LOL! Bill people have been trying to explain evolutionary theory to you for years. You apparently haven’t read a single piece of the huge amount of evidence and resources provided to you. The only thing you have shown capable of doing is going “NUH-UH!” just like you’re doing now. You’ve decided you’re not going to learn come hell or high water.
Sorry but you’re just not worth wasting any more time on.
See if my comment to Tim makes any sense to you. After 3 years of discussion on this subject I think the problem is clarity. You try to drive toward clarity so as much as we have disagreed I respect your positions and contribution to discussions. My suggestion is that universal common descent should be dropped as a working hypothesis and that the claims should be narrowed to the point there is a chance of validation.
Another option maybe to take a fresh look at your papers and trying to validate or falsify common descent among crocks or flightless birds. I will concede to your claim that my opinion has been of no value yet.
How can we create a clear standard for common descent validation that is more detailed then assuming it?
If we are only open to validation of common descent we are not doing science.
How common are the overall shared genes between these species. How would a dependency graph look if we used this as a comparison tool? Maybe Winston would be open to helping here?
Consilience of independent phylogenies. Five thousand posts and you still didn’t seem to understand what that meant, or why that would not be expected from “common design”. Perhaps you should not be talking about what should be dropped by someone else?
Is it wrong of me to suggest that if you need other people to make your arguments for you then you personally shouldn’t be the one arguing at all?
ANSWER: By reviewing the evidence and subjecting it to falsification testing. Why do you refuse to do that?
Why should the entire science academy follow your lead when that “working hypothesis” has been passing falsification testing for a century and a half?
Why do you think that there hasn’t been any chance of validation?
With all due respect I don’t think you are looking at all the evidence.
What falsification testing has science passed to validate how the eukaryotic cell emerged?
What falsification testing has science passed to validate how the Cambrian animals emerged?
Science currently has no idea how to do this. Thats why I suggest dropping UCD as a working hypothesis.
Well, fair enough.
However, we do not define “scientific theory” as a clear hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested. That would be a very poor definition, in my opinion. More commonly, “theory” is defined as a framework. And evolutionary theory seem to be a pretty good framework for studying the questions that concern biologists.
Ok, thanks Neil. Can you describe what you think evolutionary theory is?
Can you describe what you mean by “frame work” and how you think this is positive for biology?
Afraid not.
I’d have to go with Tim on that. The lack of clarity is all inside your head.
We can of course validate universal common descent, and have. We have also validated a great many other hypotheses of common descent of more restricted form. You, however, have refused to agree with or even examine the evidence.
That admission leaves me momentarily speechless, but I applaud the ambition. Let me know when you have done so.
Whatever do you mean by that? I’ll say that the genes in the paleognath paper were randomly chosen from the genome without any prior knowledge of what they would say. The single gene featured in the crocodylian paper was too. And both studies have been confirmed by many additional studies, all using more genes not chosen because they fit. So we have mutually confirming results from a sizable random sample of the genome in each case. How is that not convincing?
A dependency graph is not, as far as I can tell, possible for DNA sequences, only for presence/absence characters. And even for those it’s completely ad hoc, not an alternative explanation.
No, he isn’t. You appear to understand nothing of what he’s doing.
With all due respect you have never been willing to look at any of the evidence.
I have examined the evidence. I simply disagree with your conclusion.
Clearly describe your hypothesis and what you have confirmed.
I am suggesting gene comparison to your analysis. Will the results be straight forward or do we have Sal’s flower?
Well this is my understanding from several posts he has made including the book his is working on. What do you think he is doing?
The hypotheses in each case are a set of possible relationships among taxa, clearly set out in the papers.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say, and I suspect the reason is that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. All the genes in the analyses are orthologous and present in all taxa.
He is not testing a scientific hypothesis of human descent. He’s testing whether a genealogical Adam can be ruled out by science. It can’t, since his existence or nonexistence would give us the same historical signal. The evolutionary relationships of the bulk of our species are not relevant to that hypothesis and he is not proposing to test them.
You forget that I have been watching. You have never looked at the evidence. You know nothing about either of the papers we were discussing.
What do you mean by relationship?
Your current paper only compares some of the genes. Is the data available to compare all the genes at this point and create a venn diagram?
I did understand this. This is a much smaller claim then universal common descent. That was my only point.
How is it possible that at this late date you would have to ask that question? I am just unable to believe in the sincerity of that question.
No. Why isn’t a sizable, random sample of genes good enough?
No, you don’t understand it. It isn’t a scientific claim at all. Your point was fallacious.
I am trying to get a precise definition and not assume you mean shared ancestry. A relationship could simply mean shared biochemistry. You also said possible relationship. How do you apply a confidence factor to this?
I am asking for a different view of the data. How many genes are shared between species and how may genes are unique. Does this view agree with the proposed tree?
I am sorry I don’t understand the point you are making. Are you saying that Joshua is not making a scientific claim? What would he say to this?
As I said, how is it possible at this late date that you could not know that’s exactly what I mean? And “shared biochemistry” appears to have no meaning at all.
There are a number of methods, all outlined in the respective papers. If you read the papers, I will answer specific questions about parts that aren’t clear to you.
Why? As I’ve said, the data are not available. You are of course free to sequence the genomes of a couple of dozen species, annotate them, and search for orthologs.
Yes. Isn’t that clear? He’s making a claim about what science can’t address. That isn’t a scientific claim. Science can’t distinguish an evolved Adam, part of a human population, from a created Adam who interbreeds with that evolved population. Do you understand nothing about anything that’s been said here?
Maybe you haven’t noticed yet, but Greg really doesn’t answer questions.
Does finding a whale with vestigial legs count?
Did Go… The Designer put the bones in the whale to test our fatih?
I had to answer you directly and not on this thread because the moderator shut me down for “10 hours” because i was a “new user” or something of the sort. That is frustrating. Studies by Behe and others are finding that mutations dont normally help an organism which long term dont lead to evolution to complexity, but a downturn towards extinction. And the micro evolution we do see such as in galapagos finches is simply traits inbuilt into the birds design selected to suit its environment. This adaptation causes the loss of genetic capability for further future survival. Take these two dynamics and one cannot make any sense that these are relateable to the macro version you might subscribe to where a lot of micro evolution is the macro version for the development of new body plans and irreducibly complex bio machines…
There was a study by i think cal berk u about how these “vestigial legs” are actually needed appendages for help in sexual reproduction. I will check to see if i can find link.
