Could you explain what you would expect Sal’s flower to look like if common descent was true? Please be as specific as you can be.
3 Likes
This is a good question. Maybe enough for a separate topic.
Go ahead.
3 Likes
A good way to go about it would be to start with the diagram @John_Harshman provided showing gene losses and gains, and give a examples of how you would expect these to differ under your understanding of common descent.
2 Likes
Not really as John has dramatically over simplified the problem. He has not included de novo genes and he has not acknowledged the waiting time problem of fixation.
Those are not relevant to the issue. John is saying those observations are as would be expected by common descent, and are not reasonably explained by any other model. You disagree and, in fact, say those findings are somehow problematic for common descent and are better explained by “design.”
Therefore, you should be able to describe what observations you believe would be made if common descent were true.
So please do so.
4 Likes
Well of course I included de novo genes, assuming there are any in the sample. And the waiting time problem is just you bringing up irrelevancies, confusing the origin of species with the origin of changes again. (There is no waiting time problem, but that’s another subject.)
1 Like
We have gone far enough here and if you want to discuss the subject you brought up feel free to start a new topic. I am simply trying to support the claim that God is a useful “scientific” hypothesis. Given the amount of discussion @Meerkat_SK5 stimulated with this topic I think he has succeeded.
There’s no point of me trying to discuss the topic of what you, Bill Cole, would expect to see in “Sal’s flower” if common descent was true. I would expect to see what we, in fact, do see. So there’s really nothing more for me to add.
I guess we’ll just have to chalk this up as another claim you are unwilling and/or unable to support. I suggest that you stop making it, then. I will remind you of this if and when you ever bring up “Sal’s flower” again.
3 Likes
Depending on how “common descent” is defined you can be either right or wrong with this statement. The real issue is if you can eliminate God’s direct action from the pattern. If not then @Meerkat_SK5 thesis is interesting. So is Behe’s and Dembski’s.
LOL
ROFL
Okay, enough. I can barely breathe from all this laughing.
2 Likes
It has a very clear and specific definition, and this has been given to you in this discussion.
Lame excuse is lame.
No, that is not the issue at all. God could be fiddling around with life in almost any way you’d care to imagine. Common descent would remain a hypothesis that predicts specific patterns of gene loss/gain within groups of organisms. Your line of argument, that “Sal’s flower” presents a problem for this hypothesis, entails that you agree with this, and that you believe there is a pattern demonstrated that is inconsistent with common descent.
And yet you refuse to substantiate your claims. The reason is obvious: You have no clue what you are talking about, but won’t admit this. That’s how it appears to me, anyway. You are free to suggest an alternative explanation.
2 Likes
@John_Harshman defines common descent separate from biological innovation.
I guess he does. I’m not really sure what you are trying to say there. And I make no assumptions that you do, either.
In any event, that is just another red herring. Nothing is stopping you from showing how the data in “Sal’s flower” contradicts common descent as defined by John. Nothing, that is, other than the likely facts that you don’t really understand the definition, don’t really understand the data, and have no idea what data would confirm or refute common descent.
4 Likes
John is not arguing that common descent alone explains Sal’s flower. He is adding gene loss and gene gain to the explanation. The real issue is can he eliminate Gods direct action from this observation. This is the real subject of this topic not common descent.
We can eliminate Gods direct action from gravitational theory as we have several mathematical models that explain this with the characteristics of matter.
Given your halt conditions, this is an eternal step. Or maybe an infinite loop? Either way, it’s not going anywhere.
I really don’t know how to respond to stupidity of this magnitude.
4 Likes
So does everyone, with the sole apparent exception of you. The source of your confusion is unclear.
Yes he is. The “flower” is the pattern of distribution of gene presence and absence. Common descent is the tree. The tree explains that pattern by requiring the minimum possible number of changes. Gene loss and gain is just a change in presence or absence at some point on the tree.
That isn’t the issue at all, and it isn’t clear what would count as God’s direct action. Depending on what you mean (if you even know), the tree says nothing about God’s direct action one way or another. What it does say is that all those species are related by common descent. And that actually is the real issue, despite your confusion.
3 Likes
Oh, OK. That’s how one responds.
1 Like
Not really. There is no useful response, nothing that will communicate anything to Bill. I’m just exercising my fingers here.
2 Likes