Diagrams aren’t the evidence. How did YOU determine that those differences were gains and not losses? What did YOU do?
Word salad.
3 Likes
Beg to differ on both counts. And reproduction doesn’t generate new genes. Mutation generates new genes.
This is not a subject you understand, and no amount of explanation has been able to educate you.
Yes it does. You just have consistently failed to understand. The fact that the standard tree is by far the most parsimonious explanation for the pattern of presence and absence is evidence of common descent.
Irrelevant to the point, even if it were true.
The diagram is however a quite complete summary of the evidence, which is good enough.
1 Like
Greetings, Bill
Thanks. Here’s something I’m not clear on: if everything that we see today is designed, what are some attributes you think we should expect of something that isn’t designed?
I ask because if this test is, in principle, unable to detect something that’s undesigned, or if there is no conceivable control that can be undesigned, then you can have no idea if your test is accurate or not, yes?
What does this mean, by the way? Does this mean the test concludes a rock is less likely to have been designed?
2 Likes
That reminds me: I don’t think you ever answered when I asked you to show how this diagram from Lynch’s paper indicates any difficulty that would preclude the observations shown in the Howe diagram. Please be as specific as you can in your answer.
1 Like
Hi Matt
Given a universe exists at all I would expect design. If a random universe was possible I would not expect all material reality to be made of the same thing (atoms).
The test is not about designed or not designed its about direct design detection. We have a standard for design and that is human designs. That standard is being applied to other objects in nature.
No it only says currently given our ability to observe given current technology the design signal is weaker in rocks then in cells.
Why was new unique gene sequence not generated in the Lenski experiment? We had a duplicated gene but no new unique sequence. The answer is how many ways to arrange a sequence vs the functional possibilities.
I understand the subject well enough to know when the comment comes out that 97% of scientists agree with evolutionary theory there is variation on what they agree on. Can you show me a paper that clearly does not assume common descent ie reproduction and natural variation?
The evidence does not follow the standard tree.
Relevant to the assumptions that evolutionary biologists are using to make their conclusions.
Thank you.
The number of gene changes in Lynch Behe is 1 with 2 substitutions. The Howe diagram shows many more changes both in gene count and substitutions. Also Behe’s model is closer to what we are observing in vertebrates because many amino acid substitutions are deleterious.
No, you do not understand. One more time - Common Descent is a prediction of evolution, strongly supported by independent lines of evidence. It is a very well test prediction, not an assumption. This prediction was well supported even before we understood the biology of mutation and selection, and does not depend on the mechanics of how the evolution occurred.
5 Likes
How different does a does a new sequence have to be before you call it “unique”? This is a meaningless question. And you should know that the Howe diagram features duplicated genes. The last sentence is word salad again.
You understand almost nothing. I have never written a paper that assumes that, including all the ones I have shown you over the years.
This is you not understanding again. Yes, the evidence does, since only one change, a single gain or loss, is necessary to explain almost every gene’s distribution. What’s your explanation for that?
Again, you have no idea what assumptions are being made.
For what? You don’t understand the diagram.
The Howe diagram has no information about the number of substitutions.
4 Likes
If you’re not even going to try answer the question, please just admit that rather than writing yet another string of meaningless words. It impresses no one.
1 Like
So everything that exists was “designed”.
But a very few “designed” things have a strong “design signal”. And in most “designed” things (in fact, the very, very vast majority of them) the “design signal” is weak or non-existent.
So it would appear the “design signal” is useless for detecting design. It just varies randomly between entities, without regard to whether or not the entity was designed.
Just why do you think any reasonable person should pay serious attention to something as useless as this “design signal”?
3 Likes
It is, but Bill doesn’t understand how it summarizes the evidence.
2 Likes
Hi Dan
This true Common Descent is a prediction of evolution. It was an inference made by Darwin and he argued that Common Descent was more parsimonious then special creation.
How would you test that chickens and mice share a common ancestor to validate that prediction? If you cannot set up this test then we have an untested hypothesis.
Also contradicted by independent lines of evidence. Such and genes converging at different points on the tree.
Wrong. The competing theories at the times were ideas like The Great Chain of Being, Vitalism, Theistic Evolution, Orthogenesis, Lamarckism, Catastrophism, and Saltationism. He argued that gradual changes in species over time would appear as a pattern of Common Descent. Darwin did not originate the ideas of evolution, variation, or selection; his key contribution is the hypothesis that selection happens naturally.
Irrelevant (also trivial). You stated …
Which is incorrect - There is no assumption of Common Descent. Do you agree?
3 Likes
That’s doesn’t contradict anything about common descent, but thank you for conceding there’s a tree, which you have no explanation for.
1 Like
True enough, as we see just below, again.
Ironically, the “Howe diagram” is itself a test of the proposition.
It isn’t clear what that was supposed to mean. Do you know?
1 Like
Good lord. Absolutely nothing gets through. How is this even possible?
3 Likes
Important or not, he’s closer to the evidence than you are and accepts it. Why?
How can a method also be a hypothesis, Bill? Do you just pick words at random?
Does this show the common descent of SARS-CoV-2?
Do you have a concrete example, including evidence to which you have been a direct witness and done the math?
That sounds suspiciously analogous to, “But this one goes to eleven.”
4 Likes
Consilience of independent phylogenies.
2 Likes
Pointing to the noise does not make the signal go away.
2 Likes