We don’t in science go around imposing beliefs about what some particular god would or would not allow. We let the empirical evidence speak for itself.
Separate ancestry makes wildly different predictions of the data compared to common ancestry as the former is decidedly ahistorical and the latter is not. Invoking all sorts of ad hoc explanations involving a common designer doesn’t save separate ancestry given there are so many examples of completely different structures across taxa sharing a common function and consistent evidence of nested hierarchical patterns not only across entirely different lines of evidence but involving variation that occurs independent of any variation in function.
Two papers to start with that I’m certain you will find unconvincing for no other reason than accepting the conclusions of this work would be a threat to how you identify as a Christian.
Baum et al 2016 Evolution 70(6) 1354-1363
Wills et al 2008 Systematic Biology 57(6) 891-904
Those results would entirely inconsistent with any model that posits that very different organisms appeared at around the same time completely independent of one another never sharing any genetic history.
The only reason people place any doubt as to common ancestry is because they don’t understand the science or believing in common ancestry is at odds with their religious beliefs. There’s really no meaningful doubts about this from a scientific standpoint.
The JavaScript applications fit the tree or the depen- dency graph **better than the null model.**However, the dependency graph is preferred to the tree. This again confirms one of the predictions, software can exhibit a hierarchical signal while being produced by a dependency graph. Nevertheless, it still fits the dependency graph better than the hierarchical pattern.
This is the opposite of what you are claiming.
From Winstons paper.
The quantity of non taxonomic modules that are in the dependency graph is a failed prediction of Common Descent according to the paper. This is why the tree needs to be marked up with gene gain and loss events that cannot be explained by population genetic models.
I doubt common ancestry of all vertebrates due to many exceptions to the gene patterns following an ancestral pattern. There is currently no population genetic model that can explain the magnitude of change we are observing.
Another point to consider: if there were separate creation of “kinds”, the kinds should be obvious. There should be no apes, primates, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals, opisthokonts, etc.
I just finished watching the exchange with Jeanson, and I think you missed an opportunity to make a point about R1b. The point would be that it’s highly unlikely the deterioration in the DNA sample exactly matches the specific sequence identifiers unique to R1b, so even if the sample had deteriorated, the match with R1b is still compelling. I suppose you both knew that but it wasn’t stated clearly enough for the audience I don’t think.
Another interesting thing is that Jeanson said another YEC model would be a faster mutation rate after the Flood. He probably knows that’s Carter’s position, and I personally lean that way myself. But anyway great discussion, and as Jeanson said, making models and testing them is doing science.
You may doubt it but about a century or so of professional people familiar with the available evidence are in fact convinced common ancestry is a fact. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear on this. Virtually the only people who offer up doubts have religious motivations in doing so.
But we have direct tests of that for populations of known divergence times (Dr. Jeanson’s protests that we can’t be sure sure notwithstanding) that invalidate the idea.
You can go top to bottom through his “main” model and then the "what about this"s and the "and then there’s that"s, and none of them are compatible with real-world data.
For a substantial part of that century we did not understand the molecular challenges the transitions face. Until you have a model that can show how the transitions occurred (molecular changes) you cannot claim fact or even a tested hypothesis.
We don’t have to know every last detail about something in nature to know it exists. Common ancestry is in fact a real phenomenon in nature widely supported by the available evidence. You can’t dismiss all that evidence just because there are some things we are still learning. If you did that then there’s virtually nothing in science you would be warranted in believing.
Nested hierarchy is such good evidence for common ancestry, why?
Haven’t realized yet all the low-hanging fruit is addressed in the papers or book? Read the intro.
In sum, for most of human history, YEC and evolution sharply dispute the events and population sizes that characterize the past. But for the most recent three millennia, these two models agree.
Flat earth is a model.
What do you think of Haplogroup F as an original Indus Valley population? (from one of Jeanson’s more recent videos) Haplogroup F-M89 - Wikipedia
I’m not aware of a comprehensive model that’s been presented as an alternative to Jeanson’s. But I’d appreciate some elaboration here, or direct me to where you gave it above. I didn’t read the whole thread.
To acknowledge a difficulty is not to address the difficulty.
In sum, for most of human history, YEC and evolution sharply dispute the events and population sizes that characterize the past.
Jeanson specifically substantiates the reliability of the population curve by appealing to archeology and history, but these apply as well to prior to 1000 BC whether he likes it or not. He repeatedly challenges why, if he is wrong, does his work predict the population curve? Well, it doesn’t. The population curve lays bare the nonsense it is.
YEC does not just disagree with evolution or population genetics. YEC is at odds with indisputable sweep of the archaeology, history, and anthropology which characterizes the past ten millennia. If his model is incompatible with history of the human population, that is a problem for Jeanson and not for history. And that is before considering geochronology and ancient DNA. His errors on phylogenetics have been identified, but we know beforehand he is wrong, just as we know a theory that concludes bumblebees cannot fly and pigs can will prove wrong.
Not true based on what you’ve presented so far. Jeanson’s model seems to require that various migrations were at least an order of magnitude more recent than mainstream science thinks, including lots of thing within the last 3000 years, at least according to Jeanson’s time scale.
I have to wonder why you cited that article and whether you even read it. It certainly doesn’t make common descent, or nested hierarchy as evidence, less plausible. What do you think it said?
Because reasons already stated:
One theory(common descent) predicts the nested hierarchy, another theory(independent creation) doesn’t. We find that there is a nested hierarchy and only one of the theories lead us to expect it. Thus it is evidence for common descent over independent creation.
This has been discussed to death around here something like fifty times. None of you creationists or ID-proponents seem to understand the subject well enough to even give coherent rebuttals, and you all appear to bow out after a few replies with some strange handwavy story about how you need to read more or just don’t see how it’s so good evidence. Then you’re back months later having somehow magically forgotten the last time you failed to give any sensible response.
And no, you linking pop-sci articles stating there are incongruencies between morphological and molecular trees just isn’t a meaningful response for reasons also stated fifty times before.
So @thoughtful, if you think you’re at all prepared to discuss this now, answer me this question: Why is there consilience of independent phylogenies? Why do phylogenetic trees derived from loci with wildly different functions nevertheless come out with incredibly similar trees? No, it’s not functional constraint. That doesn’t explain it. The phylogenies really are independent. One does not constrain the other. So what other explanation can there be for that, other than shared genealogical history? Impress everyone around here by actually giving a coherent answer that even hints you have thought about it.
