Winston Ewert: The Dependency Graph of Life

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Winston_Ewert

However, I must make one point of objection to Josh’s statements so far. He uses the word “ignore” repeatedly to describe factors/data I did not take into account. I’m not ignoring them, I’ve just limited the scope of what is being looked at in this first presentation of the model.

I see in your comments that is absolutely correct. Consistent with this, and to your credit, you write:

@Winston_Ewert

and [did not engage in this paper with] large amounts of data and evidence.

I’m not sure here whether you are referring to:

1. Lines of evidence for common descent besides nested hierarchy
2. Data besides gene families that fit a nested hierarchy

In either case, it is true. I fully acknowledge there is a lot more data and evidence that needs to be taken account of.

@Winston_Ewert, you are earning some real trust here. I hear this as honest engagement. You are not misrepresenting your results.

I suppose it seems that others (Cornelius) seems to be ignoring this, but we’ll ignore that for this thread. We are talking to you, and I agree you are not ignoring it. You are building the first attempt in years to address the nested clades pattern.

If you are to succeed at replacing common descent as an explanatory model for biology, you are going to need to make several advances. It is entirely okay that you’ve limited yourself to a subset of the problem for now. I’ll stop saying “ignore.”

@Winston_Ewert

Josh states that I ignore much stronger evidence for common descent. I find that different people rank different lines of evidence differently.

Sure, but I’m not talking subjectively. I’m talking from a mathematical point of view. We can envision models that can explain parts of the nested clade pattern (as you have) without common descent. Walter ReMine did just this, and I’ve privately wondered about this too. For other patterns, it is much more difficult to imagine a solution.

I’d say, in your defense, that a lot of really bad arguments for evolution have been advanced. Nested clades, because it is often advanced as if there are no homoplasies. There are homoplasies, and they are predicted by evolutionary science too. We do not expect, from an evolutionary point of view, for nested clades in nature to be perfect nested clades. In this, Walter ReMine was correct. I don’t doubt that you are correct that others think that nested clades is strong evidence, but often the precise way that argument is advanced is actually in scientific error, even before an anti-common descent rebuttal arrives on the scene.

It is depressingly bad for dialogue when fallacious arguments like that are allowed to persist. There is a way that nested clades is evidence for common descent, but not in the way that arguement if often explained. I’m sorry for that absurdity in the conversation. I wish I could fix it, but I can only really manage what happens here in this little corner of the internet .

@swamidass

If [@Winston_Ewert ] can correctly frame their results, actually engage with critique, they MIGHT be able to refine this into something workable for PART of the data. Then they have to find a way to deal with the REST of the data.

I want to give you a fair hearing here, and even get other legitimate and honest scientists to engage with you. Let’s give you a shot. My statements earlier about “ignoring” should all be transposed to caveats (with which you agree) that this only handles part of the problem.

Does that sound good?

---

@Winston_Ewert, as a scientist in the Church and a Christian in science, I want to publicly promise some things to you.

I will treat you fairly.

I will give ground when you are right.

I will publicly make known that of which you have convinced me.

From here, I’m going to work slowly through the specific points you’ve raised. As you have time, please fill in the details. I want you to get credit for what you do well and right here and now on this thread. Peace.