How could we test universal common descent?

Can anyone say how to test the claim of universal common descent? A non-question begging test would be best. Fred has failed. Anyone else? ET

So, if we ignore the fact that mechanisms produce patterns, trees based on DNA, which doesn't even determine biological form, somehow are evidence for universal common descent? Really? Sounds like desperation and not science. ET

Wrong. I already pointed out that mechanisms determine patterns. Your trees are meaningless without said mechanisms. Genetic similarity is evidence for a common design. Your willful ignorance is impressive. ET

Yes. I already pointed out that relatedness trees constructed using comparative anatomy without any input from genetic information match closely with trees produced solely using genetic sequence comparisons. Consilience is impressive. Fred Hickson

Can anyone say how to test the claim of universal common descent? A non-question begging test would be best. ET

Querius, there's a question mark there. Fred Hickson

FH

You could quote me.

I went back and searched for your commentary. That way I could quote you. Because when I repeated what you said, you asked me to quote you. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-id-as-fruitful-approach-to-science/#comment-755086

SA: Each year’s <b:environmental conditions create a different niche. The body plan was developed for specific environmental conditions, but those conditions change randomly and continually based on changing temperature, humidity, geography, presence of competition, introduction of new species, increase and decline of populations, introduction of disease and toxins, fires, floods, earthquakes. FH: Well sure, except I wonder whether climate change, say, is truly random. God’s hand behind it all? Humans fuelling their own destruction by causing carbon dioxide levels (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere to mount seemingly inexorably? SA: I can only see that as a sincere comment and therefore it’s a good thing that you’re wondering about that. I’m grateful to see it. – I like how you put that. “God’s hand behind it” FH: SA, I have a sense of humor (what ID skeptic posting here wouldn’t?) but that comment was perfectly serious. ID seems to perceive a conflict with science and evolutionary theory in particular that doesn’t exist for me. God the Designer doesn’t need puny ID. SA: As it stands, you’re supporting what ET said – there are no known naturalistic (blind, unguided) mechanisms to support universal common descent. You’ve affirmed it with “guided niches”. Agreed? FH: I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time SA: The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it. FH: But I don’t. ... Nor do I personally subscribe to the idea. SA: So now, just a suggestion: It would have been helpful back then, earlier, to have said that you actually reject that idea for whatever reason and that environment is, after all, random and not as you had said “guided by the hand of God”. Failing that, I wasted time thinking you were posting your own ideas and not proposals that you reject.

Silver Asiatic

Fred Hickson: '

My position is that the source of guidance is a philosophical question that is impossible to resolve scientifically.

Why can't it be resolved scientifically? Do tell. ET

SA

You replied by saying that climate was not random but rather was “guided by the hand of God”.

You could quote me. My position is that the source of guidance is a philosophical question that is impossible to resolve scientifically. Fred Hickson

Fred Hickson:

I certainly proposed the niche’s role as the non-random source for non-random differential reproduction.

Only a lab can provide that role as the non-random source. In nature it is all in a constant state of flux. ET

DNA is NOT a magical molecule. All molecular studies ASSUME that DNA is a magical molecule. Again, mechanisms determine patterns. Until someone posits, tests and validates that there is a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life from some populations of prokaryotes, pattern hunting is a fool's errand. At least we understand why evos love it so much. Phylogenies assume universal common descent. They do not demonstrate it. ET

FH Some time ago I wrote about the problem of random effects of environment on niches. You replied by saying that climate was not random but rather was "guided by the hand of God". I responded by affirming that would mean a design-aspect to niches. You affirmed this by saying that it would reconcile faith and science. So now, just a suggestion: It would have been helpful back then, earlier, to have said that you actually reject that idea for whatever reason and that environment is, after all, random and not as you had said "guided by the hand of God". Failing that, I wasted time thinking you were posting your own ideas and not proposals that you reject. Silver Asiatic

you proposed “guided niches”. That refutes a blind, unguided process.

