I’ve been through this many times with Bill. I once got him to agree that all crocodylians share a common ancestor, but it turns out he did so only because he misunderstood the paper I gave him and thought that their genetic divergence (in one particular gene) was less than 1%. When I pointed out that the divergence was greater, he retracted. But his criterion for common descent does appear to be genetic divergence <1%. He is, however, unwilling to give a reason why that criterion is valid or why divergence >1% precludes common descent.
Didn’t @greg say that he was an independent contractor (business capitalist) who was honest about the number of interior doors he had in his cart at Home Depot and was expecting a (hugh) payday soon?
How the hell should I know? I skip half of what he says.
It is here:
You are insisting she take a position. Just because you think data is compelling does not mean she has to. It is ok to disagree.
This is a discussion forum. it’s not acceptable to just assert “you’re wrong!” without supporting evidence or without offering your own alternate position. IDers have been trying the “Evolution is wrong!” gambit while producing no evidence of their own for 20 years and look how far it’s gotten them.
24 posts were split to a new topic: Opinions Re. What M. Behe May Believe About Common Descent
@Agauger I really want to highlight this. I very much appreciate that you have been an engaged and thoughtful interlocure. We do not always agree on everything, but you consistently show you are acting in good faith. Of note about this example, this was a public exchange with us, where it is totally understandable (even if it is wrong) to dig in your heels. You did not dig in your heels, but gave ground. I respect this about you a great deal.
The logic is more confused than it seems.
If we grant that God can be involved in the process, the functional information barrier he keeps pointing to is not even in principle a problem. God can just insert information as needed to change forms, but we still have the strong signal of common descent to explain. That signal, it seems, is not erased by God’s action to make new proteins.
This is an important point. If ID is true, then the case for common descent is even more certain.
Ok, we seem to have an unclear use of terminology, at least unclear to me. What do you mean by de novo as opposed to orphan?
Where have I said “You’re wrong!” To anyone. I have said I don’t know.
The comment was a generic impersonal one about all who post on the forum, not to you specifically. My apology if that was unclear.
Granted, and thank you. But perhaps it would be good to note that not all ID people are the same and to speak of us as the same is misleading. We are a range of individuals with a range of understanding and a range of personal views. Much like the people on this forum who are not ID, I think.
I think this is a fair point.
T.J.: This one is for you… I was merely supplying the link. MC
@Agauger de novo genes- genes that emerge from previously noncoding genomic regions.
Orphan genes- genes that lack homologues in other lineages
I was just trying to make the point that if an orphan gene is discovered it isn’t necessarily due to it arising de novo.
OK, got it. Would you say that a gene without homologues, but that also has no non-coding homology would be an orphan but not de novo?
I would say that ID adds nothing to the case for common descent. It just fails to subtract. Your point might be expressed more simply: if we suppose that certain adaptations could not have arisen naturally, guided evolution fits the data much better than separate creation.