The data preclude that hypothesis, as it would require a statistically very unlikely pattern of convergence in those neutral mutations. That is in fact the main point. Did you look at the chi square test?
How is it falsifiable?
This is a good point. Need to ponder this.
If the 5 species were created independently with identical sequences, then neutral mutations would make them all diverge from each other. That’s not consistent with the data.
The only way “design plus neutral mutations” fits the data is if the original designed sequences were created in such a way to mimic sequences that are related by common descent in a particular phylogeny. That’s not a hypothesis that’s distinguishable from common descent, so why add the extra complexity?
This is a very interesting observation. Is T’s sequence alignment right?
Wow, @John_Harshman, that is fantastic! Thanks so much for that excellent explanation. Very helpful.
I think we need to back up a bit here. The discussion seems to be heading down a very predictable path. Let’s see if we can back out a second and take another approach.
@colewd, I think it would be worth thinking about taking “design + neutral mutations” and seeing if you can create a model that fits the particular data that @John_Harshman has shown. What features or limitation would be placed on the design for us to get this data? This can be an imaginative thought experiment type stuff.
To my mind, it seems like we would need for human design to be derived from gorilla and chimp design, right? Can we really get out of that limitation? I don’t see how you could have either 1) random design, not derived from any other previous design or 2) design derived from orangutans and gibbons because why would they (seemingly arbitrarily) share common, unnecessary, sequences?
The sequences in the original post have been edited and reviewed by the original poster. I would suggest going there.
correct me if im wrong but isnt this similar to what we already discussed about with glipsnort claim?
Thanks for making the effort to put this info together, write it up, and re-post it here. To be clear, I am 100% on board with your explanation, but have you done this type of analysis with other sequences? It would be interesting to see other comparisons like this.
It’s the same principle, sure.
Can you repost Gilpsnort’s paper?
I haven’t, but anyone is free to try it.
What is he talking about here?
@glipsnort (aka Stephen Schaffner) discusses the mechanisms that cause mutations and how the evidence supports the conclusion that the differences between the genomes of species is due to these mechanisms:
Then, to answer @scd’s question, the two are nothing at all alike. They are independent sorts of evidence for common descent.
@scd tried to argue that those results could be equally well explained by the species being created with identical sequences then diverging through neutral mutations. That’s the parallel. I’ll try to find the thread.
Edit: here it is, scd starts posting at #82:
But it isn’t a parallel. @scd is suggesting, in effect, a star phylogeny. The pattern @glipsnort shows could indeed be produced by a star phylogeny, as tree topology is irrelevant to it. Not so, however, with the data here.
He was replying to my comment #24, which basically explained exactly that.
I am not sure we would not expect the same data if special creation was staggered in time. If Apes and humans were designed in closer time proximity to each other we would get the same data as the neutral mutations would be more similar as the sequence starting point is sooner and has diverged less from the original sequence.
The design condition is the designs are staggered in time which agrees with the fossil record.
If they were separately created, why would they share any DNA sequences?
Maybe you should work that up into an actual, testable model. What you have described there does not fit the data, as far as can be seen from your vague statement.