I certainly proposed the niche's role as the non-random source for non-random differential reproduction. I also suggest we can reconcile with theism by hypothesising a supreme creator as source of the guidance imparted by the niche. It's untestable (in my view) so doesn't refute anything. Nor do I personally subscribe to the idea. Fred Hickson

@ Jerry. That was my exact point. Molecular phylogenetics was already an active and fruitful area of research in 1998 and earlier. The progress since, if you dare to look, is spectacular. Fred Hickson

SA: As it stands, you’re supporting what ET said – there are no known naturalistic (blind, unguided) mechanisms to support universal common descent. You’ve affirmed it with “guided niches”. Agreed? FH: I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time SA: The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it. FH: But I don’t. Fred - you proposed "guided niches". That refutes a blind, unguided process. Silver Asiatic

Where did Jerry look, I wonder

No serious person would present what you presented. A paper in 1998 which meant it was based on findings probably before 1996. This would not have the necessary data to investigate common descent by DNA. They were just getting started looking into genomes. They are just now possibly getting the expertise to start such a project almost 25 years later. Here's an example of how one would prove it https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/#comment-631468 Nothing like it has ever been attempted. Hint, they won't do it because I bet they know what they will find. Another hint: they do not know the origin of DNA sequences that translate to proteins. So they couldn't possibly have the information. You just confirmed my assessment that you did not have anything and paying attention to you is a waste of time. jerry

Another taster, Wikipedia on phylogenetic comparative methods. Note reference 1 in the article. Wikipedia on molecular phylogenetics. Note reference 3 in the article. Where did Jerry look, I wonder. Fred Hickson

Just as a taster, here is a review paper from 1998 that has been cited over 400 times. I see Joe Felsenstein gets a few mentions. Should be a useful starting point to show how much work has been done in the 24 years following publication. Fred Hickson

There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes. That happens to be a fact. And all AlanFred can do is try to handwave it away like the coward he has always been. You are still a sad little person, AlanFred. ET

Fred Hickson:

It’s a daft, repetitive mantra.

Wrong again, little boy. It is a fact. You are a daft punk. ET

SA:

There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes.

The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it.

But I don't. It's a daft, repetitive mantra. Fred Hickson

Had a look at Martin_r's blog, though blog seems a misnomer. Wasn't there a commenter here did something similar but by posting comments containing links to papers without any discussion about the content or significance? The thread went to over a thousand comments, all by that guy. Can't remember his handle for the moment. Fred Hickson

Jerry

I’ve already said he doesn’t have anything. If he had he would have presented it.

Jerry seems reluctant to look in my telescope. ;) . I'll put something together anyway though. It will have to fit around my normal RL commitments so might be a few days or so. Fred Hickson

Martin

The funny thing is, that i only publish mainstream Darwinian articles. Darwinists debunk themselves.

I will bet that you do not get any Darwinists responding to you, for that very reason. True? Silver Asiatic

Martin

It perfectly illustrates, that nobody knows how evolution works. As you can see, most famous biologists have a serious argument about such a basic thing (natural selection). The argument was so serious that they insulted each other in public.

Great explanation. Yes, it's a lose-lose situation for the evolutionists. The greatest spokesman for Darwinism in the world is called just "a journalist" - and then not only that, but they have to argue about natural selection and reveal that nobody knows what evolution is doing. Clearly, they just make up whatever stories they want to fit their materialistic narrative, and outside of ID and some other critics, nobody cares what evolutionists claim. They're never made to validate anything. They just demand acceptance - and they get it from academia, the media and the general public. Silver Asiatic

Fred

I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time.

That is good to hear and I agree that it's not about taking sides. But in this case, it's a pretty huge agreement with ET. As you know he has often said:

There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes.

The fact that you agree with that is huge, as I see it. Again, it's not about taking sides or winning points, but it's just a very big and major point of agreement that should be built-upon. Silver Asiatic

tell Fred that you will take a look at his alleged evidence

He doesn’t have any. I’ve already said he doesn’t have anything. If he had he would have presented it. This is all nonsense. jerry

Jerry, tell Fred that you will take a look at his alleged evidence. That way we can all see that he is equivocating and clueless. For some reason he needs your permission to do that. ET

ET My offer was to Jerry. He seems to have ignored it. Fred Hickson

Fred Hickson:

I’m the Ent who is on no-one’s side. Talking of sides explains everything politically and nothing in reality.

