It’s your job to explain that deletions in the pattern you are observing is the cause. You need to show that your mechanism is up to the task. You need a model that can be tested to have a valid scientific hypothesis. You made the claim that the pattern looks exactly like common descent so it’s your job to defend that claim.
Design or mind as a mechanism easily explains this pattern.
You are the one making the claim that the diagram is inconsistent with common descent, so to do that you must have a model of common descent in mind that would produce different results.
If you admit that common descent plus noise accounts for the data, then your argument isn’t that it is inconsistent with common ancestry (as understood by actual scientists, not your straw man version without gene loss), it’s that the explanation of noise is unsatisfying or lacks predictive power. That’s a seperate argument, so which one are you going to make?
The deletions follow lineages, which indicates a single deletion event and subsequent vertical inheritance. If deletion mutations were not the cause then they wouldn’t follow the branches.
You made the claim that it doesn’t follow the expected pattern from common descent and evolution, so it is up to you to support that claim.
Are you denying that gene loss occurs?
Please show where this pattern was predicted by a design researcher. Thanks.
I accept the traditional authorship of John & Matthew, so that means we’ve got at least two. And if we’ve got the written testimony of somebody who spoke to an eyewitness, then that is great and powerful historical evidence in and of itself.
Mr. Literalist, Peter said that he witnessed Christ’s majesty .
You abandon literalism for convenience pretty quickly, don’t you?
Peter said “when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Before the Resurrection, Jesus would not have particularly been described using this language. He was ‘despised and rejected of men’. So what is Peter talking about here if not the Resurrection?
It’s not a model, it’s a phenomenon. You seem to be obsessed with using the term “model” incorrectly lately.
In addition, inheritance passes deletions forward. That’s understood by us, apparently not by you.
Whether you do or not, they are not written as eyewitness accounts, in the first person. Again, you are abandoning literalism. Why don’t you simply have faith? Why do you have to misrepresent so many things?
But calling that “eyewitness testimony” is a lie.
It’s not an eyewitness account, and you know it. There are literally zero eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. I don’t see the problem with that, if one has faith.
See Winston’s Ewert’s work on the dependency chart.
The Dependency Graph of Life
Winston Ewert*
Biologic Institute, Redmond, Washington, USA
Abstract
The hierarchical classification of life has been claimed as compelling evidence for universal common ancestry. However, research has uncovered much data which is not congruent with the hierarchical pattern. Nevertheless, biological data resembles a nested hierarchysufficiently well to require an explanation. While many defenders of intelligent design dispute common descent, no alternative account of the approximate nested hierarchy pattern has been widely adopted. We present the dependency graph hypothesis as an alternative explanation, based on the technique used by software developers to reuse code among different software projects. This hypothesis postulates that different biological species share modules related by a dependency graph. We evaluate several predictions made bythis model about both biological and synthetic data, finding them to be fulfilled.
I don’t know why an eyewitness testimony must necessarily be written in the first person; especially on ancient writing standards.
Why don’t you simply have faith?
Because my faith is based upon sound evidence, not just a blind shot in the dark. God says ‘come let us reason together’, so I apply reason and I believe what I do for good reasons.
But calling that “eyewitness testimony” is a lie.
I didn’t call Luke or Mark ‘eyewitness testimonies’ directly.
It’s not an eyewitness account, and you know it. There are literally zero eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. I don’t see the problem with that, if one has faith.
You dodged my question, and just chose to reiterate that you think Christian faith is supposed to be blind faith.
This is very misleading. The authors of all the gospels and Paul’s writings are all directly taken from eye witness testimony. You are playing rhetorical games. Why are you arguing against this well established historical evidence. There is also evidence from an independent source the Jewish Roman historian Flavius Josephus that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and fulfilled the prophecies. The prophets predicted Jesus life death and resurrection very accurately.
I see Bill doesn’t understand what constitutes eyewitness testimony either.
He’s not predicting this pattern before it was discovered, he’s come up with an ad hoc model to try and explain existing data. His work is also incredibly flawed both in terms of the data and reasoning behind claiming his explanation to be superior to evolution + common descent, as had been discussed on this forum extensively.
He is showing the pattern follows a dependency graph used in software development. We have common ground that the gene data is immature at this point. He is offering an explanation for the “noise” in the common descent data.
Could you summarize that article in your own words? Could you also explain why that was just posted on a creationist website, and not published in a journal?
Yes, but he’s not showing that it explains the data any better than common descent plus gene loss.
I disagree. Gene loss if it is small enough and follows the tree is fine. What we are observing is genes being selectively lost which does not look like a random event. It looks like gene families are being intentionally selected. More data going forward may confirm this.
On what evidence do you base this claim?
Also in Winston’s dependency graph. Genes in Zebrafish being lost in chickens and lost in mice and reappearing in humans. This is one of many examples as we look at the data.
You didn’t answer the question. Of course.
Please demonstrate that the genes “reappeared” in humans, as opposed to being inherited from a common ancestor with zebrafish.
Also, please explain how “dependency” accounts for the nested hierarchy observed in junk DNA such as ERV remnants.