ID, Bayesian inferences and the Priors of MN

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

You continue to confuse “common descent”, which I have not opposed, and which several other leading ID people have not opposed, with various accounts of evolutionary mechanism. The extrapolation I was referring to pertains to the mechanism, not to the bare fact of genetic continuity.

I am telling you that it is an interpolation, a line drawn between points. LIving species are the end points of evolution. The results of evolution are the sequence differences between those endpoints. It is an interpolation. Genomes are a record of ancestry, including the mutations that have happened in that lineage.

I can also show you these interpolations in my thread on mutations.

@Eddie

Dobzhansky himself said, years ago (I paraphrase) that it was an extrapolation to assume that macroevolution was caused entirely by additive microevolutionary changes.

In the link above I show how microevolutionary events are responsible for the genetic differences between species that are separated by macroevolution. Check it out yourself.

@Eddie

And in fact the whole point of many of the Altenberg people and others is that macroevolution may require mechanisms beyond those found in normal inheritance, normal variation, point mutations, etc.

Like what?

@Eddie

I have discussed the claim that the set of purported evolutionary mechanisms you accept is adequate to explain everything that happens in evolution.

Then go to the link above and show me how I am getting the evidence wrong.

@Eddie

Genes don’t (presumably) have minds or intentions; students do. I thought you were talking about genes. So I repeat: I’m unaware of any ID argument that because two brothers have similar DNA, design is the cause.

Then what was the analogy meant to illustrate?