In science, evidence is the empirical, demonstrable, and verifiable facts that can be used to test a hypothesis.
2 Likes
Ewert has failed to properly measure a deviation from the expected tree because he is using incomplete and inconsistent gene annotations for a very limited number of species. He should be using sequence searches instead of annotations at a very minimum.
4 Likes
Why do scientists cite other papers in addition to presenting their “empirical demonstrable and verifiable facts”?
Are these cited papers not scientific evidence?
It could be for a lot of reasons: background information, acknowledging conflicting data, and methods, to name a few. You could read a peer reviewed paper and judge for yourself.
Peer reviewed papers contain evidence, most of which is found in the Results section. Papers also include methodologies, hypotheses, conclusions, and potential directions for further study.
5 Likes
Response, coming soon, condensed:
“I have now taken that into account, and so here is a lengthy restatement of the case I’m trying to make, with no substantive changes at all.”
5 Likes
Would you call this “documented evidence”?
No. I would call it real evidence. The results reported in a scientific paper are equivalent to a forensic scientist reporting on DNA sequences or fingerprints. In principle, I should be able to read a paper and repeat all of their experiments, and get the same results. The evidence in a paper should be objective, empirical, and repeatable.
6 Likes
In addition, the evidence found in a Result sections might not be high quality. To judge the quality of evidence, you would have to examine other parts of a scientific paper, especially the Methods section.
1 Like
Yes, your assessment is correct here. I never had any interests because Phylogenetic trees only show that there are biochemical similarities between all living things. THAT’S IT. The attempt to use this as evidence for common ancestry would turn it into a circular argument because you have to assume common ancestry in order to prove it. This is one of the reasons why it is the weakest form of evidence for Universal common Descent.
This leads me to explain the other reason why it is the weakest form of evidence, which is related to the first reason…
NO, they are seeking a pattern and making the connection in your mind rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself. They are choosing to interpret it that way without actually proving the assumptions they depend on to support their conclusions. I can easily interpret it as evidence for common design:
If this all sounds like I am being dismissive of their work and your support of it, then you would be right. But, you are being just as dismissive of my common design model and won’t inform yourself on the matter…
I spent an enormous amount of time crafting a Universal common designer theory in the last topic I created that preceded this topic and model. You made no effort to make the same contribution on it. For this reason, I have no desire to read your sources that supposedly support your claims since you displayed the same disinterest in engaging the previous topic. I made it very clear that this topic will be an add on to what I argued before. So there is nothing about my model that is ad hoc.
I would have been less dismissive of that form of evidence if it was just used to support limited common ancestry, such as ancestry between apes and humans. But, when you suggests that this common ancestry applies to all livings, then it requires extraordinary evidence. As I told @Puck_Mendelssohn, using phylogenetics arguments to support common ancestry leads you to a circular argument and/or is susceptible to alternative explanations, such as common design.
Now, you could support Universal ancestry through the fossil record, and experiments showing how random mutations can produce potent changes, and abiogenesis. This is because the evidence is proportional to the claim and actually shows how universal common ancestry was achieved or could be achieved. I noticed you guys never attempted to present these types of evidence. Obviously, it must be because you know it hurts your case more than it helps to bring it up.
Yes, it is actually asking a lot because I made it very clear that observations and experiments are the only way we can make better conclusions about which species is separate species versus a separate kind.
Well, I gave you the definition of species and kinds… From there, we can apply those definitions to the fossil record, which happens to support common design NOT common descent.
I already showed you involving the Rose study, which vindicates the unique claims in Genesis.
It is dishonest to make statements about how something works immediately after saying you don’t know anything about it.
5 Likes
You’ve spent a couple (few?) weeks writing down and discussing your ideas with some scientist, scholars, and a few of us they let hang out here and listen in. And kudos to you for seeking out input! But…
I don’t know the average amount of work (education, research, observation, experimentation, writing, presenting, revising, etc.) that it takes to offer up something that moves a particular field of science forward by even a small baby step. My guess, though, is that it’s measured in years (decades?) at least.
5 Likes
Your ignorance is showing. The point is not similarity but nested hierarchy. No, you don’t have to assume common ancestry. Nested hierarchy is an objectively observable pattern in the data that you need to explain somehow. It’s an obvious consequence of common descent, but there is no reason to expect it from separate creation. “Common design” is just a buzzphrase devoid of expectation.
Linking to more papers you haven’t read shouldn’t count as evidence for your vague claims.
Can you see how annoying this would be to anyone who actually knows something about the topic?
