# Experimental Evidence of 'Taking the Bait'

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [June 12, 2024, 6:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744 "2024-06-12T18:40:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 6:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/1 "2024-06-12T18:40:32Z")

</div>

> [@Experimental evidence for very long term processes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-for-very-long-term-processes/16724/62):
>
> I would argue that this claim is a result of methodological naturalism and the resulting inference to common descent of all life.

Methodological naturalism scarcely entails any claims like that. Evidence is what informs the common design inference, not the thesis that we are with the tools at our avail unfit to construct usable predictive models of observable phenomena by aid of reference to magic.

> [@Experimental evidence for very long term processes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-for-very-long-term-processes/16724/62):
>
> The reasoning is a by product of a limitation in the scientific method.

The reasoning might be, but the conclusion is not. Nothing about the scientific method entails or requires common descent. If science like our own were developed in a world that looked like whales were separately created, qualified experts in that world would conclude that, as far as any of them can tell, they were. Unfortunately for creationists, that’s not our world.

Say, you don’t happen to be a young-earther as well, by any chance, do you?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 9:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/2 "2024-06-12T21:12:49Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Methodological naturalism scarcely entails any claims like that.

Methodological naturalism biases against the separate origin model as multiple origins are a big challenge to explain by purely natural means.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 9:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/3 "2024-06-12T21:36:30Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Methodological naturalism biases against the separate origin model as multiple origins are a big challenge to explain by purely natural means.

We have no metric by which to gauge the bigness of a “challenge to explain” anything.

Plenty of things are weird enough for some of our intuitions, and plenty more things are less than fully understood. Methodological naturalism is not an excuse we get to invoke when ever we want to ignore evidence for fear of having to account for it otherwise\[1\]. If there was any indication whatsoever of separate origins, then with or without a satisfactory account of them, we’d have to acknowledge at least that indication.

* * *

1. I’d take it as an insult, had I any more charity for you left in me still. As it stands, I understand that you had no idea that this was something you were insinuating, and just how gross that would be to any self-respecting scientist.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 10:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/4 "2024-06-12T22:10:46Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> . If there was any indication whatsoever of separate origins, then with or without a satisfactory account of them, we’d have to acknowledge at least that indication.

The indication or inference is very clear when species do not share the same sets of genes or chromosomes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 10:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/5 "2024-06-12T22:27:26Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> multiple origins are a big challenge to explain by purely natural means.

Obviously you’ve never looked into the work of Periannan Senapathy.

> **[Independent Birth of Organisms. A New Theory that Distinct Organisms Arose...](https://www.amazon.com/Independent-Organisms-Independently-Evolutionary-Fundamentally/dp/0964130408?tag=swamidass-20)**
>
> Independent Birth of Organisms. A New Theory that Distinct Organisms Arose Independently from the Primordial Pond, Showing that Evolutionary Theories are Fundamentally Incorrect \[Senapathy, Periannan\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying...

There’s another guy with a similar hypothesis, but I can’t remember his name.

Ah, a tedious search finds Christian Schwabe:

> **[The Genomic Potential Hypothesis: A Chemist's View Of The Origins, Evolution And...](https://www.amazon.com/Genomic-Potential-Hypothesis-Evolution-Unfolding/dp/1587061031?tag=swamidass-20)**
>
> Buy The Genomic Potential Hypothesis: A Chemist's View Of The Origins, Evolution And Unfolding Of Life on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 10:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/6 "2024-06-12T22:28:47Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The indication or inference is very clear when species do not share the same sets of genes or chromosomes.

What if the sets of genes or chromosomes differ by a small number of mutations of types known to occur?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [June 13, 2024, 4:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/7 "2024-06-13T04:21:09Z")

</div>

But they do. Pretty much always.

Oh, there are differences, to be sure. But there are differences between parents and offspring, too. And you have been challenged, more than once, and including by yours truly, to propose a gene analytic means by which to correctly recognize the reproductive relatedness between parents and offspring that is consistent with what ever standard it is you use to argue a lack of it in more distinct organism pairs. Numerically, how different must two genomes be, before they are no longer related, in your opinion?

