothesis and a theory are not identical. Koonin stated that UCA was a 'hypothesis'.]

The final goal in scientific endeavor is the formulation of a scientific law. Whereas theories include assumptions and unproven ideas [such as the theory of evolution and the UCA], laws contain neither.

[...]

They concluded by saying:

The authors of the letter should recognize that based on the BAS/MESC:

“A scientific claim is settled if and when any investigator who has the necessary skills,
and, depending upon the issue, requisite equipment and facilities, is able to reproduce and
confirm it.”

This cannot be said about evolution and the UCA hypothesis.

I trust that this clarifies the matter and my position.

 

[kevinmaynard]

I'm afraid you're wrong.
Extract from:

DOES SCIENCE NEVER ABSOLUTELY PROVE ANYTHING?
http://www.nars.org/Voice_of_Science_Articles/Does Sciences Ever Absolutely Prove Anything.pdf

It is with a great deal of reluctance that we are responding to a Letter to the Editor of
Science

.We were hoping that someone else would address the letter by Gleick et al(2010) that was signed by about 250 members of the(US) National Academy of Sciences.

That letter includes the statement “All citizens should understand some basic
scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.”

Unfortunately, we must disagree.

We are also confused by the statement included in the letter that concedes the existence of scientific “facts.” Obviously whereas the authors agree that there are facts, they do not agree that science can prove anything. The letter includes the statement:

“...when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of ‘well-established theories’ and are often spoken of as ‘facts.’”

Let us use some examples of “absolutely” proven science:
1.
There is no reason to doubt the laws of physics governing acceleration and
momentum. These laws are the basis for a large number of industrial operations,
transportation and numerous other activities.

2.
Constituents of an atom include protons, neutrons (except for
1H) and electrons.
Nuclear power, nuclear medicine and numerous other industries are based on this
proven structure.
3.
There is no question that moon rotates around the earth and earth around the sun.

4.
The elemental composition of a large number of chemical compounds is known
and is the basis for the chemical, pharmaceutical, and numerous other industries.

5.
The gross anatomy of humans is well-established and beyond dispute. Normal
humans have two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears, and one nose. They also
have brains, lungs, kidneys, livers, and stomachs.

6.
Under standard conditions water freezes at 0 oC and evaporates at 100 oC

7.
Human genetic material is composed of DNA which includes two complementary
strands and undergoes transcription and translation
.
8.
The reaction of silver nitrate and sodium chloride at sufficient concentrations
produces a precipitate consisting of silver chloride.
9.
Whereas certain diseases are caused by viruses, some others are caused by
bacteria.

It would be fruitless to describe other examples. Virtually every high-school student can
identify many other examples.

What happened? We are familiar with the scientific accomplishments of several
signatories of the letter and have difficulties understanding why such a large number of
exceptionally distinguished and accomplished individuals would sign a letter containing such a fundamental error.

Our only explanation is that the urge to perform what they considered to be a noble cause was responsible for overlooking the error.

The conventional evolution of scientific knowledge often starts with a hypothesis whose merit has to be evaluated by experiments and other tools.

Often a theory is the next step after adding scientific evidence to a hypothesis. A
theory can also be the start of the process if sufficient evidence is provided in its formulation.
[Kindly note that a hypothesis and a theory are not identical. Koonin stated that UCA was a 'hypothesis'.]

The final goal in scientific endeavor is the formulation of a scientific law. Whereas theories include assumptions and unproven ideas [such as the theory of evolution and the UCA], laws contain neither.

[...]

They concluded by saying:

The authors of the letter should recognize that based on the BAS/MESC:

“A scientific claim is settled if and when any investigator who has the necessary skills,
and, depending upon the issue, requisite equipment and facilities, is able to reproduce and
confirm it.”

This cannot be said about evolution and the UCA hypothesis.

I trust that this clarifies the matter and my position.

Your position is to copy and past the opinions of others on a completely unrelated matter?

The fact is gravity is still a theory. What the author of the letter did was substitute observation as the whole of science. Sure we can observe most humans have two hands. That isn't science.

 

[Barbarian]

What the author of the letter did was substitute observation as the whole of science.The fact is gravity is still a theory.

In fact, common descent is better documented by gravity. We know why common descent happened. We still don't know exactly why gravity happens.

 

[Asyncritus]

In fact, common descent is better documented by gravity. We know why common descent happened. We still don't know exactly why gravity happens.

Well I never.

I've heard biologists say evolution is as well documented as gravity, but Ive never heard a physicist say gravity is as well established as evolution. They're not stupid.

You can claim a first, barbarian.

Common descent did not happen either, and all the claims you make are quite simply mistaken.

You know full well that species/ families are immutable. As I pointed out, there are severe limits to variation, and interbreeding between species to produce hybrids does not create speciation. Did you have a look at those pathetic few examples in talkorigins which I referred you to?

And if you did, did you ever wonder how those million or so species in the Cambrian 'evolved' given that pathetic rate of speciation talkorigins claims?

