I agree they don’t mince words. In the first paragraph of your reference…
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That’s why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
…ancestry is definitely not claimed!
Here is the umpteenth reminder that in the English language, unreasoning and insanity mean different things.
Primate said that the liberty to assign any and all whims and powers to a creator eliminates the possibility of testing competing hypotheses. You replied by saying that “apologetics” is where people discuss them. I pointed out that discussing an idea and testing it are not the same. What has the history of science to do with any of that?
Oh, I see. So that must be the reason why he replied agnostically as to the source or reason gravitation behaved in accord with the law he had proposed in said Principia. He was so eager to ensure that it was viewed and understood as a work of apologetics, that upon being given a literal gap to plug God into he sensed the trap and chose an instrumentalist reply instead, saying that it was sufficient for the scientific matter, that the predictions were correct, and the underlying nature of the thing itself, while by all means intriguing, a question best left outside of the (scientific) discussion.
Oh, I see. So, in that case, when you say something like “a reasoning source for their laptop” you mean “an agent that reasons for their laptop”, right? And when you say “a reasoning source for our reason”, what you mean is “an agent that reasons for our reason”, right?
Do you think there are little thinky-pixies inside of laptops? Or inside our skulls, for that matter? Or perhaps the thinky-pixies are outside, beaming the thinkies into the laptop when it computes, and into our brains when we do? I’m sorry, I do not mean to poke fun at what you are suggesting here, but it sounds utterly ridiculous (if not insane) and I struggle to think of ways to take this any sort of seriously. If you can help, that’d be great.
How many of those did the model actually predict, which is to say how many of these things were consequences of the model that were discovered to be true after the model was presented? The answer, of course, is zero. I will also point out that some of them aren’t true, some of them are too vague to be meaningful, and some of them are unintelligible. In particular, 8 and 10 are of the last sort, and 19 stands out as being clearly of the first sort.
The sad thing is that you didn’t intend this as a joke, and neither did they.
It would be six pieces (6×7=42) not four (it’s four fragments in the actual experiment with the protein enzyme).
Regardless, his point is: If we allow the full sequence to have the same 2 mutations in every 7 characters, we get 12 mutations total, and since the sentence has now become unreadable, Axe argues, the result we obtained by mutating only a single 7 character fragment 2 times, in the context of the remaining sentence being intact, means we have obtained an invalid result.
Axe: Evidently we have made a mistake, because mutants that ought to be readable according to our calculation clearly aren’t readable. As you may have guessed, the mistake is that the 2-in-7 typo rate was tolerable only because it was restricted to a narrow section of seven positions. The fact that the remaining 35 positions were without error compensated in large measure for the errors in the mutated section.
His point is, since we can no longer read the sentence when every 7-character fragment is mutated 2 times simultaneously, the result is invalid. Right?
Yes, and I said why, new organs need new nerve structures specific for that organ, and new nerve dispositions is part of Wikipedia’s definition.
We take that up below.
I haven’t attempted that, I assumed you had specific transitions in mind, when you claimed they were there.
Alas, we can’t prove evolutionary origin, it’s not in the fossil record, and even pointing to possible descent by examining gene differences is not proof of descent. But I can agree with what you said about my answer, you are only restating it in terms of “how slight” instead of “how different”. Making it rather pejorative.
But I think this implies Basilosaurus didn’t have a blowhole.
So they are modified? Well, I agree, and then we must again ask if the difference is enough to call it a new body plan. I think they are, for reasons mentioned previously. And as far as different and differently functioning beaks are concerned, I would again mention Darwin’s finches (or I think you said they were properly thrushes?), where the beaks were different, and had different functions, for different seeds, but they are still all called beaks. But flippers are not called forelimbs or legs, because they are quite different.
He said he was an agnostic, and a firm believer in advancing science as the way to illumination.
I also did say I believe Bechly’s view was not contradictory, and that he did not believe in common descent, it the way it is generally held and defined in biology.
I think it’s quite plain! This version of Theistic Evolution is one most mainstream scientists would reject, and not call it science.
