Its evidence for common descent if you do not consider design. Design can also contribute to the pattern. Darwin argued that common descent with natural selection was more parsimonious explanation. Now we are dealing with Darwins black box.
Why would he do this? We are seeing some of this at the cellular level.
I don’t think we have established this yet. The purposely arranged parts and functional information are not explained.
Already addressed in post #70. Design is eliminated by parsimony.
Why wouldn’t he? We do this all of the time. I have done it. I have moved genes from one species to another in ways that easily violate the expected nested hierarchy. Here is a mouse with a gene from a jellyfish that makes it fluoresce under a UV light:
Those are separate explanations. Right now we are looking for an explanation for the distribution of characteristics among species.
You seem to be claiming that this one piece of evidence and nothing else form the evidentiary basis of evolutionary biologists’ conclusions.
Is that a claim that you will keep standing on, or is there a chance you might want to walk it back?
Best,
Chris
Human designs don’t multiply via biological reproduction.
Yes.
In the first case, there are several mutually contradictory definitions, and I’m not sure which one you mean or if you even know. In the second case, I have no idea what splicing codes are, and I suspect you don’t either.
Whatever does that mean?
Again, whatever does that mean? Do you think this is the only evidence for common ancestry of humans and chimps? Do you think there is no similar evidence for any accepted group you could name?
What do you mean by “design”? Do you refer to separate creation? Something else? It’s one step forward and two steps back with you.
Hi Chris
I am not claiming there is no other evidence. The issue is that evidence is not presented here as support. What started out as a very interesting op w well argued evidence has degraded.
I am not interested in evolution with a null that does not test it. John originally used design or special creation as a negative control and that was interesting. We then devolved into the nested hierarchy discussion. I think this discussion only works when design is eliminated as the negative control and that is not a robust test.
Bill,
As has been pointed out, you are using “negative control” when you mean “null hypothesis”. “Design or special creation” is neither a negative control nor the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is a star phylogeny, which is, I suppose, one possible hypothesis of special creation. It means that all the changes are considered to be independent, not occurring on a branching tree. In other words, it contrasts nested hierarchy with its absence. If you don’t realize that the OP was a test of nested hierarchy, you understand nothing about it.
Until you can explain a model in which nested hierarchy occurs through special creation (or perhaps by “design”, whatever that means), it’s proper to say that the presence of nested hierarchy falsifies special creation (and “design”?).
Nobody knows what you meany when you say “design”, so either explain what you’re talking about or stop mentioning it. Is it a synonym for separate creation, or is it something else?
You could improve the discussion by providing a model of design that gives predictions of the evidence that are distinguishable from predictions by other models, such as evolution.
If you cannot do so, it is impossible to have a scientific discussion. We end up with philosophy parading as science and/or science advocates expressing frustration with philosophy. This unhappy state is perhaps the destination of this discussion.
But you have the power to change that!
Best,
Chris
Two ID models have been forwarded one by Winston Ewert on common descent tree vs dependency graph the other by Gpuccio on measurement of functional information. The reception here has not been very constructive so far but as new information becomes available we will re visit.
I think you are right about offering a model. I made a counter proposal to John’s model to explain the data but in this case I felt Johns hypothesis fit better than the design (special creation model). I believe for other parts of the genome of the primates we might get different results as we look deeper. Especially if de novo genes are identified.
I do think primate evolution is a good area of focus. Thanks for the feedback.
I respectfully disagree. The nested hierarch in total is poorly explained by common descent alone. There are innovations that are all over the tree such as many types of eyes with very different transcription mechanisms.
Re design it refers to observations that can be explained by design or mind as a mechanism like the observation of gene preservation, De novo genes and gene patterns that are awkwardly explained by common descent alone.
As we get better sequencing data this will become much clear.
I’m sorry, but that’s because you have no idea what’s going on. You have once again confused the nested hierarchy, the pattern made by differences and similarities, with innovations, the differences and similarities themselves. No matter how many times this has been explained to you, it has never sunk in.
Mind is not a mechanism, nor is design. Gene preservation is explained by natural selection. You still haven’t explained what you mean by “de novo genes”, nor have you explained what gene patterns would be awkwardly explained by common descent. You have nothing so far.
Also, we have quite good sequencing data, but I don’t know what you think will become “much clear”.
There’s no evidence that @gpuccio’s “Functional Information” is a measurement of information. There’s a lot of evidence that sequence conservation isn’t even close to being a valid estimate of functional information.
