i dont think that evolutionery biologists (arent we talking about geneticists?) developing medicines base on common descent. even if common descent is false they were still able to develope medicines just fine.
Can you explain why you think these are mechanisms?
Why would you expect this?
Yes, there is so much noise in the data, a Gish Gallop is required to explain it.
So you canât dispute any of them. Thank you.
For the millionth time, a nested hierarchy is what we would expect those mechanisms to produce.
Irreducible complexity does not cause noise in a phylogeny. You are changing the subject.
2 Likes
The more accurate statement shouldâve been common descent can be tested independently of mechanism.
1 Like
No Bill. Common descent is not the claim that reproduction caused the pattern. Common descent is the claim that the differences that allow us to infer the pattern, occurred on separate lines of descent. But it doesnât say how they occurred.
There are theories of molecular evolution, and knowledge we have from biochemistry, that give ways of accounting for novel attributes along those separate lines of descent. But they are not necessary in order to infer common descent. Merely the fact that there is a nesting hierarchy does not entail that the attributes we use to infer that hierarchy are caused by âreproductionâ. Itâs not even clear what that really means.
3 Likes
Yes. There are test for common descent that rely on mechanism, such as showing that nucleotide differences in similar genetic loci between different species are consistent with biochemistry. In that case the data really does imply a particular mechanism: The various biochemical causes of substitution bias.
There are other tests for common descent that donât rely on mechanism, such as nesting hierarchies. And consilience of independent phylogenies.
3 Likes
Are you agreeing they are not mechanisms?
Are you claiming a âmechanismâ like convergent evolution explains the nested hierarchy? Can you expand on this claim?
Irreducibly complexity is not a cause it is an observed condition. It is also documented claim that points to noise in the data.
Thatâs the important bit. What matters is that the modifications are lineage specific, not how the modifications came about. This is why the nested hierarchy was such strong evidence for evolution before modern genetics came along, and why it is still strong evidence.
3 Likes
Yes, the morphological nested hiearchy was still evidence for common descent in Darwinâs time, well before anyone understood how inheritance works, or what is causing variation and diversity to originate and be passed on.
2 Likes
What do you mean by separate lines of descent? You are claiming common descent.
Do you know what a tree looks like? Are there separate branches that share a common branch or trunk? It isnât called the Tree of Life for nothing. Once a speciation event occurs there are separate lines of descent that share a common ancestor.
2 Likes
Yes, I am. I have to when I explain how the evidence for it is independent of mechanism.
1 Like
We all have common ground there is evidence for common descent. Where we may differ is I believe it is only a partial explanation for the data.
What data?
2 Likes
What do you interpret as noise? Homoplasy? But we expect homoplasy from known evolutionary processes, right? You donât need a designer to explain that.
Nope, thatâs not the job of common descent. Again, descent explains the pattern of features, not the features themselves. This is the point you have never grasped. I urge you to try again to understand it.
And of course all those features you mention happened at different times in different ancestors. Nor have you, or has anyone, shown that they are in fact irreducibly complex.
Of course thatâs true. It explains the patterns of distribution in the data. Thatâs all itâs ever been intended to explain. Itâs what weâre supposedly talking about. You apparently are incapable of understanding that.
3 Likes
I donât see any creationist pharma companies. Do you?
1 Like
If they pay attention to what they are doing when they test medicines on animals, theyâll be much happier testing the medicines on animals more closely related to humans. If all the animals are equally unrelated to humans, there isnât much basis for expecting animal testing to work.
2 Likes
What I understand is the claim is not clear to the layman. You have had a consistent position on this but others move around. The common descent claim on its own is almost meaningless in the way you define it.
When you tell the public that there is tremendous evidence for common descent the impression you leave is that from first life until now all diversity was generated from reproduction alone. There is no scientific basis for this idea. Itâs in the same vein as the claim evolution is a fact. Itâs simply selling the science beyond its real supportable claims.
I donât expect homoplasy from known evolutionary models. Based on what? Its contradictory evidence that was spun into a feature base on the assumption that UCD is true.
Its a problem for your claim that common descent explains the nested hierarchy as new features are part of the structure.
Youâre approaching Byers level logic here Bill. How do you suppose one generation arose from the previous one if not by reproduction? Did your magic mind POOF! each new generation into existence?
1 Like
This is the materialist paradigm that common descent alone is the only possible explanation. The problem is that there is too much noise in the data to support this idea. You donât have enough evidence to sell this beyond your materialist loyalists. I just read a pew research poll that claims that 90% of the country believes there is a guiding intelligence behind the universe.