Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Deductive proof for Evolution

Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.
Evolution as in "particles to people" Evolution.
Refrain from insults please. I just want a proof in deductive form.
Instead of emotional arguments that never go anywhere, I would like a structured discussion
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 10:07:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.
Evolution as in "particles to people" Evolution.
Refrain from insults please. I just want a proof in deductive form.
Instead of emotional arguments that never go anywhere, I would like a structured discussion

I doubt a deductive argument is what you are looking for if you want to hear a good reason to think that evolution is true. Frankly, because the scientific method is not equivalent to deduction.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 10:18:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evolution is inductive so I don't think such a thing is possible.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 11:18:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 11:30:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 11:18:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

You assume common ancestry in your argument, but that is what you are trying to prove.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 1:13:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 11:30:56 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/23/2015 11:18:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

You assume common ancestry in your argument, but that is what you are trying to prove.

No it doesn't. He set up a contrast, and ultimately rejected creationism because it is untenable.

Read what he said carefully.

He starts out by pointing out that we inherit our anatomical and physiological characteristics from our ancestors. This is axiomatic; your parents made you, and your genetic makeup is, moreso than not, a mixture of their genetics.

He then points out that structures performing the same function(s) can be produced through the use of different proteins. This is demonstrable.

He then sets up the contrast, pointing out the difference between analogous and homologous structures. Homologous structures are supportive of the theory of evolution, whereas analogous structures could potentially disprove the theory of evolution.

And then we come to point #5, which should not need to be dumbed-down.

If you truly understood the implications of these facts, we would not be here right now.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 3:26:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 11:30:56 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/23/2015 11:18:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

You assume common ancestry in your argument, but that is what you are trying to prove.

No, that was not assumed.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 9:07:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 11:30:56 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/23/2015 11:18:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

You assume common ancestry in your argument, but that is what you are trying to prove.

He is not assuming common ancestry, but he actualy assumes ancestry, like any sane person would...

Btw it is quite a remarkable argument, as expected of Ruv.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 1:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 11:18:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

Common ancestry to what point?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 1:45:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 11:18:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/23/2015 8:21:20 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Just looking for a deductive proof for Evolution.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

Also, premise 2 is little confusing. Could you please clarify?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:12:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

Also, premise 2 is little confusing. Could you please clarify?

It really is a nicely done argument. How about you take it in small chunks.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

pro"tein
any of a class of nitrogenous organic compounds that consist of large molecules composed of one or more long chains of amino acids and are an essential part of all living organisms, especially as structural components of body tissues such as muscle, hair, collagen, etc., and as enzymes and antibodies.

Ancestors in this case has only mean your own parents, one generation past.

Do you get this?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:20:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 2:12:42 PM, TBR wrote:
P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

C. The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

[http://journals.plos.org...]

Alpha, this is a deductive argument that common ancestry is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the argument for the specific evolutionary mechanisms of recombination, mutation and selection to have been instrumental in producing the species we have is inductive; while the idea of life appearing on earth spontaneously is purely conjectural, though considered highly credible by many scientists.

I hope that may be useful.

Also, premise 2 is little confusing. Could you please clarify?

It really is a nicely done argument. How about you take it in small chunks.

P1. Barring mutation, the proteins predicting our shape and function are inherited from our ancestors.

pro"tein
any of a class of nitrogenous organic compounds that consist of large molecules composed of one or more long chains of amino acids and are an essential part of all living organisms, especially as structural components of body tissues such as muscle, hair, collagen, etc., and as enzymes and antibodies.

Ancestors in this case has only mean your own parents, one generation past.

Do you get this?

Yes, I get the first premise
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:32:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Although the argument sure is informative, it is not a deductively valid argument.
A schematic argument for evolution could look like this.

1) The modern theory of evolution is true, if and only if, X & Y & Z...

Where X, Y and Z are on their own necessary and together sufficient to grant the veracity of the theory.

2) X & Y & Z....
This is the crucial step. X, Y and Z etc. need to be replaced by all necessary and together sufficient conditions needed for evolution to be true. Natural selection and whatnot. Justification for this premise is of most importance as it trivially follows from it that creationism is false. But it is also what makes any deductive argument for a scientific theory uninteresting as each of these premises rely on induction and inference to the best explanation to be established. One could just as well look at these arguments on their own, because this deductive one really adds nothing to the mix. Which is why I am confused as to why one would want a deductive argument in the first place. That's not how scientists do. I suspect it stems from a confusion of 'deductive argument' and 'strong/ good argument', but that's speculation on my part.

