Cornelius Hunter: Arguments Against Common Descent

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Continuing the discussion from Winston Ewert: The Dependency Graph of Life:

@swamidass

If you would like, we can set up a different thread for your arguments.

So @Cornelius_Hunter, if you’d like you can put forward something else to discuss here, where you can be the focal point. Thanks for joining us. We are please to have you here. Peace.

[Cornelius_Hunter]

@swamidass

Instead, I’m referring to, for example, synonymous mutations in proteins. It seems (though I could be wrong), you’ve restricted this to gene families. If that is the case, you are glossing over mutations more likely to be neutral. That seems to be a real problem. As this is actually where the nested clade evidence is stronger (at least from my assessment).

If I am right (and I may not be), it seems this is a direct falsification of the conceptual argument being put forward. It seems that “design modules” must be defined to be non-neutral, and you may have an explanation for why they almost fit in a nested tree. However, that does not explain why more neutral mutations (it is a relative term) might fit more tightly in a nested three than design modules. That seems to be a looming problem for your proposal. I don’t think you can make your case without dealing with this head one. It seems to be a direct falsification of your proposal, unless I’m missing something here.

Well, the important restriction here is not gene families, but rather the presence/absence of genes. There is no sequence alignment at play here. So, no, this concern is is not applicable to Ewert’s paper. The paper uses standard model selection and nine genetic databases to demonstrate that the dependency graph model is superior to common descent, with respect to the presence/absence data. That’s it.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Welcome @Cornelius_Hunter! It is good to see you again.

@Cornelius_Hunter

Well, the important restriction here is not gene families, but rather the presence/absence of genes. There is no sequence alignment at play here. So, no, this concern is is not applicable to Ewert’s paper. The paper uses standard model selection and nine genetic databases to demonstrate that the dependency graph model is superior to common descent, with respect to the presence/absence data. That’s it.

@Cornelius_Hunter, with all due respect, [you originally posted this] on @Winston_Ewert’s thread. We are not interested in your arguments on his behalf [on his thread]. He can make his own case. [We set up this] thread for your arguments. To be clear, you (or anyone else) can feel free to jump in to clarify and add important and relevant information [on the main thread]. We, however, are engaging @Winston_Ewert [there].

As I have pointed out before:

@swamidass

Someone at DI should tell @Cornelius_Hunter to back off. He is not helping @Winston_Ewert.

Your case is actually hurting his argument. Just let @Winston_Ewert do his thing. He is making progress. He doesn’t appear to need your help.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Cornelius_Hunter, any time you want to put something forward, we would be happy to engage. This thread will close 24 hours after the last post, but we can open it whenever you like.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Cornelius_Hunter Looks like you’ve been making your case on the BioLogos forum. That’s great. When I get some time later I’ll start reviewing where left things off last time, and clarifying your arguments. You are welcome to join in too. I’ll look forward too it.