"I'm treating the mutation rate as a substitution rate" - Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The relevance is if current population genetics mathematics could model the origin of the gene patterns in the Howe diagram.

You will just forget any evidence you are shown in the matter of a few days. So why don’t you show us how the process of evolution could not explain this pattern with the mechanisms of gene gain and gene loss.

[CrisprCAS9]

I think you overestimate the period.

[John_Harshman]

Underestimate, perhaps?

[CrisprCAS9]

My bad, fixed it!

[Joe_Felsenstein]

@colewd

The discussion was with if the current state of population genetics mathematics assumed the existence of a population. I believe your answer was that this is true today.

“Assumed the existence of a population”? So we have, say, a physicist, who is modelling the orbit of a moon about a planet. And you say, ah but there is a limitation of your celestial mechanics equations. They assume the existence of a planet and a moon.

Any physicist will just snort briefly with disbelief and go back to their calculations, ignoring you after that. I think I will do likewise.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Joe_Felsenstein

“Assumed the existence of a population”? So we have, say, a physicist, who is modelling the orbit of a moon about a planet? And you say, ah but there is a limitation of your celestial mechanics equations. They assume the existence of a planet and a moon.

It would not be necessary to ask the physicist this unless someone was claiming that his equations could account for the origin of the planet and the moon.

[Argon]

‘Spherical cows’ may oversimplify things but spherical moons aren’t a bad approximation…

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

It would not be necessary to ask the physicist this unless someone was claiming that his equations could account for the origin of the planet and the moon.

Whoosh!

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Ladies and gentlemen, the one and only Bill Cole:

@Joe_Felsenstein

a physicist, who is modelling the orbit of a moon about a planet

@Joe_Felsenstein

modelling the orbit

@Joe_Felsenstein

the orbit

@colewd

It would not be necessary to ask the physicist this unless someone was claiming that his equations could account for the origin of the planet and the moon.

[jeffb (Jeff)]

@Rumraket

and you all appear to bow out after a few replies … Then you’re back months later having somehow magically forgotten the last time you failed to give any sensible response.

Mikkel,
I just happened to see this one (I read very few of these posts). I don’t know if I can speak for all creationists, but I wouldn’t be surprised if many feel as I do: I certainly don’t mind ‘bowing out after a few replies’ for at least two reasons (other than lack of time/interest).

1. After spending some time on this site I’ve realized that some (not all mind you) evolutionists here will debate endlessly and are determined to never give an inch to a creationists. That’s the conclusion I’ve come to. I recalling watching two discussions in particular, one with a Design proponent, one a creationist, where very compelling evidence was presented but was debated seemingly endlessly by evolutionists who appeared to refuse to give any form of concession. I believe occasionally offering concessions are sign of good faith in a conversion (I try to do so when I can). But none was offered whatsoever. I contacted the creation group afterwards, inquiring about that exchange that went on here at PS. They replied that they found it “baffling” that these strong arguments can be presented here, and watch evolutionists completely ignore them, and keep right on debating. That to me was very telling. After watching that, I concluded that debates on here generally aren’t worth the effort. Even if I feel good about my conclusions, even if I feel I have a good rebuttal, I rarely feel like sharing them here. I certainly can’t match that kind of ‘need to win’. Which leads me to…

2. I have enough confidence in my worldview to not have to defend it. I have no problem ‘bowing out’ of a debate, letting the other person think I had no ability to reply. It takes confidence at times to simply remain silent.

[EDIT - An addendum for @T_aquaticus, @Paul_King, and others]
Before I get too many replies, allow me to make two updates:

• The topic I was referring to was not related to Nested Hierarchies (and no, not interested in re-opening that can-of-worms)
• I’m fully aware the there are “fully entrenched” members in both camps. We too have Creationists that have a “give no grounds” attitude (I just personally try not to be one of them). I find debating with these individuals unfruitful. It’s unfortunate that a public forum such as this includes enough of them to make dialog so unenjoyable. Again, it’s why it’s easy to “bow out”

[T_aquaticus]

@jeffb

I believe occasionally offering concessions are sign of good faith in a conversion (I try to do so when I can).

Why would we agree with something that we know isn’t true?

