This cannot be true. What makes you say that? You must be referring to a different model of separate creation that is from the YEC camp because it does not apply to my model or RTB’s. Or maybe the confusion is that you think I am using his model to explain the whole history of life, which I am not. I am just using the model to explain the nested hierarchical patterns that cannot be explained by HGT. That’s it.
Well, no. There is some account Baraminology that has been brought forth by YEC, but it just continues to be problematic and flawed because it is derived from a YEC perspective.
Again, I am just going off of Gunter Beuchley’s presentation of the fossil record and give you an idea of what those examples of basic types are.
Are you suggesting that basic types are nested within each other phylogenetically speaking?
I fail to see your point. Why is this the case?
I find it very ironic that you keep telling me that I don’t read studies and then you end up doing the very thing that you accuse me of…
“Although observed rates of acquisition of horizontally transferred genes in eukaryotes are generally lower than in prokaryotes, it appears that, far from being a rare occurrence, HGT has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing in most lineages. Between tens and hundreds of foreign genes are expressed in all the animals we surveyed, including humans. The majority of these genes are concerned with metabolism, suggesting that HGT contributes to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.”
Sure, I think I did overstate it . What I should have said and I am saying now is that it’s unneccessary and unparsomnious to separate both fields. In other words, you are making a distinction without a difference.
As I told @Rumraket, I am simply taking the work that has been done from other experts and putting the pieces together to provide a robust theory, such as the Orch-OR theory, common design model and Winston’s model. The only aspect of my model that could be considered vague and falsifiable is the one involving Baraminology because it comes from an YEC perspective which is what I was referring to before when I said that.
I say it because words have meanings. The term “convergence” presupposes an evolutionary trajectory. Are you trying to claim that taxa were separately created and then became more similar through convergent evolution? If so, that’s not at all what Ewert’s theory postulates.
That’s not why it’s problematic, though it doesn’t hurt. It’s problematic because there is nothing supporting separate creation, and you can’t make the data work that way, no matter how hard you try.
Sadly, you have misunderstood Bechley’s video, assuming you even managed to watch the whole thing. You’re even a bad parrot.
I’m suggesting that there are no basic types, and that if there were basic types they most certainly wouldn’t be nested within other basic types. Is this unclear?
Yes, and I’m getting tired of explaining it. You just don’t understand all the papers you cite and fail to read.
That’s a different notion of what “rare” means, and I would happily argue with the authors about that. Rare events happen all the time. The fixation of a neutral mutation is a rare event, and yet a hundred or so happen in the human population every generation. I say again that 1% or less counts as rare. Why do you disagree?
That made no sense again. When you say “in other words”, what follows is commonly quite different from what you said previously. And so it is in this case.
No, I am saying that “Convergence refers to the occurrence of identical, or nearly identical, anatomical, physiological, and/or genetic features in species of life that are unrelated or distantly related within an evolutionary paradigm. Both creationists and mainstream biologists offer explanations for convergence, but those explanations are radically different.”
Well, that is the reason why it is problematic to me and why you can’t make the data work that way.
I did watch all of it. So please tell me how I misunderstood him.
No, it’s still unclear. Tell me why there are no basic types even though there are many instances of sudden appearances in the fossil record.
Well, this is entirely subjective and arbitrary so I can’t really respond properly.
Then, you can omit the last part of what I said in order to respond better.
When you quote, you need to say where you’re quoting from. I would take issue with that statement, whoever said it.
What are you trying to say there?
Well, for one thing Bechley doesn’t appear to believe in separate creation at all. He believes in divinely guided macromutation. And he wasn’t listing “basic types” in that bit. He was listing divinely guided macromutation events.
I explained that: basic types, if they existed, should not be nested within other basic types. If somehow basic types exist, they can’t be the ones you have tried to name. (And, again, your source doesn’t think they exist either.) Sudden appearances in the fossil record are generally of individual species, closely related to previous species. So the basic types suggested by the fossil record are, if anything, individual species. But of course this contradicts the evidence, as even you agree. The solution to that is that sudden appearance in the fossil record has some other explanation than the creation of a new basic type. It instead shows how incomplete and episodic, in both space and time, the fossil record is.
Well of course you can’t respond properly. Rather than worry about what “rare” means, you should consider whether the number of HGT events postulated in that paper actually supports your claim. I’d say that 1% of genes isn’t enough to effectively counterfeit common descent. Would you agree?
The first part of what you said made no sense either. I was just pointing out an additional way that the whole thing made no sense. Just because quantum tunneling happens (supposedly) in both the origin of life and in some mutations is not a reason you can’t reasonably separate the two fields. You might as well say that metal is used in both automobiles and paper clips, so you can’t separate auto mechanics from clerical work.