3) Therefore, the modern theory of evolution is true.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:47:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.


Lets move on to P2 (and overlap with P3).

I hate to speak for the poster, and I am sure he can do it better, but I am taking a shot at it.

"Homology " is about the shared "structures" between species. There ARE many ways to make a leg or eyes, as we can see looking around at all the deserve life on the planet. That is what is being alluded to in P2.

However, as diverse as the leg types may be, we see homology between things that have different legs and eyes. "the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins." this is a true statement. The other part of the statement is just to say that this is true wherever we look at proteins, not just some obvious commonality. Then, he goes on to say -

"If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry."

This is to say that you put all this together and the case for the commonality of ancestry is very strong. Again, to make it as simple as possible, this is saying that a Bonobo has a leg that is different than us, but is "sharing" a lot with us. If we were to look and find MORE "analogous proteins" rather than "homologous proteins" you would be making the case against common ancestry but we find the latter.

Does that make sense?
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:52:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science does not work by means of deduction. The whole of science and the scientific method are predicated on abductive reasoning. "Deductive proof" for a scientific hypothesis is almost non-existent, though it exists in some cases. An abductive proof exists in my "The Case for Evolution" thread.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:53:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 10:18:14 PM, n7 wrote:
Evolution is inductive so I don't think such a thing is possible.

The scientific method is intrinsically abductive.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:53:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 2:47:29 PM, TBR wrote:

P2. However, more than one kind of protein can produce the same function, so there are potentially multiple ways for life to grow eyes or legs, say.

P3. If life has common ancestry then the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins. (These are called 'homologous' proteins, as opposed to distinct proteins for similar organs, which are called 'analogous' proteins.) This should be true in all places where proteins occur, such as chloroplasts, nuclei and mitochondria.

If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry.


Lets move on to P2 (and overlap with P3).

I hate to speak for the poster, and I am sure he can do it better, but I am taking a shot at it.

"Homology " is about the shared "structures" between species. There ARE many ways to make a leg or eyes, as we can see looking around at all the deserve life on the planet. That is what is being alluded to in P2.

However, as diverse as the leg types may be, we see homology between things that have different legs and eyes. "the proteins inheriting the same organs from the same ancestors should be similar proteins." this is a true statement. The other part of the statement is just to say that this is true wherever we look at proteins, not just some obvious commonality. Then, he goes on to say -

"If there is common ancestry, ancestral proteins should therefore converge. So species showing too many analogous proteins and too few homologous proteins would be strong evidence against convergence, and therefore against common ancestry."

This is to say that you put all this together and the case for the commonality of ancestry is very strong. Again, to make it as simple as possible, this is saying that a Bonobo has a leg that is different than us, but is "sharing" a lot with us. If we were to look and find MORE "analogous proteins" rather than "homologous proteins" you would be making the case against common ancestry but we find the latter.

Does that make sense?

Common ancestry how far back?
So, if there are similarities, then there is common ancestry? Is that what is being said?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 2:57:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Common ancestry how far back?
So, if there are similarities, then there is common ancestry? Is that what is being said?

Lets not jump the gun yet. He is giving you room in the next point -

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

What is said is, its possible that the "strong evidence" is coincidental, only offering that there are two options. 1) distinct heredity 2) chance.

Get that?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 3:11:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 2:57:52 PM, TBR wrote:
Common ancestry how far back?
So, if there are similarities, then there is common ancestry? Is that what is being said?

Lets not jump the gun yet. He is giving you room in the next point -

P4. However, if life has distinct ancestry then the proteins for similar organs could be analogous due to distinct heredity, but might also be homologous by chance.

What is said is, its possible that the "strong evidence" is coincidental, only offering that there are two options. 1) distinct heredity 2) chance.

Get that?

Yeah
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 3:27:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah

OK, so

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

This is what the link said on that.
"the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is W76;1"10W22;19 and combined over 8 datasets is W76;1"10W22;132. By comparison, there are about 1080 protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 1050 lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. "

Now, I would like to discuss the overall impact, but lets just stop at that. Do you see where he is coming from?
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 3:41:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 2:53:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/23/2015 10:18:14 PM, n7 wrote:
Evolution is inductive so I don't think such a thing is possible.

The scientific method is intrinsically abductive.

