We have evidence that both genes and chromosomes are not following the tree or branching pattern. So far there is no model that explains this data other than separate points of origin which you reject.
… Except that you don’t. At most you may find the occasional sequence so far diverged that it is essentially statistical noise. It of course does nothing to erase the mountains of DNA following exactly the pattern expected from… well, less than entirely perfect replication. And, of course, since there is no specific, quantitative prediction about what separate origins should look like, especially without specifying at which level the separation should be shy of literally every individual organism being specially created, no evidence can meaningfully indicate your “alternative” either.
We have no such evidence. In fact, as I’ve shown you many times, your various Venn diagrams make sense only when explained by common descent. And once again you change the subject, as is typical of Zalophus californianus.
1 Like
You have shown in the case of genes that if you infer the changes are due to gene loss and gene gain that you can show the pattern forms a tree.
The problem you cannot reconcile is the changes with a population genetics model so essentially you have discarded the model that is supposed to explain genetic changes in populations.
As far as the chromosome changes you have not made any attempt to show how vertibrate changes fit a branching pattern.
Again, how would population genetics explain all these changes?
The multiple point of origin model is compatible with population genetics.
Good. So you acknowledge that there exists a perfectly feasible way for life as we know it to have diversified out of as few as one primal form using experimentally observed mechanisms. Therefore the only need to suppose that disparate life forms were instead magically poofed into being by unobserved mechanisms is… you wanna.
Not true, but irrelevant. Even if population genetics models only applied to within relatively slowly changing populations, a single origin along with well-documented processes to aid diversifying into arbitrarily many arbitrarily distinct populations is still something you conceded to be perfectly feasible.
It is “compatible” with the data the same way last-thursday-ism is, i.e. in that to the extent to which it makes any predictions at all, an excuse can be trivially conjured, no matter what the experiment shows. “Compatibility” like that is… I’ll be generous and call it ‘scientifically uninteresting’. You’re welcome.
In what way does John’s suggestion not match the standard assumptions of population genetics? If you can’t show your work for this claim, with math, you’re dishonest to make it.
Of course, we all know you’re dishonest, so…
5 Likes
To quote Michael Palin’s character, from The Argument Clinic sketch:
Oh look, this is futile.
Does anybody have any expectation whatsoever, that @colewd will ever:
-
admit to contrary evidence;
-
admit to contradictions or holes in his arguments; and/or
-
modify in the slightest his disingenuous and annoying behavior (including his never-ending Gish Gallop of bald, and often ludicrous, assertions)?
If not, you might as well take up arguing with a literal chatbot, as continue arguing with him here.
2 Likes
Yep. Now why should that be, given “separate points of origin”?
Not relevant to the question of common descent. Not true either, but lack of relevance is the more important point.
It’s in several of the papers discussing such changes, though. Do you remember any of that?
Mutation and drift, mostly. What makes you think it can’t explain them?
Is it? Show that.
1 Like
In the case of the first Venn diagram if we just look at genes 50% are shared among all the vertebrates. These type of similarities will generate a non random pattern.
It’s relevant to the single point of origin claim. How can you hold to the claim if you cannot reconcile how the species are reproductively connected?
The papers are not discussing the differences among all vertebrates.
Because a population genetics model that tests a reproductive connection between the species requires us to know these rates along with the number of changes required to find new function.
A population genetics model shows how changes occur within populations. If for instance musk deer and white tail deer are inferred to have separate origins then there is no requirement to show how the differences are due to reproductive mechanisms.
No idea what you’re trying to say. Genes shared among all the vertebrates won’t generate a pattern at all.
It’s the nested hierarchy that’s evidence for the claim. How mutations arise is not relevant. We’ve been over this before. If God lovingly crafts every mutation and inserts it where he thinks it would be most fun, we still get evidence of common descent. (Unless he thinks it would be fun to create species with fake evidence of common descent; that’s your alternative.)
Nor are you, Zalophus californianus.
Neutral evolution doesn’t need a function, and chromosomal mutations and gene loss can easily be neutral. New genes, probably no, but that’s a minor component. Still irrelevant to common descent, though.
But there’s a requirement to show that a nested hierarchy is expected. Anyway, what you’re saying is that you don’t need to show me no stinking model, because your hypothesis is compatible with anything. Can you see how that has no resemblance to science?
2 Likes
The fact that species are reproductively connected is not a problem in need of fixing. There is nothing about it to reconcile. You’d do well to learn your language, so you can say the nonsense you do mean instead of nonsense you don’t mean.
Perchance this is due to my own poor education on the subject, but it occurs to me that this looks nothing like a demonstration of the claim that a multiple point of origin model is compatible with population genetics. There is no mathematical comparison of their respective predictions, no estimation of the discrepancy or comparison with the margins of error on each, not even an attempt at sketching any of that in lieu of actual on-hand data. You are, if we are being charitable, arguing that your favoured model is somehow on-par or better than an alternative because there is less data it can be used to predict. It is less useful, less functional, less testable… and you unironically present that as a point in its favour.
2 Likes
Genes shared and not shared will.
If God was involved then the multiple origin model is what you are proposing. in this case Gods intervention becomes an origin event. This event is separate from reproduction and natural variation.
All these need realistic frequency of change such as gene loss and mutations to account for what we are observing.
We are looking at historical data and trying to make sense of it. A “nested hierarchy” is a hierarchal pattern that shows similarities and differences between species.
