Absolutely.
The feeling is mutual. I was just trying to do what you asked me to do because I am trying to see where you are going with this, such as whether your point actually shows that my model could not potentially be useful. I made it very clear what elements of my model could potentially be useful . But, you have continued to focus on whether it is true or not.
I think I should not have said created organisms. I meant organisms in general. Anyhow, I am not sure I understand your question here. Maybe you can elaborate.
Sorry, I should have said potential evidence. Here, let me describe it another way by quoting a user that apparently gets what I am trying to argue. From @glipsnort: "True convergence at the molecular level – converging on an identical protein from different starting points, for example – is extremely rare or nonexistent.
So yes, you have come up with a test for distinguishing common design from common descent. Common design fails that test completely."
So do you agree with him? If so, I am saying should find many more instances of functional convergences on a molecular level from these instances of obscurity within the data.
My point was that genuine stasis and sudden appearances within the fossil record is supposed to be the evidence that supports the Orchard hypothesis. Unless you are trying to argue that the fossil record is just not complete, then the argument stands.
The study specifically said, " This similarity could be due to common ancestry, convergence at the molecular level, or chance."
They said their test supported functional convergence not common ancestry and chance. So I am not sure what you are getting at here.
Why is that an issue? Evidence is evidence and there is potential for more evidence to be collected in the future.
No no no, you are missing my point. I never suggested that support for the orchard hypothesis was based on phylogenetics but on the fossil record. Again, we would expect to see the same patterns of common descent from my model that give the appearance of Universality within phylogenetics. But, certain instances of functional convergence found on a molecular level would provide support for the common design model, such as the study on monkeys and humans I gave.
Sorry I did not explain how it supports the hypothesis. As I said before, genuine stasis and sudden appearances within the fossil record is supposed to be the evidence that supports the Orchard hypothesis. Unless you are trying to argue that the fossil record is just not complete, then the argument stands. If that is not the best study to support my contentions, then I can provide other studies instead.
I specifically said on page 73 Tim:
“Before I start, I just want to remind everyone that I am relying heavily on RTB’s model and sources rather than my own knowledge. So don’t get your butt hurt if I forget to properly cite the information I get from them. Just about everything I say is coming from them. So keep that in mind”
If you objected to this, you should have said something earlier. Besides, I usually try to get it from the primary source, but the study required a paid subscription I don’t have.
Archibald was specifically talking about placental mammals. There are Cretaceous eutherians, but it’s generally agreed that none of them are placentals (the eutherian crown group). And the 70 genera are almost all non-eutherians.
And there’s your problem right there: Garbage In – Garbage Out
A “model” that relies upon such poor quality sources as Hugh Ross for Biblical exegesis, Fazale Rana for Phylogenetics, Richard Deem for Paleontology, and Apologists in general for anything beyond details of their specific theological viewpoints, will likewise be of poor quality.
Beyond that, there is really no excuse for misrepresenting a quote from Richard Deem as coming from Science Magazine.
I did. Others have. You just didn’t listen.
It took me all of two minutes on Google Scholar to find a copy. And it’s not a “study”, it’s explicitly a brief write-up of discussions at a symposium. As such it is not the best source (lacking anything in the way of detail, citations, etc). It is also over twenty years out of date.
That it is long-outdated can also be discerned from the citations to it in Google Scholar – a flurry of citations in the first couple of years after it came out, then a slow trickle in the early 2000s, but the only citations in the last 15 years being from Jonathan Wells – a prominent ID creationist (with no background in paleontology).
2 Likes
You apparently don’t understand what I asked you to do.
It shows the opposite.
Yes, because untrue models (or models that are strongly contradicted by the data) are not useful.
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.
There no. Was that so hard? Have you actually read that paper? What do you think it shows?
Potential evidence for what?
I don’t agree that abundant molecular convergence would falsify common descent. Nor is it expected under separate creation (common design); nothing is expected under separate creation, and that’s a weakness of the theory. Still, common descent would take a beating if species freely mixed and matched parts, especially if those parts were identical in the different “kinds”. But he’s right that we don’t see anything of the sort.
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. And even if we find several cases of sequence convergence, they would be better explained by guided evolution than by separate creation.
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. In one post you have gone from eukaryote kingdoms being kinds to every species being a kind. This is chaos, and it doesn’t speak well for your ability to understand your own hypothesis.
It’s not functional convergence, it’s sequence convergence. Sure, that’s one case.
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.
Why would we expect to see that? You have previously claimed that we should see evidence of common descent within kinds but not between kinds. You contradict yourself constantly.
Why? You still haven’t explained.
3 Likes
Which is untrue. You said:
You clearly thought there was phylogenetic evidence for your orchard hypothesis, but as I and others have shown, phylogenetics deals lethal blows to it. Now you want to run completely back to fossils. Sigh.
