To make the claim for instance that all vertebrates share a common point of origin you need to account for innovation. Otherwise the claim is misleading. This is a very difficult problem to reconcile mathematically given known mechanisms.
Yes it is. Nothing in those links is even pretending to explain why there is a consistent nested hierarchy in all those different types of data.
Contributing to evolution =/= explains why there is a nested hierarchy in all those lines of data, nor does it explain why there is a 375 million year old transitional fish, or 50 million year old transitional and semi-aquatic whale, obviously.
Come on man think. Read for comprehension, youâre not even thinking about what you are reading nor what I am saying.
Genes can be horizontally transferred - therefore there should be a consistent nested hierarchy in the shared derived characteristics of both extant and fossil organisms, is a non-sequitur. It doesnât follow, it is not even weakly implied to the remotest of degree.
Which says nothing about why there should be a consistent nested hierarchy in both genetic and morphological data of both living and fossil species. Again, genes being transferred more often between more similar organisms does not explain why there is a fossil chronology of branching descent with modification, nor why fossils with particular morphologies should have ages that correspond to their phylogenetically predicted positions.
2 Likes
No, it isnât. And you have no mathematical theory of creation, so your concern about putative mathematical challenges to evolution merely serves to exemplify your hypocricy.
3 Likes
More word salad, Bill. This only shows that you have no idea what youâre talking about, specifically about how to answer the questions that @Rumraket and I both asked.
Same thing. What do you mean by âpoints of originâ? Origin of what?
Nothing you have cited is about common design. You are confused. Further, the second paper talks about gene transfer among closely related species.
No, it needs to explain the entire nested hierarchy. Horizontal transfer doesnât explain that, and the papers you cite say nothing like that.
Even the parts you quote donât say what you think they do. They do not support your claim.
You donât. Still confused about common descent vs. the origin of innovation.
3 Likes
Iâm not really aware of what he has been doing in the last couple years. So I canât say.
I think you have neither looked at the math nor the evidence. Itâs called high-THROUGHPUT sequencing, by the way.
1 Like
Yes, I have already conceded to @John_Harshman that HGT does not explain all examples of nested hierarchy in regards to closely related species.
Well, this is off-topic now. There are other aspects of common design that explain those examples, such as a Old Earth creation version of Baraminology.
NO, you are attacking a strawman. It is more like⌠Genes can be horizontally transferred and mimick patterns of nested hierarchy - therefore there should be a consistent nested hierarchy in the shared derived characteristics of both extant and fossil organisms.
Again, this is off-topic, I believe but please correct me if I am wrong, of course.
We observe innovation. Whatâs misleading about that?
1 Like
If that is your answer, then you do think Winston could potentially salvage his model in the future somehow, correct?
Well we discussed with him a few years back what the gaps were in his work. That was a good conversation. Havenât heard back on closing those gaps. That seems to be the critical thing he has to do.
Okay, then we are done. You do not have an alternative to common descent to explain all the evidence we have that common descent explains. Neither a dependency graph, nor biased HGT can functionally explain all the evidence for common descent.
Old Earth creationist versions of Baraminology predicts there should be transitional fossils?
But that doesnât follow. Genes undergoing a relatedness-biased form of horizontal transfer does not explain anything about fossils or their chronologies. It would only apply to the gene in question and the species between which that gene is undergoing HGT.
It is definitely not off topic. The âDependency graph of Lifeâ is supposed to offer an alternative explanation for the tree of life. But the tree of life is corroborated by many different kinds of data, not just gene presence-absence. We have all the kinds of evidence we would expect if life really did evolve and diverge gradually over time from common ancestors in the deep past.
2 Likes
Well, there is a difference between gaps and fatal flaws, which one are you suggesting here because @John_Harshman is suggesting the latter?
Thatâs too small a concession. It doesnât explain most examples of nested hierarchy in closely and distantly related species. Of course you donât believe in âdistantly relatedâ, but the evidence is there.
No, there arenât. OEC explains nothing, since whatever you see is just what God chose to create at that time. There is no expected pattern.
Nope. Just because something could theoretically happen doesnât mean we expect it to happen. There is no reason to suppose that gene transfer will preferentially mimic a nested hierarchy.
You are wrong. Itâs entirely on topic. Itâs a pattern you would need to explain, and horizontal transfer wonât do it.
1 Like
Well, I should have said that it does not fully explain all examples of nested hierarchy. BUT, if we incorporate Winstonâs model, then it does become a better explanation than common descent.
Well, RTB is working on it. Right now, it is not scientifically feasible yet. My main point was that it is a different field of inquiry and we are discussing phylogenetics and nested hierarchies from closely related species and whether Winstonâs model can potentially fill these gaps. @John_Harshman has suggested that these are fatal flaws not gaps. Are you claiming the same here?
