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

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@misterme987

So you say. You haven’t provided any hard evidence for any of your statements, only word salad, goalpost moving, and obfuscation.

Word salad means you do not understand what I posted. You are new at this and I think you realize you are coming up the curve at this point. Please note that almost everyone here supports your position. Try and take your claims to Uncommon Descent.and see how it goes.

@misterme987

So you say. You still haven’t even demonstrated that you understand the evidence I cited.

I asked you about a fixation model and this was clearly over your head. Thats ok at this point as we can work to understand these issues over time. The convergence paper does not differentiate common descent and common design as you will get convergence in both cases vs the papers version of common design which points to different starting points.

@misterme987

Also, in that entire post, you didn’t answer my question. Do you think that separate ancestry predicts a star tree, or a nested hierarchy?

These patterns tell us very little about what is causing the diversity of life. As I said before we can see many patterns depending on what types of data we are looking at. The paper by Winston Ewert that I cited shows this.

The truth is these are historical sciences. Common ancestry predicts very little because when we look at what it does in real time it generates the same animals through cell division or sexual reproduction.

What it does predict is the coping of genetic information with some genetic recombination and a few mutations per generation. We don’t have a good prediction how much variation this can create especially variation that can lead to new functions.

What it does not explain are major differences such as new genes and new splicing patterns.
The problem with common ancestry is part of what we are observing is what it does not explain. Common design or separate starting points explains new genes and new splicing patterns.

@misterme987

Because his God is a God of the ever-shrinking gaps.

It can easily be claimed that science is a science of the ever-expanding gaps as the new high speed genetic data is shrinking what science can explain. An example is a 60 million year old protein with no changes observed fixed in any mammal population including animals (rats and mice) that reproduce multiple times per year.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

Word salad means you do not understand what I posted. You are new at this and I think you realize you are coming up the curve at this point.

Nobody understands what you posted, because it’s word salad. Your condescension to @misterme987 is at once shameless, amusing, and pathetic. A new low for you, and it’s amazing what you think you can get away with.

[Tim]

@colewd

Word salad means you do not understand what I posted.

No Bill. It means that your statement was incoherent.

Word salad: a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments

This would be an opinion of the general quality of your output that is widely shared on this forum.

@colewd

You are new at this and I think you realize you are coming up the curve at this point.

I think the consensus on this forum is that, after all your years on here, you have failed to come even close to “the curve” – I think the consensus would be more that you’re hovering around the X-axis.

@colewd

Try and take your claims to Uncommon Descent.and see how it goes.

I think we already know how it would go – UD, aka Willy Dembski’s Home for Wayward Sycophants, would ban his arse for being an evilutionist in no time flat.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@colewd

The evidence we have is God made a design choice for this universe and that was to use atoms as the basic building blocks of the Universe.

What alternatives were available but rejected? How was the decision made?

If you don’t know - and you don’t - then you haven’t got evidence, only opinion.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

Word salad means you do not understand what I posted.

Yes, that’s exactly what that means. Nobody understands what you posted because it actually doesn’t make sense. It therefore qualifies for the definition of word salad.

I would call you a tool if I thought you had any use. But I can’t give you even that. The people on behalf of whom you write your nonsense are laughing behind your back. You convince nobody, and in fact I suspect the extend of your ineptitude actually serves to undermine ID-creationism.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Tim

I think the consensus on this forum is that, after all your years on here, you have failed to come even close to “the curve” – I think the consensus would be more that you’re hovering around the X-axis.

This is the thing that astonishes. me. I have been on this and at least one other evolution forum alongside @colewd for some years now. Over that time I don’t think I am flattering myself if I say my understanding of evolution and related scientific fields has greatly increased to the point that I have a very good understanding for a lay person. And while have read a number of books and articles I think most of that knowledge has come from direct interaction with the working scientists and other people more knowledgeable than I who are generous enough to share their expertise on these forums.

Bill, OTOH, has had those same interactions and, to this day, still does not understand a concept as basic and simple as how a new mutation arises and goes to fixation in a population. Is it just that I am so much smarter than he is? I don’t think that’s it.

[Tim]

@Faizal_Ali

Bill, OTOH, has had those same interactions and, to this day, still does not understand a concept as basic and simple as how a new mutation arises and goes to fixation in a population. Is it just that I am so much smarter than he is? I don’t think that’s it.

I would tend to agree with this. But this surely raises the question of exactly how Bill’s (not insubstantial) intelligence is interacting with this concept in order to get this result? Is it some form of ‘defense mechanism’ at work, or something stranger?

