Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, December 04, 2006

Common Descent- Explain the DIFFERENCES (revisited)

Nested hierarchies are alleged evidence for Common Descent. However one would also expect nested hierarchies in a common design scenario. Common being the operative word. Army ranks form a nested hierarchy without any requirement of troop relationship. Transportation forms a nested hierachy without the vehicles sharing evolutionary relationships.

So in order for Common Descent to separate itself from Common Design it needs to explain the differences. It pretends to do so with the "decent with modification" motif, but that only explains minor variations of an already existing body plan. And from observations we know that those variations oscillate- the beak of the finch is a prime example. (see also Wobbling Stability)

Yet all we know about organisms and their body plans is summed up nicely:

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”


I would even say that Common Descent, as in all of the diversity of living organisms owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, cannot be tested. To date the only "tests" we have assume Common Descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence. What is needed is to test that assumption. But in light of what Dr Sermonti tells us there isn't any objective way to do that.

For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not. And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate. However that is about the most stupid way to present a case. But I digress.

So here is the chance for Smokey or any other evo to ante up. The following site demonstrates the differences between humans & chimps. Take one and explain the mutations which allowed/ afforded the differences and you may be on to something scientific:

Chimps become Human?

9 Comments:

  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    “Why is a Fly not a horse?”

    At the most basic level, the embryologic hole that becomes the fly's mouth corresponds to the horse's anus, and vice versa.

    "I would even say that Common Descent, as in all of the diversity of living organisms owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, cannot be tested."

    I'd say you're dead wrong. You can test it yourself by doing BLAST searches and generating trees that have not been done before. Your government supplies all the sequences and tools for free.

    "To date the only "tests" we have assume Common Descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence."

    No. We have new tests being performed every single day that have the potential to falsify common descent. If a newly-sequenced myosin doesn't fit into the existing myosin NH, then common descent is demolished (for distant relatives, our algorithms may offer two or more different places within the NH, but this is a result of processes that are obvious).

    "What is needed is to test that assumption. But in light of what Dr Sermonti tells us there isn't any objective way to do that."

    Perhaps you should look at data instead of listening to what you are told.

    "For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not."

    False. Many primates are capable of bipedal locomotion. It's a common trick to teach dogs, too.

    "And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate."

    Because there are mountains of evidence that are consistent with that conclusion.

    "...The following site demonstrates the differences between humans & chimps...."

    It misrepresents them, so egregiously that it is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the paper they cite.

    "Take one and explain the mutations which allowed/ afforded the differences and you may be on to something scientific:"

    I did in the other thread.

     
  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Skipping the nonsense and getting right to it:

    "To date the only "tests" we have assume Common Descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence."

    Smokey:
    No. We have new tests being performed every single day that have the potential to falsify common descent. If a newly-sequenced myosin doesn't fit into the existing myosin NH, then common descent is demolished (for distant relatives, our algorithms may offer two or more different places within the NH, but this is a result of processes that are obvious).

    That is nonsense. There isn't anything in evolutionism or Common Descent that states proteins have to remain similar or become some sort of genetic marker. Nothing at all.

    "For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not."

    Smokey:
    False. Many primates are capable of bipedal locomotion. It's a common trick to teach dogs, too.

    All primates that walk upright, ie bipedal, do so forceably. Just as in dogs and bears it is not their natural way of getting around.

    IOW Smokey is again blowing smoke.

    "And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate."

    Smokey:
    Because there are mountains of evidence that are consistent with that conclusion.

    I understand the assertion, however on close examination all you have is circumstantial evidence at best and that same data can be used for alternative explainations.

    "...The following site demonstrates the differences between humans & chimps...."

    Smokey:
    It misrepresents them, so egregiously that it is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the paper they cite.

    Seeing that you are misrepresenting the points I am making why should I take your word for anything?

    Bipedal, upright walking- only humans- chimps to not do this. There are several phsiological factors that are required for it. We do not know what mutations accounted for those differences nor do we know if any mutation/ selection process can account for it. Those are the facts.

     
  • At 2:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.” Henry Schaeffer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia

    “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing; it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Sherlock Holmes

    “Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Unknown

    Common Descent, that being that all of the diversity of the extant living organisms owing their collective common ancestry to some unknown last universal common ancestor via descent with modification, is based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial, evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be verified. The concept isn’t even of any practical use. Yet it endures as a scientific concept. And people wonder what has happened to science education.

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "That is nonsense."

    Usually, such a statement has to be followed by a valid reason to be credible.

    "There isn't anything in evolutionism or Common Descent that states proteins have to remain similar or become some sort of genetic marker. Nothing at all."

    I agree. You clearly didn't understand what I wrote, because you clearly don't understand NH. I wrote that a new myosin (obviously already similar) has to fit into the existing myosin NH. That doesn't mean that they "become some sort of genetic marker."

