That is categorically false. Their peers reviewed their work very closely, and their books were targeted at their peers, not the public.
1 Like
It doesnât work that way.
The maser was invented around 1953, by people doing research on microwave technology.
I am connected to the Internet with optical fiber, where the signal is sent through the fiber with a laser driver. The laser is a stepchild of the maser.
Do you really want to say that the purpose of that 1953 microwave research was to bring me a high speed Internet connection?
Not sure that the publication of « the Origin of Species » went through such a different process than « the Design Inference », « Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics », «Darwin Devolves » or « Darwinâs Doubt », to name a few.
Sorry, but that doesnât fit what the paper actually did. There is in fact no null hypothesis in that paper, just various hypotheses tested against each other. What it assumes is that the likelihood of two unconnected trees is the product of the likelihoods of each tree. How would you do it?
As you should know by now, mind is not a mechanism. Mind makes no predictions. There is no model of what mind might or might not do.
1 Like
What is the mechanism used here to test the likelihood of a tree?
How has he independently determined that mechanism was responsible for the pattern?
My guess is that a mind generating a eukaryotic cell has a higher likelihood of success if it does not have to start from a prokaryotic cell.
@Giltil, I can be sure Galileo and Kepler went through a different process than any book published today. Science and publishing worked very different at its inception. Galileo and Kepler, moreover, were not writing books for the public, but for other scholars. All the ID books I know of are targeted at the public, not other scholars.
3 Likes
Mechanisms arenât used to test likelihood. Models are used to test likelihood. The assumptions of the model are easy to find if you just read. Here: " In these models the
primary assumptions are: (1) that sequences change over time by a gradual, time-reversible Markovian process of residue substitution, described by a 20320 instantaneous rate matrix defined by certain amino acid equilibrium frequencies and a symmetric matrix of amino acid exchangeabilities; (2) that new genetically related genes are generated by duplication during bifurcating speciation or gene duplication events; and (3) that residue substitutions are uncorrelated along different lineages and at different sites."
Wrong question. What do you think is wrong with the model?
On what is this guess based? How does a mind generate a cell?
1 Like
What is the chance based on his calculations of the prokaryotic to eukaryotic transition happening at all given the method of change he is using? Just for starters he has to insert hundreds of introns and make the splicing machinery to remove them.
If this number does not make sense then his paper does not. Certainly the probability is better if you start with some similar proteins but so what.
This was clearly not the case for Dembskyâs Book « The Design Inference ». Moreover, this seems a strange statement for someone who has written a review of « Darwin Devolves » in the journal Science!
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/02/07/darwin-devolves/
The truth is that most ID books are targeted both to the general public and to scholars.
Even if that is the case, so what? If the basics of Darwinâs theory had not been confirmed by thousands of pieces peer-reviewed evidence since its publication, it would be remembered as nothing more than a historical curiosity, if was remembered at all.
In the 21st century, significant scientific breakthroughs are not published as books. They are published as journal articles.
I never cease to marvel at your ability to reject carefully conducted science based on your own vaguely expressed intuitions. You must be a stable genius indeed.
His model doesnât consider that sort of thing, as it deals with the evolution of homologous proteins. But once again you fail to understand the difference between the source of mutation and the pattern produced by its results. What we have here concerns the latter.
2 Likes
I understand you sir. Logic is a gift which i believe is from God. And the reason i believe in God -in particular the God of the Bible- starts with my thinking on the illogical nature of mass energy creating itself and ends with two very definitive apologetics for the Christian faith itself-the historicity of the resurrection of a man named Jesus that altered history and the conversion of a pharisee named Paul who one day was a religious bigot terrorizer/murderer of followers of Jesus then another day after his miraculous conversion, His greatest ally, spokeman and encourager of that same people group! Faith in Jesus who chose to forgive me of my selfishness, pride and sin was the start of my journey as a Christian that has brought such joy. This is like a treasure i found in a field that caused me to buy the field and i can think of no better a gift to give to everyone everywhere! Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
I have never seen one of the latter. Could you offer examples?