If evolution (UCD) is based on the prediction of a nested hierarchy there are many cases where this prediction fails. The chromosome differences in deer and the gene differences is mammals are a clear case.
If your claim that God may have intervened in the reproductive process is true, is this why we see the exceptions to what would be predicted from UCD without Gods intervention?
If God was not involved how did life evolve beyond bacteria?
Good lord.
1 Like
Please calculate this required frequency…
Oh wait, you don’t know how to do math.
3 Likes
You need to start writing complete sentences that make some kind of point. This is neither. Genes shared and not shared will make some kind of pattern even if it’s a random one. But a nested hierarchy is a very special kind of pattern that demands an explanation. You have none, but I do. Discuss.
Natural variation, yes. Reproduction, no. Mutations are a part of reproduction (or at least they’re reproduction-adjacent). This is true regardless of the cause. And note that the differences between species are of the sort we find happening naturally all the time. This suggests that any divine intervention must be changing what particular events happen but not the type of events. This is not in any way what you mean by “multiple origin model”.
More word salad.
ChatGPT would have produced a more meaningful response, and it understands less than you do. I imagine.
How so? Be specific.
To be clear: I make no such claim. I merely claim that it doesn’t matter to drawing conclusions from the evidence whether it’s a result of divine intervention or not. And of course common descent doesn’t predict that the nested hierarchy will be perfect. We know that homoplasy happens and in fact it’s expected to happen. Then again, your “multiple origins” theory predicts nothing whatsoever.
Through ordinary evolutionary processes, perhaps? But again whether God was involved is not the issue here. Your inability to understand even what we’re arguing about prevents any real discussion.
1 Like
Maybe that’s where @colewd is going wrong.
Everyone else is looking at the genomes of extant animals. He seems to think he’s looking at the genomes of ones that are no longer around.
The nested hierarchy is a pattern. Why do you think it is a “special pattern”? Why do think it is more important than the gene and chromosome patterns that on their own do not generate this pattern?
The differences between species is very different than what we see occurring naturally over time.
Saying something happens like gene loss needs to include how often it happens to be considered a real cause.
Genes that exist in zebra fish and humans and do not exist in chickens and mice would not be a prediction of a nested hierarchal pattern.
Zebra fish having closer chromosome counts to musk deer than musk deer have to white tail deer would also not be a prediction of a nested hierarchy.
You make the claim that the mutations may be guided.
Is God involved or is he not? This is the important question. Can we make inferences where God may have been involved in the changes?
Entropy. The space of possible configurations that exhibit a nested hierarchy is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than the space of possible configurations that exhibit many other patterns, including complete randomness. Therefore the likelihood to pick a configuration that exhibits a nested hierarchy out of all possible configurations is vanishingly small. It is not the only unlikely pattern, but it is the one we most consistently see on the largest scale.
Of course we would occasionally expect a false positive, a seeming hierarchy due to finite size effects that does not reflect an underlying mechanism, but if we consistently see not just a hierarchy but almost completely the same hierarchy, the reasonable assumption is that a mechanism that facilitates branching is at play. And from that assumption we can make predictions and see if the assumption holds up to scrutiny, you know the drill.
You keep claiming that. Show the difference. Show what’s expected and how it differs from what’s seen. Show us that there is an actual problem, and then maybe we can talk about solutions. You keep insisting that the biological establishment has this problem, that there is something there to reconcile. Just show us that this is the case.
Saying there is a conflict between the theory and the data needs to include a quantifier of that discrepancy to be considered a problem for the theory.
No, it isn’t. With or without God’s involvement, common ancestry is consistent with all the available data and in conflict with none of the available data. With or without God’s involvement, it is an adequate description of the data as we have it and fit to predict more data ahead of its collection. With or without God’s involvement, separate events of special creation is not indicated by any of the available data, and depending on the implications may be outright conflicting with it. With or without God’s involvement, it is an inadequate description of the data as we have it and unfit to predict new data ahead of its collection. God’s involvement changes nothing about which is the better model, scientifically speaking.
1 Like
Is it? Please show your math in support of this claim! Oh, you can’t?
Since deletion is a random process, an obvious consequence would be that a small number of genes would be lost twice independently in two lineages. So the prediction from nested hierarchy would be that there would be more genes shared by humans and mice than by humans and zebrafish, not that there would be no genes shared by humans and zebrafish not shared by mice.
You know, such that levels of similarity between groups forms a hierarchy… that is nested?
You really should learn the basics of the topic before you talk about it. But then, that’s obviously too much to expect from you
4 Likes
Word salad questions: unanswerable.
In quantity, but not in quality. All differences can result from the accumulation of known types of mutations. Would you agree?
No, it doesn’t. Why would it?
That’s true. Note how few of those genes there are compared to the ones that do fit the pattern. Why?
Chromosome counts are not valid data, because two organisms with the same raw count can have radically different chromosome organizations. That’s why individual chromosomal mutations (fissions, fusions, and such) make more sense to compare. That’s where the nested hierarchy makes predictions.
I make no such claim. I claim that whether they are guided or not is irrelevant.
But that’s not the question we’ve been talking about, whether or not it’s the important one. Whether there are “different starting points” is not in any way the same question as whether God is involved in evolution. Further, there is really no way to tell whether God is involved unless you can come up with a prediction of how God’s involvement would be detectably different from his non-involvement. And that prediction has to be justified by some sort of argument.
2 Likes