I’m trying to impress upon you how bad your reasoning and scholarship have been throughout, in hopes that it will encourage you to do better. So far it has not. But do you see the possibility that some day it might?
Yes, I agree but remember I am defining basic types based on sudden appearances in the fossil records for my own model. But again, the morphological aspect of my model is not fully worked out yet.
Sorry, this argument has already been refuted by the data:
I am not qualified to say but if this is truly the case, then maybe there might be studies in the future that show how HGT was even more pervasive than reasonably expected.
Well, it is in regards to my theory and model. You cannot separate the two
You are not an expert in quantum physics. So how can you say this?
Seriously? You’re quoting creationists for a definition of a term used in real biology? Not cool.
No you aren’t. You’re just parroting (poorly) things that Bechley said, things you don’t actually understand.
Another reference you haven’t read and don’t understand. Just stop. And I see you have ignored many of my criticisms in the post you were responding to.
So again you appeal to hypothetical future discoveries, since the evidence you tried to use has failed you. Surely even you can see that this is a futile attempt.
I’m talking about the biology, not the quantum physics. Could you answer the question? Is there any hope?
I can always find studies that do refute what you are saying and don’t forget that Gunter Buechley mention that study as well to disprove that argument you are parroting yourself. Nevertheless, do you have any studies that show how the fossil record is incomplete in those areas of sudden appearances?
NO, your lack of expertise in quantum physics is showing here because quantum physics undergirds biology. You cannot separate the two. It’s called “quantum biology”
Bechley also misuses the study. You haven’t read it, right? You have no real idea what it says, right? I think we’ve established that. Why do you keep citing papers whose contents you don’t actually know?
Just all of geology.
I’m sorry, but your lack of expertise in biology is showing. There’s a disturbing trend here: your arrogance is increasing, and that’s the opposite direction from what should be happening.
Sure, I will tone it down. Just tell me this… So your argument for why sudden appearances don’t or can’t represent evidence for created kinds is because the fossil record is incomplete in those areas, correct?
Also, I get that ,from a purely materialistic secular perspective of evolution, chemistry and biology are separate fields. But, this cannot apply to my theory and model because it involves quantum physics and consciousness, which would unite the two, incidently.
Thus, this is why common design and common descent have to be mutually exclusive, which means Common design and guided evolution and common descent have to be considered different terms.
That’s part of it. The other part is that it’s individual species that appear suddenly, but you don’t call those basic types. And further, those species generally do have prior relatives, contrary to your claim.
You would have to explain why this matters when evaluating the paleontological and phylogenetic evidence.
Again, whenever you say anything implying a conclusion or restatement, like “thus” or “i.e.”, what follows is generally a non sequitur, as it is here. Of course common design, guided evolution, and common descent are different terms. But they aren’t mutually exclusive. Separate creation, which is what you mean by common design, and guided evolution are mutually exclusive, but that’s just because of your personal definition of common design.
You don’t have a theory. In real science, theories are hypotheses with a long record of successful empirical predictions. The empirical stuff is in the figures and tables that you ignore instead of misinterpreting snippets of text.
You don’t even have a coherent hypothesis or model. Why did you write, “theory AND model,” when you don’t have either one?
In the real secular world, there is a massive overlap between chemistry and biology, the most obvious for a layperson being the existence of the field of biochemistry. How can it exist if your claim is true?
Since then, unless we have overlooked something, there does not appear to be a single word of further research or discussion regarding this hypothesis from ID researchers.
Nonetheless, only yesterday someone responded to my claim that ID has failed to produce any evidence to support their claims by mentioning Ewart’s hypothesis in the “journal” (sic) Biocomplexity, and suggesting that this contradicted my position.
Without casting aspersions on @Winston_Ewert personally, I will simply note that this situation seems entirely in line with the DI’s longstanding strategy of producing half-baked science-like material that succeeds in convincing potential supporters that there is scientific evidence to support ID, without having to do any of the heavy lifting required of actual scientific research.
Are you relying on the punctuated equilibrium model to support this claim?
I have already done this in regards to the origin of life model I presented on here numerous times and , remember, common descent does not have this nor does it have a origin of virus model.
The origin of life/viruses, the sudden appearances in the fossil record, and Human exceptionalism is what makes those models mutually exclusive.
I don’t think you have any idea what you mean by that. At the very least you are going to have to stop and explain your argument in detail. As far as I can tell, none of the things you mention are relevant to whether separate creation and guided evolution are mutually exclusive.
