They are due to deterministic changes.
Is everybody here hard of hearing? When did I dispute âthis correlationâ? Do you really completely misunderstand my clear language?
Summary: I LIKE YOUR ARTICLE AND I AGREE WITH THE MATH !!! The only thing you have wrong is that there is no such thing as a common ancestor of humans and great apes. We creationists must concede however that God MUST HAVE STARTED WITH A SIMILAR OR VERY NEARLY EXACT TEMPLATE.
Where is the evidence for this claim?
Based on what evidence?
Did the first chimps and first humans have nearly the same genomes?
This is both false and irrelevant to my comment.
How can the model exist if heâs still developing it?
Quite true. I have also failed to show how raindrops form and how graphene works. The number of things that I have failed to show in this thread is astronomical. What I have done is tell you that your claim was wrong. You suggested that failure to predict precise outcomes of a stochastic process meant that a model was not scientific. That was wrong. Instead of changing the subject, could you please defend your claim or withdraw it?
3 Likes
Then you must like this concluding paragraph:
These observations match the predictions that flow naturally from evolutionary theory and common descent. We can explicitly say âif evolution and common ancestry is true, we should observe Xâ, then gather the data, and find X. On the other hand, these observations are completely unexpected under a creation model, especially a âcreated heterozygosityâ scenario. Creationists have failed to address this evidence, ignoring it altogether when they claim their models are rigorous and even on par with evolutionary theory. Mutations are plainly the cause of genetic diversity and divergence with other species, not an act of divine âfront-loadingâ.
No Creationist model, no Creationist math. Oops!
1 Like
No, you have to be more specific. What species had nearly exactly the same genomes?
See gpuccioâs work. Calculate the total sequence space of proteins. Estimate what random changes will do Look at Dawkins attempt to create and English sentence algorithmically.
The evidence has been right infront of you all along you are not looking at it.
You do it. Your claim, your work.
I do? I have to? Really? Ok, this is from the article
âFixed genetic differences between humans and chimps (red) were counted from Great Ape Genome Project data.â
I guess that means I have to go with Humans and Chimps. Since you say I must give an answer, that is my answer.
I will leave it here. I think your claim is credible and you have produced interesting data.
Please think about mind as a mechanism. I do not expect you to agree with this right away as it took me a long time to get comfortable with this idea. I think physics may hit this same wall with information as a component of matter that biology has hit when DNA was discovered to be a translatable sequence. The latest quantum gravity models include atomic computation.
He has presented the model. The accuracy is in question due to the immaturity of the gene databases.
We have thought about it Bill. Until you can provide a mechanism for your disembodied mind to physically manipulate matter you have nothing. Then you have to provide evidence your disembodied mind actually was the directing factor.
You donât have a testable scientific hypothesis Bill. You have idle philosophical speculation.
1 Like
I think itâs fine to think of minds as mechanisms for creating ideas and plans. They are not mechanisms for creating or changing genomes.
I saw the model. The accuracy was in question because his model for common descent was obviously inadequate, and because it had no way of guarding against noise being interpreted as signal.
1 Like
A charitable reading of this article will show that a deterministic mechanism is the only credible explanation for the origin of this molecular machine.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/
/
Youâve changed the topic Bill. We are discussing @evogradâs and @glipsnortâs articles, which you seem to have not read.
2 Likes
Great. Now what is the explanation for the identical pattern when you see while comparing humans and baboons? Did they originally have identical genomes too?
1 Like
Very telling you have to resort to begging to get people to accept your evidence-free Creationist hand waves.
Ok, now I see where you are going. Fine. So I will revise my answer since chimps and baboons arise from the same created kind.
New answer: Humans and a Proto-great ape.
I donât understand your point. Why was his model for common descent inadequate? He was not modeling common descent he was comparing gene families. The families were not following a tree pattern that common descent would predict.
When I looked at a potential smoking gun like the data where 100 genes were common to Rats and Chimps and missing in Humans and Mice the data base appeared to be inaccurate. This is the issue in my mind. If genes are not following the tree pattern then common descent is in trouble.
You didnât look at the data at all. DNA_jock showed you Ewertâs graph was based 100% on errors in the database. Ewert himself never bothered to check the accuracy of his claims.
I do wish you would tell the story honestly for once.
3 Likes