But you seemed to be saying something different, that we have a good idea of an actual tree, of the actual tree.
Well, I’m talking about more, about the overall tree being basically complete, and agreed upon.
You do seem to have shifted what you are saying! Is what I would say in reply.
No, I’m not saying they appear ex nihilo.
That doesn’t sound at all like what they are saying: “Orphan genes with no homology to genes in other evolutionary lineages occur in all genomes…” Not “but they still have homology to non-genic sequences.” This seems to be a clear, general statement, “no homology”, as here, also from Nature: “Such genes are often known as “orphan genes” – orphans because they appear to be lacking evolutionary parents.” They continue, “Because we can’t find other genes similar to them in other species, we can’t build family trees for them.”
Well, see that last quote above. Are you sure you’re not just blowing smoke in my face?
That’s not what “new nerve dispositions” means. But you’re saying that the definition of “body plan” used by biologists is just wrong, and should be replaced by yours?
We aren’t talking about the transitional fossils. We’re talking about the differences that give Basilosaurus a new body plan. You attempted this twice, with the rete mirabile and melon. Why was that not clear?
“Proof” isn’t a word we use in science. What we have is evidence of descent, and the evidence is extremely strong. The differences you mention are slight compared to those between vertebrates and arthropods.
Exactly. No blowhole. Strike three.
Of course they are. There is no dispute about this.
You have not made those reasons clear.
The beaks of honeycreepers are much more different than the beaks of Galapagos finches (tanagers, not thrushes). Why should the name we give to things be our standard of difference?
You don’t actually know why they are given different names. But really, how arbitrary is this criterion? Different languages apply words in different ways, showing how arbitrary this criterion is.
Not an answer to my question. “He allowed no outside intervention” and “He didn’t think there was any outside intervention” are two quite different things. You have provided support for the second, not the first.
But Bechly did believe in common descent in the way it is generally held and defined in biology. You just have a false idea of what that definition is, despite me telling you several times, even quoting Bechly to that effect.
That’s quite different from what you said the first time. You have very poor control over language. But so what? How is this relevant to anything we’re talking about?
We do. We just don’t have a complete idea. And I’m also saying that these several variant trees are all credibly considered estimates of the same tree (or, I might add, in some cases slight differences in the actual line of descent of different genes).
Depends on what you mean by “basically”.
You aren’t a very good judge of that sort of thing. I’m afraid you don’t read carefully enough to reliably infer meaning. And “basically” is your term, not mine, and still undefined.
Then what? Where do you think they come from?
I’m not responsible for what other people say. Nevertheless, would you not agree that the two statements are compatible with each other? Notice that everything you quote is about genes. Let me quote another bit from the abstract, which you unaccountably failed to notice: “Orphan genes might arise from duplication and rearrangement processes followed by fast divergence; however, de novo evolution out of non-coding genomic regions is emerging as an important additional mechanism.”
You must explain the significance of the quote to common descent. I assure you that all the confusion is the result of your inability to read carefully or understand what you read.
So not only is Lee unaware of a basic aspect of evolutionary theory, he is unaware of it even though it has already been mentioned.
This is the main reason why I don’t bother with anything Lee says. He so consistently forgets what has been discussed previously that any conversation has to start with a rehash of what he should already know, and by the time that has been done he’s forgotten half of it and it has to be repeated. Nor does he even take the few seconds it would take to find something before declaring confidently that it doesn’t exist.
He even forgets what he has said at the beginning of one of his posts before he gets to the end:
That’s the only later mention of Basilosaurus in that post. So either Lee thinks Basilosaurusnot having a blowhole is a new organ, or he (conveniently?) forgot that he was going to return to discussing it’s “new organs”.
Lee Merrill has the learning ability of Lucy Whitmore, and trying to educate him is just as futile.
Really? Isn’t that what you are trying to assert here, that the amount of genetic change is too large to be consistent with known evolutionary mechanisms?
ID articles tend to be full of misinformation. That’s why I keep telling you to look at the data for yourself. Why haven’t you done that yet?
