If your frame of reference isn’t applicable, there’s no point in trying to use it. What you do or don’t think is not relevant because your opinions are based on nothing. You could fix this problem by learning and thinking, but that appears to be beyond your abilities.
1 Like
I have spent too much time talking to you 
If natural selection is not a perfect filter all it can do is slow down the degradation.
The real pity is you spend zero time listening to those who are much more scientifically educated and knowledgeable than you.
Except for all that new genetic information created in every generation which selection causes to form new beneficial features.
Why is it Bill will whine about “random variation can only degrade”, and whine about “selection can only degrade”, but is never honest enough to discuss random variation AND selection together as an iterative integrated process?
2 Likes
UCD doesn’t require knowing the specific transitional stage between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. This is what I mean by flat denial.
1 Like
Shared genetic features carry a phylogenetic signal. That is the test of the hypothesis, and it works across all life.
1 Like
If ID/creationists observed every mutation as they happened in the human lineage they would probably classify all of them as either neutral or degrading.
1 Like
I would suggest a project to improve your testing method
Then UCD is a very weak claim.
Why is the phylogenetic signal not a valid test?
That sounds like flat denial.
How does it validate that the pattern is only the result of reproductive mechanisms?
That sounds like an argument from someone making unsupported claims. Marketing mumbo jumbo is required when adequate testing is missing.
The same way validation works in the rest of science. When the data is consistent with a natural process then we tentatively conclude the natural process is the cause.
1 Like
Religiously motivated fanatics with no science education often think of scientific evidence as mumbo jumbo. Clueless is as clueless does.
The rest of science will compare the data to some standard to determine if the data meets that standard. What is the comparative standard here?
The comparative standard is population genetics and the predictions it makes about the divergence of sequences. We can also test the hypothesis against living populations with a known history and see if there is a phylogenetic signal, and there is:
It is no different than tests like DNA fingerprinting or spectrophotometry.
1 Like
The branching nested hierarchical patterns known to be created by the process of common descent. If we discover those patterns in the fossil and genetic data which we have then the common descent of biological life is supported.
I’ll note everyone saw how you couldn’t explain your reasoning for the species you said shared a common ancestor.
1 Like
Thanks for citing this paper.
Meanwhile, back at the OP, to which nobody has replied in any scientific way after 338 posts, it’s clear that the denialist Crockford is clearly aided by the Russians.
2 Likes
The problem with this is that while the date of divergence can be used as evidence for descent, when the predicted divergence doesn’t match, it is still adjusted to conform with common descent.
Take the human- chimp divergence as ana example. Based on genetic distance and mutation rates, of we calculate the time of divergence using the mutation rates among human beings, we get a point of divergence 15mya. Chimps have a higher mutation rate, and hence the point of divergence is 10mya.
Does this mean the two species do not have a common ancestor? No, the conclusion is that human mutation rates have slowed down.
So predictions of divergence are not evidence for common descent.