1 Like
Thatâs because, partly, you are not looking at the construction from the inside, to see the parts and how they were put together. Your judgement is based on surface detail.
convergent evolution, however, poses an interesting problem for the YEC model: morphology doesnât dictate genes. Thus lions do not necessarily have to be genetically closely related to tigers, although they are. Hyenas, Wolves, and Tasmanian Tigers, for example, might all appear similar, but there are distinct genetic differences that are strong evidence of common ancestors being quite distant, and of having different evolutionary branches.
Hmm, I donât think I conflated it, what Iâm trying to get at is the process. Hereâs an analogy of what these conversations often look like to me:
Question: How did this house get built?
Biologists: A foundation was dug and poured, then the frame was built, roof put on, insulation and drywall, electrical and plumbing, and final painting and finish work.
ID: we know that architects make blueprints
If ID canât come up with some kind of mechanism (and no, âmindâ is not a mechanism, itâs an agent or cause) I have a hard time seeing it as a scientific claim. I could claim âRobots made Stonehengeâ as a scientific theory and then when questioned about how they did that, if I simply said âwe know robots assemble thingsâ I would be rightly dismissed without a further thought.
Hmm, I think it assumes that there is a common ancestry somewhere, not a single tree. I would maybe also look at the difference between rooted and unrooted trees. I would spend a little bit of time to learn how phylogenetic trees are made. It gave me an appreciation for how grounded it is in solid math and I have a better understanding of how powerful they are and some of the limitations. Again, just in a generalized, Iâve just scratched the surface, sense. If you canât figure out if tigers and lions share a common ancestor, ask a friendly biologist. Thatâs whatâs so awesome about Peaceful Science, once we get past distrusting each other, I think weâll find a lot of common ground and lots of really smart people willing to help.
I think it would really be worth your time to dig into @John_Harshmanâs Office Hour: John Harshman: The Phylogeny of Crocodiles because we talked about comparing to random sequences. Also, remember that a generated phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis, so if we had more than one starting point I think we should see problems in our phylogenetic trees when we compare them to morphology or the fossil record.
If we canât tell the difference between one or multiple starting points, then we can basically just assume UCD as a working model and seek other ways (philosophy, etc.) to tell us about the other starting points.
2 Likes
I am not alone here criticizing this paper. The problems are obvious and I am surprised you cannot do critical analysis here.
Koonin and Wolf
The tests described above show that there is currently no formal demonstration of the universal common ancestry of the extant life forms. The likelihood tests of the kind described by Theobald [4] fail to address the problem because they yield results âin support of common ancestryâ for any sufficiently similar sequences.
It is what it is at this point. I do think John has done great work with both flightless birds and crocs in looking at data and doing comparative genetic work and comparative morphology work. I just donât understand the basis of some of his conclusions.
1 Like
Another analogy how biologists describe evolution. How did the software get made? Random changes when we copy it and choosing a copy that runs faster than the old one.
ID analogy: Study and test a better algorithm and insert into the code.
Ah, but hereâs the difference Bill, we have a decent shot at telling the difference between a model for software developed by optimizing random changes and one thatâs been studied and âdesignedâ to run better. If we looked at the previous 10 versions of the code under both models, Iâm guessing we could tell them apart. Thatâs because they have a different mechanism for the change that should be fairly apparent, assuming we have a knowledgable programmer. However, if we have a complete novice, who has no programming skills at all, we may not be able to tell the difference between the random changes and the âdesignedâ ones because the poor programmer would make effectively random changes.
The data we have in the genome looks unmistakably like common descent. That seems to indicate one of the following:
- UCD is real, and there is no designer
- UCD is real, but set up by the designer
- UCD is mostly real, but there could be minimal exceptions outside the âviewâ of our data
- UCD is not real, but we have a âbad programmerâ and canât tell the difference.
If I was a betting man Iâd go with 2 or 3. I have outside reasons to think that 1 is insufficient and 4 is just weird.
2 Likes
I would just want to emphasize that âminimal exceptionâ could very well be very important.
2 Likes