In any case you won’t find solace in the fossil record for the orchard hypothesis.
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.
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?
I am still at loss as to how the fossil record supports the orchard hypothesis. It would be good if you clarified that issue.
2 Likes
It would be good, but would it be conceivable? Not, I think, in the light of prior experience.
4 Likes
You’re trying to draw a phylogenetic conclusion from fossil morphologies. Phylogenetics includes deriving phylogenies from morphology. So why you would say that this exercise, which is pure phylogenetics, is not “based on phylogenetics” is a bit of a mystery.
Indeed, this brings us back to one of the central mysteries here. You purport to have a hypothesis in phylogenetics, but when your ignorance of phylogenetic methods and concepts was pointed out, you affirmed that ignorance and explained that it was intentionally maintained. This works – how does this work, now? Does not knowing anything about the subject of your hypothesis help in some way that only those who understand such things as double-secret probation understand?
“Supposed to be” by creationists, I suppose. Not by anyone else. You’ve been reading quote-mines of Gould, I’ll bet.
Nobody cares about the “argument”; the evidence is the thing. The fossil record is of course not complete. Nobody thinks it is complete. Every time someone finds one new fossil, that affirms the fact that it was incomplete the day before that fossil was found. And if you think it’s complete today, surprise: someone will find a fossil tomorrow.
This helps the relevance how, exactly? Citing disreputable sources isn’t usually considered much of an excuse for repeating their errors.
“Butt hurt.” Butt hurt. Hm. “Butt hurt.” You know, I don’t know that anyone’s complaints really are of that nature here. “Butt hurt.” It really doesn’t trip off the tongue, which undoubtedly is a good thing. “Butt hurt.” Is this the quality of discourse to which you are accustomed?
Meanwhile: yeah, mis-citing sources and pretending to read things isn’t helping you. “I pretended to read this” is an explanation, but it isn’t an excuse.
Then don’t cite it. In my line of work, a lawyer could easily be financially sanctioned by a court for pulling a stunt like that. Cite sources you have actually read and understood. If you are going to use disreputable sources, cite the disreputable sources; don’t just pass through their cites as though you know what those cites say. Surely you understand that RTB cannot be trusted, and that trusting them has caused you difficulty.
6 Likes
Of course he is neither here nor there and is probably going to ignore my request and move on to something different. I don’t see any harm in asking, but I see the most likely futility in doing so.
Well, I thought what he said was a paraphrased quote.
Not after I said that No. Nobody responded to me further on the issue going forward.
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.
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.
Common design, for example…
Well, remember, Natural selection falls under common design as well. It is random mutations that my model rejects completely.
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?
Again, They differentiated convergence from chance, which means functional convergence would be an accurate description, but whatever I guess.
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.
The study I gave was supposed to be an example of what I am talking about.
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.
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.
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.
That isn’t an explanation. Nor can most similarities be explained by HGT, and that doesn’t explain why most similarities show a nested hierarchy. Try again.
That paper has nothing to do with universal common descent. And anyway, people have tried to tell you many times that universal common descent isn’t relevant to your hypothesis of separate kinds, unless you claim that the kinds are different domains, i.e. Eubacteria, Eukaryota, Archaea. If you agree that Eukaryota is a single kind, all your other ideas disappear. You really have to decide what the kinds are, and you need some criterion for detecting them. Without that, your ideas are vacuous and can’t be tested at all.
Then you aren’t talking about separate kinds at all. You’re talking about guided evolution. Do you have any clue what you’re talking about?
Your premise is incorrect. The study does support my opinion.
You really don’t know what words mean. Bird wings and bat wings are a case of functional convergence. The convergence in that paper is presumably functional, but not in the same way. It’s better described as sequence convergence. Natural selection seems a reasonable explanation, doesn’t it? There’s no need to invoke special creation.
Possibly, but I would maintain that they will always be a tiny proportion of the data, and that the sample we currently have is indicative of the entire distribution. You would have to argue that the current sample is highly biased in some way, and I bet you can’t think of a reason why that would be so.
Not an answer to my question.
More word salad, showing that you don’t know what words mean. You don’t know what a species is, and you don’t know what a kind is. The orchard hypothesis that’s supported by stasis is that every single species is a separate created kind. I can see why you run away from that conclusion, but that’s what you’re arguing for whether you know it or not. And by the definition of “kind”, there can be no kinds within kinds. So nested hierarchy shows your argument to be false. Again, I can see why you don’t want to face up to the implications of your claims.
Why would we expect that?
No it doesn’t. In fact the only reason we know it’s HGT is that it doesn’t mimic the process of ancestry.