It was wasted effort, since the theory is incoherent. It explains no data. Many people have patiently explained its flaws to you, but you ignored everything, as you are ignoring everything in the current topic.
I have never mentioned “all livings”; this is about mammals. Don’t change the subject. Do you agree that all mammals are one kind?
You have never made anything clear in your life. What observations and experiments can determine whether two populations belong to the same kind? You previously suggested that there should be a nested hierarchy within kinds but not between them. You now appear to have abandoned that criterion. What other criterion would you like?
You have given several of each, mutually contradictory.
How? There’s really no way to tell whether a fossil could have produced fertile offspring with another fossil. Nor have you mentioned any sort of criterion to identify “kinds” other than some untestable biblical categories. How do you propose to decide whether a fossil could have been tamed? And how can you reject all other evidence so easily?
I already showed you how the Persian Gulf Oasis doesn’t fit the requirements of Eden or of the flood. You ignored all that, as is your habit. No such claims are vindicated.
5 Likes
This nested hierarchy is what got me thinking hard about common descent back then. Attempts to relate all mammals or primates would end up with a tree that consistently placed chimps closest to humans. When I saw figures like the one below, which showed alignments of chimp and human DNA (below is an alignment of Chromosome 3 in both animals):
they beautifully explained why primate phylogenies based on molecules consistently placed chimps (and bonobos) closest to humans. Common descent of all primates was the best explanation of the data.
Yes its hard to wrap your head around it sometimes, but its what the data says and data doesn’t give a hoot about how you feel.
2 Likes
That’s not it.
Phylogenetic trees don’t show there are similarities between all living things. They use the already known similarities to determine relationships between species. The evidence for common ancestry is not the similarities, but the pattern they fall into.
It’s not circular, because that assumption is not made, and if you think it’s a weak form of evidence, that’s largely because you obviously don’t know what the evidence is and can’t be bothered to find out.
“An enormous amount of time”? 
The one you haven’t read?
5 Likes
My mistake, I got mixed up as to what you were objecting to. I thought we were still on the issue of species and whether common descent applies to ALL life.
So just to be clear, we are talking about “kinds” and limited common ancestry from here on out potentially. As I told you before, we would expect nested hierarchies under a common design model as well.
However, a common design model would also predict independent hierarchies (unrelated organisms) where each one stems from a organism created by fiat and filled out through secondary cause-and-effect reproduction.
I addressed all those objections in my last revised and updated version of my theory. I did not see you respond to my latest changes. So I assumed you ,along with everyone else, had no more objections to give.
Again, my mistake. I got mixed up. The fossil record would be the criterion for deciphering which species has no common ancestry and are completely separate from one another since common design rejects universal common ancestry or descent. But, this criterion would not apply to kinds within a species or nested hierarchies.
NO, but this leads me to explain further here…
Finding functional convergence between them would be the criterion for deciphering them, such as this…
Right, this is what skeptics have said. But, as Rose pointed out, the Gulf Oasis was also watered by springs upwelling from subterranean aquifers. Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 7:11 identifies “springs of the great deep” as part of the source of the flood waters that wreaked havoc upon the ungodly of Noah’s generation.
My point is that the reason why the rivers flow out of the Persian Gulf today is because Noah’s flood radically changed the geography. Obviously, I would have to prove that Noah’s flood happened with more evidence but the study nonetheless vindicates the Genesis claims.
This prediction has failed unless you want to declare that eukaryotes are a single kind. And yet you are unwilling to admit even that mammals are a kind. You are increasingly self-contradictory.
You think you did, but you are wrong. You addressed none of the objections, and everyone who raised any would agree.
How? Be specific for once.
What do you mean by “kinds within a species”?
What do you mean by that? How does it tell you whether species belong to the same or different kinds? Interesting paper, but you clearly haven’t read it and it clearly doesn’t say what you think it does.
No it doesn’t. It refers, in most translations to a mist, not streams.
No rivers flow out of the Persian Gulf. Not today, not ever. And you have rivers flowing into Eden when according to Genesis they should flow out of it.
There is no evidence for any such flood and the paper you cited has none.
No, it vindicates no Genesis claims.
4 Likes
Those rivers don’t flow out of the Persian Gulf today.
6 Likes
It does indeed predict that and there is nothing of the sort in the evidence you ignore. None of those discontinuities. Your hypothesis is false.
4 Likes
No its not. His hypothesis is unfalsifiable. If we see a nested hierarchical pattern in the data, God did it. If we see patterns associated with multiple, independent creation events, God did it. Nothing could ever rule out God’s hand.
Of course not. I’m just going with the prediction Meerkat so clearly stated.
1 Like