Intelligent Design and Common Descent

Science
Design

#146

I think @AllenWitmerMiller was being sarcastic. @Greg said on another thread that he owns some kind of business.


(John Harshman) #147

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.

Harshman J., Huddleston C.J., Bollback J., Parsons T.M., Braun M.J. True and false gharials: A nuclear gene phylogeny of Crocodylia. Systematic Biology 2003; 52:386-402.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #148

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?


#149

How the hell should I know? I skip half of what he says.


(Dan Eastwood) #150

Clicky :slight_smile:


(The Honest Skeptic) #151

It is here:


(Bill Cole) #152

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.


(Timothy Horton) #153

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.


(The Honest Skeptic) #154

24 posts were split to a new topic: Opinions Re. What M. Behe May Believe About Common Descent


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #160

@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.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #161

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.


(Ann Gauger) #162

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?


(Ann Gauger) #163

@Timothy_Horton
Where have I said “You’re wrong!” To anyone. I have said I don’t know.


(Timothy Horton) #164

The comment was a generic impersonal one about all who post on the forum, not to you specifically. My apology if that was unclear.


(Ann Gauger) #166

@Timothy_Horton

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.


(Edward Robinson) #167

I think this is a fair point.


(The Honest Skeptic) #168

@T.j_Runyon

T.J.: This one is for you… I was merely supplying the link. MC


(T J Runyon) #175

@Agauger de novo genes- genes that emerge from previously noncoding genomic regions.

Orphan genes- genes that lack homologues in other lineages
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg3053

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.


(Ann Gauger) #176

@T.j_Runyon

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?


(John Harshman) #177

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.