I’ll stop you right there. Quoting Henry Morris is ludicrous. He was a young-earth creationist. Almost nothing he says is true, and nothing in that quote is true. Certainly you can’t claim that unsupported statements from Morris are evidence of anything. You didn’t answer @Michael_Okoko’s question. Incidentally, when you say “Thus” or “Therefore” or any similar word implying a logical conclusion, that almost invariably leads in to a non sequitur. This is even worse, since even the premise is nonsensical.
3 Likes
The work of Carl Linnaeus, who
- had no means of evaluating the molecular level,
- had access to very little of the fossil record, and
- studied morphology before Darwin was even born,
indicates otherwise.
4 Likes
The problem with this is that focussing on the contents is what causes the frustrations.
For example:
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.
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.
6 Likes
Well, at least he took my advice to “cite the disreputable sources”!
3 Likes
There is no such thing as a “paraphrased quote”. A quote is not a paraphrase and a paraphrase is not a quote. You really need to learn the difference before you attempt to cite anybody else’s work.
False.
You made the “Before I start, I just want to remind everyone …” comment twelves days ago. Five days ago I explained why RTB in particular, and apologists in general, were poor sources. I also linked to that comment of mine in the comment I made yesterday, that your repetition of your “Before I start …” was given in response to.
So yes Meerkat_SK5, after you “said that”.
But regardless of who said what and when, both RTB and Apologists in general provide a poor basis for a model. Rather than correcting for that shortcoming, you are digging yourself in deeper by quoting Henry Morris, a hydraulic engineer with no background in paleontology.
Compounding your poor sources for your model, you appear (in the eyes of those on this thread who are experts on the issues) a very poor understanding of the issues involved.
Under these circumstances, I would suggest that it would be a miracle of Biblical dimensions if your model was in any way “useful”.
4 Likes
It seems to be God’s nature that He will not allow Himself to be falsified. This means that your quest for a model of common design never had a chance. You are trying to test an idea that cannot be tested in the scientific sense, UNLESS God violates His own nature.
2 Likes
OK, this is getting a little silly. Time to close the topic?
4 Likes
That makes zero sense. The ~30,000 genes in mammalian genomes are not ERV’s.
Also, HGT would not produce the same insertions at the same base in each genome. HGT would produce ERV’s at different locations. We see ERV’s at the same base in the genomes of multiple species.
Pervasive HGT would produce clear differences from the pattern expected from common descent.
WHY??? Why would God need to copy a single design? Why couldn’t God create a new kind that doesn’t share anything with any other kind? God could also mix and match designs from different created kinds, such as a mammal kind that has teats, feathers, flow through lungs, and three middle ear bones.
6 Likes
Why would you expect God to do this, did he tell you or did you read his mind? Make sure you answer this.
More importantly, you can’t seem to understand the implications of the hypothesis of independent origins of the major groups of organisms. If mammals and reptiles were independently created a long time ago and evolved afterwards, then we would not expect any links between them on a phylogenetic/phylogenomic tree. In contrast, if mammals descended from reptiles then we would expect to see relatedness patterns between mammals and reptiles in datasets (based on molecules, morphology of extant taxa and even fossils) used in phylogenetic tree reconstruction. The latter hypothesis of common descent turns out to be the winner because we see the patterns consistent with it in all available datasets.
HGT does not mimic common ancestry. In fact, it obfuscates the signal of common ancestry in datasets. If you don’t understand the basics, you will keep on making conceptual errors like this.
This is horrendously false. The fossil record alone shows morphological evolutionary change spanning millions of years. There are lots of fossils showing the transition from reptiles to mammals, for example. Throw in molecular data and be blown away by the massive tinkering evolution has engaged in for the past three and a half billion years.
I suspect this is a reference to the Cambrian explosion. If so, then it is highly misleading and ridiculously false. There is a lot of peer-reviewed published material on the Cambrian Era by paleontologists who do the actual dirty work of seeking for clues about our natural history, but you choose to cite Morris who has no expertise whatsoever in the field and whose utterances are at odds with available data.
More nonsense from Morris. Multicellular life was already existing prior to the Cambrian explosion. Haven’t you heard of the Ediacaran fauna?
God is probably cringing at your usage of falsehood to argue for his involvement in the evolution of life forms. You and Morris have got it terribly wrong.
Finally, you are yet to answer my question. How does stasis and sudden appearances support the orchard hypothesis of independent origins? In other words, if mammals and reptiles had independent origins, for example, how does stasis and sudden appearances support that hypothesis?
2 Likes
Alas, he’ll just open another. “Now that THAT’s settled, let’s move on to the next step. Orc-R and Uruk-H’s theory of self-collapsing wave forms accounting for the way caramel apples taste when eaten in a snow storm, as filtered through the musings of Henry Morris, rendered via the vocal stylings of Bill Murray, and all topped with a lovely Bearnaise.”
5 Likes