Comments on Genealogical Adam was Not Unique

[Faizal_Ali]

@Roy

Since your hypothesis includes “The being responsible for their creation does not wish their existence to be known, so is very careful to ensure that no one is able to discern that these humans have been created” there never can be any scientific evidence against your hypothesis, since any potential evidence will be altered, erased or hidden by the being as it covers its tracks.

So what is your point? The same applies to GAE. It cannot be falsified by any scientific evidence.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Faizal_Ali

This is what Joshua has done with GAE.

This is false. At no point did I modify the GAE hypothesis. At no point did I posit new miracles. Why would you make that up?

@Faizal_Ali

So what is your point? The same applies to GAE. It cannot be falsified by any scientific evidence.

I can’t falsify that you are a philosophical zombie either.

[John_Harshman]

@Faizal_Ali

I modified my hypothesis to take account of evidence that has been presented against the original version, as a scientist should do.

You also pretended that’s what you were saying all along, as a scientist should not do.

@Faizal_Ali

Since no one has yet provided a scientific refutation of my hypothesis, I must conclude that I have succeeded.

You set a low bar. Nobody has ever suggested that you could not present an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are easy, so easy that there’s no point in introducing them. What you think you’re doing with all this is completely unclear.

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are easy, so easy that there’s no point in introducing them.

I think that is a good point. And, if that is the case, then the same applies to GAE.

[Faizal_Ali]

@swamidass

This is false. At no point did I modify the GAE hypothesis. At no point did I posit new miracles. Why would you make that up?

You again misunderstand me. My statement was not that you had not modified it (Though I would be surprised if you have not made even a single change between now and the first moment the idea sprung into your mind). What I was stating is that GAE is scientifically unfalsifiable.

[Faizal_Ali]

@swamidass

I can’t falsify that you are a philosophical zombie either.

Yes. So should we write an entire book to provide succor to those whose world views require the existence of P-zombies, based on nothing more than the fact the science cannot disprove their existence?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I can’t falsify universal human rights either. Say, do you believe they are a fantasy?

I can’t falsify evolution either. Hmm, does that mean it is false?

[John_Harshman]

@Faizal_Ali

And, if that is the case, then the same applies to GAE.

You mistake the point. There’s no point in introducing unfalsifiable hypotheses just because you want an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There may be a point in introducing some particular unfalsifiable hypothesis, for example an attempt to reconcile the bible with reality. You should also note that the GA hypothesis is falsifiable to a certain extent. If it had turned out that genealogical ancestry from a single Near-Eastern individual could not have spread worldwide by 1 AD, that would have falsified the hypothesis.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

I can’t falsify evolution either. Hmm, does that mean it is false?

What would it mean to falsify evolution? I’d say that for most senses of the term, evolution is falsifiable. Of course it hasn’t been falsified, as all the evidence that might have done so points the other way.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

That is all I mean. Out inability to falsify something with evidence does not render it false.

[John_Harshman]

That was confusing. Enough people already confuse “falsifiable” with “falsified”. Don’t encourage them.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Fair enough. The GAE seems to unfalsified, not unfalsifiable. That seems like a good way to put it.

[John_Harshman]

It’s a gray area. Certain features — the possibility of genealogical coalescence — are falsifiable but unfalsified. Other features, notably the de novo creation of two humans similar to others already in existence, are unfalsifiable. That’s why I said “to a certain extent”.

[Faizal_Ali]

@swamidass

This is new information.

It shouldn’t be. Ann Gauger does so right in the video linked below. Or do you think when she speaks to an audience she is trying to convince them that ID is false and they should accept evolution?

Ann Gauger: On Human Uniqueness

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

Other features, notably the de novo creation of two humans similar to others already in existence, are unfalsifiable

Yes. And that is the part that Joshua adds to his hypothesis. The rest is nothing new.

[John_Harshman]

No idea what you were trying to say there, but I suspect it was wrong.

[John_Harshman]

I note that Gauger claims that Alu elements regulate gene expression. She claims that LINEs are functional too. She seems to be going big on the “all DNA is functional” claim. What’s all that about?

But I can’t see that she said anything about genealogical Adam. I think you’re confusing that with genetic Adam. Try again.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I am doubtful ID will press the GAE, for three reasons. Gauger personally does not prefer it, they can’t take credit for it, and it legitimizes a critic of Behes work. To me, it seems they are in a bind.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

it legitimizes a critic of Behes work

That can’t be. She mentions your study of a possible bottleneck (even gives your name), though she seems to misunderstand it as support for a bottleneck of one couple 500K years ago.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

You seem to have a very poor understanding of theology. The Bible is not the only source of theological claims. There are many, many other theological schools of thought other than Christianity.

@Faizal_Ali

I know you detest any attempt to bring even the tiniest trace of satisfaction to the YECs… even in exchange for accepting the bulk of evolutionary theory.

But your example qualifies you for your OWN “Peaceful-Faizal” .Org - - - it doesnt invalidate PeacefulScience.Org.

PeacefulScience.Org is designed to reach Christians … it is not designed to make atheists into Christians.

Good luck!