No one said anything about sides, Fred. Stop being such a drama queen. ET

whatever you present. My bet is it doesn’t do what you think it does

If it existed it would be Nobel prize material. No one ever presented it here including anti ID defenders of natural evolution presenting to state educational systems. It’s The Big Con. jerry

For AlanFred: There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes. ET

Meanwhile, on tree of life matters, we can try https://salvomag.com/article/salvo27/logged-out kairosfocus

Yes, Fred. I will read whatever you present. My bet is it doesn't do what you think it does ET

SA

As it stands, you’re supporting what ET said – there are no known naturalistic (blind, unguided) mechanisms to support universal common descent. You’ve affirmed it with “guided niches”. Agreed?

I agree with a stopped clock when it shows the right time. I'm the Ent who is on no-one's side. Talking of sides explains everything politically and nothing in reality. Fred Hickson

34 JerryMay 20, 2022 at 12:13 pm

But it does. It is a matter of record

What record?

There's plenty. Can I get any kind of indication from you you'll glance at what I dig up? I seek no assurance you'll understand it or accept it, just acknowledgement that it exists. Fred Hickson

SA, also, thank you for looking at my blog at Stuffhappens.info

(Stuffhappens.info) taken as a whole it’s devastating.

Yes, it was my intention, to collect as much as possible MAINSTREAM articles about repeated evolution and to make a website/blog out of it. So even a lay person can see that Darwinism is a scam. The funny thing is, that i only publish mainstream Darwinian articles. Darwinists debunk themselves. martin_r

SA, you know that English is not my first language, but it is pretty clear how to interpret Wilson's words. Just look at the subtitle of the BBC article: "US scientist dismisses Dawkins as a ‘journalist’ in a BBC television interview about pair’s differing views on natural selection" It is clear that Wilson disrespected Dawkins, that is why he called him "a journalist". (only a journalist not a scientist). It was an insult. And it must hurt a lot when someone who is also known as THE DARWIN OF THE 21st CENTURY calls you 'a journalist'. As you can see these two biologists had an argument about natural selection. It perfectly illustrates, that nobody knows how evolution works. As you can see, most famous biologists have a serious argument about such a basic thing (natural selection). The argument was so serious that they insulted each other in public. Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson martin_r

Martin Interesting. Aside from Wilson labeling him a journalist, how do you interpret his comment that he has no dispute with him because he's just reporting what scientists have found? Maybe Wilson is saying that evolutionists are too confused to be reported-on accurately? P.S. - I've benefited from stuffhappens.info -- taken as a whole it's devastating. I'm convinced that evolutionary biology is an elaborate scam. Actually, not even that elaborate. Silver Asiatic

SA,

Dawkins is a propagandist. Like a TV infomercial salesman

This is what E.O. Wilson AKA Darwin of the 21st century said about Dawkins:

There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson

martin_r

On that alleged "tree of relatedness"- The DNA tests that show that I am related to my father would show that neither of us are related to any chimps. I can't say the same for Alan'sFred's family, though. ET

FH, sequences may be theory laden and are not conclusive evidence of origin of relevant information; you may need to consider common design with particular adaptation, which is rypically ruled out ideologically.. This is why ool and oo body plans are pivotal. kf PS, there are no actually observed blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanisms with empirically warranted capability to cause origin of life, of body plans and of the required coded information. There is imposed, ideologically tainted assumption as Lewontin and many others admit. kairosfocus

Bornagain77 As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.”

Nothing is absurd for an atheist because s/he is his own god and answer only to his own arrogance. Sandy

As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility.

