Do all deer share a common ancestor?

It’s not the assumption the tree exists its the assumption that common descent is the only explanation for the tree pattern. Common descent (of deer) does not explain the Venn pattern or the chromosome pattern.

I am surprised you think we do.

I then need clarification with what you stated. It looked to me like a misstep in logic but please clarify.

I’m sorry, I think there may be some language barrier in our way. It is not clear to me what your reply here has at all to do with the quote you marked to be a reply to. Having already put attention to this problem I have exhausted my options to fix this issue, and seeing as it persists in the very next message after that, it would seem that you have, too. Since communication between us is so heavily impaired, then, I shall disengage, for now. Be well.

1 Like

Your argument was already addressed 140 years ago.

2 Likes

If one is observing mutations, that does mean that it is the cause. Again, you don’t seem to be able to distinguish between direct observations and their causes.

It explains both.

How do you explain your inability to distinguish between a chromosome count and a karyotype?

By a materialist argument and with the conclusion limited to the materialistic paradigm common descent is the likely explanation.

The problem is the data (Venn and chromosome) does not support common descent of deer. So the materialist insistence on only materialistic explanations maybe driving toward the wrong model.

But you can’t articulate a valid reason why. “Give me a model” isn’t a reason.

2 Likes

Once again, you fail to provide an alternative explanation, because of course you can’t. And how do you know common descent doesn’t explain the Venn pattern? Have you tried?

Hydrogen and Helium are products of the Big Bang. Heavier elements are produced by fusion or by supernovas. Were you not aware of that?

What part of “The distribution and nature of differences matches what would be predicted from common descent” is unclear? When I say " That’s enough to tell us that it happened", a normal person would understand that “it” refers to common descent. I assume you’re capable of that much understanding, so your response is most reasonably assumed to be disingenuous. Apologies if really are that bad at reading.

This is your usual last line of defense. But what other paradigm do we need, and how does it help us better explain the data? You never actually go there.

But they do. If you added taxa to the tree it wouldl explain the data even better.

1 Like

That’s regardless of whether they have 22 or 40 chromosomes. So this isn’t an argument. It’s downright irrelevant.

So once again, how is it possible that mice with 22 chromosomes have risen to high frequencies in different subpopulations of mice, independently multiple times, if they’re supposed to be deleterious, and if large effective population sizes which increase the efficacy of selection (and thus the ability to purge deleterious mutations) would be expected to make it even less likely for such presumtively deleterious chromosomal fusions to rise in frequency?

Bill it happened. This thing you keep saying couldn’t happen and therefore is evidence against common descent, happened. They literally engineered chromosomal fusions in the mice to see what phenotypic effect they had and found none.

So you’re just wrong. You were wrong all along. You have the wrong assumptions and you’re just being deliberately obtuse. It’s a vicious circle. You become deliberately obtuse because people get tired of rebutting your stupid arguments, and when you become deliberately obtuse people call you stupid.

Break the vicious circle: Stop being stupid and just concede you were mistaken. Grow a pair.

That it is irrelevant to the mice, which seem to live just fine with 22 chromosomes. The thing you keep saying should contradict their common descent with mice having 40 chromosomes but doesn’t, in fact, do any such thing.

3 Likes

Yes I watched you get stuck with an explanation that requires common descent as a pre supposition.

Hydrogen and Helium are an output of the Big Bang. This does not explain their origin.

This is all rhetoric John. You have not made any prediction that shows reproduction generates new genes or deletes genes at a rate that can support the observed patterns.

The paradigm that supports the different gene patterns and chromosome patterns is separate origins.

We will see how this goes. I would be very interested in gene Venn diagrams of the various muntjac deer.

So when you say “yes” to my question you actually mean “no”.

Sure it does. The Big Bang (well, a bit after it) is their origin. You want an explanation of nucleosynthesis in the early universe, not the same thing, and there’s one for that too. Have you ever even looked?

Not relevant to the pattern or to the explanation of the pattern.

That’s not a paradigm that leads anywhere. It explains nothing. Separate origins would not explain nested hierarchy. Are we not agreed on that?

Have you looked for any data?

In the Big Bang theory, quark–gluon plasma filled the entire Universe before matter as we know it was created. Theories predicting the existence of quark–gluon plasma were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[3] Discussions around heavy ion experimentation followed suit[4][5][6][7][8] and the first experiment proposals were put forward at CERN[9][10][11][12][13][14] and BNL[15][16] in the following years. Quark–gluon plasma[17][18] was detected for the first time in the laboratory at CERN in the year 2000.[19][20][21]

Timeline[edit]

It is thought that the primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark–gluon plasma around 13.8 billion years ago during the Big Bang as it cooled below two trillion degrees. A few minutes afterwards, starting with only protons and neutrons, nuclei up to lithium and beryllium (both with mass number 7) were formed, but hardly any other elements. Some boron may have been formed at this time, but the process stopped before significant carbon could be formed, as this element requires a far higher product of helium density and time than were present in the short nucleosynthesis period of the Big Bang. That fusion process essentially shut down at about 20 minutes, due to drops in temperature and density as the universe continued to expand. This first process, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, was the first type of nucleogenesis to occur in the universe, creating the so-called primordial elements.

