You appear to be struggling to see why there is no such thing as evidence in your stand point. All you have is belief, not evidence.
No, I’m not. Gene losses and gains don’t fall into a tree-like pattern just because I assume they do. The tree-like pattern is real and observable.
Sals flower is the evidence I am talking about. Its how the evidence is interpreted that matters.
The problem you need to explain is the violation of the tree we are observing. You are filtering out the data that is problematic to the common descent hypothesis. The claim of gene gain/ loss is an exception of the pattern. The next step is to model how this could happen. Under the design model animals were seeded with these patterns intact.
Winston offered another model that appears to be a better match for the data.
I said I was done. Was that not clear?
You consistently misunderstand. The claim of gene gain/loss is an explanation of the pattern, in fact the most parsimonious explanation. That the overwhelming majority of gene distributions can be explained by a single event each on the standard tree is the best explanation of the pattern and is thus evidence for that tree and so for common descent. Now you have to explain why gene presence/absence data shows a nested hierarchy. Feel free to resort to a supernatural explanation, but that explanation has to make sense and it has to actually be an explanation.
[quote=
“John_Harshman, post:307, topic:13802”]
Now you have to explain why gene presence/absence data shows a nested hierarchy. Feel free to resort to a supernatural explanation, but that explanation has to make sense and it has to actually be an explanation.
[/quote]
The explanation is that seeded animals on earth are the starting point for scientific discovery. This is what @Winston_Ewert and Sal’s flower is telling us. Just as atoms are the starting point in physics.
You are attempting a burden shift here. Sal’s flower is showing a violation to your claim that this is a tree pattern. You need a model that shows how the markings that you used to “fix” the pattern are indeed what happened vs the animals being “seeded” in that condition which appears the best explanation if you remove methodological naturalism from the required method of analysis.
HOW is it evidence? What wouldn’t be evidence for your proposal?
Sal’s flower is not a violation of the tree. That’s what we keep showing you.
No, gene loss and gain is a part of the pattern. Gene losses and gains are mutations just like all of the other mutations.
Mutations.
Based on what evidence?
That’s not an explanation. It doesn’t explain why there is a nested hierarchy of gene presence/absence.
No, it is not. You don’t seem to understand what a nested hierarchy is. Being “seeded” in that condition doesn’t explain the pattern. There is no reason why seeded species should show a nested hierarchy of gene presence/absence. If you could come up with a credible reason, that would be an explanation of the pattern. “They were just created that way, dunno why” is not an explanation.
Did you not see this figure?
What needs to be fixed??? If common ancestry is true then gene losses and gains should predominately happen once in the tree, and the pattern of genes should reflect this. And it does.
Y’all, all Bill can do is repeat the same set of shallow talking points (in a noticeably bot-like manner) over and over and over again.
I seriously don’t understand why anybody continues to engage this inanity.
They would show a pattern like @Winston_Ewert dependency graph and Sal’s flower. You are underestimating the problems with your gene gains/loss claims when common descent is not assumed.
Yes under methodological naturalism Johns explanation makes sense.
Using the word “insanity” is a label which is a logical fallacy. The discussion maybe more useful than you think. The discussion is about where we really can start doing science.
Still not an explanation. You have to say why they would show that pattern. And as I have mentioned, Sal’s flower shows a nested hierarchy with trivial exceptions.
You’re still concentrating on the sources of change rather than the pattern of change. Now why do you think there’s a problem with fixation? Under the neutral theory, the number of fixations per generation equals the number of mutations per individual. Thus, every generation there are around 200 mutations fixed in the human population. Isn’t that enough to account for the observed data?
But you have yet to suggest a supernatural explanation (talking about something that explains why the data are the way they are, not just an assertion). You don’t even seem to know what the data are.
What sort of a fallacy is mistaking one word for another?
So you agree that the evidence is consistent with common ancestry?
I agree the evidence that John gave was consistent with a common ancestry working hypothesis. Once you put that hypothesis to the test then the problem gets more difficult.
If the evidence is consistent with the common ancestry hypothesis then it has passed that test. Gene losses and gains fall into the predicted tree-like pattern which means the observations meet the predictions of the common ancestry hypothesis. Test passed.
You suggested a book and I have read it. You appear to be struggling with disagreement. I don’t know why you find this discussion problematic? Have you read @Winston_Ewert paper on the dependency graph?
I have. Ewert predicts gene losses and gains should not follow a tree-like pattern, but they do follow that pattern.
Not until you can validate that gene loss/gain was the real cause of the pattern. You can always pass your own trivial test.