Dawkins is a propagandist. Like a TV infomercial salesman: "Who could doubt that this is the greatest product in the history of the world?"

as another evolutionist admitted, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”

The tree is a jumbled mess and it has little real value. Silver Asiatic

Hickson, now you know that i don't have a formal education in biology. So i was hoping that you can help me to understand one thing which bothers me a lot. What makes Darwinists think, that a mutation was inherited (a common descent) ? e.g. Chimps/humans pseudogenes. Could the same mutation arise in chimps and humans independently ? martin_r

From the June 5, 2013 issue of Time magazine: "A. achilles will tell paleontologists an enormous amount about a crucial period in primate evolution. The tiny animal — about eight inches long, but most of it tail — lived during an anomalously warm period known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. “The entire planet was tropical or sub-tropical,” said Beard. “It was a great time to be a primate.” It was during this period that the group known as the haphlorines diverged into two branches, one of which developed into modern tarsiers and the other into the anthropoids — that is, monkeys, apes and humans. (The haphlorines had diverged earlier on from the streppsirhines, which led to modern lemurs. The quiz answer, therefore, is that you’re a haphlorine, and more closely related to tarsiers than to lemurs)." The entire planet was tropical or sub-tropical. OK. So, does anyone here have an ancestor that was a lemur-like creature? An ape-like creature? relatd

Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”,,, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”,,, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.”,,, he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.” “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.” And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data. Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model. Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree. Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process. Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model. Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/ Completion of Human Genome Reveals Anti-Evolutionary Surprises BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * - APRIL 14, 2022 https://www.icr.org/article/completion-human-genome November 2021 - Human evolution? - the evidence from genetics, (as well as the mathematics of population genetics itself), when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal as Darwinists are prone to do, actually falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245

bornagain77

how they can talk about similarity of anything, when 9% from human genome was missing,

The main differences between humans and chimps are not in the genome. There are huge differences in the epigenetics that affect the expression of genes especially neural genes. I can guarantee you that nearly all the discussions on human/chimp difference never mention the real source of differences. Wonder why? jerry

ET @33 i am glad you have mentioned chimp-human similarity. There is one thing i did not get... only few weeks ago, scientists announced, that they finally sequenced the whole human genome. Most lay people think, that it was done 20 years ago. No, it was not. There were about 9% of human genome missing (to be sequenced). The same for any other mammals including chimps. So, what i don't understand, how they can talk about similarity of anything, when 9% from human genome was missing, and i guess the same % from chimp genome is still missing. perhaps Hickson can explain. martin_r

This is the heart of the problem. This is why engineers turn to living things for clues about how to make similar things. The dinosaur example is very good. All load-bearing points have to carry the load and allow for the stress involved in movement. There would not be enough time for blind, unguided processes to get to that point, to design a multi-ton dinosaur, even after millions of years. relatd

Relatd

In real life, the code for producing an ape’s arm or rib cage can be compared with the code for making the same human parts. The designer will use similar body plans over and over.

I have no doubts that this is exactly what happened.

Since you are a mechanical engineer, you are familiar with the various material stresses, and other problems involved in designing real-world things.

i am glad you mentioned material stresses. It is funny to see, that blind unguided process developed the best materials imaginable. Everywhere you look in nature, you always find the right materials on the right place. e.g. bones ... it is a very strong, but on the other hand, pretty flexible material. And lightweight thank to its foamy structure. A high-tech material. No doubts. Do you think that biologists (natural science graduates) know how bones evolved? Of course they don't. Do you think that these natural science graduates know how the whole vertebrae skeleton evolved ? Of course they don't. They can't show you a single evidence on evolution of bones or skeleton. For me, it is not surprising, this was exactly what i have expected. When i started to study these things, I predicted it ... they will not have a clue. Sure, because it did not evolve. I can't imagine, how a joint could have evolved. And, these natural science graduates claim, that joints evolved multiple times independently in evolutionary unrelated species (you know, the convergence again). PS: one more thing regarding the material stresses. There were dinosaurs weighting tens of tons. Some of them were running when chasing prey. Huge dynamic material stress. Dynamic material stress is more serious engineering problem, than e.g. static material stress. I don't understand, how a rational educated person, can even think, that these huge running objects self-designed and no engineer was involved. This is very hard to imagine. But of course, natural science graduates can imagine anything, because they never made anything. Basically, they don't know what they are talking about ... martin_r

Martin_r, If you have access to a good graphic design program, try the following. Get 3-D skeleton models of land creatures that you can rotate, then enter the modifications. Example: take a human skeleton and turn it into an ape skeleton or the reverse. In real life, the code for producing an ape's arm or rib cage can be compared with the code for making the same human parts. The designer will use similar body plans over and over. Since you are a mechanical engineer, you are familiar with the various material stresses, and other problems involved in designing real-world things. relatd

