Are Random mutations and Common Descent fundamentally intertwined processes?

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Michael_Okoko

The above hypotheses are testable and can be evaluated in a number of ways. Sequence (from proteins and DNA) data has been extensively used to test both hypotheses and only common descent has survived scrutiny so far.

Oh, I think I know what you are getting at now. I discussed this with @John_Harshman previously on another topic.

According to the common design model, Yes we should expect to find more examples of sequence or functional convergence between closely related organisms, which would show them to be unrelated. Here is one example of this:

Convergent evolution of major histocompatibility complex molecules in humans and New World monkeys | Request PDF (researchgate.net)

@Michael_Okoko

Tests using morphological data from extant and extinct (fossil) organisms have also failed to reject the hypothesis of shared ancestry. Morphology and molecules tell us we are all branches in one big tree (or net) of life.

That’s not what this study suggests:

Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS

@Michael_Okoko

As to the motives of the designer, how do you know them

I know based on the mechanisms this designer uses , such as the observations of viruses and their ability to perform HGT.

@Michael_Okoko

Yes there are gaps in the fossil record, but the number of fossils found and examined in the fossil record so far are enough to tell us that evolution happened.

Yes but only for (limited) common ancestry and if you are going to say otherwise, then you need to provide studies supporting your contentions like I have.

@Michael_Okoko

Where in that material is evidence that God did not use common descent to create all lifeforms?

Major Gaps between major species in the fossil record that you acknowledged existed is the evidence showing that God did not use universal common descent.

@Michael_Okoko

I specifically asked about chimps, gorillas and other great apes who are not hominins, but you are yet to explain the vast amount of shared similarities they have with us since we don’t engage in HGT with them. Explain it.

As I told you before, God used HGT to create basic types of organisms (or original kinds) with the highest amount of biochemical similarities. Then, allowed those basic types to diverge into different kinds where those kinds became increasingly dissimilar and ,thus, it would explain the results of the study you gave me showing an increase of similarity between organisms as you go back in time.

So it is no surprise that they did not engage in HGT recently since they were de novo created with those similarities already planted in them rather than after they were constructed.

@Michael_Okoko

According to the authors, there must be common descent and it must bias HGT before HGT can replicate or mimic its patterns. When common descent doesn’t not bias HGT between closely related taxa, it erodes the phylogenetic signal as opposed to mimicking it.

That quote you mentioned was only talking about how the signal caused by common organismal descent is difficult to distinguish from the signal due to biased gene transfer.This is a different subject and point that they made in their paper.

This is why the bottom of their abstract said, “We conclude that the observed phylogenetic pattern reflects both vertical inheritance and biased HGT and that the signal caused by common organismal descent is difficult to distinguish from the signal due to biased gene transfer.”

Do you see now that these are two separate things in their paper? They are not interchangeable subjects. For instance…

“For each type of TyrRS, the observed phylogenetic pattern is created through a combination of vertical inheritance and biased HGT. It is reasonable that similar patterns of gene transfer are followed in other gene families as well (14, 15). Consequently, the degree of relatedness, as measured by the average phylogenetic signal retained in the genomes, is a function of two processes: the frequency by which organisms swap genes with each other and how long ago they evolved from a common organismal ancestor.”

After this part, they switched to the latter topic that involves the difficulty of distinguishing common descent patterns from HGT. The quote you referenced deals with that NOT the other point about HGT mimicking the same patterns as common descent.

Therefore, I found nothing within their paper that implied what you are trying to suggest. You will need to provide a different quote to support your claim about the nature of their argument.

@Michael_Okoko

The original kinds in your orchard model don’t have any ancestry, talk more of shared ancestry, so HGT will not generate the same patterns of shared ancestry for them because there is no common descent to bias it.

Even if I granted this, it would not mean separate creation could not have happened because common descent does not have an origin of life model. LUCA is not the first life.

So you are making a moot point in regards to my model, which actually has a model for the origin of life.

@Michael_Okoko

The tree-like patterns in the data can be due to shared ancestry alone or a combination of shared ancestry and HGT. It lends your model no support.

This seems to conflict with what they said later on:

“Both HGT and vertical inheritance are natural processes that influence the phylogenetic signal contained in genomes, and thus, groups defined by an averaged phylogenetic signal could be considered natural; however, there is no guarantee that they are only caused by shared organismal ancestry”

@Michael_Okoko

What has this got to do with the supposed irreducible complexity of RNA viruses? You are as confused as ever.

I thought Irreducible complexity involves building something from scratch. My mistake if this is not accurate. Nevertheless, building viruses from scratch by a mind without life preceding it was what I was getting at.

@Michael_Okoko

Viruses employ chemistry and physics to infect living organisms, no intelligence required. You really need to get better science education, because you have a really distorted view of basic virology.

You are forgetting that ,in the common design model, the origin of life is also supposed to be the origin of viruses.

For instance, there are three main hypothesizes on the origin of viruses with no clear explanation as to which one is correct:

1. the virus-first hypothesis claims that viruses predate or coevolved with their current cellular hosts; 2. The progressive, or escape, hypothesis claims that viruses arose from genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells; 3.the regressive, or reduction, hypothesis suggests that viruses are remnants of cellular organisms.

However, my model combines all three hypotheses. On the other hand, common descent model has nothing to offer in this area as well.

Origin of Viruses | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)

@Michael_Okoko

How do you know viruses formed this way? And how do you know an intelligent mind was involved in the process?

@Michael_Okoko

In any case, how do you know God really did any of these things you claim?

I never suggested that I knew this to be the case or else I would not need to be on this forum to argue my case. Just read post 326 in this source where I explain it in detail:

Can God be a useful “scientific” hypothesis? Yes - Peaceful Science

@Michael_Okoko

Your reference says nothing about viruses becoming Archaea or Bacteria. You are deliberately misrepresenting that reference

Yes, it was a failed attempt at paraphrasing.

@Michael_Okoko

Good and that falsifies your model.

How can you say this when common descent does not have an origin of life model?

@Michael_Okoko

We fit into the nested hierarchy of life because of common descent, similar to the way you and your siblings fit into your family tree because of common descent from your parents.

This is a bad example because my model accepts limited common ancestry.

@Michael_Okoko

Another completely irrelevant quote. We inherit pseudogenes, genes, and other genetic material from out ancestors. The number we inherit is irrelevant, what matters is the pattern of inheritance.

Then, give me an article suggesting how evolutionary biologists consider pseudogenes to be functional rather than useless remains of once-functional genes.