Uhm, yes you can. Just like you can model the accumulation of random mutations, you can model the accumulation of random deletions over the evolution of some tree. It’s trivial.
What makes you think the genes were lost then “reappeared”? I recall this was one of your misunderstandings in previous discussions. It’s unfortunate that you still haven’t grasped why it’s a flawed interpretation.
The dependency graph didn’t predict that. At all. It is in no way superior in accounting for that distribution of genes. Nothing about Ewert’s dependencry graph says any particular ensemble of genes should be found in humans and zebrafish but not in mice and chickens. Nothing.
Also, they aren’t reappearing for the tenth time Bill. How is it even possible for you to keep failing to understand this?
Look at the data Fazil. Why are they missing in a mammal that shares a common ancestor with humans? Why are the missing in a bird that shares a common ancestor with humans? Why are they not missing in a fish that share a common ancestor with chickens mice and humans?
The best explanation is your are looking at a design pattern. Random noise does not explain this.
If a gene is missing in mice, why would you assume that it was lost in the common ancestor or humans and mice and then reappeared in the human lineage, as opposed to simply being lost in the mouse lineage?
1 Like
They were also lost in the chicken lineage. 73 Genes lost twice. Random noise is your explanation?
They got lost in those lineages after they each split off from their common ancestor. This really isn’t hard to work out Bill.
The best explanation is your are looking at a design pattern.
Then do it. Explain it with a “design pattern”. So why were they removed from those two species? What the parameters of the design explanation?
That just isn’t true. We do not “in general” see hierarchy.
Not much. One could model gene loss as a stochastic process a predict the rate of multiple hits, though I haven’t done it.
These questions have already been answered. As usual, your are demonstrating that acceptance of ID Creationism depends on denial of evidence that is readily available. Even if it is spoon fed to the adherent.
This has not been demonstrated. How does “design” predict the specific pattern demonstrated in the diagram? How can you even claim this, without a mechanism or model for this “design” thing you keep talking about?
73 out of about 20,000 odd genes listed there. Please explain why that is an unreasonable number to have occurred over 100,000 years, and how “design” is a better explanation.
I’ll make a prediction based on common descent: if you expand the study Bill’s been talking about beyond just the 4 species (human, mouse, chicken, zebrafish), you will find the patterns coming apart. The few genes shared just by human and zebrafish will be seen to have different patterns of distribution from each other, and to have been lost at different points on the tree. As more taxa are added, loss will become increasingly parsimonious compared to independent gain.
Ewert’s dependency diagram will need more and more ad hoc “modules” to explain the data, the prior modules will be fragmented, and the modules that remain will be found, if anyone bothers to look, to have nothing in common other than their patterns of distribution among species.
3 Likes
So it doesn’t follow a nested hierarchy?
The problem is that he can’t explain the signal.
1 Like
yes we do. that is why we can classified designed objects into groups, like cars, trucks, cell-phones etc. on the same base of reptiles, mammals, bird etc.
You seem not to understand the difference between a nested hierarchy and merely classifying things into groups. Which is odd, because I’m sure this has been explained to you.
Even if true, that makes them not eyewitness testimony.
I am stating facts.
That’s completely independent of the fact that there is no eyewitness testimony for the Resurrection.
There’s still zero eyewitness testimony.
Do you think loss followed by reappearance of 73 genes is a better explanation than 73 instances of convergent loss?
2 Likes
It explains custom gene families. Re use of parts is a method of design.
Are you claiming the 73 genes were lost twice? How do you account for this as a random event?[quote=“Faizal_Ali, post:238, topic:8218”]
Interesting. One of the letters was deleted from my name. I wonder what the design purpose was behind that. Care to explain, Bill?
[/quote]
My apologies Faizal.
Interesting. One of the letters was deleted from my name. I wonder what the design purpose was behind that. Care to explain, Bill?
1 Like
Yet we have all of Paul’s first-person writings. Are they not ancient?
Your faith in your Biblical interpretation is based on avoidance and gross misrepresentation of the evidence from biology and geology.
Goal post move noted. You might want to use the search function to check the accuracy of that statement.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position, as there’s a long continuum between eyewitness testimony and blind faith. Is it ethical to misrepresent the positions of other people?
The only hypothesis that is consistent with your misrepresentations of Biblical and scientific evidence, as well as of my positions, is that your underlying faith is extremely weak.
It appears that your knowledge does not include a basic understanding of the term “nested.”
1 Like