Not at all. I enjoy your rhetorical games. You have been MIA.
Then please explain why my supported hypothesis for mutations producing the differences between species does not meet the highest scientific standards.
4 Likes
What else should you expect? Should you expect de novo genes from this process? Should you expect unique splicing patterns? Should you expect unique gene expression patterns? Should you expect enhanced brain function? Should you expect the emergence of language.
If so why?
Given a large portion of mutations are neutral (introns plus codon redundancy) should you expect the pattern you predicted. If so couldnāt the pattern be the result of neutral mutations in independently created animals?
Bill, thatās insulting. Please retract.
Not unless chimps and humans were created with identical genomes. Is that your contention?
4 Likes
Hi Bill,
Hereās an opportunity for you to approach the subject in a scientific manner. Please tell us:
- What is your competing hypothesis for the pattern of homologous DNA sequences?
- How does your hypothesis connect to underlying mechanism(s) of giving rise to DNA sequences?
- How would you measure the existence of that pattern mathematically?
- How would you conduct an experiment to disprove your hypothesis?
Regards,
Chris
3 Likes
Hypothesis: The differences between the human and chimp genomes is due to the same processes that produce mutations today. If this is so, we should see the same bias towards transitions and CpG mutations when we compare the human and chimp genome.
Hi Chris
This is the original hypothesis which claims to explain the differences in the two genomes. My contention is the approach is too narrow to explain the differences that are observed.
Both common design or Biblical separate creation and common descent can explain similarities. Tās claim is that mutations (mostly SNP,s) alone explain the differences.
Isnāt that true? What else do you think explains the differences?
True for strictly pairwise similarities. But only comment descent can explain the nested similarities observed when you expand the taxon sample past two species.
3 Likes
Utterly false, Bill. The hypothesis is common descent. It makes a prediction about the distribution of types of differences.
Your approach is based on misrepresenting the hypothesis and refusing to examine the evidence for yourself.
2 Likes
Bill consistently confuses the differences themselves with the distribution of differences, and here with the distribution of types of differences as well.
3 Likes
Agreed. @colewd, why do you do that? Is it a defense mechanism, or do you truly not understand these basic concepts?
1 Like
I appreciate the writings of people discussing ID. Not so much for the scientific content, which is pretty clear and not terribly controversial, to the point where mainstream scientists neednāt bother engaging except as a hobby, but rather for how psychology impacts what weād presume should be objective thought processes. The hard won achievements of the Enlightenment and empirical advances have pretty limited influence in many areas of human behavior and opinion. As they say, āthe veneer of civilization is much thinner than weād hope to believeā.
4 Likes
I agree based on methodological naturalism.
I donāt think on the other hand you can refute special creation as described in Genesis simply based on the observation of a hierarchal pattern especially when the origin of new biological structures is not well understood.
Unless you actually give a model of special creation, thereās no there there to be ārefutedā.
Since you donāt have a model that predicts what we should expect to find given special creation, there is no way to evaluate the compatibility between the data and the special creation assertion.
Of course, the origin of new biological structures is actually understood well enough for us to be able to say evolution provides the best explanation for them. In many cases we actually known how something evolved in great molecular detail.
3 Likes
Having just been reading the comment section for a YouTube video about covid vaccines, Iād say your statement here is wildly optimistic.
3 Likes
Wow, this is an exceedingly weak hypothesis with very little explanatory power.
So letās do what scientists do and look for more explanatory power. Add in homologous sequences from several other primate species (baboons, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas). Now tell us about your hypothesis:
- What pattern would most parsimoniously describe the relationship between the sequences?
- How would this pattern be related to underlying mechanisms?
- How would this pattern be expressed mathematically?
- Describe an experiment that would falsify your hypothesis?
Best,
Chris Falter
This was @T_aquaticus hypothesis and I think he is doing the best he can as itās what is available under methodological naturalism.
The Bible is telling us animals like birds and fish were specially created. Can science refute this Theological claim? So far it appears only by asserting common descent is the best explanation.
I have done all this already in my previous topics.
1 Like
More word salad, Bill. And you continue your confusion of the origin of the pattern of changes with the origin of changes. The major effect of your posts is despair.
Yes, Iāve refuted it many times right here. Not by assertion but by appeal to data. Youāre the one whose sole appeal is to assertion and buzz-phrase.
3 Likes
Really? That is a scientific hypothesis, and it is consistent with the data, just as the hypothesis predicts.
You have asserted that common descent is the only explanation of the data and again I agree with you under the constraint of methodological naturalism.
Refuting Genesis 1ās theological claim is a much more challenging step as the unique gene patterns (chickens vs zebra fish) are not explained by common descent. The patterns are what we might expect under special creation if unique gene sets create a variety of animal types. From the data it appears that may be the case.