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

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Chris_Falter

You have 100% misunderstood the point @swamidass was making.

Now that I have mentioned this to you, I’ll bet you can go back, re-read Dr. Swamidass’ statement, and figure out its relevance to this thread.

I have discussed with Steve. His results can be attributed to the redundancy in the DNA code. You have 64 codes coding for 20 proteins where proteins have between 2 and 6 codes that work. You need a model to make a claim that adaptive neutral evolution is anything more than a candidate for simple adaptions. The authors claim that this mechanism can explain the origin of the spliceosome is not viable.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@nwrickert

But they are not on their own. They are part of a biological organism. And maybe that organism can find an innovative way of using the genetic change.

What we are observing is not S happens. The only means of producing a biological organism is a highly deterministic mechanism called reproduction. These are information based organisms where chemical sequences live in almost infinite sequence space. When are we going to face the reality of what we are observing?

There is one solution we are aware of its called a mind for generating de novo sequence. Have you looked at Gpuccio’s articles?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T.j_Runyon

Please. You expect me to believe you read that paper and all the accompanying papers in an hour? Tell us how it’s without substance

I skimmed the article and discounted it when he claimed his toy model could build a spliceosome. This model has not been empirically tested against simple adaptions as far as I can tell. If you know differently please point me there.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@r_speir

Well the math looks very simple. Just plotting graphs. I could back into it but it will take some time. In the meantime, I must disagree with the author’s assertion here

That is not correct. The plots test the prediction showing it is accurate.

I also am pleased to hear you agree you do not at this time have an equivalent mathematical model from de novo creation. Many creation scientists have tried to “back into it” to no avail. It certainly is not trivial. In your honesty here, nonetheless, you made my point. There is no equivalent mathematical explanation.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

Our experiments show that increased complexity in an essential molecular machine evolved because of simple, high-probability evolutionary processes, without the apparent evolution of novel functions. They point to a plausible mechanism for the evolution of complexity in other multi-paralogue protein complexes.

I do agree that Thornton is doing interesting work and could account for some of the adaptions we are observing. It is however a stretch for me to believe an organism with significantly new capability can be formed by significant random change followed by selection. Small amounts of random change are certainly possible.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@colewd

Please. You expect me to believe you read that paper and all the accompanying papers in an hour? Tell us how it’s without substance

I skimmed the article and discounted it when he claimed his toy model could build a spliceosome. This model has not been empirically tested against simple adaptions as far as I can tell. If you know differently please point me there.

This model is not about adaptations, but neutral changes.

@colewd you are multiplying words in ignorance. This is one of those places where both Behe and I agree entirely on the argument. Why are you disagreeing with both Behe and I?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

There is one solution we are aware of its called a mind for generating de novo sequence.

Bill have you come up with a way to test your Magic Mind POOF! hypothesis yet? Or a way to falsify it?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

It is however a stretch for me to believe an organism with significantly new capability can be formed by significant random change followed by selection.

Thank you for sharing your argument from ignorance and personal incredulity with us yet again. There’s no need for you to keep repeating the same evidence free claim over and over and over.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@swamidass

@colewd you are multiplying words in ignorance. This is one of those places where both Behe and I agree entirely on the argument. Why are you disagreeing with both Behe and I?

The article I am referring to is the one TJ posted on adaptive neutral evolution. I will disagree with you and Behe if you guys spew nonsense We all do that occasionally. The idea that neutral mutations can build complex structures is nonsense. I think @Joe_Felsenstein would agree here.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

The idea that neutral mutations can build complex structures is nonsense.

We know Bill. All science you don’t understand you declare to be nonsense. You just can never say why.

[r_speir]

@swamidass

That is not correct. The plots test the prediction showing it is accurate.

I also am pleased to hear you agree you do not at this time have an equivalent mathematical model from de novo creation. Many creation scientists have tried to “back into it” to no avail. It certainly is not trivial. In your honesty here, nonetheless, you made my point. There is no equivalent mathematical explanation.

Shaun Doyle with CMI made this bold statement:

“So let’s say that God modified a chimp template and used the modified template to create Adam” *

But I will go even a step bolder and say what if a human is simply the identical template of a great ape with the breath of God infused, thus one who became a living soul?

The math would be identical. I am not saying your math is trivial, but I am saying the premise of common descent does not have a corner on the market. Evolution does not own the math.

We are swiping at each other and really getting nowhere. Your premise is no better than mine, nor are your conclusions.

*Chimp human similarity

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

The math would be identical. I am not saying your math is trivial, but I am saying the premise of common descent does not have a corner on the market. Evolution does not own the math.

But your Creation scenarios don’t have any math.

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

@r_speir

So let’s say that God modified a chimp template and used the modified template to create Adam

What is the reason for modifying the chimp template (more accurately, the chimp/human common ancestor template) in such a way that the modification can be modeled as a series of independent random mutations with probability distribution conforming to the one that arises from natural processes?

[Rich_Hampton]

Do we agree that using a modified chimp template does not align with a literal Genesis account of Adam’s creation?

[r_speir]

@Rich_Hampton

Do we agree that using a modified chimp template does not align with a literal Genesis account of Adam’s creation?

No we do not agree. And this time, believe it or not, I actually find CMI agreeing with me (and you should know that is unusual).

The statement you quote above is from Shaun Doyle at CMI and of course he aligns with a literal Genesis creation account. That is why I keep saying you guys here have something very wrong about what you think we believe.

[Chris_Falter]

You seem to be talking about a subject that was not previously discussed on the thread, Bill. The thread topic is:

• What prediction about the statistical distribution of nucleotide differences does common ancestry + evolution make? Does the genomic evidence confirm this prediction or not?

@swamidass’ post (to which you replied) directly addresses the thread topic.

In your reply you completely ignored the original topic and raised an entirely new topic. The new topic is orthogonal both to the thread topic and to @swamidass’ post.

I heartily recommend that you re-read @swamidass’ post from the perspective of the original topic. I think you would find it educational.

Best,
Chris

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

“So let’s say that God modified a chimp template and used the modified template to create Adam” *

Why in the world would an omnipotent Deity have to use a template??

There are as many different silly ad hoc excuses for ignoring scientific evidence as there are YECs.

[r_speir]

@Timothy_Horton

Why in the world would an omnipotent Deity have to use a template??

Ok, let me get honest (I can’t believe I am hooking onto your post at a time I get honest - go figure). Anyway, the answer to your question is We don’t know why, but your scientific investigation has caused us to have to change our view of things.

How about that for honesty!

[Chris_Falter]

@r_speir

But your Creation scenarios don’t have any math.

I do understand that you are hard of hearing.

Hi @r_speir,

You already acknowledged the lack of mathematical modeling in the YEC argument about the genomic evidence. Allow me to remind you of what you said:

@r_speir

I could back into it but it will take some time.

You have not yet done this. This means you have no mathematical model.

@r_speir

The math would be identical.

Please sure your equations and how they are derived ineluctably from the special creation hypothesis.

Thanks,

Chris

[r_speir]

@Chris_Falter

You have not yet done this. This means you have no mathematical model.

O brother, really? For the last time >>Your math is my math