JHOLO

ID is right, but asking for details of the mechanisms involved is off limits.

i am a mechanical engineer with a decent IT background. I am a creationist. So what do you want me to do ? To show you how species were designed ? If i knew, i would get a Nobel and become a billionaire. It is very possible, that the overall species design is beyond human comprehension ... And yes, i can assure you, that ID is 100% right. I as an engineer would stake my life on it. Would you stake your life on Darwinian theory of evolution ? From design/engineering point of view, there are many evidences that ID is 100% right. My favorite one is DNA proofreading and repair. martin_r

But it does. It is a matter of record

What record? No one has ever presented such information. Why? It doesn’t exist. How do I know, I asked and searched for it. I suggest you be the first one to present it. A Nobel prize awaits.

but asking for details of the mechanisms involved is off limits

Not off limits but it is an absurd question. Been asked probably a thousand times before because all thought it would be a gotcha. A serious person would not ask it because It indicates desperation. The only reason any anti ID person is here is to see if they can find a gotcha. There’s only been one honest one here in the site’s 17 years. That person was an evolutionary biologist and actually tried to respectfully share information. But he could never make the case. jerry

Chimps and humans are allegedly >98% genetically similar. Yet evolutionary biologists have been unable to link that slight genetic difference to the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans. Evolutionary biologists still don't even know what determines biological form! That is a basic question with respect to biology they can't answer. ET

Hickson,

It is as if you are a bot generating random phrases using key words.

Don't be ridiculous, Hickson ... ET can't compete with modern day science:

Computer generated papers (CGP) pose a serious problem to academic integrity and publishing. The problem began with SCIgen. Created in 2005 by MIT students, SCIgen is a software program that generates papers with simulated content. In 2014, we learned that more than 120 CGP passed through the peer review process , were published in well-known academic journals, and had to be retracted. https://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=grad_rsch

martin_r

Jholo:

Hmmm. So, evolution is wrong because scientists haven’t been able to detail all of the mechanisms involved.

Your cowardly equivocation is duly noted. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with evolution by means of telic processes as exemplified by genetic algorithms. And YOUR position is about the how. From Darwin on down it has been all about the mechanisms. Yet all you have is gibberish. The science of ID, as with archaeology, is about detecting intelligent design in nature and then studying it. And we have a process for doing that. ET

Hmmm. So, evolution is wrong because scientists haven't been able to detail all of the mechanisms involved. ID is right, but asking for details of the mechanisms involved is off limits. JHolo

JHolo:

If common descent is true, which Behe agrees with, we would expect to see the type of rankings of similarities that Linnaeus presented.

Behe says that God did it. Do you agree? But no. We would expect to see innumerable transitional forms that would ruin any and all attempts at nice, neat groupings. ET

Wow. MECHANISMS determine patterns, people. Common design easily explains the genetic, anatomical and physiological similarities. Linnaean classification was based on a common design. What this means is if you don't know the mechanism(s) that can produce the diversity of life starting from populations of prokaryotes, then you can't say anything about any patterns. ET

There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of universal common descent. Fred Hickson:

Read what you wrote, ET. It makes no sense.

Perhaps not to you. But here, try this: There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing universal common descent starting from some populations of prokaryotes. ET

In fairness, FH (@24) - you have already denied that blind, unguided naturalistic mechanisms (and that's what we mean by natural causes) can produce the effect. Your mechanism, which you've affirmed here, has the designer creating niches. I urge you to be consistent with your own view and not just jump into blind evolutionism because that's the default. The idea that the designer ("the hand of God") created niches (which is what drives evolution) is not going to be found in any scientific texts. We, the ID community, is obviously ok with that. But it puts you in a tough position to argue from default science. As it stands, you're supporting what ET said - there are no known naturalistic (blind, unguided) mechanisms to support universal common descent. You've affirmed it with "guided niches". Agreed? Silver Asiatic

:) Same genome provide different morphologies How many darwinists know that? Morphology (blueprint + fine-tuning around blueprint ) is not dependent of genome but other codes. Only defective/damaged morphology is dependent of genome(genetic disorders) Imagine a car graveyard . This is darwinism. :) Sandy

There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of universal common descent.

