The Argument Clinic

Hi Allen

Because human designers re use sequences.

By looking at designers and seeing the trends. We look at biology and see shared genes and genes that are not shared. Why would we expect sequences that we observe in biology to not follow this pattern?

What we observe is a universe with limitations. We don’t have millions of divert basic components in atoms.

The universe as it stands operates more efficiently when a wheel is re used.

Parsimony is driven by methodological naturalism and the fallacy of personal incredulity. Parsimony as a vehicle for biology has generated faulty models (UCD) given the evidence.

What we have is a parsimony claim without a model backing up the claim. We don’t have a clue how some deer have different genes and very different chromosome pairs. Parsimony does not help us here.

When it makes sense to re-use them, they do. When it makes sense to write new ones, they do that. Nature does that, too. It also re-uses sequences when it would make more sense to write new ones, and it also makes new sequences when re-using an existing one would have done the job. It’s almost as if there is no designer in charge of it at all.

So, in other words, by hand-waving and with no actual statistical analysis you can sketch, let alone walk any of us through. Alright, carry on.

How many universes have you compared to determine that one with wheel re-use is “more efficient” than one without? What does “more effeiciently” even mean, when talking about what ever “the universe operates” means? How is any of this something other than just meaningless jargon you know no means of quantifying?

Rich of you to complain about personal incredulity, considering that is the sum-total of your entire position concerning well-understood biological processes… But regardless, that claim is also just straight-up false. Parsimony is a means of reducing errors. All else being equal, the more assumptions we make, the more likely it is that among them may be found a false one. A model that relies on many assumptions is therefore, again, all else being equal, more fragile than a model that relies only on a few. Rendering predictions is also easier, if there are fewer details to consider or calculations to perform. More parsimonious models are more efficient, a more effective means of advancing the goals of science, than their less parsimonious alternatives. This has nothing to do with methodological naturalism or personal incredulity. The reason we strive to make only as many assumptions as necessary is that we want to not be wrong all of the time like you are.

Evidence the scientific subset of which you cannot actually provide of faults you cannot actually demonstrate… But do go on.

This sentence makes no sense. Parsimony is not a claim. And the claim that one model is more parsimonious than another is a claim that requires no scientific model to substantiate, since a simple accounting of the assumptions underlying both (if necessary, through a measure that weights them) should entirely suffice for that.

You don’t have a clue. Because you have a commitment to reject any and all candidate explanations that do not involve literal magic, no matter how much experimental evidence there is to support them.

It does. It helps us to avoid being wrong all the time like you are.

It is not difficult to provide a one word explanation which does not state the required model parameters that are required to show these shared ERV’s are really ERV’s and not simply shared sequences.

How often do ERV’s occur in the germ line of primates? How often do they provide reproductive advantage? How often are they deleterious?

Lots of work here to get past a one word explanation.

Yes there is. We know of many cases of chromosome fusion and polyploidy that result in differing gene and chromosome counts in related organisms. You even acknowledged in that thread that all house mice of the species Mus musculus have a common ancestor despite having different chromosome counts.


This is the equivalent providing a link to a video of you repeatedly punching yourself in the face for five months straight and then expecting to be taken seriously.


We know variation exists within organisms populations. A population genetics model shows how differences reach fixation.

Please site the evidence for different gene counts or types inside populations. It did not appear in this post.

I don’t need to provide evidence for something you just said you know exists.

Especially when it can be found in the thread that you just linked to.

Even more so when you omitted to quote the link I already provided.

Also, evidence is ‘cited’, not ‘sited’.

Have a nice day.

1 Like

Hi Roy
I have not seen evidence of different gene types in the same population. It is not in the post I cited. I think you maybe mistaken here and confusing genes with chromosomes.

What on earth is a “gene type”, anyway? I’d love to interpret this charitably, but the only idea I can come up with to explain to myself what it is you could possibly be meaning by it is not that. Do you really mean genotypes? If yes… then am I understanding correclty, that you are seriously questioning whether or not there can be two genetically distinct individuals in a population? Or is this only an accidental questioning you are opening, as a consequence of your genuinely never having been to middle school for long enough to learn what the term “genotype” refers to?

