Can a Common Design model be useful?

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Jordan

Let’s take the temp down a little and focus on content rather than frustrations.

The problem with this is that focussing on the contents is what causes the frustrations.

For example:

@Meerkat_SK5

@Michael_Okoko

I asked you for evidence for the orchard hypothesis which is your model, but you ignored my request. Why?

I was referring to the fossil record rather than phylogenetic when I made that claim, but here is some evidence from phylogenetics anyways:

[Turning the Crown Upside Down: Gene Tree Parsimony Roots the Eukaryotic Tree of Life | Systematic Biology | Oxford Academic (oup.com)]

(https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/61/4/653/1640688 )
An Alternative Root for the Eukaryote Tree of Life - ScienceDirect

Rooting the Eukaryotic Tree with Mitochondrial and Bacterial Proteins | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

The Eukaryotic Tree of Life from a Global Phylogenomic Perspective (cshlp.org)

Focussing on the content (i.e. checking the references) quickly highlights that all four of them discuss the evidence for eukaryotes having a single phylogenetic tree, which is evidence against the ‘orchard’ hypothesis.

@Michael_Okoko

Total nonsense. Molecular- and morphology-based trees generally agree and reveal the same patterns of shared ancestry as one goes back further in time.

But since you feel otherwise, please provide evidence that morphological trees lend support to the orchard hypothesis.

“Dr. David Archibald (San Diego State University), looked at the numbers of fossil site spanning the period of 5 million years before and after the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Dr. Archibald found that sampling was equal for periods before and after the boundary, although only 11 genera were found in the 5 million years before the beginning of the Tertiary compared to 139 genera in the 5 million years following. The idea that the lack of transitional forms is due to gaps in the fossil record is not reasonable given the tremendous number of fossils that have been discovered in recent studies.”

This would, in effect, support the Orchard hypothesis.

New Views of the Origins of Mammals | Science (sciencemag.org)

Focussing on this content leads to the discovery that @Meerkat_SK5 isn’t quoting from the source he cited, but from a completely different article.

In both cases, focussing on the content leads to the conclusion that @Meerkat_SK5 is citing references he hasn’t read, let alone understood. He is also still lying about his sources.

There is no point discussing the contents of articles the citer won’t read (and wouldn’t understand if he did), so we’re left with the frustration of trying to deal with his continued wilful misbehaviour politely.