Stairway to Understanding Hypothesis vs. Common Descent, my presentation to science students and church groups

[John_Harshman]

@scd

under my scenario these species were similar to each other in their initial state,

Since the phenotypic differences between species originate in genetic differences, are you also saying that the species were phenotypically similar to each other in their initial state? Was the ancestral human a generic monkey?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@scd

@T_aquaticus

That doesn’t answer the question. What should the relative number of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations look like, and why would we see those ratios for separately created kinds?

im not sure what is the question. under my scenario these species were similar to each other in their initial state, and then they accumulated mutations over time. the result will look like these pattern. but without a common descent.

But your scenario has one obvious omission: If rhinos, fritillaries and brittlestars shared 97% of their DNA, what made them so different?

grrr...ninja...harshman...sassarassafrassen

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

This is why I think mind as a control is important.

Incidentally, and this has been pointed out before, I don’t think you know what a control is or how it’s used in experimental science. It’s possible that you mean to refer instead to a null hypothesis, but I don’t think you know what that is either or how it’s used in statistics.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@John_Harshman

@scd

under my scenario these species were similar to each other in their initial state,

Since the phenotypic differences between species originate in genetic differences, are you also saying that the species were phenotypically similar to each other in their initial state? Was the ancestral human a generic monkey?

Perhaps all the ancestral forms were differently created variants of what we think was LUCA.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@John_Harshman

No, I’m shaming you for bringing up “Sal’s flower” after repeated demonstrations that it doesn’t show what you think.

You did not demonstrate anything comprehensive you waved your hands with a very incomplete analysis. There is very problematic data in Sal’s flower as with Winstons dependency graph. Gene’s are not following the tree in anyway that you would expect. Merely claiming gene loss is handwaving. How would all those genes go away with random deletion and an animal population survive?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@John_Harshman

@colewd

How do you know they are discredited? Do you have expertise in biology?

I do. I discredited them.

This seems a common theme recently - that those arguing for creationism/ID assume that those arguing against it are as unqualified, inexpert and unknowledgeable as they are themselves.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Merely claiming gene loss is handwaving. How would all those genes go away with random deletion and an animal population survive?

Obviously, losing the gene was not deleterious. Doesn’t take much to figure that one out.

Can you please explain why gene loss is handwaving? Are you saying that it doesn’t happen?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Roy

This seems a common theme recently - that those arguing for creationism/ID assume that those arguing against it are as unqualified, inexpert and unknowledgeable as they are themselves.

The common theme is that evolutionists are compelled to argue from authority.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The common theme is that evolutionists are compelled to argue from authority.

And yet here we are arguing from observations. This thread is filled with real data.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Can you please explain why gene loss is handwaving? Are you saying that it doesn’t happen?

When and how were the genes lost? Why was this spread through the population? I can go on but I really think this discussion is just silly denial on your side and don’t want to deal with simply rhetoric. Without design as a control contradictory data is getting swept under the carpet.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

And yet here we are arguing from observations. This thread is filled with real data.

You are not taking seriously observations that contradictory your theory.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@colewd

@Roy

This seems a common theme recently - that those arguing for creationism/ID assume that those arguing against it are as unqualified, inexpert and unknowledgeable as they are themselves.

The common theme is that evolutionists are compelled to argue from authority.

The common theme is that the evolutionists here have authority - expertise, knowledge, qualifications and experience - but argue from the evidence instead, so their authority is not evident to some.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

You are not taking seriously observations that contradictory your theory.

You haven’t shown any observations which contradict evolutionary theory.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Without design as a control contradictory data is getting swept under the carpet.

Please give us your understanding of what a control group is and its purpose in a scientific experiment. You seem to have no idea and just like tossing the word “control” around like a magic talisman.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

Please give us your understanding of what a control group is and its purpose in a scientific experiment. You seem to have no idea and just like tossing the word “control” around like a magic talisman.

I this case I am advocating mind as an alternative hypothesis to account for some of the observations in the data.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

When and how were the genes lost? Why was this spread through the population? I can go on but I really think this discussion is just silly denial on your side and don’t want to deal with simply rhetoric.

Just to get this straight, you think gene loss is a complete invention?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

You are not taking seriously observations that contradictory your theory.

It has been taken seriously, and it has been determined that it is noise. In fact, we expect noise in phylogenies because of many mechanisms in biology, gene loss being one of them.

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

Under your scenario, they were different by 1-5% initially. Those differences were not caused by mutation, so we should see a deviation away from the pattern we would see with just mutations.

first i think that we do see small deviations in these graphs (check the fugu-human comparison for instance). so these deviations might represent their initial difference.

@John_Harshman

Since the phenotypic differences between species originate in genetic differences, are you also saying that the species were phenotypically similar to each other in their initial state?

sure. but not necessarily more similar, since most of these mutations are neutral.

@Roy

But your scenario has one obvious omission: If rhinos, fritillaries and brittlestars shared 97% of their DNA, what made them so different?

their genetic difference?

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

first i think that we do see small deviations in these graphs (check the fugu-human comparison for instance). so these deviations might represent their initial difference.

You think a fish species and humans started out with very similar genomes?

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

you waved your hands with a very incomplete analysis.

It’s much more complete than anything you’ve ever done.

@colewd

Gene’s are not following the tree in anyway that you would expect.

Unless you know that there’s such a thing as gene loss and that it happens frequently. I suppose the dependency graph makes the very strong assumption that gene loss never happens. Would you agree?

@colewd

How would all those genes go away with random deletion and an animal population survive?

If they’re essential for survival, why do any species lack them? You haven’t thought this through.

@colewd

The common theme is that evolutionists are compelled to argue from authority.

Never have. You’re the one arguing from other people’s supposed lack of authority, and we counter that by pointing out that we do know what we’re talking about, and then we demonstrate it.