Can a Common Design model be useful?

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Chad_the_Layman

My vocabulary may get messy here, so I apologize if I make the mess worse.

I think Meerkat wants to come up with a hypothesis and model that proposes groups of organisms where each group comes from its own common de novo created ancestor. I believe that in his mind there isn’t one tree, but lots of trees, each with its own de novo created ancestor.

Essentially, he recognizes that ID isn’t accepted science. So, he’s trying to take ID’s ideas and create hypotheses and models so that ID’s ideas can be tested. And he has come to real scientists to get feedback on his endeavor.

When I think about it this way, I can appreciate what Meerkat is trying to do, even if it’s an errand doomed to fail. ID seems to spawn lots of non-experts wading into some deep waters. In my short time here I’ve seen more than one person who is not a scientist pop up to present some ID ideas to the group. I took note of a couple who stated that they were engineers because I’m an engineer. My thought when I saw those posts was, “friend, I think you and I have the same education, and there is NO WAY that I’m ready to move the science of biology forward!”

Yes, you are remarkably spot on with everything you said. Let’s hope John accepts it .

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

I think that you completely missed Chad’s suggestion regarding humility.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

Yes, you are remarkably spot on with everything you said. Let’s hope John accepts it .

Let’s try this again: What is the term you use to refer to a created group of organisms, unrelated to any other group? Can we settle on one term?

What is the term you use to refer to a group of organisms, capable of interbreeding within the group but reproductively isolated from other such groups?

Can one first group contain multiple second groups? Can one second group contain multiple first groups?

[Michael_Okoko]

@Chad_the_Layman

I think Meerkat wants to come up with a hypothesis and model that proposes groups of organisms where each group comes from its own common de novo created ancestor. I believe that in his mind there isn’t one tree, but lots of trees, each with its own de novo created ancestor.

Then he is late. This is called the orchard hypothesis, I think, which was proposed by Todd Wood, I think. Since he concurs with your characterization of his arguments, he has to realize that evidence is absent for the orchard hypothesis. AFAWK, the hypothesis of universal common ancestry is best supported by all available evidence.

PostScript: @Meerkat_SK5, since you are a proponent of the orchard hypothesis (which posits independent ancestries), I figured you would be interested in research involving attempts to test it alongside universal common ancestry. This @evograd post (one of my favorite resources on the subject) found on his blog, wherein he describes the end results of a study which used ancestral gene reconstruction to test UCA, should show you why UCA remains the evidence-based consensus of the scientific community:

Testing a Strong Prediction of Universal Common Ancestry

[Michael_Okoko]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Michael_Okoko

You explained nada. You only demonstrated your profound misunderstanding of Lenski’s LTEE. Forget it man, you have no case.

Again, we can turn that experiment into something that directly tests my model, which makes it in principle testable.

You have no model to begin with. All you have given are quotes: some you don’t understand, some which are irrelevant and some which are as wrong as you.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

Highlighting this bit:

@Meerkat_SK5

@Chad_the_Layman

… I can appreciate what Meerkat is trying to do, even if it’s an errand doomed to fail. …

Yes, you are remarkably spot on with everything you said. Let’s hope John accepts it .

I don’t think it’s @John_Harshman that needs to accept this.

[John_Harshman]

@Michael_Okoko

This is called the orchard hypothesis, I think, which was proposed by Todd Wood, I think.

And so far nobody has been able to tell us what the trees in the orchard consist of or even how to recognize them.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Roy

I don’t think it’s @John_Harshman that needs to accept this.

Indeed not. But Meerkat’s reaction there is a good example of the level of his reading comprehension.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

By the way, since the “broken chains” (?!) in the fossil record have been referenced, could we save ourselves some pixels? Perhaps we could prepare Meerkat a numbered index of Gould quote-mines so that instead of burdening us with them, he could just shout “Number 37!” and we’d know what this means.

[John_Harshman]

Paleontologists of the world unite!

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

Ah, I was thinking that, too. You have nothing to lose but your broken chains!

[John_Harshman]

A spectre is haunting creationism: the spectre of nested hierarchy!

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5

I actually did pose the question on common design: What if all living organisms have a common design from a universal common designer?

Are you saying this is the wrong question? If so, why?

In my experience, when intelligent people cannot come to an agreement about how to address a question, it often indicates something is wrong with the question itself.

@Meerkat_SK5

In regards to falsifying it, I have already explained how on my previous topic. Lenski’s experiment (or something like it) would potentially falsify the common design model.

I don’t think you understand what it means to falsify. A Lenski type experiment could demonstrate that some feature is evolable, which would only demonstrate that it need not be designed. To falsify design it’s necessary to show a designer could not, or would not, create that feature. This is problematic if the designer could be omnipotent.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

You do realize, of course, that the ID culture warriors are going to use this as evidence that you and I are Marxists…

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Michael_Okoko

Then he is late. This is called the orchard hypothesis, I think, which was proposed by Todd Wood, I think. Since he concurs with your characterization of his arguments, he has to realize that evidence is absent for the orchard hypothesis. AFAWK, the hypothesis of universal common ancestry is best supported by all available evidence.

Great stuff! @Michael_Okoko

Hopefully, it will allow me to communicate my ideas to @John_Harshman better.

