Not unless the frequency of mutations is adequate to reach fixation.
Because if the mutations are not frequent enough then the pattern we see is not from mutation.
Animals with more similar morphology tend to have more similar gene sets.
Chromosome counts are valid because chromosome change tends to be deleterious.
Are you saying the evolution or universal common descent does not explain how changes occur?
I am saying we can infer God’s involvement by the magnitude of change that is observed. If different genes are identified between two animals then this supported the inference of God being involved.
If different chromosome counts are observed that also supports the inference.
If both chromosome counts and different genes are observed then this is even stronger support for the inference that God is involved in the cause of the differences.
What? Fixation is not reached by every reproduction event producing the exact same mutant variant!
Why only tend to, though? Why do similar organisms not always have similar genomes?
See, evolution can explain why: Lineages that diverged long ago can sprout organisms that find themselves in similar environments sometime down the line, and adopting similar life styles, such that selection favours a particular morphology and makes it converge between the two lineages. Despite their vastly different genetic histories, they may end up having similar morphologies again, because selection works in the moment, with no hindsight or foresight.
What’s the separate-origins explanation for why the designer would use vastly different genetics to produce morphologically similar organisms though?
You are not saying that, though. If you were saying that the magnitude of change made a difference, you could quantify, at least roughly, how much change would warrant divine intervention, or how much change is permissible without it. But as we have seen in the deer common ancestry thread, you cannot and would not. Any change is enough for you to say God must have had a part in it. Because God having a part in it is what you start with, rather than something you infer from the magnitude of change, or, indeed, any other data pertaining to the subject.
No, it would not. It would be consistent with God’s involvement. But that’s because everything is consistent with God’s involvement, seeing as we have no access to God’s inner deliberations and cannot meaningfully predict what could or could not occur with his intervention. Nothing can “support” the inference of God being involved, because nothing could in principle disconfirm it. It is a belief no reason can shake. That makes it a belief no reason can warrant.
Are you trying to claim that frequency of mutations does not matter?
My response has nothing to do with the nested hierarchy. It has to do with the potential correlation between similar genes and similar morphology.
I thought we were arguing between a single points of origin and multiple points of origin. My argument is if God is involved in the genetic change then the differences cannot be attributed to reproduction and natural variation alone.
Incoherent, again. You keep repeating nonsense even after your problem has been explained, at length, many, many times. Tell me why I should keep trying.
What you should do is understand the points I am making and make real counter arguments if you have them. I have a very simple point.
-Population genetics does not offer a model that supports the single point of origin for vertebrates and even mammals. In order to make this model you need to have established mutation rates to even start building a model…
-The current theory (UCD) requires this to be validated.
-The model of multiple origins is compatible with current population genetics models.
I understand your point about the pattern of the differences. How much do you really think this tells us about the causes of the diversity of life?
Population genetics is irrelevant to a single point of origin.
It doesn’t, as the evidence for UCD (or common descent of any group) doesn’t rely on population genetics.
That’s meaningless, as population genetics is irrelevant to multiple origins too.
Clearly you don’t
By itself, very little, though we can use the data to test some hypotheses. But none of that is relevant to common descent vs. separate creation, which, since you forget, is what we’ve been arguing about.
Population genetics is a potential tool to demarcate species that share a common ancestor through reproduction and known evolutionary mechanisms and those that don’t.
I do John, I have understood your claim and see this is where methodological naturalism takes you. You are following the rules of science and doing the best you can. Are the rules of science pointing us to the wrong model?
It looks like you agree. Will the idea of a Created universe potentially point us to a better model?
The rules of science do not point us to any model. They, rather, help us order models by their utility. Whether or not the most useful model – that is to say, the one that currently yields the most accurate predictions of data it was not built upon – is “wrong” or not is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Science is a quest for effectiveness, not correctness. It matters that it works, not whether or not it is “true”.
Until that idea points us to any model, and until that model’s predictions are tested against experiment, there is no way of telling. Plenty of religious people work in various fields of science. If their faith points them (what ever that means) to specific descriptions of natural phenomena, they are welcome to present them, and to test them (or submit pure theoretical work other researchers may be better equipped to design and conduct experiments to test it), and to publish their results.
There exists to my knowledge no principle of science that makes any demands on where ideas for models may come from. You can literally dream of an equation in a fever. If it matches the experiment to within a quantifiable margin of error, it doesn’t matter what muse delivered it to you. All we need is for the ideas/models themselves to imply some experimentally testable predictions. That’s it.
OK, let’s see you do it. Use population genetics to show me whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor through reproduction and known evolutionary mechanisms; then do the same for chimps and bonobos. Of course, your hypothesis is both too complicated and too vague to make any sense, so that will be a problem.
You think you do, but everything you say shows that you’re wrong.
If the rules of science point us to the wrong model, how could we ever know? What other rules could you follow to investigate the question?
No. It’s useless. For one thing, it’s much too vague to produce any predictions. And you confuse created universe with created life with created mutations. It appears that the only thing you have is a conviction that God did it, somehow, whatever “it” is.
Since we don’t have a population genetics model based on current mechanisms that show how the species share a common ancestor due to gene differences the current theory, based on current evidence, shows they are from separate points of origin.
I know because the rules of science are pointing us to a natural origin of life and insisting it is a singular event. If this constraint is lifted then we can entertain multiple origins. We can use population genetics to demarcate the different origin events. These points of demarcation will change as new data arrises.
It helps us make sense of the data. We currently do not have models that explain these gene and chromosome differences.
And then you show us a figure that contradicts that? Which literally shows a nested hierarchy that maps onto a known phylogeny? Bill must be trolling us at this point.
I’m sorry, I must have been unclear about what I was inquiring about when I directly quoted what I was inquiring about. I was asking for a citation in support of your claim that
I was not asking for a citation in support of the claim that Darwin (without an ‘s’ at the end, good grief…) claimed the origin of species was not as easily accounted for by creation as it is by common descent (UCD). Of course, the article you link to does not demonstrate that either – you should really take the time to polish your basic reading comprehension skills, this is just embarassing – but it would not have been a citation in support of the claim you made, regardless.
I was not trying to support my statement I was trying to clarify that the error you pointed out was valid. The original claim of UCD came from Darwin and has been the model of record since.