So far, you underwent no attempt to meet that challenge. Until you do, I for one feel perfectly comfortable altogether rejecting your claim that this is anywhere near “very clear”. It is not clear to myself, as someone who is not a trained biologist, and it does not seem to be any clearer to fellow users who are.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [June 14, 2024, 6:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/8 "2024-06-14T18:48:40Z")

</div>

> [@Experimental evidence for very long term processes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-for-very-long-term-processes/16724/103):
>
> What are the evidence that the dinosaurs were wipe out by a giant asteroid ? Seems a rather unsubstantiated claim to me.

🤣 👉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 7:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/9 "2024-07-07T19:30:21Z")

</div>

> [@Experimental evidence for very long term processes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-for-very-long-term-processes/16724/245):
>
> If someone makes the argument that micro evolution cannot accumulate to macro evolution, it falls on them to offer a rigorous definition of micro vs macro, and why the limits of change are in effect. Otherwise, it becomes a rather arbitrary assertion.

Hi Ron  
How about the claim that there is little evidence that micro evolution can lead to large scale evolutionary transitions?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/10 "2024-07-07T20:05:00Z")

</div>

🤣 👉

Ron: If someone makes claim A, they have to do this-and-that just to articulate what it is they even mean, before they can be taken any sort of seriously.

Bill \*literally quotes the above, then proceeds\*: Hi, Ron. But how about claim A, though?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 8:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/11 "2024-07-07T20:37:01Z")

</div>

Soon to be followed up with: “Okay, but have you considered… A?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 9:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/12 "2024-07-07T21:04:16Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Bill _literally quotes the above, then proceeds_: Hi, Ron. But how about claim A, though?

Not quite. He asks about claim A’, a slightly different claim that however suffers from the same problem you complain about.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 9:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/13 "2024-07-07T21:26:58Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> How about the claim that there is little evidence that micro evolution can lead to large scale evolutionary transitions?

We’ve come full circle in this thread! It started when I pointed out to one of our other resident ignoramuses that this “claim” is logically the same as: there is little evidence that microerosion can lead to the formation of the Grand Canyon.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 10:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/14 "2024-07-07T22:48:53Z")

</div>

> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> We’ve come full circle in this thread!

Of course. We’ve been going around in circles with Bill for quite a while. Years, really.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Art](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/art/32/3805_2.png) [@Art](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Art)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 11:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/15 "2024-07-07T23:23:13Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> We’ve been going around in circles

Well I guess I will have Billy Preston in the background for awhile.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2024, 11:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/16 "2024-07-07T23:53:56Z")

</div>

Bill’s song ain’t got no melody.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2024, 2:45am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/17 "2024-07-08T02:45:04Z")

</div>

> [@Experimental evidence for very long term processes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-for-very-long-term-processes/16724/258):
>
> Do you really think trying to argue an equivalence between living organisms and non living matter is persuasive?

Analogy is just another thing you don’t understand, and I can’t see any way to help you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2024, 3:15am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/18 "2024-07-08T03:15:37Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Analogy is just another thing you don’t understand, and I can’t see any way to help you.

You don’t see this as possibly an apple vs orange analogy at the molecular level?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2024, 3:28am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/19 "2024-07-08T03:28:10Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You don’t see this as possibly an apple vs orange analogy at the molecular level?

Again, I can’t help you, and I suspect nobody could.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2024, 4:17am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744/20 "2024-07-08T04:17:56Z")

</div>

> [@Experimental evidence for very long term processes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-for-very-long-term-processes/16724/262):
>
> It appears Gil already answered my question.

He gave you the answer you wanted, but the answer you (particularly you) want is seldom the right answer. He apparently doesn’t understand how analogies work either.

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/experimental-evidence-of-taking-the-bait/16744.md?page=2)