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

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jonathan_Burke

As usual, you throw out a link to an article without explaining its relevance, or even explaining what you think the article is about. What conclusion do you draw from this, and is your conclusion actually described in the article? Do professionals draw the same conclusion from this article?

Bill has had that graphic and it’s implications explained to him close to twenty times now. At length. He does not understand why it doesn’t show what he thinks it does even after having had it explained to him over and over and over again.

First one of Bill’s creationist friends claimed ORFan genes somehow contradict phylogenetic evidence for common descent, which I tried to explain to him was the other way around here.

Later, the way in which the graphic still only makes sense on common descent was explained by John Harshman here: Common Design vs. Common Descent | The Skeptical Zone

Here’s Bill’s ingenious response: Common Design vs. Common Descent | The Skeptical Zone

colewd: None of us understands Sal’s flower including you. All of us can create a story that explains it but we are probably wrong. You are discounting outside space time explanations for the flower but including them in your explanation of common descent.

If you eventually realize the circular reasoning going on inside evolutionary biology I will be very impressed.

I added non detail because of the difficulty of an outside space time detailed explanation. That does not stop us from collecting evidence that points to an outside space time solution.

Mind you, Bill was present in the thread and read those responses. Ever since that time he’s brought up that graphic again and again and again. Even in that very thread. Despite it literally implying the opposite of what he’s insisting. It’s been over 2 years now, and he still doesn’t get it.

But, hey, we are discounting the “outside space time detailed expanation”.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

I did not find that.

Here you go:

Next, we estimated the extent to which human-chimpanzee sequence divergence is influenced by mutation rates and recombination rates (Fig. 4). The correlation between substitution rates from a human-chimpanzee comparative genomics (HCCG) model 30 and observed de novo mutations was significant (r = 0.18, p = 1.3 × 10−15).
Genome-wide patterns and properties of de novo mutations in humans - PMC

When the relative amounts of different substitutional types observed between the chimpanzee and the human are compared with the same substitutional types observed as polymorphisms among humans, they are found to be very similar ([fig. 4] In general, each substitutional type is found among humans at approximately a tenth of the frequency found in the comparisons between humans and chimpanzees. This includes differences at CpG sites as well as non-CpG sites. Thus, the mutational and selective mechanisms that underlie the DNA sequence differences seen between humans and chimpanzees operate at approximately the same relative strengths within humans as well.(Figure - PMC)).
Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees - PMC

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Rumraket

Bill has had that graphic and it’s implications explained to him close to twenty times now. At length. He does not understand why it doesn’t show what he thinks it does even after having had it explained to him over and over and over again.

Yeah, see this is exactly the point, isn’t it? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His posts just sound like cargo cult science, throwing around sciencey sounding vocabulary (sometimes actual phrases which literally don’t make sense), in a manner which apes science without actually being science.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

Here you go:

You are mistaken. Neither of those statements say that the research supports human/chimp ancestry.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

You are mistaken. Neither of those statements say that the research supports human/chimp ancestry.

That’s because it is such a well supported, widely held, and non-controversial conclusion that they don’t feel the need to explicitly state it.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

That’s because it is such a well supported, widely held, and non-controversial conclusion that they don’t feel the need to explicitly state it.

Now we are getting somewhere. All that can really be shown is that since the human and chimp genome are similar, statistical results are similar in genetic research.

[r_speir]

Therefore a title like this

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations

…is completely misleading. This is not science, but rather, bias.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

All that can really be shown is that since the human and chimp genome are similar, statistical results are similar in genetic research.

Read it again:

Thus, the mutational and selective mechanisms that underlie the DNA sequence differences seen between humans and chimpanzees operate at approximately the same relative strengths within humans as well.
Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees - PMC

They are looking at the differences. They are saying that these mechanisms are responsible for the differences between humans and chimps since they shared common ancestry.

[r_speir]

“These observations match the predictions that flow naturally from evolutionary theory and common descent.”

From @evograd, this statement is completely unwarranted and unsupported by the research.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

this statement is completely unwarranted and unsupported by the research.

Then what should the pattern of substitution mutations look like if humans and chimpanzees do share a common ancestor, and how does it differ from what we see?

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

Thus, the mutational and selective mechanisms that underlie the DNA sequence differences seen between humans and chimpanzees operate at approximately the same relative strengths within humans as well.

I thought you might pull that one out. No, you read it again. It does not say what you think it is saying. You are coloring it with your bias.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

I thought you might pull that one out. No, you read it again. It does not say what you think it is saying.

That is not a helpful post. If you think the analysis is wrong, then show HOW it is wrong. Don’t simply say that it is wrong.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

Then what should the pattern of substitution mutations look like if humans and chimpanzees do share a common ancestor, and how does it differ from what we see?

The authentic answer? We don’t know. And we can’t know.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

That is not a helpful post. If you think the analysis is wrong, then show HOW it is wrong. Don’t simply say that it is wrong.

Really? Holding your hand?

@T_aquaticus

Thus, the mutational and selective mechanisms that underlie the DNA sequence differences seen between humans and chimpanzees

That is the a prior assumption.

@T_aquaticus

operate at approximately the same relative strengths within humans as well.

And that is the finding. And for medical purposes, it is important. But says nothing about the research affirming the a prior assumption.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

If you think the analysis is wrong

Don’t you dare pin this accusation on me! I did not say anywhere that the analysis is wrong.

The medical research is good research. Your mishandling of the data strongly throw into question your (and your friends here) any kind of authentic scientific investigation.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

The authentic answer? We don’t know. And we can’t know.

Why not?

We can observe the pattern of ongoing mutations in the human population. We sequence the genomes of parents and offspring, and the differences between the two are mutations. We can form a hypothesis based on this background research. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, then we should see the same pattern of differences between human and chimp genomes as we see between the genomes of parents and their offspring. Can you explain why this hypothesis is faulty?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Your mishandling of the data strongly throw into question your (and your friends here) any kind of authentic scientific investigation.

What mishandling? Please stop making bare accusations. Back up your accusations with evidence.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Because you affirm it to be true and preach it as a gospel.

WHAT???

Stating a hypothesis is not preaching. Where did you get that from?

@r_speir

I am telling you and you already know this because you are an intelligent creature, you CANNOT conclude common ancestry with the research provided in these journals…!

Address the hypothesis I gave you and show how it is faulty.

@r_speir

You are propagating lies and there are naive and innocent people looking on and taking you and your “science” at face value.

Name a single lie in this hypothesis:

If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, then we should see the same pattern of differences between human and chimp genomes as we see between the genomes of parents and their offspring.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Jonathan_Burke

As usual, you throw out a link to an article without explaining its relevance, or even explaining what you think the article is about. What conclusion do you draw from this, and is your conclusion actually described in the article? Do professionals draw the same conclusion from this article?

This article has been discussed in several posts on this thread. The posts are fairly recent. The Venn diagram is showing genes not following an inheritance pattern. The expiation by evolution supporters is gene loss. So far that is all they have brought forward to explain the pattern.

Do you think they should test that hypothesis? Is simply claiming that gene loss explains this pattern enough?

Is evolution an unfalsifiable theory because all non tested explanations are accepted?

Might design or mind as an alternative explanation force a more rigorous analysis?

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

And you can kick me off this forum right now

@moderators please do. He is bringing down the quality of the forum significantly