Common Ancestor an Unwarranted Assumption?

[T_aquaticus]

I have abused these quotes in the past, but they are some of my favorites. It is extremely important to note that the essay I am quoting was written in 1882. The arguments @noUCA is using were thoroughly refuted more than 130 years ago.

Thus, even if we confine our attention to a single structure, how wonderful are the modifications which it is seen to undergo, although never losing its typical character! How are we to explain this? By design manifested in special creation, or by descent with adaptive modification? If it is said by design manifested in special creation, we must suppose that the Deity formed an archetypal plan of certain structures, and that He determined to adhere to this plan through all the modifications which those structures exhibit. Now the difficulties in the way of this supposition are prodigious, if not quite insurmountable. In the first place, why is it that some structures are selected as typical and not others? Why should the vertebral skeleton, for instance, be tortured into every conceivable variety of modification in order to make it serviceable for as great a variety of functions; while another structure, such as the eye, is made in different sub-kingdoms on fundamentally different plans, notwithstanding that it has throughout to perform the same function? Will any one have the hardihood to assert that in the case of the skeleton the Deity has endeavoured to show His ingenuity by the manifold functions to which He has made the same structure subservient; while in the case of the eye He has endeavoured to show his resources by the manifold structures which He has to subserve the same function? If so, it appears to me a most unfortunate circumstance, that throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, all cases which can be pointed to as showing ingenious adaptation of the same typical structure to the performance of widely different functions, are cases which come within the limits of the same natural group of plants and animals, and therefore admit of being equally well explained by descent from a common ancestry; while all cases of widely different structures performing the same function are to be found in different groups of plants or animals, and are therefore suggestive of independent variations arising in the different lines of hereditary descent. . .

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
George Romane, " The Scientific Evidences for Organic Evolution", 1882

[DaleCutler]

And doesn’t truth have to be propositional and something that is recognized by a mind? Otherwise, all there is is dumb stuff.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Michael_Callen

How is it that things are fundamentally true ? Are they not fundamentally true because the universe is (made) that way? Are you suggesting that fundamental truth that would allow for logic is a property of the universe, inherently and must be so ?

Perhaps fundamentally true was a poor choice of words, let me flesh that out. In mathematics, one of theaxioms of logic is Identity, meaning any set must be equal itself in every way. 1=1, 2=2, 3.1415=3.1415, the set of positive integers is equal to the set of positive integers, etc… Identity is assumed to always to true, because there aren’t any simpler assumptions we can use to formally prove it is true. IF the axiom of identity is false, then everything we know about math and logic is fundamentally flawed (probably the whole universe would have a screw loose too).

@Michael_Callen

God, being transcendent, would be able to ensure that this is so in the creation. The way I see it, there would be no property of the universe that could preclude his existence. Only his comprehension.

I don’t know that God could do that, I think it can only be assumed. In this sense God is also an axiom - an assumption so fundamental that it cannot be proven, only assumed. We can’t assume God in any formal logic* because that rascal could go and make 1=2, breaking the axiom of Identity and plunging the universe into chaos!

Please understand that I am not criticizing those who make this assumption. I think important to recognize the assumptions we make; doing so helps us understand ourselves better.

* Just to confuse things, there are multiple systems of formal logic, each starting with slightly different sets of axioms. The most widely accepted system is known as ZFC. If I’d known what I was getting into when I signed up for that Foundations of Mathematics class, I might have changed my major.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@DaleCutler

I suggest that some form of truth, stably, or order is necessary even for God to exist.

Truth comes from reality, not the other way around.

So you agree?

@DaleCutler

And doesn’t truth have to be propositional and something that is recognized by a mind? Otherwise, all there is is dumb stuff.

Hence the Internet!

[DaleCutler]

@Dan_Eastwood

So you agree?

Nope. If there are no minds, there is no truth. A mind (or Mind) has to exist first.

[DaleCutler]

@DaleCutler

Otherwise, all there is is dumb stuff.

@Dan_Eastwood

Hence the Internet!

I do agree there, though! There is a lot of dumb stuff on the internet, but maybe not all. That does bring to mind flat-earthers and conspiracy theory advocates – you’ve heard of echo chambers? Make it singular and add ‘pots’.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@DaleCutler

So you agree?

Nope. If there are no minds, there is no truth. A mind (or Mind) has to exist first .

