I am simply stating where the science is starting. The assumption of where the population manifested has nothing to do with the actual science being done.
Then you would agree that the following (bolded) comment is false:
1 Like
When some starts an experiments with an existing population and observes changes to that population they are using the separate origin model by default as it is the starting point of their work. I am not saying they support the model but they are indeed using the population as a starting point.
When someone looks at a population of deer and draws a tree diagram showing a proposed ancestral relationship then they are using common descent as the model.
Then to be clear, you believe that any time someone is studying a contemporary population unless otherwise stated, that individual (or individuals) are implicitly assuming that particular population manifested out of thin air (or manifested by whatever process said population would have been created).
Is that your contention?
No it is not.
Itâs only about where the scientific investigation starts.
In the case of the Lenski experiments the investigation started with a population of e coli bacteria.
Thatâs not an inference. Itâs just a claim. And we can easily observe that the claim isnât true, because we can observe new animal populations forming, either in real time or shortly after.
So youâre saying that we canât know anything about biology above the level of species? So much for ID stimulating science. As you report it, it merely closes off most avenues of inquiry.
It explains the pattern of differences, which your inchoate hypothesis canât. And we can understand much about the origin of a new species without knowing everything. We can know that two species are related by descent without knowing the cause of every mutation separating them.
Just so you know, Darwin didnât study changes to finches. He studied differences among finches on different islands (but not until someone else pointed them out to him). And he explained in a general way how those populations came to be different. Hey, thatâs a fine example of new and different populations arising.
If you donât believe that itâs implicitly assumed that said population of E.coli was manifested out of thin air, then itâs unclear why you are claiming a âseparate origin modelâ is being invoked by default when studying contemporary populations.
Do you now disagree with your previous claim?
I have two books for Bill to read (OK, not seriously, because he doesnât read. But others might profit.)
-
Speciation, by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr. Does a nice job of explaining how new species arise (spoiler: not by separate creation).
-
Improbable Destinies by Jonathan Losos. Discusses how populations change and diverge through adaptation as well as the conditions under which convergent evolution does and doesnât happen.
Separate origin model only implies where scientific inquiry starts. The separate origin model does not infer a reproductive relationship.
There is no âseparate origins modelâ. As usual, your rhetoric exceeds its grasp.
Can you define what you mean by âseperate origins modelâ?
It means there is more than one biological origin event.
It means that common ancestry or a reproductive connection between species must be empirically demonstrated on a case by case basis and not assumed.
What would constitute an empirical demonstration of common ancestry or a reproductive connection between species?
And what about within a species? Would we not also need to empirically demonstrate that individuals within a species share common ancestry?
2 Likes
Such a simple question, which should be simple to answer, but @colewd hasnât answered it.
1 Like
But you offer no criteria for doing so. I remember asking, more than once, how one would go about demonstrating to your satisfaction a reproductive connection between a mother and her child, and at least genetically you never articulated a procedure by which one would investigate that question. Are there any non-testimonial, purely biological markers, that indicate relatedness to you?
4 Likes
As I have often said, @colewdâs chief contribution to this board is as a case study in a particular mindset that is sadly common. Recent events, particularly in the USA, have demonstrated the calamitous consequences that can follow from such a mindset. There are, unfortunately, many Bill Coles. This guy is a Bill Cole:
Flagged and hidden for tagging Sy and Perry into a side discussion.
1 Like
There are many possibilities here but a start would be if two species could reproduce fertile offspring.
Why is producing fertile offspring a demonstration of common ancestry?
What are the other possibilities?