I scanned it, like you did but with much more understanding. Stop scanning text for mentions and look at evidence.
It mentions that in the context of prokaryotic phyla, which isn’t relevant to the context of cetacean evolution. Creationists like you are trying to discredit the tree of vertebrates, specifically humans and the other great apes, so that’s not remotely applicable.
Did you not bother to read the very first sentence of the abstract, or did you see it and strategically omit it?
Genome comparisons indicate that horizontal gene transfer and differential gene loss are major evolutionary phenomena that, at least in prokaryotes, involve a large fraction, if not the majority, of genes.
I understand your confusion, you don’t. We’re looking at what happens subsequently.
No, actually, you have offered literally ZERO evidence. The Koonin quote you offered above is a perfect example of that. Your position depends on ignorance of the actual evidence.
But at best you’re only using your poor reading skills, not the evidence, to assess the judgement of others. Is that a Christian thing to do?
Well, we’ve been round and round on this, and maybe we’ll just leave it at that.
No, I’m trying to get a definition more like Bechly’s, his definition of body plan would be part of his challenge, is my view, and I’ve said this here before. What you said is a straw man.
But you brought them up, and said they were there, and implied that this refuted Bechly’s claim about whale evolution! Yes, you did.
I agree, I’m not sure why you think I don’t understand this. Should we continue the discussion now?
Back to the explosions! Among other considerations. There is significant evidence against it too, is my point. A conclusion in science is not considered done until any significant difficulties have been addressed, correct?
But this is a strike at your at-bat! It’s evidence for a different body plan.
I just say it’s evidence that we consider beaks for instance, to be substantially similar. When we start calling a limb a flipper, that’s evidence that we see a substantial difference. That is what I am saying.
But you missed my point, it was not just about names, and is not at all about language. Flippers are quite different than legs, and this is easily recognized.
These are not actually quite different, they are similar ways of making a claim. If you think there is no Designer, you are not allowing one in your view.
I agree, if you just take Bechly’s statement of each organism having a parent. But he said more than that, which takes him outside of what people mean by common descent.
Glad to clear it up! But you were the one who brought up Theistic Evolution as a good option for me to consider. I told you I have indeed considered it, and consider both the most naturalistic version of this, and the least naturalistic version of this, neither theistic, nor evolution, in the sense people define these.
I can only assume that you mean that orphan genes have homology to non-coding regions. Especially when you say “everything you quote is about genes”. Actually, this seems contradictory, it’s about genes, and non-genic?
I don’t deny that orphan genes can come about! And I’m not sure how this discounts what they said earlier, “Orphan genes with no homology to genes in other evolutionary lineages occur in all genomes…” That is what I’ve been pointing to, that is what I have been saying, evidently with some support.
It seems the confusion is yours, actually, here is the quote again: “Because we can’t find other genes similar to them in other species, we can’t build family trees for them.” How is this not relevant to common descent? Common descent would seem to imply we should be able to build family trees for them, they are a problem.
Well, that’s a different topic! Bechly’s argument is about body plans, not about the amount of genetic material.
Yes, I did see this, and that’s fine, I have no problem with that, which is why I didn’t quote it. But I did quote this: “The extent of these events casts doubt on the feasibility of constructing a ‘Tree of Life’, because the trees for different genes often tell different stories.” And you ignored it, but it’s a general statement, this is not only about evolution of some subgroup of organisms. So you need to address this, it’s evidence for the claim that different genes often produce different trees, so different that it makes it doubtful that a tree of life can be constructed.
Maybe you are! But I meant that orphan genes are not necessarily rare in appearance. That most are lost is irrelevant to this claim.
I actually believe what Koonin et al said! I’m not ignoring it. But you are?
Most of what I encounter here are straw men, claims of victory, and insults. I would add also speculations on my motives. That has actually been my experience in most of the forums I have been involved in. But here, I was willing to try again, in hopes of something better, but I’ve been mostly disappointed. There seems to be a kind of blindness here, even with scientists who you would hope to be thoughtful and perceptive people. And Jesus called out such blindness, when he saw it in people.
