How do we apply evidence of Common Descent?

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

And can we agree that it would not tell them who their parents are or who their grandparents are?

It would tell them that they share a common ancestor, which is the question at hand.

[Mung]

@T_aquaticus

It would tell them that they share a common ancestor, which is the question at hand.

What did you mean by the phollowing comment?

@T_aquaticus

Phylogenies don’t form within populations since there is mixing between lineages.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

Taq previously wrote:

Phylogenies don’t form within populations since there is mixing between lineages.

It means that you get mixing between lineages. Sexual recombination mixes alleles so that offspring have a mixture of alleles from different ancestors. You will share some genes with one set of your cousins from one common ancestor and share other genes with other cousins that came from a different common ancestor. This is different than separated populations where there is a lack of mixing.

[Robert_Byers]

A good dust up here.
Yet it all comes down to comparative genetics, anatomy, and presumptions.
If God created one primate on creation week then all primates ever since would look alike, but somewhat different and all dna would look alike but a little different. Yet humans were not created from primates. We just were given the best body type on earth within a boundary of options in biology.Yet we would have like dna.
Therefore common design does predict these trees of looks/dna. Sure it does. YEC can teach this. ID could but rejecting genesis makes an issue.
by the way fossils never show biological relationships. they only show geological deposition claims.
the biology is infered AFTER the geology is settled. very important point!
Fossils are silent on biology after all.
evolutionists don’t make a great, or good, case by insisting on only one option for seeing likeness in nature.
Common design does better to explain things. Including common biological change options.
I read about a dormouse in Vietnam who has echolocation ability. Just like whales and bats.
COMMON DESIGN. Echolocation does not show common descent.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@pnelson

I realize folks here may not want to watch the Jeremy Brown webinar I linked above, but it’s genuinely instructive. Molecular data are NOT the royal road to the history of life. They are just as messy, and uncertain, as other forms of data (e.g., anatomical, paleontological). We do not know the history of species; we infer it.

I have yet to read the Richards paper, but I watched the webinar. My take-away as a statistician is that we have a high level of agreement from multiple models, but some disagreement on a few specific examples (ie: turtles). This is not an unusual situation in staticical modelling, where a generally good model fit is possible, but some particular factors cannot be resolved due to limitations of the data. This is hardly cause to overturn common descent.

@pnelson

If one claims, as you [Tim] do, that a fully consistent nested hierarchy exists, supported by multiple consilient lines of evidence, then the actual published conflicts in molecular data, described by Brown (in the webinar linked above) should not occur.

Waitaminute! The inability to resolve a completely nested heirarchy in a statistical model does not imply that heirarchy does not exist, only that our ability to resolve a model is limited (limited power to discern a true model fit). We have plenty of of data to support that the true model should be a completely nested heirarchy.

@Art

Or maybe this is not an issue. I am not familiar enough with the different statistical approaches to know. Some participants here have the expertise to weigh in on this.

I working towards that. Hopefully tomorrow.

[Timothy_Horton]

@pnelson

If one claims, as you do, that a fully consistent nested hierarchy exists

I missed this bit of subterfuge the first time. I never claimed a fully consistent nested hierarchy exists. My exact words were a "clear branching nested hierarchy signal indicative of common descent" exist, which it does despite the signal being a bit noisy at places.

Why do ID-Creationists always have to resort to misrepresenting actual words to try and score a point?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Mung

There is no DNA sample that we can take from the “common ancestor” of two extant species.

Can we agree on that?

@Mung

No CSI technician would say the science DIFFERS simply because the method changes with the situation.

Im astounded that you are attempting to make such an assertion, or even imply it.

You should probably waste someone else’s time for a while.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Robert_Byers

YET in common design it would be this way too.
We have like dna just because we are so alike in out bodies.

@Robert_Byers

I guess the Geneal.Adam scenario is lost on you… because you are perfectly content DUMPING science comprehensively.

We seek out the input from Creationists who are actually interested in SCIENCE.

[Mung]

@T_aquaticus

It means that you get mixing between lineages… This is different than separated populations where there is a lack of mixing.

Now if we are going to permit the analogy of humans being related to species being related, doesn’t it follow that species are not related? Or, rather, that we are comparing apples to oranges?

If we cannot create a phylogeny of humans that show how they are all related by descent with modification according to a bifurcating pattern resulting in a nested hierarchy then what justifies the claim that because we can do paternity tests one ought to accept universal common ancestry?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@pnelson

If the nested hierarchy signal from molecular data and fossils is so unambiguous, why does Schwartz argue that the orangutan, not the chimp, represents our closest primate relative?