Bill “Always Wrong” Cole strikes again!

3 Likes

I am not sure what you mean here. When you try to encourage explanations based on historic data you are pre supposing common descent in order to make sense of the data.

Let’s move this to another topic. Maybe @Rumraket wants to chew on this bone as it is similar to OOL discussions.

What is relevant to the pattern?

It has the potential to sort out the misdirection science may have been chasing for the last 150+ years. If common descent is assumed and it turns out not to be the case where are we?

It is certainly one possible explanation for a tree pattern.

Yes I have looked but not found any.

That’s because you can’t remember from moment to moment what we’re talking about. Look back and see what the question was.

Hey, you brought it up. I merely pointed out that you’re wrong on that subject as with others.

I’d say that the explanation of the pattern would be relevant. And the explanation, for which you have never offered any credible alternative, is common descent.

Notice how useless separate origins has been for you so far. Absolutely nothing so far has been shown to make more sense in the light of separate origins. The danger that common descent will turn out not to be the case is minimal. And you pin your hopes on the future precisely because the present is so bleak for your theory.

Was that a yes or a no? I can’t tell. What is “it”?

Have you looked for the raw data that could be used to make a diagram? But wait: here. Took me a few minutes.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/772343v1.full

1 Like

It gets back to your conclusions are based on common descent as an axiom.

You have not pointed anything out of substance on this subject. You are welcome to engage in a new post if you want to see if the resident physicists agree with you.

The Venn diagrams and chromosome differences are easily explained by the separate origin model for deer. Common descent cannot currently explain these differences.

I would suggest that this is based on your materialistic philosophy and not on the data.

We are not agreed on this subject if you are asking about your last question.

I do not see enough raw data do you?

No, that’s not the question. Again, this is you distracting from the subject.

Sure I have. I pointed out that you’re wrong.

No, the “separate origin model”, such as it is, explains nothing. If you disagree, please tell me what we expect from that model and why, and then show how that expectation fits the data. Your usual vague handwaves will not be acceptable. And once more you confuse the individual differences with the pattern of differences. Common descent explains the latter, as we have seen. Separate origin explains nothing.

You would be wrong. Notice that you have still not managed to propose any credible alternative explanation of nested hierarchy, and that’s only one of many lines of evidence for common descent.

That’s not an answer. Again, please explain yourself. What does “it” mean? Does it refer to common descent or separate origins? If the former, what is your alternative explanation for a tree pattern? If the latter, how can that explain a tree pattern?

Better than that, I easily found a Venn diagram for you.

Just like water condensation is the best explanation for cloud formation by the materialist argument. Your criticism is shallow in the extreme.

Do you reject all scientific explanations because some supernatural process could be exactly mimicking what we would expect from that natural process?

There is nothing in that diagram that goes against what we would expect from common descent. Gene gain and loss happens. You just refuse to accept known natural mechanisms because they are inconvenient to your argument.

If you believe this is true then start a post. I think you will be surprised at the fact that your assertions are based on ignorance.

The model is a model of separate designs. It explains what we are observing which is genes shared and unique genes that build different animals. It also explains different chromosome counts which create reproductive isolation.

I suggest you do not see it as a credible alternative because of your strong materialistic philosophy.

Design strategies generate tree patterns. This is not the first time we have discussed this.

Citation?

Are you acquainted with the concept “irony meter”?

I asked you what we expect from the model and why, and how that expectation fits the data. You respond with none of that. “Genes shared and unique genes” is meaning-free; it could describe any pattern or no pattern. It certainly doesn’t explain why those sharings follow a nested hierarchy. Nor does it explain why chromosomal differences (not just the counts) can be mapped into the phylogenetic tree; i.e., they also follow a nested hierarchy.

I suggest that I don’t see it because you haven’t presented anything at all beyond your vague and pointless handwaving. Let’s try again: how does “separate origins” explain the nested hierarchy of the data?

But they don’t. This is not the first time you have failed to justify your claims.

Jeez, dude. Look above a little bit. It was less than an hour ago.

3 Likes

This isn’t the first time you and I have discussed this.

You are flat out wrong. The design strategies you keep pointing to are inconsistent with what we see.