Saturday, May 15, 2010

Common Descent Proven

A new study has shown that it is overwhelmingly likely that every living thing known to man has arisen from just one common ancestral species:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/now_weve_got_some_big_numbers.php

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

Unless someone can point out some statistical or logical error in this, then this study conclusively proves that creationism, and even evolution from two or more ancestral species, is false. It can't be said with literal 100% certainty, but it can be said with over 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certainty.

7 comments:

Jorroo said...

Okay so lets take your science-theology to it obvious nagging start and ask just that How did it all start? And please dont give me the "its another topic - abiogenesis line" ...We all see the elephant in the room.

Lets see if we will get a real answer since you obviously have all of the answers, right? Simple question : rocks to life? Thats all I want to know...

AIGBusted said...

"Lets see if we will get a real answer since you obviously have all of the answers, right?"

Never said that, dumbass.

"Okay so lets take your science-theology to it obvious nagging start and ask just that How did it all start? And please dont give me the 'its another topic - abiogenesis line' ...We all see the elephant in the room."

Common Descent is true reguardless of whether natural abiogenesis is. Why is that difficult to see?

"Simple question : rocks to life? Thats all I want to know..."

A lot of people have written about abiogenesis. Myself included, I discuss it at length in my book, Atheism and Naturalism, which you can download for 3.99 on lulu.com

Or you could get off your lazy ass and do some research on the issue. The info is there, you just have to look.

Jorroo said...

As expected , nothing (except perhaps you resorting to name calling - for whatever that adds to the conversation?) ... I could also tell you go read a pile of books sympathetic to my side of the argument... all I'm asking is a few simple lines outlining your reason for belief here for all to see...

You've volunteered a premise : "Common descent is true" You're 100% sure about that? Regardless, you talk of common decent like thats the big mystery and build your theory on that... but that is simply ignoring the inconvenient!
I ask in return: Why is it so difficult to see that without an information system, common descent(or other) is impossible in the first place... And information systems cannot just evolve from rocks (And for the record I am 100% sure about this premise as will any honest/unbiased person agree), lets deal with step one first shall we? We get that right perhaps things will get clearer for the next step?

So Step one : Rocks to life?
(Step zero : Rocks from where? hopefully we wont feel the need to race down this path... I can only take so much pseudo-science in one day...)

So many interesting little mysteries so little blog space...

AIGBusted said...

"I could also tell you go read a pile of books sympathetic to my side of the argument... all I'm asking is a few simple lines outlining your reason for belief here for all to see..."

No you couldn't, because I'm not stepping onto your blog and making demands of you. You're stepping onto my blog and trying to make demands of me. And I won't have it. This is my blog and I make the rules.

"You've volunteered a premise : 'Common descent is true' You're 100% sure about that?"

I already said how sure I was of it in the blog post, dumbass.

"And information systems cannot just evolve from rocks"

That just shows you don't what you're talking about. Listen to this lecture by Paleontologist Donald Prothero, especially from 6:40 to 10:00.

"So Step one : Rocks to life?
(Step zero : Rocks from where? hopefully we wont feel the need to race down this path... I can only take so much pseudo-science in one day...)"

Kid, I, and many other people, have already written about that at length in many other places. Why should I bother typing all about that here just for you? You can buy my book, or someone else's on the subject, and take the time to read it and understand it yourself. It's not the kind of thing that can or should be summarized in one paragraph. If you want to know about it, read about it. And if you don't want to read about it, piss off.

AIGBusted said...

And by the Jorroo, where did God come from? And if GOd is eternal, then why can't I just say that something physical is eternal? That's a fair question to ask you, since you're asking me lots of questions.

Jorroo said...

Hmmm ... God ... now that is the real question, isn't it?
Funny how men want to define God in their own terms and parameters, why? Why does a God need to be defined within His own creation, what you are actually demanding is a contradiction (a creator cannot be part of what He created)

I never once alluded to the creationist answer as being easy, but it is certainly much simpler than having to come up with ever increasing and mostly un-testable theories generously reaching into the realms of pseudo-science to keep the status-quo. As a creationist I'm not against science, it has its place especially when it displays the awesome creation we live in, but what I am against is statements such as "Common descent Proven" ... it is far from proven, the foundation is a complete blank!

Something physical being called eternal? In what terms are we speaking about? the universe? or matter? time? What is it exactly you want to call eternal? But to answer your question: Its because God is not physical, nor limited to the confines of His creation.

And yes I agree some points do require vast amounts of talk, but I must protest, a blog could hold a synopsis if we push aside all the fluff and get to the nitty gritties of the matter.

I am sorry you feel I barged in on your blog , perhaps I was a little too sarcastic for a complete stranger, for that I apologize - the anonyminity of the web sometimes gets the better of me, but I must point out that it is you who solicited an opinion from anyone who cared to read your blog by expressing one of your own, but now you demand that I just agree and move on? err there's a comment link! I commented...

AIGBusted said...

"Hmmm ... God ... now that is the real question, isn't it?"

It's one question among many.

"Why does a God need to be defined within His own creation, what you are actually demanding is a contradiction (a creator cannot be part of what He created)"

I didn't define God within his own creation. That would be like saying that God would have to create himself, which I didn't say. I'm asking why your hypothetical God gets a free pass when it comes to asking about why he exists, but why don't want to give that free pass of explanation to the universe itself.

"I never once alluded to the creationist answer as being easy, but it is certainly much simpler than having to come up with ever increasing and mostly un-testable theories generously reaching into the realms of pseudo-science to keep the status-quo."

Never reached for any "untestable theories". Are you hallucinating?

"As a creationist I'm not against science, it has its place especially when it displays the awesome creation we live in, but what I am against is statements such as 'Common descent Proven' ... it is far from proven, the foundation is a complete blank!"

False. This blog post references some very strong peer-reviewed evidence for common descent. That's not "blank".

"Something physical being called eternal? In what terms are we speaking about? the universe? or matter? time? What is it exactly you want to call eternal?"

Here's one possibility for any eternal physics: scientists have theorized that new universes are born inside black holes, and indeed, that our universe was born from a black hole. What if there have always been universes giving birth to new universes through their black holes?

"But to answer your question: Its because God is not physical, nor limited to the confines of His creation."

Why does something non-physical get to be eternal? Why can't the physical be eternal?

"And yes I agree some points do require vast amounts of talk, but I must protest, a blog could hold a synopsis if we push aside all the fluff and get to the nitty gritties of the matter."

How would you know? You don't know anything about the subject, as I can tell from having talked with you.

"but I must point out that it is you who solicited an opinion from anyone who cared to read your blog by expressing one of your own,"

I (generously) ALLOW people to leave comments on my blog because I care about free speech. I don't beg people to leave demanding and downright stupid comments here.


"but now you demand that I just agree and move on?"

There's the hallucination again. You do that a lot, don't you :-)

I did not demand that you agree with anything. I advised you to do some reading about origin-of-life studies given that you say you're so curious about it. What am I supposed to do? Donate all my time to explaining it because you refuse to do the work yourself? Really, is that what you want? Tell you what, if you want that I'll be glad to do it... For a price. But I have to advise you, a book or two would be cheaper than hiring me to do something like that.