The problem is that you are painting the bulls eye around the bullet hole. There are nearly infinite evolutionary pathways that can be taken.
You are only comparing modern eukaryotes to modern prokaryotes. For your argument to carry weight you need to compare eukaryotes and prokaryotes at the point where eukaryotes first emerged.
The argument carries weight because it is looking at actual evidence and not the speculative evidence of which you base your assumptions.
The actual evidence is not able to tell us what eukaryotes looked like when they first emerged. That’s the point. The only speculation is that eukaryotes were completely different from prokaryotes when they first emerged.
This does not matter because we know what they eventually became assuming there was a path for which we have no evidence. We can rule out the Darwinian mechanism for that transition based on the observed evidence of the amount of functional sequences that need to be generated for this transition.
The UCD theory is based solely on speculation and not on observed evidence. Its a big stretch to call this science unless you add fiction after it
The observed evidence for UCD is shared genetic and metabolic systems:
no problem . you can try it with any complex system you want. a gps or a tv or a video camera. the result will be the same.
so basically the evidence is common similarity.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
So you say, but I have yet to see anything beyond claims.
The additional evidence is the nested hierarchy which is a pattern of both similarities and differences.
Ugh. What is wrong with you? The evidence is UNCOMMON similarity!
Crime evidence scientists do not say: yep, the suspect has Type A blood, just like a million people in this town… he MUST be the perpetrator.
No… they look for the UNCOMMON similarities!:
"The perpetrator left a sample of blood at the crime scene … which had a specific and unique marker, common to those from a small country village in Nepal…
It just so happens the suspect was BORN in that very village, and his blood markers match all the other more common blood markers found at the scene.
Are you “getting” any of this yet, @scd?
but remember again that we also find many cases of non-hierarchy. so if hierarchy suppose to support evolution then non-hierarchy should be evidence against it.
since any complex system need at least several parts to function then it cant evolve stepwise.
uncommon similarity as evidence for evolution?
Has this been demonstrated experimentally? What if those sub-parts are functional, but not for the function under analysis, along the stepwise way to the end function? I think those are the main objections to this assertion and since you haven’t give really anything but an assertion, there isn’t really much to go on. I think that’s what @T_aquaticus is trying to get at.
We would expect a noisy phylogenetic signal, and we can predict where the noise will be. Noise and signal is a basic feature of every single scientific theory. It is extremely rare to have an r-squared of 1.00000 in any scientific experiment.
That is a bare assertion. It is further disproven by the fact that just a cell phone case has function.
Isn’t evolution the production of new adaptations? Even Darwin described evolution as descent with modification.
You are playing word games with “common”… which is giving you the wrong answer.
So, I have to show you that you are abusing the word “common”… maybe unintentionally… but people are getting confused by your use of it.
It’s NOT JUST SIMILARITIES that indicate COMMON DESCENT.
So… when you stick the word “COMMON” on similarities, instead of on the word “DESCENT”… all you have is a big ball of hash.
I have to assume you have seen at least TWO EPISODES of CSI… right?
You don’t prove someone is the perpetrator by saying they have “COMMON SIMILARITIES”… what would that mean?
The perpetrator and the suspect both have BROWN HAIR! AHA… STRING HIM UP!
What convinces a jury that a SUSPECT is ALSO THE PERPETRATOR is because they share UN-COMMON traits… UNCOMMON SIMILARITIES.
What are the odds that someone in America comes from an obscure village in Armenia, with a special DNA marker… AND they had access to the murder victim’s car, and phone number?
This drops probabilities down to virtually nothing.
Please STOP using the phrase “COMMON SIMILARITIES”.
UN-COMMON similarities are used to PROVE common descent!
This is not Behe’s position… not the way you are wording it.
It is: Irreducibly Complex systems become more and more unlikely the LESS USEFUL the intermediate or incomplete steps are to the given population.
If the stump of a flagellum was also light sensitive during the intermediate step… then there is a USE! It may not be the use as a flagellum… but that’s not anyone’s argument… except maybe you and @Mung.
You have to show that ALL the intermediate steps had ZERO USE for ANYTHING.
That’s why one of your correspondents started talking about an incomplete form of a cell phone having a use as a paper weight or as a door stop. << Don’t cha get it yet, @SCD?
How do you prove that an incomplete set of mutations has NO USE AT ALL for the life form in question?
as far as we know that is impossible. think about that: say that we want to make a minimal car. its clear that we cant do that stepwise when every step is functiona. the wheels for instance are useless without an engine or other parts.