    "All primates that walk upright, ie bipedal, do so forceably. Just as in dogs and bears it is not their natural way of getting around."

    Their anatomies still ALLOW for bipedal locomotion, and ALLOW was the criterion you used. Aren't those goalposts getting heavy?

    "I understand the assertion, however on close examination all you have is circumstantial evidence at best and that same data can be used for alternative explainations."

    Joe, you haven't examined a bit of evidence. You cite Web pages that grossly misrepresent the actual evidence. I show you evidence (the myosin tree), and you have no hope in hell of understanding it.

    "Seeing that you are misrepresenting the points I am making why should I take your word for anything?"

    Joe, you demanded that we explain the Web site. You didn't point to any particular part of it, so claiming that I am misrepresenting anything is ludicrous.

    "“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Unknown"

    You're not looking at things, Joe. You're quoting people.

    "Common Descent, that being that all of the diversity of the extant living organisms owing their collective common ancestry to some unknown last universal common ancestor via descent with modification, is based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial, evidence. It cannot be objectively tested."

    Sure it can. I just gave you an objective test above, which you clearly didn't understand.

     
  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey,

    Just some advice- Do NOT tell me what I have examined or read. And For you look like a total dork when you do that. If you were in front of me and said that sh!+ I would have to give you a dope slap. And I would hope you would respond.

    Also I know that I can understand anything that you can.

    A "new" myosin is one thing. But that still doesn't mean that the organisms on that chart are related via Common Descent.

    And are you saying that the different skeletal and cardiac myosins do NOT perform the same function as their alleged close relatives'?


    Also I didn't move any goalposts. IF you hadn't jump in the middle of this you may understand. You would also understand why I link to that website. IOW you should ask for clarification before jumping to ill-conceived conclusions.

    I also note your stalling tactics. Is that because you can't provide the data requested?

     
  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    "Just some advice- Do NOT tell me what I have examined or read."

    It's perfectly clear that you are afraid to look at data, Joe.

    "And For you look like a total dork when you do that."

    What does "And For you look" mean?

    "If you were in front of me and said that sh!+ I would have to give you a dope slap. And I would hope you would respond."

    What then?

    "Also I know that I can understand anything that you can."

    Then demonstrate that you can understand the myosin tree and predictions MET makes for the locations of myosins on that tree as we discover and sequence them.

    "A "new" myosin is one thing."

    It is, but you don't understand what that means.

    "But that still doesn't mean that the organisms on that chart are related via Common Descent."

    It means that the hypothesis of CD made another prediction to go with the thousands already confirmed. What ID predictions have been made and then confirmed?

    "And are you saying that the different skeletal and cardiac myosins do NOT perform the same function as their alleged close relatives'?"

    For the ones that perform the same function, you have to explain the sequence differences. CD does that beautifully; you, OTOH, got nuthin' but bluster.

    "Also I didn't move any goalposts."

    You did. Your challenge was to name the mutations needed to allow bipedal locomotion. The answer is 0. You then claimed that other animals must be forced to walk on their hind legs, when rewards work just fine.

    Where will you move them next?

    "IF you hadn't jump in the middle of this you may understand."

    I do understand, Joe.

    "You would also understand why I link to that website."

    It has lies that appeal to you, like "Humans 100%," which you then deny when they are refuted.

    "IOW you should ask for clarification before jumping to ill-conceived conclusions."

    Your position is perfectly clear. You don't have a clue.

    "I also note your stalling tactics. Is that because you can't provide the data requested?"

    The request was for an explanation of the differences, which I provided. I also provided data, which you don't understand.

    Now, Joe, if common design is your explanation for sequence similarities, what is your explanation for the differences between orthologs, such as
    Gg FSkE chicken
    Hs FSkE human
    Rn FSkE rat

    over there at 3 o'clock on the tree? All of them do the same thing, yet they have different sequences, and the human and rat ones are more similar to each other than they are to the chicken one.

    Common design has no hope of explaining those differences.

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey:
    Your challenge was to name the mutations needed to allow bipedal locomotion. The answer is 0.

    That "answer" is incorrect.

    I don't know who you think you are but around here you don't amount to anything.

    It has become amusingly obvious that you cannot support the premise that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, except to point to "evidence" that can be accounted for in any number of ways.

    Smokey asserts:
    Common design has no hope of explaining those differences.

    Sure it does. It not only has a hope but is the only explanation. Common Descent can't even explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps & humans. That much you have demonstrated in just the very few posts you have made here. Thanks for your help.

    Ya see when all is said and done it is you who is clue-less.

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe, if it's the only explanation, then use it to explain the differences between those fast skeletal myosins on the tree.

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Common Descent can't even explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps & humans. That much you have demonstrated in just the very few posts you have made here. Thanks for your help.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home