@jeffb

They replied that they found it “baffling” that these strong arguments can be presented here, and watch evolutionists completely ignore them, and keep right on debating. That to me was very telling. After watching that, I concluded that debates on here generally aren’t worth the effort. Even if I feel good about my conclusions, even if I feel I have a good rebuttal, I rarely feel like sharing them here. I certainly can’t match that kind of ‘need to win’. Which leads me to…

Let’s use the example of nested hierarchies. Here are the main beats from the argument:

1. Nested hierarchies are real and are statistically supported.
2. Nested hierarchies are exactly what we we would expect to see from the process of common ancestry and evolution.
3. There is no reason why we would expect to see nested hierarchies if species or created kinds were created independently.

I have yet to see a creationist present evidence that these 3 points are wrong.

@jeffb

I have enough confidence in my worldview to not have to defend it. I have no problem ‘bowing out’ of a debate, letting the other person think I had no ability to reply. It takes confidence at times to simply remain silent.

What frustrates us is that people will come back and repeat the same mistaken claims even after we have shown how they are mistaken.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

colewd

@T_aquaticus

I have yet to see a creationist present evidence that these 3 points are wrong.

You have yet to comprehend any counter arguments. Your item 3 is a bald assertion that is most likely false. A “nested hierarchy” is a vague claim and most of us non “true believers” see this.

@T_aquaticus

What frustrates us is that people will come back and repeat the same mistaken claims even after we have shown how they are mistaken.

When you label a claim mistaken it is an argument that you have the authority to label it. This is a logical fallacy of argument from authority.

This is what frustrates Jeff, Me and others. You repeat and assert that your non detailed evidence is enough to support your claims.

@T_aquaticus

I have yet to see a creationist present evidence that these 3 points are wrong.

There has been plenty of discussion here where you make a bald assertion that standard evolutionary mechanisms can explain the pattern yet you have no mathematical model that supports your claims of how new genes are formed or lost by selected or neutral random change which results in the Howe Venn pattern…

You guys repeat Texas Sharp shooter without showing that this analogy applies.

This is why creationists and other non true believes exit this site. You have many well educated creationists and ID advocates that have been absent for over a year now.

[Argon]

@T_aquaticus

Nested hierarchies are exactly what we we would expect to see from the process of common ancestry and evolution.

If the rate of change is lower than the time resolution of the records we observe. In others words, when noise doesn’t render the signal undetectable. …Which is the case in many, many instances.

[Paul_King]

I must admit that in my experience evolutionists are usually more willing than creationists to admit it when the other side has a good point. Creationists very rarely offer good points. Indeed, they often offer falsehoods and misrepresentations. On the other hand many creationists are unwilling to admit genuinely good points such as the fact that the nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution - and quite strong evidence at that.

I cannot judge the exchange you refer to without reading it, but I very much doubt that the creationists had much of a point.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

That’s a nice story Jeff. Just out of curiosity, I accept that you don’t want to engage in debate yourself but can you link the discussions in which you think compelling evidence was provided that evolutionists refused to concede on?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Your item 3 is a bald assertion that is most likely false. A “nested hierarchy” is a vague claim and most of us non “true believers” see this.

Good thing I buy irony meters in bulk.

You make a vague claim about the 3rd item being a bald assertion, and then pretend as if a nested hierarchy is vague.

What is vague about a nested hierarchy? It is a very, very specific distribution of characteristics. There is nothing vague about it.

@colewd

When you label a claim mistaken it is an argument that you have the authority to label it. This is a logical fallacy of argument from authority.

We can add “argument from authority” to the lists of concepts you don’t understand.

@colewd

You repeat and assert that your non detailed evidence is enough to support your claims.

What is non detailed about a nested hierarchy?

@colewd

There has been plenty of discussion here where you make a bald assertion that standard evolutionary mechanisms can explain the pattern yet you have no mathematical model that supports your claims of how new genes are formed or lost by selected or neutral random change which results in the Howe Venn pattern…

Here you go:

From Panda's Thumb: The Evolution of T-URF13: Does Irreducible Complexity Count or Not?

