Yes… what you said is true… but what is its significance?
@Ashwin_s, I’ve now explained to you the strong evidence for common descent. I’ve also acknowledged that this does not mean special creation is false or that God did not guide evolution. Instead, if he did, he did it in a way that looks from a scientific perspective to be common descent.
You haven’t show me how this argument is wrong, but instead you’ve been trying to look for other tests. Fine. That is irrelevant to the explanation I just gave you. At this point, maybe we should just agree to disagree.
Frankly I have no idea what point you think is crucial on the issue of common descent.
What I would LIKE to see from you is agreement that God could , if he wanted, create a population of about 10,000 humans using evolutionary principles …and ALSO… use miraculous creation to make Adam and Eve out of dust.
Do you see any problem with God using both techniques?
And you haven’t shown the argument to be right… being plausible should not be enough should it?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. However let me just say there are two parts of your argument that can be wrong-
1)if D=TR does not give an accurate repeatable prediction of when two species converge (I offered a way of testing this out which could falsify the prediction as well as the method). Your validation involved predicted rates being correct within a few multiples. Which implies that given D, the time will be off by millions of years… This would be compatible with human beings and chimps arising with some amount of genetic difference 6mya. The math supports this possibility as much as common descent. Both are equally possible within the error levels of the equation.
The bias towards common descent is not explained by the data…its a compulsion due to assumptions.
- confirmation Bias.
God is not the reason, ecolution seems to have happened via common descent. It’s because of the confirmation bias brought out of consistently assuming common descent without developing tests that can falsify descent. If we wear pink glasses, everything will appear pink. This is not because the sunlight has a pink tinge.
Similarly confirmation bias brought about by wrong assumptions on the part of science cannot and should not be blamed on God.
Let me just state that I respect your dedication and patience in your interactions… that’s really commendable. Pls do not see the disagreement as any form of resentment or hostility.
Your attitude and approach is definitely making a huge difference in these conversations.
I’m telling you how the scientific reasoning works. If you don’t like how scientific reasoning work, just use other reasoning. I’m just trying to help you understand it. You do not have to agree.
God could do anything he wanted George.
Understood… and I really appreciate it.
It’s not a problem with the reasoning. I just don’t share the assumptions. And hence end up looking at scientific arguments differently.
It’s not other reasoning. It’s other assumptions/possibilities.
Once again I have to ask you if you are really talking about common descent.
Common Descent vs WHAT?
Common Descent, among other things, proposes that no matter what species of mammal is being discussed they all derive genealogically from an ancestral population of mammals.
What has to be WRONG for this basic principle to be in error?
It’s one thing to say predictions are notoriously inaccurate… it’s completely different to argue: “and so… all mammal species must derive uniquely from special creation!”
For (universal) Common Descent you need a mechanism capable of producing all of the anatomical and physiological differences observed in extant species. Changing eye color, ie microevolution, doesn’t explain the existence of eyes nor vision systems. Changes in the color of skin, ie microevolution, does not explain the existence of skin.
Now I know someone will say that is all false but they never do make the case that it actually is false. Also the mechanism dictates any pattern and data.
And it’s Common Descent vs a Common Design. Common Design was first on the scientific scene thanks to Linnaeus. Common Design explains the similarities and the differences are explained by different design needs for the population.
We have experience with Common Design. It is an observation and a known cause for a known effect.
But the observed similarities we see are more probable on the assumption of common ancestry being true than on the assumption of design being true. Design may be able to explain the similarities. But that doesn’t mean the observed similarities are no longer evidence for common descent. Compatitable with != not evidence against. Nothing about design entails a common blueprint @JoeG
You don’t have a mechanism capable of producing the transformations required. Your mechanism of “using the same genes differently” is too vague to be tested.
To go from a knuckle-walker to an upright biped requires changes to the musculature and attachments points Good luck linking those to the genetics.
Blockquote Nothing about design entails a common blueprint
A common design would expect a common blueprint. Who says that genomes are blueprints?
You aren’t even remotely close to responding to my point. You say a common design predicts a common blueprint. But why does design predict a common design? @JoeG
And as I’ve pointed out before, nowhere did I say changes in expression or regulation is responsible for all morphological evolution. But it is an experimental fact that it is for some.
What are you even thinking? Common Descent in the most generic sense is proved ever day when someone has a baby… and you can see the features of one of the parents… or even of both of the parents in the baby or toddler.
Common Descent vs. Common Design is a dispute over the origins of various species… and there isn’t any conclusive evidence for it now or 6000 years ago.
The evidence points to a common design. And our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is what prods us to that inference.
And yes, changes in gene expression can cause some changes. Losing eyes, putting legs where antennae go- a lot of deformities.
BlockquoteBut the observed similarities we see are more probable on the assumption of common ancestry being true than on the assumption of design being true.
I need evidence for that before I can address it.
BlockquoteDesign may be able to explain the similarities. But that doesn’t mean the observed similarities are no longer evidence for common descent.
That is true but you still need a mechanism. @T.J_Runyon
No, that is common descent. There is a huge difference between humans giving rise to modified humans and non-humans giving rise to humans. The former requires/ involves changes in traits while the latter requires/ involves changes in body plan.
The difference is between your common descent, humans giving rise to humans, and Common Descent, extant life has a common ancestor
There is a huge difference between humans giving rise to modified humans and non-humans giving rise to humans. The former requires/ involves changes in traits while the latter requires/ involves changes in body plan.
Since you are not engaging with my argument i am ending my participation in this thread
What is the difference between YOUR common descent and my common descent?
What’s the significance… what exactly does this explain… this is just a result of assuming natural causes.
The assumptions that natural causes are all there is has to be wrong for common descent to fail…And except for athiests, everyone believes this assumption is wrong.
I am not arguing that. I am saying common descent is an unfalsifiable assumption which is a result of assuming only natural causes.
When I say this, people say it is falsifiable… I don’t get that!
And I definitely don’t get why people call it a theory if the only thing implied is a law of nature(i.e life produces life).
This is a false statement. I don’t know any scientist who checks the probability of common ancestry vs Design (I don’t blame them, they don’t have any methods by which they could!).
However, the false understanding and propoganda that common descent somehow disproves design is one of the reasons people are now trying to find ways of testing said claim scientifically.
This is again a false statement.
You are a scientist. If you are so confused about the scientific claims of common descent… think about the havoc being cause among non specialists by such unscientific and unsubstantiated claims such as common ancestry is more probable of being true than design.
Atleast @swamidass is nuanced enough to talk about an appearance of common ancestry.