[misterme987 (Andrew P.)]

@colewd

Word salad means you do not understand what I posted.

Exactly, because it was incoherent.

@colewd

You are new at this and I think you realize you are coming up the curve at this point.

Yes, I have learned so much in this conversation. Strangely, though, you don’t seem to have learned anything, since you still don’t understand basic concepts like how mutations get fixed in a population. I wonder why that is…

@colewd

Try and take your claims to Uncommon Descent.and see how it goes.

I have no doubt it would just be more of the same word salad, goalpost moving, and obfuscation. Pray tell, are there any actual molecular biologists and phylogeneticists there? And if so, which position do they hold? Do you ever think it’s strange that the people who are actually knowledgeable about biology overwhelmingly agree that universal common ancestry is supported by the evidence?

@colewd

I asked you about a fixation model and this was clearly over your head.

It seems that the concept of fixation has gone over your head, seeing as you still don’t understand that a mutation only has to occur once to be fixed in a population. Plus, as several other people here have pointed out, just the fact that we have these ERVs shows that they became fixed in the population, in the same way that when you see craters on the moon you know that they had to have been formed by impact events.

@colewd

The convergence paper does not differentiate common descent and common design as you will get convergence in both cases

This just shows that you don’t even understand what that paper is saying. It’s not saying that extant sequences are similar to one another, but that sequences get more similar as you go back in the past. This is not predicted by ‘common design.’ Even if you say that maybe God made each ‘kind’ with the same cytochrome C gene (for instance) and they diverged from there, that would create a star tree since each kind would diverge from a single point. We absolutely do not see that.

(Not that you would understand the significance of this, since you still have not explained what a star tree is in your own words, showing me that you don’t know what it means. Perhaps you do know what a star tree is, but you haven’t given me any reason to believe that.)

@colewd

the papers version of common design which points to different starting points.

You’re not talking about the dependency graph again, are you? Because that only deals with homology and homoplasy, and says nothing about ancestral convergence. If that’s what you’re referring to, you’re further demonstrating your ignorance about the significance of ancestral convergence.

@colewd

These patterns tell us very little about what is causing the diversity of life. As I said before we can see many patterns depending on what types of data we are looking at. The paper by Winston Ewert that I cited shows this.

No, it doesn’t. Answer my question straightforwardly. Does your version of ‘common design’ predict a star tree or a nested hierarchy?

@colewd

What it does not explain are major differences such as new genes and new splicing patterns.
The problem with common ancestry is part of what we are observing is what it does not explain. Common design or separate starting points explains new genes and new splicing patterns.

Moving the goalposts again. I’m not answering this until you answer my question about whether ‘common design’ predicts a star tree or a nested hierarchy. You haven’t provided a model for your version of ‘common design’ yet, so I have no reason to believe that “Common design… explains new genes and new splicing patterns.”

@colewd

It can easily be claimed that science is a science of the ever-expanding gaps as the new high speed genetic data is shrinking what science can explain. An example is a 60 million year old protein with no changes observed fixed in any mammal population including animals (rats and mice) that reproduce multiple times per year.

Nice try. But I’m not sure what you’re even referring to here. You know that “highly conserved” doesn’t mean identical, right? (Also, common ancestry has nothing to do with highly conserved genes. So this line of inquiry is completely off-topic.)

[Faizal_Ali]

@misterme987

Do you ever think it’s strange that the people who are actually knowledgeable about biology overwhelmingly agree that universal common ancestry is supported by the evidence?

Not to mention Michael Behe, who considers common ancestry to be so obviously true that he believes the issue to be trivial.

[misterme987 (Andrew P.)]

@Faizal_Ali

Not to mention Michael Behe, who considers common ancestry to be so obviously true that he believes the issue to be trivial.

Right, so @colewd, you can’t just say that it’s because of ‘groupthink’ or something like that. Your own resident ID biochemist, who evidently doesn’t mind going against the grain, agrees that UCA is supported overwhelmingly by the evidence.

[Faizal_Ali]

@misterme987

Your own resident ID biochemist, who evidently doesn’t mind going against the grain, agrees that UCA is supported overwhelmingly by the evidence.

The reason I believe he does that, however, is because, unlike most ID Creationists, Behe is Catholic and the leaders of his church accept common ancestry.

[John_Harshman]

@misterme987

Do you ever think it’s strange that the people who are actually knowledgeable about biology overwhelmingly agree that universal common ancestry is supported by the evidence?