Notable mentions of @Art and @NLENTS. Also relevant to an ongoing discussion in another thread. The Discovery Institute, principal advocate of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement in the US, attempts to invalidate scientific results demonstrating that so-called irreducibly complex (IC) biological traits can evolve naturally. According to the ID protagonist Michael Behe (1996), a system is by definition irreducibly complex if it consists of several specifically interacting components which together produce a function such that the removal of any single component leads to the failure of this function. Most biochemical systems are irreducibly complex in that sense. Since they cannot be less complex without losing their function, unguided natural processes based on random mutations and selection cannot build them up gradually, according to Behe. Instead, multiple coordinated mutations would be required simultaneously .

@colewd

You guys repeat Texas Sharp shooter without showing that this analogy applies.

1. You point to an an adaptation that requires 2 or more muations.
2. You calculate the probability of those specific mutations accumulating over time.
3. You cite the high improbability of those specific mutations accumulating over time as evidence against evolution.

That is the Sharpshooter fallacy because it paints a bulls eye around the adaptation that did occur. What the probability ignores is all of the possible mutations that could have occurred that would also have resulted in a beneficial adaptation.

What is so hard to understand?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

@T_aquaticus

I have yet to see a creationist present evidence that these 3 points are wrong.

You have yet to comprehend any counter arguments. Your item 3 is a bald assertion that is most likely false. A “nested hierarchy” is a vague claim and most of us non “true believers” see this.

@jeffb

they found it “baffling” that these strong arguments can be presented here, and watch evolutionists completely ignore them, and keep right on debating. That to me was very telling.

Okay so now that @jeffb has once again bowed out with some nice-sounding excuse about why he doesn’t want to engage on the nested hierarchy, and @colewd is reduced to just straight up asserting something he’s never even attempted to demonstrate the truth of (and he can’t do anything but brainlessly reference Ewert’s dependency grapth that Ewert himself says can’t deal with sequences), and @thoughtful seems to have again forgotten about it, who is left?

Any creationists around here who wants to deal with it? There is an incredible degree of consilience of independent phylogenies derived from the sequences of different genomic loci with radically different functions shared among different species. Common descent predicts why that is, independent creation does not predict it and can only account for it with some strange ad-hoc hypothesis that the evidence expected from common descent “is just what the designer wanted to create” even though it isn’t functionally required.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

What is vague about a nested hierarchy? It is a very, very specific distribution of characteristics. There is nothing vague about it.

There is a wide variety of patterns that fit a tree either very well or vaguely. A nested hierarchy claim as used in evolution is vague.

@T_aquaticus

We can add “argument from authority” to the lists of concepts you don’t understand.

We can add this comment to your list of arguments from authority.

@T_aquaticus

What is non detailed about a nested hierarchy?

The description of the exceptions to the nested pattern and how they occurred.

@T_aquaticus

That is the Sharpshooter fallacy because it paints a bulls eye around the adaptation that did occur. What the probability ignores is all of the possible mutations that could have occurred that would also have resulted in a beneficial adaptation.

It does not paint a bulls eye.

It estimates the probability that what we are observing is the result of selected or neutral random change.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

There is a wide variety of patterns that fit a tree either very well or vaguely.

Bare assertion.

@colewd

The description of the exceptions to the nested pattern and how they occurred.

If a nested hierarchy is so vague, how can you say that there are violations of a nested hierarchy?

If you are asking for mechanisms of gene loss they include mutations that disrupt reading frames and gene promoters (i.e. how a gene turns into a pseudogene) and recombination.

@colewd

It does not paint a bulls eye.

It estimates the probability that what we are observing is the result of selected or neutral random change.

You paint a bulls eye when you estimate the probability of what you are observing instead of what you are observing AND what wasn’t observed.

Let’s use the lottery as an example. There is a single winner of the lottery. You calculate the odds of the winner you observed, and the odds are 1 in 150 million. And yet, it just took 1 drawing for that person to win. How do you explain this?

[Paul_King]

Your addition doesn’t tell me much.

All I can say is that very few creationists are willing to admit the strength of the evidence for evolution. And your unwillingness to identify the exchange - or even the point in question - does not give me any reason to think that the creationists had a valid point. I’m sure that Bill Cole thinks he is making valid points even though it is obvious that he isn’t.