That being so, if there was a common ancestor, 1 miserable cell or lower organism which you are still completely unable to produce a fossil of, though I've challenged you several times on the point, then that CA must have generated the million or so species in the Cambrian or preCambrian, whichever you like.

That as we now know, and talkorigins implies, is impossible. That rate of claimed speciation is far too low, and some of the new 'species' are probably optimistically so-called, which reduces the number even further.

So by all the tenets of logic and common sense, the UCA is really an Unbelievably Cobbled together Absurdity.

Have you ever considered the fact that if there was such an entity, then it must have been the most phenomenal and miraculous cell ever?

After all, it contained all the genetic and other information required to produce whales, tarantulas, sequoias , mankind ...........

But phenomenal and miraculous are words that describe creation, not evolution.

All abiogenesis research has ever done is to confirm that abiogenesis is an impossible dream. It takes God to create life, not random molecular combinations.

So I'm afraid your UCA is just that. An UnCommonly Absurd phantom of the imagination and wishful thinking of the evolutionist fraternity.

It's a pity you have to join them.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
In fact, common descent is better documented by gravity. We know why common descent happened. We still don't know exactly why gravity happens.

Well I never.

True.

I've heard biologists say evolution is as well documented as gravity, but Ive never heard a physicist say gravity is as well established as evolution.

True. We still aren't exactly sure why gravity exists. But we are, as you know, aware of why evolution works the way it does.

They're not stupid.

True. They overwhelmingly accept evolution, after all.

Common descent did not happen either,

Even the guy you people cited, says the evidence for it is "overwhelming." Sounds pretty sure to me.

You know full well that species/ families are immutable.

Even many creationists recognize that speciation is a fact. And the ICR endorsed a report that claims new species, genera, and families evolve. So denial isn't good there, either. Of course, you can have your own opinion, but if even your fellow creationists won't side with you on it, things seem a bit hopeless for that idea.

As I pointed out, there are severe limits to variation

Show us a species that is at the limit of variation, and your evidence for it.

and interbreeding between species to produce hybrids does not create speciation.

That's been directly observed, too, but most speciation isn't by hybridization. I thought we had cleared that up earlier.

Did you have a look at those pathetic few examples in talkorigins which I referred you to?

Let's see... in less then a hundred years, we've directly observed 10 to 40, depending on who you ask. So, in a million years, that would be about 100,000 to 400,000 new species, assuming that we really did observe every single one. Seems like a lot of speciations, no?

And if you did, did you ever wonder how those million or so species in the Cambrian 'evolved' given that pathetic rate of speciation talkorigins claims?

Well, let's take a look at that. The Cambrian explosion took about, (Barbarian checks) 20 to 40 million years to get most of the new Cambrian fauna. That would be um... two million new species, on the conservative side. Seems like a lot of species to me.

That being so, if there was a common ancestor, 1 miserable cell or lower organism which you are still completely unable to produce a fossil of, though I've challenged you several times on the point,

I believe you've seen them before, but here:

The first recognizable fossils are of photosynthetic bacteria-like organisms, somewhat like modern cyanobacteria. And that's understandable. The first living things would have to be autotrophs. The fact that they made stromatolites similar to ones formed today by cyanobacteria pretty much nails it.

then that CA must have generated the million or so species in the Cambrian or preCambrian, whichever you like.

You've been misled about that. Long before the Cambrian Explosion, there was a vast diversification of life into numerous very different living things, the Ediacaran fauna, some of which seem to have survived into Cambrian times. Would you like to learn about them?

That as we now know, and talkorigins implies, is impossible.

See the numbers above. Your estimate is way off.

That rate of claimed speciation is far too low, and some of the new 'species' are probably optimistically so-called, which reduces the number even further.

Even tossing out most of the cases known, we still get hundreds of thousands of new species every million years. Which is more than enough to account for the observed species in the fossil record. And remember, that's assuming that we were lucky enough to observe every single speciation in the last hundred years. The real number is probably much larger.

So by all the tenets of logic and common sense, the UCA is really an Unbelievably Cobbled together Absurdity.

See above. A million is a lot bigger than you think it is.

Have you ever considered the fact that if there was such an entity, then it must have been the most phenomenal and miraculous cell ever?

As St. Augustine pointed out, the reality of God's natural creation is one of the most staggering of miracles. I don't see this world as being beyond His power to make.

After all, it contained all the genetic and other information required to produce whales, tarantulas, sequoias , mankind ...........

No, that's a common misconception. As you know, new genes evolve constantly over time. Would you like me to show you that, again?

All abiogenesis research has ever done is to confirm that abiogenesis is an impossible dream. It takes God to create life, not random molecular combinations.

As you learned earlier, God says that He created life, using nature. So that's not a problem for a Christian. However, evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began, so if you want to imagine that He just poofed life into existence, instead of the way He says He did it in Genesis, that's not a problem for evolutionary theory.

So I'm afraid your UCA is just that. An UnCommonly Absurd phantom of the imagination and wishful thinking of the evolutionist fraternity.

As you see, the numbers won't support your assertion here. As I said, a million is a lot bigger than you think it is.