The word salad is on your side at the point. The mechanism of reproduction explains the similarities. This is the only mechanism that makes sense of some of the data.
Really? The cell replicates at this error rate. This is a cellular function demonstrating extreme precision.
The eggs are used for food this is a clear purpose for the eggs.
One purpose is to provide food for the ecological system.
The Role of Mice in the Ecosystem – Exterminator Near Me.pdf (110.4 KB)
Hi Rum
The problem I see for science is that the single tree is probably wrong at this point yet it is assumed in thousands of papers. Multiple tree models should be considered IMO to avoid a potentially faulty axiom from misleading people.
This subject (common descent) is out of the scope of Mike Behe’s method. His method (purposeful arrangement of parts) may lead people to the multiple tree hypothesis as a valid alternative.
Because none of these polymorphisms are fixed in the human population. The data you are providing is not evidence against the claims you are trying to make.
The model certainly has inaccuracies but most likely not enough to explain the de novo genes we are observing.
@colewd you didn’t answer my question. You’re not explaining why you go to independent origin for entire species, rather than independent origin for particular genes or systems, like Michael Behe does.
Try again.
Bill, in the context of ascertaining design through identifying purpose, this, no joke, seems insane to me. Is this what you are saying, and if so, can you give me an example of anything at all you think is not designed?
Thanks
This is the “humans exist so as to create and then wear out their shoes” theory of purpose. The exact same reasoning applies.
Hi Faizal
I should have written natural selection is a process for fixing changes in the population. Thanks for the correction.
I’d say that inheritance explains the similarities. Reproduction is not quite the same. And you were talking about the differences.
Yes, but that isn’t what you said. You have a lot of trouble saying what you mean. Sometimes it’s because you don’t know what you mean, but this time it could just have been sloppiness.
More and more equivocation. Is every use also a purpose? I can use a rock for a doorstop. Is a purpose of a rock to be a doorstop? Is that why there are rocks? Is that a reason for rocks?
In what sense is this a purpose? Is a mouse a purposeful arrangement of parts to provide food for predators? It seems that a much simpler arrangement could have done so as well or better. You are tying yourself into silly knots, and I can see that the way to cut through the knots is to be a young-earth creationist who thinks that the world was created for him. Chickens were created so that we can have eggs. Mice were created so that we can have one particular version of a functioning ecosystem. All very comfortable, and very appealing since it makes the world revolve around you. But not good philosophy or science. And it raises uncomfortable questions, e.g. “What is the purpose of cholera?”
The single tree of vertebrates seems fine. What problem do you have with it?
Note that it doesn’t lead Behe there. Why doesn’t it?
So which came first, the egg or the poached egg?
I would think that altruistic, self sacrificing, behavior purposed to provided sustenance to fellow wild creatures at mortal cost, would be a quick and sure path to extinction.
How did you determine that? Please cite the data on allele frequencies and show your math.
And wouldn’t “models for fixing changes in a population” also need to model lack of fixation?
Why don’t you state the GenBank accession number of one such gene that you have observed? I don’t think that “we are observing” is a true statement coming from you. Looking at a Venn diagram is not the observation.
It can be beneficial if it assures that somebody takes care of you and your progeny, spreading them all over the world and increasing their population far beyond what it would be in the wild. From an evolutionary perspective, eventually having your head cut off and having most of your progeny eaten is not a problem.
Still wrong. But in light of the utter imbecility of the other things you are writing here, correcting this error is a low priority at this point.
Hi Matt
Behe’s method idesign detection is though identifying an arrangement of parts were we can identify a purpose.
The more interactive parts that are required for the function the stronger the design inference. As far showing something that is not designed that is trying to prove a negative. What I can say is that a rock has a weaker design signal then a living cell.
This method appears to be very robust when looking at objects like cars and computers that we know ere designed. Functional arrangements are often very difficult to explain without a mind being involved.
Lots of words wasted when a simple “No, I can’t” would have sufficed.
I’m not asking you to prove to me something isn’t designed. I like to steer away from that language. What I am asking is for something you think isn’t designed. Something you’re pretty confident about, but you don’t have to 100% know for certain.
Do you think a rock is designed? How confident are you in that answer?
So what’s the purpose of hemoglobin? It has four subunits, each with a heme group.
Inheritance is not a mechanism reproduction is. We don’t have a good mechanistic explanation for the differences.
Fair comment.
Most all the papers that assume vertebrate common descent is true and built by completely natural means. Behe’s method alone could help minimize the use of this assumption.
Common descent is not important to Behe. If science used his method as a default hypothesis then common descent and the trees don’t matter.
Hi Matt
I think the universe was designed so yes a rock was ultimately the result of design. I am 99% confident based on the evidence the last 1% is a leap of faith.
Of course inheritance is a mechanism. It’s a mechanism that transfers genomes into new organisms. This seems empty quibbling about words. And we do have good mechanistic explanations for differences. They’re exactly what we see happening as mutations within populations.
There you go again, confusing common descent with natural mutation. Some papers assume vertebrate common descent is true, but they have noneed to assume some particular way it was built (assuming that you mean to say the way in which changes happened, which again is not the same thing). But of course many other papers demonstrate that vertebrate common descent is true. The Howe diagram is in fact evidence for common descent. Behe’s method does nothing of use.
Not responsive.
Inheritance is not a mechanism and it is not quibbling. The mechanism is reproduction.What you do not have an explanation for is how reproduction generates new genes.
No John it is precisely what the papers assume. Generations of reproduction caused the pattern.
The Howe diagram does not support the common descent of the 4 species. As it does not explain how reproduction created the pattern and the Lynch Behe discussion shows how difficult new features are fixed in a population.