Genetic evidence for common ancestry (split-off from "Dating the Noachian Deluge")

The evils of methodological naturalism. Who has made this claim? We need to recognize points were methodological naturalism which works for most of science may be misleading.

Evolutionary arguments need to be challenged by alternative theories be it YEC OEC or ID. Without a counter argument (separate creation) we just assume universal common descent. If there was actually multiple origin events they will never be discovered with this strategy.

You dorepeatedly. “Constraints of methodological naturalism” is one of your stock (generally irrelevant) objections, that you bring up whenever you cannot think of anything intelligent to say.

Given that you have never demonstrated that MN is misleading, no we don’t “need to”. All we need to do is shrug and think ‘just another one of Bill Cole’s stock non sequitors’, and then move on.

Neither presents any substantive challenge. YEC is just a grab-bag of piecemeal, at-times mutually-contradictory, frequently mutually-disagreed-on claims. ID has no positive theory – it is just a collection of (debunked) arguments as to ‘why evolution is impossible’.

No we don’t. We accept it on the basis of a vast amount of evidence of common descent – evidence that you consistently ignore and/or fail to understand at any level (even when explained to you in excruciating detail).

‘Special creation’/“separate creation” fulfills no function in this research. It is too amorphous to be an adequate comparator.

“If there was actually multiple origin events” and there is sufficient evidence of them, then the Theory of Evolution will be modified to account for this evidence. Lacking such evidence, this is all just speculation.

2 Likes

When I first heard of evolution, I assumed multiple origin events. The evidence convinced me that was mistaken.

The funny thing about creationists, is that they want the origin events to be where they could not reasonably be (with mammalia, for example).

1 Like

It is not just a lack of evidence. There is clear and conclusive evidence, from multiple lines, that “separate origins”, in the sense Bill is using, is not the case. Among of the falsehoods Bill peddles is that common descent cannot be, and has not been, tested.

Easily understood when one realizes their guiding principle is “I ain’t no ape.”

Behe is one exception, only because his particular religion is OK with people being apes.

3 Likes

Hi Neal
I honestly don’t care where the origin events are as long as they are based on evidence. The claim of incontrovertible evidence for a single origin is nonsense. The reality is we have no clue how the eukaryotic cell originated as it has a completely different architecture then prokaryotic cells. The same goes for many other origin events leading to humans.

I have shown very strong evidence for multiple origin events in vertebrates but evolutionist dismiss it with genes are gained and genes are lost with out any detail.

The ERV argument seems strong until you try to model the origin of the ERV’s fixed in populations and then it falls apart. On another post a professor tries to paint Nathaniel Jeanson (PHD/YEC) as a wacko yet he is offering a tested hypotheses.

When are evolutionary biologists going to take alternative theories or models seriously? It’s been 50 years since the sequence problem was surfaced at Wistar…

On a more optimistic note I do see @dsterncardinale engaging Nathaniel Jeanson. I hope he continues to do so and not cave to the pressure of evolutionary group think.

When they hold up under the least bit of examination.

You do understand that the engagement consists of showing exactly how his claims are nonsensical, right? There is no pressure for him to cave to. And the same sort of attention has been paid to your theories as to Jeanson’s.

6 Likes

That’s not quite right. We do have clues but we lack certain knowledge.

1 Like

6 posts were merged into an existing topic: Jeanson is now finding a reason to ignore neanderthal DNA

Fair enough. How can we claim a single origin event when we lack certain knowledge especially when that lack of knowledge is significant?

A single origin is a possible model but should it be the only one considered at this point?

Quintessence of irony, the post.

4 Likes

That’s your misunderstanding.

Assuming common descent, we can project back to a single origin. But that’s a projection. There might never have been an actual single origin event. It seems more likely that the origin of life would have been messy with many varied chemical processes from which life eventually emerged. And there may never have been a clear boundary between what we would consider life and what we would consider non-life.

By the way, we are drifting far from the topic.

1 Like

How does it fall apart?

When those theories start making testable hypotheses based on observable mechanisms.

4 Likes

He is testing a hypothesis. Is there a test that the older evolutionary root for humans is the right one?

Yes. ERV’s are that test.

If we share a deeper common ancestor with other primates then we should find the same retroviral insertions at the same position in each genome. Also, the presence and sequence of these endogenous retroviral insertions should match closely to the canonical primate phylogeny.

[moderator’s note: discussion of Jeanson and neanderthal DNA should be moved to that topic]

1 Like

Literally thousands of such tests. Jeanson’s root requires that Africans have a ridiculously greater mutation rate than everyone else. It requires that Neandertals be ignored. It requires that non-human primates be ignored. It requires that all ancient DNA be ignored. It requires that the human fossil record and all other dating of prehistoric sites be ignored. Against that, we have a bogus test that relies on a false correlation between tree branches and population size.

2 Likes

Which is really a strange guiding principle, given that they accept that humans are vertebrates and mammals, for the obvious reasons that… ya know… we have a vertebral column and give live birth. Even if they don’t believe we share common ancestry with other apes, they should at least recognize that we are apes, since we possess all of the synapomorphies that distinguish apes from other living organisms.

You keep claiming this, but don’t explain why we should believe you, especially since you’re repeatedly making basic population genetics errors.

Jeanson is a wacko, or at least a liar. He makes so many basic errors that he knows are wrong (after all, he has a PhD from Harvard). And just because someone offers a testable hypothesis doesn’t mean they’re right. I can make the testable hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese and claim that it’s right, but that doesn’t make me right or honest, especially if I have a PhD in astrophysics. That’s basically what Jeanson is doing.

3 Likes

Origins of Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, Mitochondria, and Chloroplasts: A perspective is derived from protein and nucleic acid sequence data.

The genome sequence of Rickettsia prowazekii and the origin of mitochondria

Evolutionary analysis of Arabidopsis, cyanobacterial, and chloroplast genomes reveals plastid phylogeny and thousands of cyanobacterial genes in the nucleus

FtsZ and the division of prokaryotic cells and organelles

Structure of the Chloroplast Ribosome: Novel Domains for Translation Regulation

Cardiolipin Membrane Domains in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes

Porins in prokaryotes and eukaryotes: common themes and variations

Viral Eukaryogenesis: Was the Ancestor of the Nucleus a Complex DNA Virus?

Poxviruses and the Origin of the Eukaryotic Nucleus

Sex and the eukaryotic cell cycle is consistent with a viral ancestry for the eukaryotic nucleus

Assembly of a nucleus-like structure during viral replication in bacteria

Evidence supporting a viral origin of the eukaryotic nucleus

Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity

Prototypic SNARE Proteins Are Encoded in the Genomes of Heimdallarchaeota, Potentially Bridging the Gap between the Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes

Would you like to rephrase your assertion about us having “no clue” as to the origin of eukaryotes?

Yes, they are rather inconsistent about that. Calling them “animals” also gives them conniptions. As if they think you need to photosynthesize to get into heaven.

2 Likes

Hi Andrew
Here are 3 major new innovations to single celled Eukaryotic cells over Prokaryotic cells.

The nuclear pore complex including a cell nucleus a gate that guards the nucleus.
The Spliceosome 200 protein macro machine that splices out RNA intron spacers
The Chromosome structure and the mass adoption of intron spacers

Where did the functional information come from to build these structures? I know there is almost no limit to the speculative papers you can cite.