Well, it is technically not off-topic in that respect but it is in regards to what I am asking and discussing here.
Please support this unsupported claim.
1 Like
There is a long discussion with @Winston_Ewert from a few year ago - Iâll link it later - dog demands walkies! 
I have to second @John_Harshmanâs call for support for this blind assertion of yours
Call me when theyâre done, then. Iâd love to see the model of independent creation that demands the existence of transitional species with phylogeny-matching chronologies. That sounds awesome. If not mentally insane.
But youâre also not being particularly clear or coherent in what youâre really positing. Youâre positing biased HGT to explain a signal of phylogeny in particular gene-sequences among closely related species, a still hypothetical future dependency graph to explain what(?), and some hypothetical future RTB âold Earth creation version of Baraminologyâ, all in combination, to explain the consistency of the nested hierarchy of life across so many different kinds of data? That does not make any sense.
What is it you think actually happened during the design and creation of life so as to produce the evidence we see? The designer independently and progressively created, in small increments over time, along non-existing and faked branching lines of descent, different organisms, by creating nesting patterns of dependency relationships in their genes, while horizontally transferring said genes at higher frequencies among more closely faked-related species?
Yeah, I also donât think the dependency graph can explain those. In fact I would go so far as to say I think the whole endeavor you are so blindly hoping for will utterly fail. Life clearly evolves right now, has been evolving for billions of years, intrinsicially and undeniably changes and diverges over time, and individual organisms demonstrably all have common ancestors. The totality of biology and geology testifies to this fact, and this absurd and convoluted mish-mash of unfinished hopes and undeveloped fantasies that your religion has erected in itâs dying attempt at damage-control is nothing more than a sad reflection the innumerable(and ironically, evolved) cognitive biases afflicting the human psyche.
2 Likes
No, I do. I just donât think itâs Universal , remember.
In regards to anything beyond the family level of classification, that is generally correct, at least for right now.
Wrong, we do expect this to happen from the common design model based on teleological reasons, as I told you before.
Again, it is technically not off-topic in that respect but it is in regards to what I am asking and discussing here.
Yes, you have never managed to figure out just how non-universal common descent is. Your last attempt, the family level, failed spectacularly in the very next paragraph. Your claims are too vague and situationally flexible to discuss intelligibly.
Useless non-information. Your entire argument seems to rest on the hope that some day new data will confirm it. But we have sufficient data already to show that your ideas are wrong. You might as well hope that future data will show that oxygen atoms have 17 protons.
You told me, but your claim wasnât supported by any sensible argument. What you expect is irrelevant; why you expect it needs to be supported by some reasonable connection between teleology and nested hierarchy.
You donât get to decide what you are asking and discussing. If itâs relevant to the topic of the thread it deserves to be mentioned.
2 Likes
I mean if we incorporate Winstonâs model, then it could become a better scientific explanation than common descent in regards to the whole of phylogenetics, specifically.
There might be future evidence that explains this, but No. I am suggesting Winstonâs model can potentially do this instead
Nested Hierarchies from closely related species in the recent past
Here is a quote from ID theorists that give the model context:
"Designing agencies can anticipate functional requirements. They also understand one does not have to re-invent the wheel every time a new car is being designed.
'Structural homology at a higher functional level, dictated by functional demands, may exist independently of its particular material substrate, because intelligent designers are not bound by the constraints of what might be called physical transmission or continuity. âŚ
In precisely the same way, diverse vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs and hind limbs may possess that pattern not because they inherited it from a common ancestor- that is, not because of material continuity- but because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern satisfies.- J. Wells and P. Nelson, âHomology in Biologyâ, Design, Darwinism and Public Education , 319-20, 2003â
And although it is true that designing agencies can violate any hierarchal scheme that would not be the case in a common design scenario."
Intelligent Reasoning: Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 2 Nested Hierarchy
Here is the model I presented in the other topic:
Universal Common Design Model
Before the leftover meteorites, which contain amino acids, were clumped together to form the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago after the late bombardment event, virus-like RNA molecules were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the earth. Then, these virus-like RNA molecules were naturally selected into different species of unicellular organisms, which underwent a heavy amount of HGT from the same viruses that were created within the deep-sea oceans. [20]
Then, the designer re-used these microbes and chemical constituents to separately construct basic types of animals from different locations and times around the globe. These basic types would be able to adapt to changing environments and diversify into kinds over long epochs of time.
This would involve the designer employing many familiar mechanisms, such as HGT, to facilitate this process and address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms that are undergoing natural selection. As a result, we would see biochemical and morphological similarities among all living things that naturally give the appearance of Universal common ancestry. [21][22]
Not even if Winstonâs model is just applied to closely related nested hierarchies?