Read what you wrote, ET. It makes no sense. It is as if you are a bot generating random phrases using key words. Fred Hickson

you did not answer my question from the other post...

Missed it. Try putting a link.

, i have asked, WHAT MAKES DARWINISTS SO TRUSTWORTHY ? because they seem to be always wrong ….

When did you stop beating your wife? Loaded questions don't deserve an answer. Fred Hickson

...there is a lot of subjectivity in the morphology classification system...

Yet it matches the tree produced by DNA sequence comparisons to an extraordinary degree. Sequences aren't subjective. Fred Hickson

...despite i am a mechanical engineer, with no formal education in biology, i always suspected that Darwinists are fraudsters … the more i study biology the more obvious it gets …

That explains plenty. Fred Hickson

Jerry::

But it doesn’t.

But it does. It is a matter of record. I wonder if, were we ever to meet on a sunny day, I pointed to the sky and remarked how blue it was, what you would say. Fred Hickson

Thank you for clarifying. As a storyteller, I view Darwin-only thinking as the most elaborate storytelling formula I've ever come across. It can explain everything regardless of what happened. Encounter a problem? No problem. Just invent an explanation. I have no issue with current work in biology that involves organisms alive today but again, the 'we can explain or dismiss anything' storytelling function can be used there as well. Want to push something as "true"? Just get enough scientists to believe some experts from some prestigious locations. Take abortion. There is no human being there. Trust us. No, I won't trust you. relatd

Relatd, if you would read my blog (at Stuffhappens.info), you would see, that i am making jokes of convergent evolution .... Darwinists invented this fancy term because they couldn't explain why some of the same features evolved up to 100 times repeatedly and independently in evolutionary unrelated species ... It is clear that 'convergent' 'evolution' is an ultimate proof of common design. martin_r

Convergence? What convergence? What kind of fiction is that? Did cars evolve into SUVs and hatchbacks? No. An intelligence designed them. If I was the designer and I had a planet with one Earth gravity, an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere and various finite food sources, I could develop body plans that could be used and reused with slight modifications. relatd

"there is a lot of subjectivity in the morphology classification system, made more difficult by convergence. Additional noise is added in the genomic classification depending on the prevalence of HGT. You would have to consult a statistician on what an appropriate significance level would be." Jholo, This doesn't sound like a very robust test. Andrew asauber

Andrew: So in this test, when does the failure event happen? Please be specific as possible.

A failure would be if there was no similarity between the genome similarity and the morphology similarity. Of course, there are going to be some differences because there is a lot of subjectivity in the morphology classification system, made more difficult by convergence. Additional noise is added in the genomic classification depending on the prevalence of HGT. You would have to consult a statistician on what an appropriate significance level would be. JHolo

The result is uncanny

All invalidates a mechanism for natural Evolution.

we predict that creating a similarity relationship based on the genomes would result in a very similar “tree” as we see based on morphological “trees

But it doesn’t. Isn’t that embarrassing? I guess not since you repeat nonsense. jerry

"That is exactly how tests work. We make predictions based on the proposed idea (common descent) and then test to see if those predictions are supported or not." Jholo, So in this test, when does the failure event happen? Please be specific as possible. Andrew asauber

ET: Linnaean Classification had nothing to do with evolution or universal common descent.

You are correct. It was a classification based on similarities in morphology. If common descent is true, which Behe agrees with, we would expect to see the type of rankings of similarities that Linnaeus presented.

Andrew: This isn’t a test. It’s a comparison of ideas.