It's better to restate it as, evolution is a posteriori whereas deduction is a priori. That's what I was getting at.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 3:50:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 3:27:00 PM, TBR wrote:
Yeah

OK, so

P5. The correlation of homologous proteins between species has been observed to be so high that the likelihood of developing them by chance alone (i.e. without ancestral convergence) is less than the chance of picking the same proton out of all the protons in the universe, twice in a row.

This is what the link said on that.
"the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is W76;1"10W22;19 and combined over 8 datasets is W76;1"10W22;132. By comparison, there are about 1080 protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 1050 lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. "

Now, I would like to discuss the overall impact, but lets just stop at that. Do you see where he is coming from?

But what about other non-naturalistic explanations?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 4:40:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now, I would like to discuss the overall impact, but lets just stop at that. Do you see where he is coming from?

But what about other non-naturalistic explanations?

OK. That is fine to discuss. You can talk about the non-naturalistic explanations for this happening, but not that it is happening, do you agree?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 4:43:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me restate. I hope you understand what he was saying. I hope further that you are willing to accept that it is true. Then we need to work next put some context on the entire thing, right?

So, is the discussion accepted as accurate? Do you understand it well enough to form an opinion, and is that opinion that it is accurate? Don't worry about God or much else at this point, just the points given (there is still plenty of room for God if you so choose).
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 5:13:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Again, leaving plenty of room for God, this argument does not even attempt to affirm the mechanics of natural selection. We are just getting at the conclusion reached given the P1-P5. If accepted, the only thing you are accepting is -
The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

= the chance that we don share common ancestry is very low. Not how evolution works, not that God didn't do it, not abiogenesis. You are simply accepting the conclusion that common ancestry is statistically more probable than not.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 5:26:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 5:13:33 PM, TBR wrote:
Again, leaving plenty of room for God, this argument does not even attempt to affirm the mechanics of natural selection. We are just getting at the conclusion reached given the P1-P5. If accepted, the only thing you are accepting is -
The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

= the chance that we don share common ancestry is very low. Not how evolution works, not that God didn't do it, not abiogenesis. You are simply accepting the conclusion that common ancestry is statistically more probable than not.

But why is it more probable?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 5:34:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Again, leaving plenty of room for God, this argument does not even attempt to affirm the mechanics of natural selection. We are just getting at the conclusion reached given the P1-P5. If accepted, the only thing you are accepting is -
The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

= the chance that we don share common ancestry is very low. Not how evolution works, not that God didn't do it, not abiogenesis. You are simply accepting the conclusion that common ancestry is statistically more probable than not.

But why is it more probable?

Well, because probable has meaning inside math. "the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence" was the quote from the link. So, we have a premises may be unsatisfying to you, but we can go no further unless you can take the baby step. Right now, lets just dissect the sentence.

You have "chance" vs. "something else". Let the "something else" be anything you like at this point, can you accept that the probability is greater for this "something else" rather than the chance?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 5:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 5:34:33 PM, TBR wrote:
Again, leaving plenty of room for God, this argument does not even attempt to affirm the mechanics of natural selection. We are just getting at the conclusion reached given the P1-P5. If accepted, the only thing you are accepting is -
The chance of life on earth not having convergent and therefore common ancestry is therefore infinitesimally small.

= the chance that we don share common ancestry is very low. Not how evolution works, not that God didn't do it, not abiogenesis. You are simply accepting the conclusion that common ancestry is statistically more probable than not.

But why is it more probable?

Well, because probable has meaning inside math. "the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence" was the quote from the link. So, we have a premises may be unsatisfying to you, but we can go no further unless you can take the baby step. Right now, lets just dissect the sentence.

You have "chance" vs. "something else". Let the "something else" be anything you like at this point, can you accept that the probability is greater for this "something else" rather than the chance?

Yes
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:49:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have "chance" vs. "something else". Let the "something else" be anything you like at this point, can you accept that the probability is greater for this "something else" rather than the chance?

Yes

OK, excellent. Now, this is a part of the contentions that has not been touched on yet, and is, well, the next logical step (to me anyway). If it is not chance, what exactly are we saying? Well, one thing being said by RuvDraba is "convergence". Again, not fusing with a god or how evolution real works yet, just this concept alone. If you look back at the structures of, "something" and it becomes increasingly similar we can say something about that, right?

Not trying to be childish, just trying to take it a step at a time. Do you understand what (generally) he is saying about convergence?