1 Like

I mean genes that build and sustain an organism and perform the same basic function.

Here is a Venn diagram of different genes in different animals. Does a Venn diagram exist for the same animal. I have not seen one.

Okay then. So what you are saying is

Hi Roy
I have not seen evidence of different genes that build and sustain an organism and perform the same basic function in the same population.

Is this a fair interpretation of your statement? I’m at this point just trying to parse what you are saying. Addressing it is something someone who knows biology is better qualified for. It still sounds to me like you are saying that, at least when it comes to what ever you think qualifies as building and sustaining an organism and performing the same basic function (‘same’ as… something, I guess), all individuals of a population must have identical genes. If that is the case, then I wonder who ever claimed otherwise. And if it is not the case, then I believe it is better to establish in advance exactly what it means to qualify for that distinction, lest upon the showing of unambiguous counter-examples someone plays the no-true-building-and-sustaining-'sman card.

1 Like

Genes do have sequence modifications in populations yet perform the same function. That is why I use the word “type” to distinguish sequence modifications from overall function.

Please, do not mark your message as a reply to mine or quote passages out of mine, if your message in no way relates to or addresses mine. It may help alleviate some of the confusion your gibberish generates, and frankly I for one need every bit I can get…

1 Like

Sorry for the confusion.

Genes can have sequence modifications and still have the same function.

Do you understand what I mean here?

Since I found such evidence in under 30 seconds via an obvious Google search, that can only be because you haven’t looked.

So go and look, and stop wasting people’s time.

1 Like

Didn’t we show you one literally just a few months ago? Hold on, let me try and find it.

Edit. Okay, it was longer ago than I thought (back in '21), but here it is:


All of these are different strains of the exact same species (E. coli). So we did in fact show you an example of the same pattern from “the same animal”. Your memory is very selective, Bill.


Plus, I’m not sure why you think that Venn diagram would be a problem for common ancestry anyway. It literally shows a nested hierarchy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you provide a coherent reason why such a pattern wouldn’t be seen within common ancestry.

1 Like

Bacteria that easily transfer genetic material by horizontal gene transfer are different than vertebrates…

Why do think a nest hierarchy points to common descent as the only cause? This is an assertion that relies on methodological naturalism. I would think you are not constrained by methodological naturalism.

You need to reconcile the changes with what we know about reproduction. There is no evidence that I am aware of that reproduction easily generates new genes or fixes new chromosome pairs in existing species populations.

Therefore what? It doesn’t count? Because… “nuh-uh”?

Because (a) descent is one mechanism by which nested hierarchies are produced, and (b) inheritance is literally the entire point of the study of genetics.

No, it’s not. Methodological naturalism has nothing to say about which or how many causes of nested hierarchies there are or can be. Methodological naturalism has nothing to say about any matters of fact about nature. It is a heuristic, not a worldview. I would recommend sticking to the science, since you clearly have no understanding of the philosophy, but… well, never mind that. Moving on.

There is nothing left to reconcile. Common ancestry on just about every level is entirely consistent with what we know about reproduction. Your incredulity would be respectable if it was due to a mere ignorance of the evidence. But as it stands, you keep being presented with it, and either refuse to consider (let alone aknowledge) it, or forget before long any and all concessions of it you make.

That sounds like a you-problem to me. Again, especially seeing as such evidence has been shown to you. So your un-awareness of it is either a lie, or a mark of willfull ignorance manifesting in overt refusal to consider responses to your challenges, or a frankly clinically worrisome forgetfulness, or some combination of the above. Most crucially, it is not a mark of any actual shortage of experimental data.



A quick search reveals how many times Bill has regurgitated this sealioning question:

Answering Bill’s questions does no good. Pointing out his errors does no good either. Nor does relegating his nonsense to this thread, it would seem. He just repeats them over and over ad nauseam.

So please: