Sorry, I know you want to take a temporary break, but I just want to comment on this one thing. You can respond at your leisure.
The other two tests (not the ERV one) that I described in the OP makes no assumptions about whether mutations are random or directed. Rather, they look at the phylogenetic signal within and between specific clades to see if it better fits common ancestry or separate ancestry. In both cases, common ancestry prevails by many orders of magnitude.
I can understand if you don’t agree with the “silent site” test, since you could disagree with me that synonymous mutations are neutral with respect to fitness – that’s a legitimate scientific debate – but the other test, which looks at convergence between ancestral sequences, simply cannot be explained under a separate ancestry model unless we assume a duplicitous creator.
As a Christian, I simply cannot believe that God would be duplicitous, since He is the Truth. From a philosophical standpoint, a duplicitous creator is also untenable, since it would lead to radical epistemic skepticism – we couldn’t know if anything is true, or if it was merely made to look that way. Because of this, I simply cannot believe in separate ancestry, due to my religious and philosophical convictions.
Exactly. The theology of IDcreationism is just as bad as the science.
I would add that not only does it require a duplicitous God, it makes Him a petty tinkerer who must become progressively smaller as science narrows the gaps that IDcreationists keep stuffing Him into.
I can work toward common ground as I am ok with evolution (universal common descent) being the cause I just don’t think the evidence supports this at this point. We have been throwing a lot of ideas toward each other over just a few days so a slowdown may help.
Where I think evolution could make a strong case for universal common descent is if a deterministic mechanism for the dramatic changes were discovered.
What then is the directed mechanism? What we could be looking at is animals separately seeded on earth that have common genes that diverged slightly over time.
I think I understand you thoughts here but the pattern may have a legitimate design reason for looking the way it does. We should focus on this because this discussion is complex
This a philosophical/theological discussion. I don’t have a problem with your position and it is a similar position John Mercer has. If God separately created animals I agree should find a functional reason for his methods that was not meant to fool us.
What kind of creationist are you, anyway, @colewd? YEC, OEC, ID, CP
Good question. I would say the closest is OEC/ID that I think make the most sense. For ID it is Mike Behe for OEC it is Reasons to believe. I see these as valuable challenges to evolution.
I am however open to your current position given persuasive evidence. What is CP?
How do you test against CD without an alternative change mechanism. CD is the result of a mechanism called reproduction? That mechanism is showing a higher level of convergence against what?
Can you specifically describe the tests @dsterncardinale referred to?
What part of “makes no assumptions” don’t you understand, Bill?
Do you notice the stark difference between our questions? That mine are in response to things you write, but the converse is not true for your sealioning?
There are several I have looked at and the only specificity needed is if common descent is being compared to random change. Here is a piece of the paper @misterme987 cited.
In Table 2 of the paper the significance values for each of the pairwise tests are shown, and they’re all highly significant, ranging from 1.05×10-6 to 1.69×10-44. For the combined dataset as a whole, the P-value is 2.59×10-132. The ancestral nodes are more similar to each other than the extant sequences by a huge margin of significance. That means the odds of the observed convergence occurring by chance are infinitesimally small. Appropriate null controls were run to justify the conclusion that convergence is a product of common ancestry.>
The null hypothesis appears to be chance. The mechanism of reproduction is being compared to chance. Reproduction implies a potentially single starting point for the sequence through the process of reproduction.
Common descent includes a mechanistic claim called reproduction. He is making the assumption of the mechanism of reproduction as part of the process.
This is coming at the problem differently and having a conversation versus trying to fit the facts into a specific ideology of Gods not a tinkerer. The “make no assumptions” is a fallacy.
Unless the designer is deliberately picking sequences so as to make it look like common descent occurred there is no other explanation for why ancestral nodes should consistently exhibit increasing convergence with age.
If you disagree with that statement you’re welcome suggest an alternative design-explanation that more accurately predicts both the occurrence and degree of convergence observed between increasingly ancestral nodes in independent clades. With, you know, an actual mechanism. A reason. Something from which it sensibly and logically follows that this is a consequence of the method of design.
Now please understand, before you go on, if you’re merely going to say that design predicts the exact same thing as common descent (ancestral convergence) by positing a designer that is effectively aping the mechanism of common descent(like progressive creation where species are incrementally derived from actual common ancestors over eons of geological time), then you don’t really have a testable alternative at all.
Look, we get it. We’ve always got it. You have a problem with the idea that common descent is tested against the idea that the degree of similarity observed in extant sequences is the product of chance. You think design has some sort of mechanism from which it follows “obviously design would produce similar sequences also”. We get it. That’s your complaint. There was never a point at which we didn’t get this.
So let me explain the problem to you again, for the millionth forking time. The problem isn’t just similarity, it’s that there is a consistent nested hierarchy in the pattern of differences and similarities. It’s the ANCESTRAL CONVERGENCE part. Not just similarity. Ancestral convergence. Increasing in degree as we go back in time.
Not just similarity.
Ancestral convergence.
Increasing in degree as we go back in time.
Not just similarity.
Ancestral convergence.
Increasing in degree as we go back in time.
Not just similarity.
Ancestral convergence.
Increasing in degree as we go back in time.
Not just similarity.
Ancestral convergence.
Increasing in degree as we go back in time.
Not just similarity.
Ancestral convergence.
Increasing in degree as we go back in time.
Does it sink in? Can you fathom this? Does it compute? Is cogitation possible? Understand?
Why, on design, if the designer is not deliberately aping common descent, should increasingly ancestral nodes in independent clades that were presumably independently created, show convergence in similarity? Why? Why? Why? Why? Explain why!
Get your ID heroes here. The best of them. Call Chumpski, Call Ewert, Call whoever the fork you want. I want to talk to them.
Hi Rum
One of you better write ups. To bad you spoiled it with a snarky ID remark.
In order to try to reach common ground here let me ask you a question to your repeated question.
What specifically is causing the convergence? Please give a more detailed mechanistic answer then common descent. Ie how is reproduction causing this observation we call convergence?
I don’t know if you understand what this is saying. If separate ancestry is true, and God isn’t a liar, then the only way that this pattern could have been achieved is by chance. @Rumraket explained this well.
Do you think that God created all creatures with the same genome and then caused them to diverge? That’s literally theistic evolution, which you’ve expressed disagreement with. Or do you think that God created all species/families/‘kinds’ separately, and just made it look like they diverged in the past? Then you believe in a liar God. Either way, there’s no way to make this data fit the result that you want.
What are you even trying to say here? Reproduction doesn’t exist? I just don’t understand what argument you’re trying to make.
You need to go deeper Rum or we’re going to get stuck again. What specifically about common descent is causing this observed convergence. The opposite of convergence is divergence and that is another way to look at it.
If you don’t get it after looking at this, I don’t think there’s any point continuing this conversation, since you’re not actually thinking about anything we’re saying.
