Disproving the Bible

[Esquilax]

Jenny--No, I am not proposing God mutated them. I was merely pointing out that in the presence of *possible evidence* that we do not all have a common decent, that that conclusion is not even considered. This seems to happen time and time again. Pieces of evidence that call into question the common decent hypothesis are given elaborate theories to bolster the original hypothesis. This merely perpetuates the idea that common decent is true and ALL the science points that way--and then the cycle repeats.

What you call "bolstering," a normal person would call "learning." Again, evolution is a done deal: we've literally seen it happening. There's no argument here, no debate: evolution happens, and we've known that it happens for a long long time. It's a fact, and the reason why the ideas change around evolution instead of replacing it is the same reason why we don't discard gravity every time some new phenomena relating to it is discovered. Gravity itself doesn't go away just because there's an unknown; one doesn't discard facts that are literally observable, whenever something new comes up.

My point is that scientist are not trying to falsify the hypothesis of common ancestor. They have already accepted it as true (which I think is bias). When theist scientist (that don't have this bias) gather up all the questions in one place, they are labeled at best, crackpots.

Because "questions" aren't the issue. If you pile together a bunch of unanswered questions and then expect them to put a scientific theory into question, you're committing a series of argument from ignorance fallacies. What you need is contradictory evidence; you know, one of the many things that would falsify common ancestry? You'd need a better explanation, not just a bunch of questions. Poking holes in something doesn't make a competing idea any more strong.

All you're doing is trying to divide by zero in an attempt to reach a positive number.

1. Fossil record for intermediate forms. You have to drink a lot of coolaid to make the claim that the fossil record proves common decent. It could just as easily be used to prove the opposite.

Only if you're being arbitrarily skeptical, for no reason other than a predrawn conclusion. Again, who am I likely to trust: some guy who has proven he doesn't understand science very well, or biologists and paleontologists who have spent their lives studying this stuff?

2. Genetics has wiped out the old "Tree of Life". Since different genes tell a different evolutionary story, it must be a web.

Would you prefer that they learned new things about genes, and then didn't change the models to match? What is it you actually want, here? If the models had stayed the same they would be incorrect, and you would be sitting here crowing about how scientists are using old, incorrect models.

3. "Convergent Evolution". The odds of an organism developing a new useful feature is at the very least exceptional. To have the same or similar features evolve in parallel is simply staggering.

Similar selection pressures yield similar results, what's so mind boggling about that? All it demonstrates is that certain mutations are highly advantageous within specific parameters. But please, do tell us all how you calculated the probabilities for your odds, here.

Not that it'd matter, because "it's improbable!" would just make this an argument from personal incredulity. Do you know anything about logical fallacies, here?

4. No vestigial organs or other features. Shouldn't we see all kinds of useless parts in all kinds of organisms on their way out?

We do. The appendix, little toe, human spinal nerves, and so on. They're there, and your response, that the list is getting smaller, doesn't mean the list has vanished, and doesn't mean you just get to assume that every other piece has a purpose. That's profoundly dishonest, to bring that up as an argument and then define every counterargument out of the group by fiat.

5. I know this get's into the origin of life issue, but we now know the cell is one of the most complicated things on the planet.

Not really. Especially not compared to things made of cells. You didn't really think this through, did you?

Oh, and again: "It's complicated!" is an argument from personal incredulity. That you think it's too complex to arise naturally doesn't mean it didn't, it just means you're easily amazed.

6. GRNs are so complicated yet necessary for complex life. Chicken or the egg?

Argument from ignorance: "I don't know how it could happen, therefore god."

7. The ongoing net effect of random mutations is actually degrading functionality in human genetics.

Every human being is born with sixty mutations, so if this is true- whatever it even means- then it's clearly not having an undue effect. Oh, and this is an appeal to consequences: an undesirable effect doesn't mean the cause doesn't exist. It just means the effect is undesirable.

8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

What the fuck does that even mean?