I was teasing, just a little.

But I disagree. Without the sort of axioms I am referring to be correct (truth, if you like), then there can be no mind, and no comprehension. That might even apply to God. If not, and God created these properties that allow logic and minds to exist, it just kicks the problem down into the rabbit hole of First Cause arguments. Been there, got the Tee-shirt, no need to go back!

[John_Harshman]

@scd

its possible that all apes share a common descent (a common ape). except for human

How would you test that? Should Genesis be used as a source of hypotheses or as evidence for them?

@scd

so lets assume a tipical speciation event= 100 years.

GIGO. An atypical speciation event may take 100 years, but assuming that they usually do is crazy. Also, you are confusing the time speciation takes with the time between speciation events, and they’re not at all the same thing.

[Ashwin_s]

@AllenWitmerMiller

Interesting thought—but what is your evidence or basis for this claim?

If you believe God is the creator, then all things in creation proceed from him.
If God was different, creation would be different and the logical ability to understand it would be different. Or atleast it possibly could be.
Which means logic is defined by God and how he percieves things (or whatever appeals to God’s aesthetic sense) as reflected in creation.

[noUCA]

@T_aquaticus

I have abused these quotes in the past, but they are some of my favorites. It is extremely important to note that the essay I am quoting was written in 1882. The arguments @noUCA is using were thoroughly refuted more than 130 years ago.
George Romane, " The Scientific Evidences for Organic Evolution", 1882

Endless naturalist drivel. How can you stand to read this stuff?

Not only was Romane wrong when he wrote this, he is dead wrong now. (HeHe…I couldn’t resist that one.)

When the Divine issues a command, the end and beginning are as one, and occur simultaneously. Only in the natural do we see an unfolding of events over time.

That renders your appeal to a law of parsimony misdirected and irrelevant.

[noUCA]

I have edited my submission #203 above. It will be impossible to work within your paradigm. Your bias will forever prohibit you from looking at evidences in an honest and forthright manner.

Forget the template idea. I never mentioned it. Creation details are in print in your nearest Bible. If interested, you can consult that.

Good day.

[John_Harshman]

Has noUCA taken his toys and gone home?

[John_Harshman]

@noUCA

1. you approach your entire endeavor from the standpoint that life arose from the simple and advanced to the complex, something you absolutely cannot prove, and 2. because of the fossil-sorting due to the worldwide Flood you have been fooled into thinking that you are looking at a millions-of-years-old picture of the advancement of life on the planet.

Poe’s law?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@noUCA

2. because of the fossil-sorting due to the worldwide Flood you have been fooled into thinking that you are looking at a millions-of-years-old picture of the advancement of life on the planet.

I for one would love to see the evidence for “the fossil-sorting due to the worldwide Flood.” Is this flood-based fossil-sorting related to the famous (but unpublished) experiment by a Seventh Day Adventist professor where the carcasses of various dead animals were observed in order to record when they ceased to float and sunk to the bottom of the water tank?

And what about the sorting of animals and plants which didn’t float?

[Timothy_Horton]

@AllenWitmerMiller

I for one would love to see the evidence for “the fossil-sorting due to the worldwide Flood.” Is this flood-based fossil-sorting related to the famous (but unpublished) experiment by a Seventh Day Adventist professor where the carcasses of various dead animals were observed in order to record when they ceased to float and sunk to the bottom of the water tank?

And what about the sorting of animals and plants which didn’t float?

Don’t forget the deciduous trees and clams which outran the velociraptors to higher ground.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

Nowadays Ken Ham claims that each “geologic era” [I’m copying his use of quotation marks which he uses to express his skepticism] is actually a different “ecological zone” as captured and preserved by the flood waters. So perhaps he realized that the clams outracing velociraptors wasn’t cutting it anymore.

[Timothy_Horton]

That’s easily refuted by the fact trilobite fossils are found in thousands of locations and on all 7 continents but never in strata dating older than the end of the Permian 252 MYA. They are also often found directly below strata with dinosaur fossils.

Oh, it’s Ken Ham. Nevermind.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

Why would there be any non-functional sequences in a common design?

Maybe because what we think are non-fonctional sequences are fonctional after all.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

Maybe because what we think are non-fonctional sequences are fonctional after all.

That’s a whole separate question, and there’s a whole separate thread for it. But to summarize: no. Bless your heart.