Then you really should say what you’re doing rather than saying that the standard definition is wrong. I suggest that if you want Bechly’s definition, don’t try to adapt the standard one; that just won’t work. Start with his own words.
You’ve just lost track of everything. It’s all one bowl of mush in your head. This makes it difficult to talk to you.
There is no such evidence. Your second sentence is meaningless.
No idea what you meant by that. The absence of a blowhole is evidence for a different body plan? Different from what?
It is not. Language is not evidence. Flippers are forelimbs, and different languages divide the world up in different ways. If you look at the actual anatomy, the difference is incremental.
Is it? How? It actually was all about names; your justification was that we have different names for flippers and legs, but beaks are beaks. That’s names and nothing else.
I can’t teach you how to think. You have to do it on your own. Sorry.
You don’t know what people mean by common descent, and you refuse to learn.
If only you would. But then you didn’t.
Certainly some of them do.
I can’t interpret that question. But I’ll try. “Orphan genes with no homology to genes in other evolutionary lineages” doesn’t mean no homology to DNA sequences in other lineages. Is that clear?
The point is that they don’t come from nowhere.
You don’t understand common descent. The family trees for orphan genes can only go back to the point at which they came about. Or somewhat before that if there are homologous non-genic sequences in other species. How is this a problem for common descent of species? It’s a problem for using those particular genes to study common descent very far back, but there are other genes that work for that purpose. The question is how this can be an argument against common descent of species?
More word games. As creationists constantly point out, dog breeds can look substantially different, but any analysis reveals that they are still dogs.
Closer inspection demonstrates that limb and flipper possess similar bone, nerve, and muscle structure. If names we assign are significant, what do you make of the fact that anatomical features shared by limb and flipper are given the same names? There is far, far, more difference between shark pectorals and whale flippers, although they serve the same basic hydrodynamic function. This distinctiveness is slam dunk due to ancestry and adaptation, not any sort of design blueprints.
Genetic material is not genetic change. Do you do anything other than play word games?
It applied to the whole paper. You didn’t quote it because your apparent intention is to deceive with word games.
It doesn’t apply to cetacean evolution.
No, what someone says isn’t evidence. Why do you have nothing but word games?
The ones that are lost don’t appear in our analyses.
What they said isn’t evidence.
You avoid evidence.
That comes from your avoidance of evidence.
You could achieve something better if you immersed yourself in evidence instead of rhetoric.
For example, since you claim a background in CS and math, the obvious first step, before any discussion, would be to conduct your own tests of common descent. The sequence data and software to analyze them are all freely available. What are you waiting for?
We’re working from the evidence. You are only blindly working from hearsay. Pot, meet kettle.
At least start by learning basic, uncontroversial things, such as the definition of “point mutation.”
As a non-scientist but someone with a background in CS (and a bit of math), I’ve done my own phylogenetics testing using freely available tools and data. It does take some effort to learn both methodologies and the software tools, but it’s within the reach of anyone with a computer and willingness to learn to do so.
I suspect the reason we don’t see creationists or ID proponents doing this is a) it involves far more effort than just rhetorical arguments, and b) they wouldn’t get the results they wanted if they did.
Mildly curious as to what data and phylogenetic analysis programs you have tried out. The most I’ve seen from any creationist is trying BLAST or Clustal as if they were phylogenetics programs.
The two applications I used were PHYLIP and Mesquite.
The former I recall using to answer a creationist’s online challenge where they had posted a bunch of unlabelled cytochrome c sequences. They had claimed that without knowing what animals the sequences belonged to that it wasn’t possible to create a phylogenetic tree.
The latter I used for testing whether phylogenetic trees for designed objects could mimic biological organisms. I don’t recall exactly what data source I used for at the time, as this was 10+ years ago.
Which is part of his confusion. “Body plans”, whatever else they might be, can be fully reduced to the genes that produce them. So, regardless of how complex a change in “body plan” might appear at the gross level, if the genetic changes required to produce it can reasonably have arisen over the timeline suggested by the fossil record, then there is no reason to doubt that it did so thru unguided evolutionary processes.