1. As T-aq says, because he’s stubborn.

2. Because he doesn’t like the way that morphology has been swamped by sequence data.

3. Because he doesn’t realize that small genetic changes cause large morphology changes.

Now, questions for you:

1. Why do you pass the buck to him instead of engaging with the data yourself?

2. Why has he not published anything lately, when the amount of sequence data has vastly increased?

3. Why should we treat Schwartz’s opinion as more important than anyone else’s?

@pnelson

I live daily in the literature of molecular systematics. Data conflict there is omnipresent, so you will understand why I discount your claim that a “clear branching nested hierarchy signal” exists.

Then you have absolutely zero reason to yell, “But Schwartz!” except as a cynical, rhetorical device.

Please explain why the data are not consistent. The fact that only one old emeritus guy disagrees is itself strong evidence that the data are consistent, no?

@Mung

It’s not easy to see what it is that is being offered as a test of common descent or common ancestry and what is being offered as a test of a given branching order assuming common ancestry.

That’s because you’re strangely demanding that people explain it to you in an internet forum with words, when instead of rhetorically posturing here you could go look at the sequencing data yourself. Why won’t/haven’t you?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@pnelson

To Timothy: If one claims, as you do, that a fully consistent nested hierarchy exists…

FOUL.

He didn’t write anything of the sort, and in fact he carefully qualified it, as have others here.

If you have to put words in Timothy’s mouth, you’re debating, not discussing.

So, what are the latest data for chimp/orang/human relationships? Why is Schwartz so quiet lately?

[Mung]

@Mercer

That’s because you’re strangely demanding that people explain it to you in an internet forum with words, when instead of rhetorically posturing here you could go look at the sequencing data yourself. Why won’t/haven’t you?

Perhaps you could do something to encourage discussion. This is, after all, an internet forum with that goal in mind. It appears to me that you didn’t even understand the point i was trying to make.

You know I accept universal common ancestry, right? So what is looking at the sequencing data myself going to do for me?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@pnelson

The question is not the timing; it’s the branching order.

@pnelson, I’m not sure I understand your complaint here. Incomplete lineage sorting is a clear and testable explanation. When two divergences take place at nearly the same time, different parts of the genome will show different branching orders. This is just a fact of population genetics. Different parts of the genome will have different branching orders even though the populations themselves have a single correct branching order.

The fact that we see different branching orders for different parts of the genome are pretty good evidence that scientists are not fudging the data too,.

Knowing this, what is your point?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Mung

Perhaps you could do something to encourage discussion. This is, after all, an internet forum with that goal in mind. It appears to me that you didn’t even understand the point i was trying to make.

I am, Mung. The basis for discussion should be the data, not the sort of pestering you’re doing.

@Mung

You know I accept universal common ancestry, right? So what is looking at the sequencing data myself going to do for me?

If you go and read a few relevant papers, it will be very, very easy to see the answer to your problem:

@Mung

It’s not easy to see what it is that is being offered as a test of common descent or common ancestry and what is being offered as a test of a given branching order assuming common ancestry.

So pick something that interests you.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mung

Perhaps you could do something to encourage discussion.

Maybe you should practice what you preach instead of throwing out the constant misrepresentations to disrupt discussion, things you then end up “notpologizing” for later.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

Tim, the ID argument is not about a designer it is about evidence of design. Hard stop.

Can you name another scientific study of design in which the designer is off-limits? It seems to me that in most of these real sciences, identification of the designer/builder is often the primary goal.

[Mung]

@Mercer

The basis for discussion should be the data, not the sort of pestering you’re doing.

Is the data that is used to establish paternity the same data that is used to establish universal common ancestry?

What data is used to construct the phylogenetic tree of human relatedness to other humans? Does such a tree even exist?

Have you looked at some of the analogies that others are using in this thread? What do you think of those analogies?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Mung

There is no DNA sample that we can take from the “common ancestor” of two extant species.

Do you not see that you just answered your own challenge?

We didn’t have a DNA sample from Thomas Jefferson, but the evidence showed that his descendants and those of Sally Hemings share a common ancestor.

@Mung

Is the data that is used to establish paternity the same data that is used to establish universal common ancestry?

Having the word data in your question and bolding it is not discussing the data.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

Can you name another scientific study of design in which the designer is off-limits? It seems to me that in most of these real sciences, identification of the designer/builder is often the primary goal.

If the identity of the designer was empirically obtainable then it would be an interesting pursuit. Seti is looking for signals that show evidence of design without the designer.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

We didn’t have a DNA sample from Thomas Jefferson, but the evidence showed that his descendants and those of Sally Hemings share a common ancestor.

In this case the descendants were known independent of the DNA tests.