Can a Common Design model be useful?

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Tim

Beyond that, there is really no excuse for misrepresenting a quote from Richard Deem as coming from Science Magazine .

Well, I thought what he said was a paraphrased quote.

@Tim

I did. Others have. You just didn’t listen.

Not after I said that No. Nobody responded to me further on the issue going forward.

@John_Harshman

Is it too much to ask that you pay attention when you’re typing? You have failed to explain what you think horizontal transfer actually is or why it supports separate creation. No wonder we’re all confused.

No, I did explain it already with the article on ERV’s. HGT from viruses is the real reason why we see the high biochemical similarities between living things in order to protect advanced life from incoming harmful viruses.

@John_Harshman

There no. Was that so hard? Have you actually read that paper? What do you think it shows?

It shows that there is really no reliable way to attribute the phylogenetic patterns to universal common descent anymore than you can attribute it to HGT. Or if there is a reliable way, it would take many more studies to establish UCA as the best explanation.

@John_Harshman

Potential evidence for what?

Common design, for example…

@John_Harshman

It’s not enough to find functional convergence. You have to find sequence convergence. Functional convergence is easily explained by selection. Sequence convergence is harder.

Well, remember, Natural selection falls under common design as well. It is random mutations that my model rejects completely.

@John_Harshman

And even if we find several cases of sequence convergence, they would be better explained by guided evolution than by separate creation.

Assuming that random mutations and common descent are not inseparable, how could they be better explained in your opinion since the study does not support your opinion?

@John_Harshman

It’s not functional convergence, it’s sequence convergence. Sure, that’s one case.

Again, They differentiated convergence from chance, which means functional convergence would be an accurate description, but whatever I guess.

@John_Harshman

I merely point out that the rest of the evidence from the same gene shows this to be a case of convergence rather than creation. This does not support the orchard hypothesis

That’s fine, and I am merely pointing out that there is no reason we won’t find many more examples of these cases in the future.

@John_Harshman

Why would we expect to see that?

The study I gave was supposed to be an example of what I am talking about.

@John_Harshman

Is it? Too bad for the hypothesis, then, because that’s neither an expectation of the hypothesis no a problem for common descent. And you also have to start identifying kinds. Stasis is something that happens (if it happens) within individual species. So that would suggest, if it were evidence, that every species was separately created.

Yes, that is correct. It only supports the Orchard hypothesis in regards to de novo creation of organisms not their evolution afterwards. We have to rely on finding examples of sequence or functional convergence to support kinds within kinds.

@Michael_Okoko

This is dead wrong. You affirm the orchard hypothesis which posits separate creation events. Thus we don’t expect to see patterns of universal common ancestry or common ancestry between major groups in genomic and other relevant datasets. We expect to see significant discontinuities or breaks as the trees go back in time . We don’t see any such breaks in reconstructed phylogenies, telling you we are all related to other extant organisms on earth via common descent.

Not at all, we would expect God to create de novo organisms with virtually identical DNA patterns from the same blueprint. Then, we would expect those similarities to become more dissimilar to keep up with the demands of fitting organisms in changing environments. Remember, HGT does not just create similar genes within organisms but mimics the process of ancestry as well.

@Michael_Okoko

I don’t see how “stasis” or “sudden appearances” in the fossil record support the orchard hypothesis which deals with separate creation events. Care to explain?

Henry Morris:

“All the kingdoms, phyla and classes in the organic world have been essentially unchanged since life began, and … even the orders and most of the families, genera, and even species appear suddenly in the fossil world, with no incipient forms leading up to them… While there may have been changes within the kinds…the kinds have apparently not varied since the beginning, except for those that have become extinct”

"some organisms appear with adaptational packages intact at the Cambrian boundary where multicellular life first flowers, with no evidence whatsoever of fossil ancestors…

.Thus, only God would have the ability to coordinate the design requirements of multifunctional adaptational packages.