Bill we can consider any and all possibilities, it’s just that that one is a worse explanation because it can’t make sense of all the facts.
So it is exactly because we can in fact consider, weigh, contemplate, comprehend, and explore that possibility both in our minds and in relation to the known facts and data, that we conclude it is a worse option in terms of everything we would want from a scientific explanation.
It predicts no particular pattern (why should some OR gene-that-functions-as-a-regulatory-element be mutated in this way, and another in that way? Why the high degree of synteny to other primates, why do we have a worse sense of smell and broken genes that make sense of it?), it doesn’t explain the pattern there is in the data (nested hierarchy, the biochemical causes of mutations that give transversion:transition biases) it explains almost none of the relevant facts (why they look like broken OR genes in the first place).
If science is limited to methodological naturalism then I agree with you. I do think this limitation is not in the best interest of science as it can lead to misleading conclusions.
Design (different starting points) could be a complete explanation of the pattern if it turns out the pseudo genes are really functional regulatory elements or perhaps another function we have discovered.
Common descent is not a complete explanation for the pattern as you have to appeal to a dramatic shift in purifying selection as mice should see more losses then primates due to high reproduction rates.
This is the same problem with the Howe pattern as in this case you have to explain how large quantities of gene gain and gene loss get fixed in vertebrate populations…
Regulating what? Exactly? Specifically? If some peptide is occasionally expressed, how does it help get primates through life? Close the loop here.
No appeal required. Of course there are differences in purifying selection. Why would you expect otherwise? Primates and mice do not share ecological niches or dependencies on smell.
Actually, it leads to robust, tested, sound conclusions. Participants here have ably responded to all your objections. It is understood that no degree of evidence will suffice to change your mind, because “perhaps another function” is of course unfalsifiable.
If that’s the case, Bill, we can safely close up shop on this whole topic. I’m curious, though–you’ve been here a few years–what do you predict these fellows would say in response to this?
I would point out that @Rumraket’s explanation of why design is a “worse option” has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘limitation’ of methodological naturalism:
Your claim would therefore appear to be a complete non sequitor.
This is part of a general pattern. Your defenses of Design appear to consist almost exclusively of repeated, largely irrelevant, references to:
the purported limitations of Methodlogical Naturalism;
the purported inexplicability of the Howe Diagram;
the Behe/Lynch debate; and
Behe’s vacuous ‘method’ of simply asserting that certain phenomena are designed/a ‘pureposeful arrangement of parts’/etc.
To call these defenses “underwhelming” would be a tremendous understatement. The Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail would be a more challenging opponent – if no less a determined one.
It’s also irrelevant to the question at hand. Whether or not pseudogenes, or any pseudogenes, have a function, they’re still organized in a nested hierarchy and in the same nested hierarchy as the genes they’re derived from.
Before this thread was bombed with the Howe diagram, the topic concerned Jeanson’s Y chromosome mashup with Noah and Babel. In that regard, @Joel_Dufflatest This Week in Creationism discusses a review of Traced, by GE proponent Robert Carter. [Start at 21:30]. This appears in the Journal of Creation, which is paywalled to subscribers for the current year. It is pretty clear from what Joel presents that Jeanson does not get a ringing endorsement. It’s like coming up with punctual when pressed for some positive qualities for a person. Carter also brings up the problem of the non inclusion of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, which Jeanson has essentially stated must be unreliable if his model is correct. That does not look like it’s going down so well even with his fellow creationist.
Where is the model and test that eliminates separate starting points as a possible explanation? All we have is a bunch of assertions so far like this one.
You now declare based on your assertion the case is settled. What specifically is creating a dramatic change in purifying selection. How do you test for it? Methodological naturalism has made the theory unfalsifiable.
