For these claim to me more then hand waving you need a mechanism and one you can test. It is almost certainly not a ransom mechanism but a highly deterministic one. This is where the ID argument has some punch unless you are a hard core materialist.
Let’s add “specific testable predictions” onto things like phylogenetics and modeling. We can directly test separate and common ancestry hypotheses, and when we do, separate ancestry fails. Period.
1 Like
dsterncardinaleEvolutionary BiologistToday is the anniversary of the day I joined this community!
Let’s add “specific testable predictions” onto things like phylogenetics and modeling. We can directly test separate and common ancestry hypotheses, and when we do, separate ancestry fails. Period.
Based on a test under methodological naturalism I agree.
If design is involved in special creation then you get pretty much the opposite result.
The bigger problem is if the test criteria does not include design you may be fooling yourself with the results.
Ignoring relevant data is rejecting real science.
And you aren’t a student and have never been a student of biology, but you are attacking the integrity of thousands more biologists, from Harvard and elsewhere.
Why do you resort to referring to where he got his PhD? If he’s so great, wouldn’t you be citing his actual contributions to science?
2 Likes
Can you specifically describe the tests I’m referring to? And then describe how these tests exclude design?
3 Likes
I have seen several tests and they require random mutation to make their probability claims. What common descent does is explain inherited genes that are the same. Design can make common genes also as I think you would agree. What common descent does not explain is new genes which design explains.
If you like I could go deeper on this but what common descent and common design both solve is the sequence problem for the same gene as one copies the gene sequence the other one designs the gene sequence. Random change faces the probability problem of finding a functional sequence.
Behe’s method of design detection is recognizing a purposeful arrangement of parts. A gene is a purposeful arrangement of nucleotides.
Which is like saying plate tectonics does not explain why the earth orbits the sun.
So have you, nor any proponent of ID, been able to provide this explanation?
2 Likes
I would very much like for you to go deeper on this, since the tests of common ancestry vs. common design specifically exclude constrained gene sequences. Would you care to explain those tests, or are you unaware of them?
Let’s save us the time of going back and forth. If you know what I’m talking about, you’ll know exactly what I’m referring to, so just say what it is, and if you don’t know what I’m talking about, don’t try to fake it. Just say so so we can skip a couple of steps and I can just explain it to you and link a couple of the relevant papers.
2 Likes
We’ve directly observed the evolution of things that Behe would identify as designed. Sticking your head in the sand to claim otherwise.
3 Likes
I don’t think you know what ad hominem means.
If your standard of “doing real science” is “making testable predictions,” then my example of a PhD astrophysicist claiming “the moon is made of cheese” is also “doing real science.” Jeanson’s testable predictions have repeatedly been falsified, and his methodology has been shown to be wrong on many levels.
Not to mention that any possible credibility Jeanson had went out the window when he started invoking “wonky things” (that’s an actual quote, see here) to save his ridiculous claims. Unnamed “wonky things” are not testable.
I have, so you clearly haven’t even been listening to anything anyone here has said. In fact, at least two people on this thread have cited the same studies to you that show that there are about 10 million possible insertion sites for ERVs in the human genome. I won’t bother linking them here since you won’t consider them anyway. If you actually want to see them, just look back through the thread.
My original intent was simply to explain why I became convinced of common ancestry. There is no “win” here. Actually, I’m not sure why I’m even still engaging with you, since it’s clear that you’re not listening to anything anyone has to say. And it’s strange that you say that we “don’t know [Jeanson’s] intent” when he literally admitted in an interview that he was going to, quote, “use and abuse [his] training” to convert people to creationism (ICR 2009).
4 Likes
By the way, @dsterncardinale, good to see you here. I know I’ve talked to you on reddit both before and after I became convinced of common ancestry, and I’m legitimately sorry for all the times I stubbornly refused to listen to you. You were right lol.
3 Likes
Hi Dan
Mike has a method of detecting design. If you have an observation that is a purposeful arrangement of parts and you can assign it to the laws of nature you can then his method is falsified for that observation.
My name is Dan. Let’s start there.
2 Likes
You might not realize it, but you’re smuggling the concept of design back into this definition by including the word “purposeful.” If you want a non-circular definition of design, don’t use words like that. Otherwise, you can just claim that any change we see is not “purposeful” and therefore it doesn’t disprove Behe’s idea of design.
3 Likes
Hi Andrew
Your are labeling his claims but not making an argument why exactly you think there is a problem.
I understand the ERV argument but think it is incomplete until you can assign random change to the patterns that were inherited. I have other pieces of evidence that I shared with you previously that support special creation. I was convinced by the ERV argument until I thought about the problem of all those random changes getting fixed.
I also feel like you are not listening as I have asked for things like a model that you do not respond to. We are probably talking over each other a bit at this point. I think its best now to take a temporary break.
Purposeful in this context means a function you can find a reason for. For example the purpose of the bacterial flagellum is to provide mobility for a bacteria. The use of purpose is not ultimate purpose.
There’s too much to even get into here. Suffice it to say that his claimed mtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA substitution rates have been disproven by observational data multiple times, since he’s incorrectly interpreting the mutation rate as a substitution rate. When the mtDNA substitution rate is calculated according to actual, historical data, it gives the date of the mtMRCA as ca. 200 kya (Soares et al. 2009).
Please share, because I don’t remember anything substantial. Let me remind you that as a theist and a Christian, I do believe in special creation; I just don’t think that God directly created all species/families/‘kinds’/etc. separately. Strictly speaking, it’s not creation vs. non-creation that’s being tested, but common ancestry vs. separate ancestry.
Are you still thinking that in order for a mutation to be fixed it must occur multiple times? Because that’s just not right.
So you just want us to demonstrate something evolving a new function? That’s easy, since it’s been shown many, many times. @dsterncardinale, I’ll let you take this one, since you’re more knowledgeable about this than me.
Agreed.
1 Like
Sorry, I was just making an edit when you posted. I sent you a private message that will allow us to go back and forth on the common design/common descent question.
1 Like
He didn’t ask if you had seen them, he asked if you can specifically describe the tests. A simple “No, I can’t” would have sufficed.
4 Likes
Andrew is. Your stubborn refusal to understand and/or acknowledge those arguments does not cause them to disappear in a puff of smoke. Please stop with the sealioning.
You do not; you repeatedly demonstrate your total lack of understanding.
He’s ignoring your sealioning.
What is Sealioning?
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
If you’ve been sealioned in real life or online, you’ll feel like every argument is cyclical. You make a point, only for the sea lion to storm in asking for proof of what you said. Your expertise and knowledge are denied. It’s your job to go out of your way to convince them, even though they’re the one who questioned you in the first place.
— Jessica Lindsay, Metro UK, 5 July 2018
3 Likes