With that said, the study or blog you pointed out does not take into account the extent of horizontal gene transfer that took place, which would make their conclusions of Universal common descent highly dubious. On the other hand, we would expect the same pattern under the common design model because horizontal gene transfer is supposed to be the mechanism in which God used to create similar DNA sequences among all life. If you want to know why we would expect this, then read this article for more:

Koala Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) Protect against Retroviral Infections - Reasons to Believe

Furthermore, they also do not compare and contrast those phylogenetic trees with the paleontological trees to see how much harmony or conflict exists between the two.

This study suggests the conflict is high among major lineages, which would support the Orchid/ common design model over common descent:

Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS

@John_Harshman

And so far nobody has been able to tell us what the trees in the orchard consist of or even how to recognize them.

We recognize them from the fossil record because it is potentially better evidence in establishing relationships between animals as you seem to suggest yourself when you said:

“Now, if I want to know how many eggs a population of chickens will generate next month, the best predictor is to observe chickens. But another predictor would be to observe related species, i.e. to use phylogeny as a guide.”

I agree, the best predictor is observing the fossil record and it shows the orchid/common design model is a better explanation.

@John_Harshman

Let’s try this again: What is the term you use to refer to a created group of organisms, unrelated to any other group? Can we settle on one term?

What is the term you use to refer to a group of organisms, capable of interbreeding within the group but reproductively isolated from other such groups?

Can one first group contain multiple second groups? Can one second group contain multiple first groups?

I think it is best not to go back to this exercise and define a bunch of terms. Let’s just keep it simple and stick with the mainstream classifications. The only difference between the two models is we would expect lots of trees, each with its own de novo created ancestor within the orchid/common design model rather than lots of branches to one tree.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Dan_Eastwood

In my experience, when intelligent people cannot come to an agreement about how to address a question, it often indicates something is wrong with the question itself.

Is that all?

@Dan_Eastwood

I don’t think you understand what it means to falsify . A Lenski type experiment could demonstrate that some feature is evolable, which would only demonstrate that it need not be designed.

Yes, but remember what I said before, “necessity” is an intrinsic attribute of God’s nature, which means showing that God is not necessary in explaining and showing how a particular feature in nature is the same thing as falsifying the God hypothesis. Atheist Physicist ,Sean Carroll, would agree with me and I encourage you to watch this video from 3:00 to 20:00 for more:

God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll) - YouTube

However, it is important to note that we cannot apply the same reasoning to present day events because humans exist and ,thus, could have been responsible for the results equally as well. This is why I propose other ways to test whether God is still guiding evolution in the present.

@Dan_Eastwood

To falsify design it’s necessary to show a designer could not, or would not, create that feature. This is problematic if the designer could be omnipotent.

Again, it is not if other attributes are at play that would limit omnipotence to God’s overall nature. This is because even though God can violate the laws of nature, he cannot violate his own nature, which would involve omnipotence, but it would also involve omnibenevolent, omniscience, etc.

God has to be consistent with all his attributes at once.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5

Is that all?

It’s more than enough. Answering the wrong question isn’t helpful.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

I don’t think you understand what it means to falsify . A Lenski type experiment could demonstrate that some feature is evolable, which would only demonstrate that it need not be designed.

Yes, but remember what I said before, “necessity” is an intrinsic attribute of God’s nature, which means showing that God is not necessary in explaining and showing how a particular feature in nature is the same thing as falsifying the God hypothesis.

If you are assuming God is necessary, then you already have your answer, and you don’t need a test.

@Meerkat_SK5

However, it is important to note that we cannot apply the same reasoning to present day events because humans exist and ,thus, could have been responsible for the results equally as well. This is why I propose other ways to test whether God is still guiding evolution in the present.

If God wanted to reveal Himself, there are far easier and more effective ways to do it.

@Meerkat_SK5

God has to be consistent with all his attributes at once.

It’s very good that you recognize this limitation. Many others have crossed the line into Omphalism by this point. .

[John_Harshman]

I’m a committed Marxist. Duck Soup is one of my favorite movies of all time.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

We recognize them from the fossil record because it is potentially better evidence in establishing relationships between animals as you seem to suggest yourself when you said:

“Now, if I want to know how many eggs a population of chickens will generate next month, the best predictor is to observe chickens . But another predictor would be to observe related species, i.e. to use phylogeny as a guide.”

I agree, the best predictor is observing the fossil record and it shows the orchid/common design model is a better explanation.

This is more nonsense from you. The quote from me has nothing to do with the fossil record, and you have never managed to explain how the fossil record establishes relationships between animals or, more importantly, establishes the absence of relationships. You always ignore requests to do so. You are agreeing with yourself only.

@Meerkat_SK5

I think it is best not to go back to this exercise and define a bunch of terms.

You are wrong. Unless you make yourself clear, nobody will know what you’re talking about, as is currently the casse.

@Meerkat_SK5

The only difference between the two models is we would expect lots of trees, each with its own de novo created ancestor within the orchid/common design model rather than lots of branches to one tree.

You mean “orchard”, not “orchid”. But yes, the difference is that you expect separate trees while I expect connections at all levels. What do we see? Have you looked? We see those connections, not separate trees.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@John_Harshman

I’m a committed Marxist. Duck Soup is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Yeah, my favorite take on dialectical materialism has always been the Great Man’s statement:

“One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don’t know.”