Genes do follow a tree pattern.
Four forces? What forces does chemistry invoke other than the electromagnetic force?
Compare the gene sequences of shared genes and they will demonstrate a positive phylogenetic signal, just as the theory of evolution predicts.
If you look at this at the AA level you run into problems as the phylogenetic signal is showing you mostly neutral mutations due to DNA redundancy. This is exactly demonstrated in the DNA sequences of actin you cited. Where the AA sequences had not diverged at all.
Bill’s back to blithering out his same sciencey buzzwords with no idea what they mean.
I am failing to see the problem. Why would selection against deleterious mutations be a problem for a theory that predicts such a thing will happen in functional sequence?
How does IDC explain Ka/Ks ratios? Why do we see a trend of synonymous mutations increasing with evolutionary distance?
Deleterious mutations are a huge problem for the theory. They signify rare sustainable function in sequence space. The only chance evolutionary theory has at this point is enormous function in sequence space.
@colewd if intelligent design is true, what should we see in the fossil record? What should the fossil record look like?
Empty assertions without a testable hypothesis.
Not at all. They suggest trial and error testing. And the whole point of trial and error testing is that we cannot know in advance what will work. We first have to test it.
This is not how epistemology works.
The way you describe it, it is like saying: Ghosts are the ultimate test for science. And that you believe all science will ultimately fail at discovering ghosts.
Yes… all science will fail that.
So, by your own words regarding ID, all science will wash up on the shores, and come short of I.D. Because I.D. is not science. And that’s the problem with a political movement dressing up as science.
It won’t be.
It cannot do so.
Because it doesn’t attain the epistemological threshold of science.
Please, Bill. Not Sal’s flower again. As you recall, that fits a tree pattern quite well. The cells of that diagram that don’t fit the tree contain very few genes, while the ones that do contain most. The better the fit, the more genes. Almost all can be explained by a single gain or loss. Unless your claim is that genes can’t be gained or lost, you have nothing.
John, the pattern shows a very important weakness in the theory that needs to be dealt with as de novo gene gain is not a typical pattern you see from reproduction and either is gene loss. This is what Winston is going to base his future work on as the databases showing gene families gets more robust.
The claim that gene loss or gain happens is well short of demonstrating it is responsible for the pattern.
All that said I will refrain from using it here unless absolutely necessary to make my point. This is out of respect for you and your honest participation here.
No idea what you mean by that. Both gene gain and loss are observed over quite short evolutionary time scales. Of course those are phylogeny-based inferences, and you don’t believe in phylogeny. But you have no clue.
You already have used it. That’s what I’m complaining about. Your usage is bogus.
Can you show me this is more than your opinion. It is like saying Aquinas philosophy is false.
What do you claim is causing gene loss and gain?
Hey @colewd, if intelligent design is true, what should we see in the fossil record?
False. Neither Ewert or any other ID “researcher” is investigating whether the data supports his “dependency graph” better than standard cladistic techniques based on evolutionary principles. And that this if false will be confirmed by your failure to produce the citations to any such research.
(And, as I started writing this before reading the rest of the thread, I can see that my predictions has been spectacularly confirmed.)
Yippee! Let’s now start taking bets on which will appear first: The results of this “future work” that Winston is supposedly doing, or @pnelson’s explication of his Ontogenic Depth theory.