Even Bill’s hero Michael Behe, oddly enough. But that just goes right by Bill.

@Faizal_Ali

The reason I believe he does that, however, is because, unlike most ID Creationists, Behe is Catholic and the leaders of his church accept common ancestry.

The church actually takes no position on the question, and there are many Catholic creationists, even YECs. So Behe’s religion is permissive, not determinative.

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

So Behe’s religion is permissive, not determinative.

Yes, good point.

It is interesting how little open disagreement there is with Behe on this from other ID neo-creationists, as well as how Behe never, to my knowledge, has openly challenged the arguments other ID’ers make against CD.

[Tim]

Is it possible that those who don’t prioritise the Big Tent above other considerations don’t last too long at the Discovery Institute? That they’re allowed to take divergent views on CD, Age of Earth, etc, but those who criticise other IDers for their views on these things tend not to be encouraged to stick around.

[Faizal_Ali]

Yes, I suspect that is exactly the case.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@misterme987

Right, so @colewd, you can’t just say that it’s because of ‘groupthink’ or something like that. Your own resident ID biochemist, who evidently doesn’t mind going against the grain, agrees that UCA is supported overwhelmingly by the evidence.

Hi Andrew
This is a false statement along with most the others you have been repeatably making. I know Michael Behe and there is a conversation between me and him on Youtube that clearly articulates his position on common descent.

You were a YEC and now you are a full blown evolutionists. Accusing me of in ability to comprehend population genetics when I simply ask you to use it to support your claim which you ignored. This is not a consistent position. The “Bill does not learn” and “Bill does not understand” is not an argument.

@misterme987

Right, so @colewd, you can’t just say that it’s because of ‘groupthink’ or something like that. Your own resident ID biochemist, who evidently doesn’t mind going against the grain, agrees that UCA is supported overwhelmingly by the evidence.

I can clearly say this because this group represents “group think” which you have bought into without carefully examining both sides. My challenge again is to get on a blog where the majority disagrees with you and see how it goes. The blog is Uncommon Descent. It is friendlier then this blog but I suggest you are more polite then you have been with me in recent posts. I made this challenge to Faizal years ago and so far I have not seen him take up the challenge.

This last set of posts by the “group think” crowd is attacking me. If the guys at common descent start attacking you instead of your arguments you will know you are over the target.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

What it does predict is the coping of genetic information with some genetic recombination and a few mutations per generation. We don’t have a good prediction how much variation this can create especially variation that can lead to new functions.

We can observe retroviruses creating new ERV’s. How is that not a valid explanation for the ERV’s we see in genomes?

@colewd

It can easily be claimed that science is a science of the ever-expanding gaps as the new high speed genetic data is shrinking what science can explain. An example is a 60 million year old protein with no changes observed fixed in any mammal population including animals (rats and mice) that reproduce multiple times per year.

It’s explained by functional constraint and fitness landscapes. You have been shown this before.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Accusing me of in ability to comprehend population genetics when I simply ask you to use it to support your claim which you ignored.

How is the fixation of mutations not supported by the mountains of research and articles on population genetics?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

@misterme987

So you say. You haven’t provided any hard evidence for any of your statements, only word salad, goalpost moving, and obfuscation.

Word salad means you do not understand what I posted.

It also means that you do not understand what you posted.

@colewd

You are new at this and I think you realize you are coming up the curve at this point.

That’s pretty arrogant. Unlike you, he understands the concept of a nested hierarchy and is writing in coherent sentences.

@colewd

@misterme987

So you say. You still haven’t even demonstrated that you understand the evidence I cited.

I asked you about a fixation model and this was clearly over your head.

No, it was not. Your question was incoherent.

@colewd

@misterme987

Also, in that entire post, you didn’t answer my question. Do you think that separate ancestry predicts a star tree, or a nested hierarchy?

These patterns tell us very little about what is causing the diversity of life.

You still aren’t answering a simple, dichotomous question. You are being evasive. Why?

@colewd

As I said before we can see many patterns depending on what types of data we are looking at.

You said this, but you haven’t shown it.

What follows is more word salad.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

How is the fixation of mutations not supported by the mountains of research and articles on population genetics?

Since the claim needs the observation to be inserted retro viruses the next step is to show a model for feasibility. Similar to the models that Michael Behe and Michael Lynch discussed. The same goes for the gene patterns in the Howe diagram. At the end of the day the common descent claim is trivial compared to showing the real origin of the various patterns that not only showing similarities but vast differences.