Have you even bothered to look, Bill? How can you tout this when you are incapable of applying it by yourself, much less evaluating it?
Sadly, neither of these interesting conjectures make any predictions about distribution patterns of phylogenetic characters, amino acid sequences, or DNA sequences. To his credit, Ewert explicitly recognizes the inability of his model to address sequence data.
Since the distribution of DNA sequences, amino acid sequences, and phylogenetic characters are the key forms of evidence used in nested hierarchy studies, we are left with no design models that make predictions that are relevant to this discussion.
Perhaps this fact can help you imagine why biologists feel frustrated over the rejection of mainstream science. What they perceive–quite accurately in the case of the data we have been discussing, AFAICT–is that critics are proposing to replace a useful scientific model with a model that makes no predictions and is therefore not even science.
Hope this helps you understand why emotions sometimes get worked up around here. 
Best,
Chris
I respectfully disagree. The dependency chart makes a prediction that the data will fall into a pattern that we see in software design called a dependency chart. Winston did some simulations to show this. The problem is right now the sequence data bases are not robust enough to support this work very well.
Gpuccio’s work is based on the prediction that complex designed sequences will be preserved if they have high amounts of functional information. It’s also based on observing greater DNA change than amino acid change. John’s op supported this prediction.
The design argument is that biology is explained by mind as a mechanism. The observations that support this are primarly observations that we see in the cell. Purposely arranged parts and functional sequences such as DNA, Amino Acid and Exon sequences. The predictions should be based on what we would expect from a mind. As we look at DNA alone this is what we see. There are more studies going on that show data that supports mind as a mechanism.
The claim that the nested hierarchy or hierarchal structure is best explained by common descent alone is a very troubling assertion that is being made. I see a lot of misleading arguments from the evolution side trying to support this claim that is only supported when design or mind as a mechanism is not considered. This is where the data of gpuccio and Winston and others to follow provide an important challenge to conventional thinking in order to move the science forward.
I understand the emotion as people have worked their whole lives with the theory of evolution. Science is at its best when honest healthy debate is encouraged. The debate is far from healthy at this point but I am optimistic that rational thought will prevail. The theory is going to be ok. Design or mind as a mechanism is simply a new tool in the toolbox to be evaluated. I see physics also potentially using this tool going forward.
That makes zero sense.
That’s not true. It assumes a correlation between conservation and functional information.
You have zero curiosity about this, correct? It’s very easy to see and is not something that one would think a physician, of all people, would not understand.
Mind is not a mechanism, no matter how many times you make the claim.
When have you ever looked at a cell, Bill?
Those arrangements are not consistent with design when you dig into details, which you seem unwilling to do.
But they aren’t. You don’t have any predictions.
It’s only troubling to it because you clearly don’t understand what “nested” means in that context.
It’s about evidence and hypotheses, not arguments and claims.
Winston and @gpuccio don’t have any data. What moves science forward is testing hypotheses. Neither they nor you seem to have the slightest interest in doing so.
I’ve never really done so, so your speculation is completely wrong in my case. The emotion comes from your unwillingness to use terms consistently and your unwillingness to engage with the evidence.
I think you are trying to shoot it down arbitrarily. You are not the only one here trying to do this.
-“This makes zero sense” adds no value to the conversation
-Hypothesizing correlation between preservation and functional information is a very rational idea to be explored.
There’s nothing arbitrary about it being false. There simply is no correlation between sequence conservation and functional information.
This absence of correlation exists whether proteins evolved or were designed. It’s the evidence itself that you avoid. If you disagreed, you would cite evidence. You don’t, because you are engaging in the weakest sort of wishful thinking. You’re afraid to look for yourself.
It most certainly does. It is an invitation for you to explain yourself. The fact that you do not do so speaks volumes.
You’re not exploring it, Bill. I have. It’s simply false.
No Bill. Everyone here has tried patiently to explain to you the fatal scientific problems in the ID-Creationist claims you keep regurgitating. People have been trying for years to get you to deal with reality to no avail. You are the one who consistently ignores all the evidence and criticisms by burying your head in the sand.
“Design” isn’t a mechanism and “mind” isn’t a mechanism. Until ID-Creationists do come up with a mechanism to physically manipulate matter into a desired configuration you have nothing to evaluate.
This just indicates to me that you are familiar enough with the subject to discuss it at this point.