I got called on that distinction recently. They are not interchangeable.
If it was consilience it would not be amazing. it would just be natural for a accurate conclusion.
I would say there is not consilience but instead just mutual lines of reasoning unrelated to actual evidence.
Your example is case in point.
They are both silent on evolution. They are only after the fact data sources.
From a creationist stance they also would be twins. any biology in the past/fossils identity would also have a genetic likeness.
The genes must be hand in glove with the morphology.
So there is tree groups from your example but only one. Just a error of line of reasoning.
6 posts were split to a new topic: Arguments vs. Evidence in the Creation Debate
If I may chime in, the best evidence today was the best evidence 130 years ago: the nested hierarchy.
George Romanes wrote a great essay in 1882 laying out the best evidences for evolution, and many remain so. I quoted large sections of the essay in another thread, so I won’t do the same here. I do encourage people to give it a read:
That’s pretty cool. It’s like TalkOrigin’s 29+ Evidences For Macroevolution only written over 100 years earlier.
A powerful argument for common descent (but not for blind/unguided evolution) was given to me by gpuccio, a gifted contributor at the ID blog « Uncommon descent ».
According to him, « the simple observation of the frequency of synonymous mutations in different species is the strongest argument for common descent that we can imagine ».
I’ve tried to find a way to counter his argument, but after several exchanges, I was forced to realize that it was very powerful and I gave up.
For those that may be interested to know more about the argument, I invite you to look at posts 1/123/131/144/159/161/164/169/171/175/181/184 of the conversation below.
The frequency of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations is also a great piece of evidence that is similar to the evidence you describe. There are two great blog posts on the subject by @glipsnort and @evograd respectively :
I also discuss this evidence in this thread:
I don’t think the frequency of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations such as described by Stephen Schaffner in his blog post « Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations » is a great argument for CD. This is because it makes the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Here is an example of such fallacy:
If it rains, then the lawn will be wet
The lawn is wet
Then it has rained
(The argument is false because many other reasons can be given in order to explain the wet lawn)
IOW, this fallacy takes the following form:
If A, then B.
In his blog post, Schaffner makes the same error. He says that if humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, then we should see a specific pattern of mutations between the 2 species. And because we observe said pattern, Schaffner concludes that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. This conclusion is not warranted because other scenarios can explain the observed pattern of mutations. For example, imagine the case of special creation of humans and Chimpanzee like creatures. Imagine also that chimpanzee like creatures were created long before humans. And imagine that at the time of their creation, both species were endowed by their creator with very similar genes. In that case, both species will have accumulated mutations in such a way as to exhibit the same pattern that we observe today, won’t they?
Your are misrepresenting the article. The scenario of comparing genomes is put forward as a test of the hypothesis on common ancestry between chimps and humans. That hypothesis predicts patterns of shared genes. Then the patterns of similarities found is strong supporting evidence for the hypothesis. The “God was a common designer” hypothesis is not supported because there’s no way to predict what God would or would not do in Special Creation.
So there’s no logical fallacy, just your misunderstanding.
Funny. I guess you will have go to bed without supper tonight for being so bad and accusing @Giltil falsely. Because here is his exact quote about the very predictions and patterns you require:
Wrong because Gil’s “God did it” hypothesis doesn’t make any predictions. There is literally nothing an omnipotent God couldn’t do so no observation can possibly falsify the idea.
You both begin with the genetic evidence and work backwards to the god of your own choosing. You, to the god of a common ancestor; he, to the true and Living God of Heaven (whom by the way, you should learn to fear).
Still funny. And still, no supper.
No. We’re predicting the genetic evidence, something you appear to be afraid to do with your hypothesis.
No. Science started with a hypothesis, then the genetic evidence prediction was tested and found to be supporting. ID-Creationism did it backwards, starting with the genetic data and force-fitting it into a Design scenario.
Another reason why ID-Creationism isn’t science.
Humans have come up with something like 20,000 different gods. Which one are you talking about?
What in the world are you rambling about? Your string of non-sequiturs has nothing at all to do with the OP topic or with what I was discussing.
No. The humans would have accumulated considerably fewer mutations than the chimps. And why are we assuming a starting point of “similar” (by which you really mean identical) sequences? Further, this pattern extends not just to humans vs. chimps but to all primates. What you’re talking about here is extensive, simulated common ancestry. Your alternative explanation makes no sense.
First, that is completely false. [edit: the evidence would be exactly the same and I think you know it]
Just two responses: 1. That doesn’t appear to be an argument at all, just you trying to score some unintelligible snarky point. 2. No, I don’t know anything of the sort, because he didn’t.
No, you said that chimps were created considerably before humans. If they started from the same point, the chimps would have accumulated considerably more mutations in the longer time of their existence.
You are not helping yourself by showing that you don’t understand the arguments. Best to stop.
What in tarnation? I thought you said you weren’t hanging around here long.