So why are you so unexcited about uncovering the evidence? Why do you cling to hearsay and relentlessly misrepresent hearsay as evidence?
2 Likes
New information is being created from random variation, then selected for utility, in the genomes of the B and T cells of your immune system all the time. That’s how vaccines work, for example.
So we’re good, then?
1 Like
You asked what would convince me that “evolutionary origins aren’t true”, in the context of me asking you what would convince you that humans evolved. So I took the only two meaningful senses of your question and answered them.
What would convince me that different organisms are not evolutionarity related?
and
What would convince me that we(or any other species) did not evolve at all?
That’s what I took you to be asking, and what I answered. Things would have to be different from how they currently are. Given the evidence that currently exists, all life is clearly related, and evolution is inescapable. Hence to persuade me that life is not related and evolution didn’t happen, that evidence would have to be false. Now that does yield the Big Problem (for you) that observational reality can’t be falsified.
Given what I know and understand about molecular genetics, life cannot possibly avoid evolving. And the data really does support a nested hierarchy of life, so we share common descent.
Yeah sorry but this just reveals you are confused about the word evolution. When I ask you to consider what evidence would convince you that evolution is true, I am asking for example what would convince you that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor and that we evolved from that common ancestor.
Given the fossil and genetic evidence we have, what more could you want to make you accept that we evolved from such a common ancestor? I’m not asking you about the origin of life.
How could you possibly accept such a discovery when you’ve repeatedly avoided defining information in a way that can be measured and quantified? If you can’t tell me what “new information” would look like, then how could you possibly accept that a “new genetic discovery has shown information being created in the human genome”?
You need to understand the words you use.
That’s funny because I think X-men is nonsense. Humans don’t develop magical powers by mutations. Of course, you already are the common ancestor of all of your own offspring, and they’re different from you both due to mutations and genetic recombination. Evolution has occurred.
2 Likes
I covered this in the thread already.
Apparently you’ve missed all the posts I’ve made where I plainly state I’m excited about uncovering evidence.
Is it fixed in the genome and passed on to my children?
How do you know we are related to bacteria?
I still don’t get why this argument is compelling.
Philosophically and scientifically I think you have to take it all together.
See how I answered Mercer’s question - evidence that we’ve gained new function through genetics that gets fixed in the population , without losing us any function.
Then how are we able to write, speak, work, and create in ways that chimps cannot?
The consilience of independent phylogenies in the genes encoding individual components of the translation system.
That much is clear. That is explained in this link in the section “Prediction 1.3 Consilience of independent phylogenies”:
Then you are mistaken at the level of logic. For example, we could imagine that the first life on Earth was created (by technologically super advanced aliens, or by God), and yet from that point on that first created life evolved into all the life currently on Earth. Since this is one among many conceivable scenarios for life’s origin on Earth, there is no necessary connection between the process responsible for extant diversity of life on Earth, and how life ultimately first originated.
So no, you have to take one thing at a time. Are humans related to other primates? Yes. Does it HAVE to be the case that all life is related for humans to be related to other primates? No, of course it doesn’t. We could theoretically imagine that God made a sort of “primate kind” common ancestor that evolved into all extant primates including humans.
Now, all life on Earth does happen to be related, but that still doesn’t require a particular model for how the first life came to exist.
First of all this seems to imply that you want to see the evolution of humanity occur before your own eyes. So no genetic or fossil evidence could possibly convince you. I think this reveals a huge double-standard on your part with respect to evidence, because you haven’t actually seen the instantaneous divine creation of any form of life, and yet you believe that with a level of conviction not unlike that seen in Islamic extremists.
Second, and also important: You’re changing your definitions from information to functions. Remember when I showed you this figure I drew?:
You can’t just switch around between terms like functions, information, fitness, and complexity willy-nilly. It really matters that you understand what you’re asking, and that these are NOT the same thing. One can go up while another goes down. It is technically possible that humans evolved from our common ancestor shared with the chimpanzee by losing some functions while gaining others, losing information, but gaining fitness. Or some other combination of these meaures. If you cannot tell me how you measure these before I proceed to give you examples, then you can just decide to change your mind and claim what I show you is not what you asked for or had in mind and that you totally meant something else all along.
Sorry, I’m not going to waste my time trawling through the literature finding mutations with different phenotypic effects for you to just dismiss it all out of hand as not being what you meant by function, or by information, or by complexity, or by fitness.
Use the words correctly, every time. Define them in a quantifiable way.
We’re generally more intelligent in specific ways? I don’t see any magic in this. Within the human population we see a spectrum of intelligence, which is clearly also a trait with a non-neglible heritability, covering the entire range from basically being on-par with a chimpanzee (or even worse), to people who make the rest of us seem like idiots in comparison.
3 Likes
No, you repeatedly plainly state falsehoods, this being one of them. You actively avoid evidence and prefer hearsay. It suggests that on some level, you are aware, or at least strongly suspect, that the evidence does not support your claims.
You’re moving the goalposts. Your only requirement before was that the genome be a human one, which your B and T cells have. Why not be graceful and concede the point?
The evidence is compelling. You avoid evidence. You know.
You’re not doing anything scientifically.
1 Like
That’s a problem. It’s compelling because 1) we expect just such a hierarchy to result from branching descent and 2) we don’t expect such a hierarchy to result from separate creation. Two models, tested by the data. Why is that not obvious?
2 Likes