We went 5000 rounds on this and you failed to challenge this beyond bald assertion. What good is back and forth assertions here?
" The dependency graph hypothesis predicts that there will be many modules which do not correspond to a taxonomic category, and a substantial portion of the genes should be attributed to these non-taxonomic modules rather than taxonomic modules. On the other hand, common descent predicts there would be few non-taxonomic modules, and most genes would remain attributed to the taxonomic modules. Therefore, if the inferred dependency graph is simply the tree of life with a few minor additions, that would suggest that the dependency graph hypothesis is incorrect." – Winston Ewert
I reject your claim of equivalence. I have explained (and it shouldn’t have needed an explanation since it’s an obvious consequence) how common descent predicts nested hierarchy. You have never offered any reason why separate origin would predict one.
This is what we are seeing from all these Venn diagrams. Different gene in different taxonomic categories. There is no reason based on common descent that white-tailed deer would share more genes with humans then musk deer.
What we are seeing is the tree of life with a few minor additions, exactly what we shouldn’t see with design. We don’t see a substantial portion of the genes attributed to non-taxonomic modules. Even more, you can’t even define what these modules are, nor their distribution in other species, nor what the taxonomic groups are.
No, those genes almost all fit into a nested hierarchy, as I showed you with the Howe diagram.
You are obsessed with raw numbers rather that with the pattern of differences, presumably because you can’t force the latter into your scheme. But why, under your hypothesis of separate origins, should white-tailed deer share more genes with humans than (note, THAN) musk deer?
What does substantial portion mean?
We are seeing enough that you cannot explain their differences through reproduction and natural variation.
You don’t seem to think much about what you’re saying. It isn’t the non-taxonomic modules you think can’t be explained through reproduction and natural variation. It’s all the modules, including the taxonomic ones, which are indeed the overwhelming majority. Again, I direct your memory back to my analysis of the Howe diagram.
1 Like
It means more than we would expect from standard processes like gene gain and gene loss.
Based on what evidence?
From what model would you generate your expectation of the quantity of gene gain and gene loss?
Your claim is false and you know it, Bill.
Your claim is false and you know it, Bill.
Yet you haven’t explained them, only asserted.
It not only can, it does.
You’re avoiding petabytes of relevant data.
We all see it. Perhaps you should look harder.
Where is your model? You are claiming that these differences could not be the product of natural processes, so where’s the evidence?
It’s not the quantity that’s relevant here; it’s the pattern, which if you forget is nested hierarchy.
1 Like
You are committing a burden shift fallacy. I am claiming there is no current model that explains the differences in gene patterns except one the posits the separate origin of several deer species.
Then explain why the common descent model with gene losses and gains does not explain these differences.
1 Like
And explain why the separate origin model does.
1 Like
It’s very simple. If species origins are separate you do not need to reconcile the difference between deer species gene and chromosome patterns. The new genes and absence of the other genes are a product of design.
Very simple indeed. But much too simple. What you’re saying, whether or not you realize it, is that separate species origins make no prediction of what we will find, so anything whatsoever is compatible. Anything whatsoever could be a “product of design”. There’s no need to reconcile anything with the scenario because the scenario is vacuous. Well, at least it’s vacuous to you. I would claim that separate creation of species would entail predictions about the data, for example and most importantly the absence of nested hierarchy. A real separate creation hypothesis fails the test of the data, while your personal hypothesis is built to be too meaningless to fail. That’s not an advantage.
“You do not need to reconcile” means “you don’t need to explain or model anything.”
Or perhaps you can detail an actual predictive design model and find something that would be very unexpected or impossible to explain on design(and explain WHY it would be unexpected or impossible on design)?
1 Like
“Members of the jury, we don’t need to explain why my client’s fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, and clothes fibers were all over the murder scene. My client is innocent, so there is nothing to reconcile.” --No Defense Attorney Ever
3 Likes