That is exactly how tests work. We make predictions based on the proposed idea (common descent) and then test to see if those predictions are supported or not. Given what we know about evolution and population genetics, we predict that creating a similarity relationship based on the genomes would result in a very similar "tree" as we see based on morphological "trees". And they compare very well. We would also predict that creating a similarity relationship based on the proteome would result in a similar "tree". And, guess what? JHolo

and Hickson, despite i am a mechanical engineer, with no formal education in biology, i always suspected that Darwinists are fraudsters ... the more i study biology the more obvious it gets ... martin_r

Hickson, or would you like another example of how to construct trees of life Darwinian way ? from a mainstream paper:

Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth Although overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports the existence of the universal common ancestor of all extant life on Earth, it is still an open question whether the universal common ancestor existed or not . Theobald (Nature 465, 219–222 (2010)) recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test applied to aligned sequences of conservative proteins sampled from all domains of life and concluded that the universal common ancestor hypothesis holds. However, we point out that there is a fundamental flaw in Theobald’s method which used aligned sequences. We show that the alignment gives a strong bias for the common ancestor hypothesis , and we provide an example that Theobald’s method supports a common ancestor hypothesis for two apparently unrelated families of protein-encoding sequences (cytb and nd2 of mitochondria) . This arouses suspicion about the effectiveness of the “formal” test. — Masami Hasegawa ( Department of Statistical Modeling, Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Japan ) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361263/

martin_r

And Hickson, you did not answer my question from the other post, i have asked, WHAT MAKES DARWINISTS SO TRUSTWORTHY ? because they seem to be always wrong .... you know: "...current concepts are reviewed..." "...uprooting current thinking...." "...latest findings contradict the current dogma...." “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” "... in contrast to the decades-long dogma ..." “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex than thought ….” martin_r

There aren't any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of universal common descent. So, the concept isn't scientific. Linnaean Classification had nothing to do with evolution or universal common descent. ET

Hickson

Well, one way might be to construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA sequences

you mean to construct trees of life Darwinian way ? "DO SCIENTISTS BUILD ‘TREES OF LIFE’ WITH FAULTY METHODS?"

“Our finding casts serious doubts over literally thousands of studies that use phylogenetic trees of extant data to reconstruct the diversification history of taxa, especially for those taxa where fossils are rare, or that found correlations between environmental factors such as changing global temperatures and species extinction rates,” Louca says, using a term for populations of one or more organisms that form a single unit.

or this one is disturbing:

“I have been working with these traditional types of models for a decade now,” Pennell says. “I am one of the lead developers of a popular software package for estimating diversification rates from phylogenetic trees. And, as such, I thought I had a really good sense of how these models worked. I was wrong. ”

https://www.futurity.org/extinctions-evolution-2340092-2/ or here https://around.uoregon.edu/content/researchers-find-flaws-how-scientists-build-trees-life martin_r

I think the more accurate answer is yes, Jerry. Classification of species by phylogeny and morphology has been ongoing since Linnaeus and now DNA sequencing can be done cheaply and easily it is simple to assemble a tree of relatedness completely independent of morphology. The result is uncanny. Fred Hickson

"construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA sequences" Fred, This isn't a test. It's a comparison of ideas. Andrew asauber

Hasn’t this already been done, though

No. It would destroy the myth of the power of natural selection and support the ID thesis. Who would do this in evolutionary biology? Answer: no one. They would be canceled and impoverished immediately. I came across a discussion yesterday that looks at this behavior. There are theories going around that are receiving lots of press as if they are plausible but are in fact nutty. But very little objection. Why? Most people just want to get along and by most I mean nearly all especially if your livelihood is at risk. This is probably what affects acceptance of ID in the general public. I will be thought of as a kook if I accept this. So I either remain quiet or actually support the nuts who believe in natural answers. That will be safer. But as we have evidence here, there is no valid objection to ID. jerry

What were the assumptions that would make Darwin believe in common descent? 1.His ignorance about cell complexity and 2.His belief that it's natural for life to emerge from chemicals. Today we know that Darwin's assumptions are wrong. What is the excuse of people believing in such nonsense? Well, did I forget to mention the 3rd assumption of Darwin ? Hate for God. First 2 were quickly debunked by Genetics but the 3rd one (metaphysical) is very live and well therefore today argument for common descent is reduced to a mere metaphysical argument : "I hate God , therefore darwinism is true." :lol:

to construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA

:) Your tree is called "Phylogenetic incongruence(discord)" but don't worry the Scientific Storytelling Service will explain how this incongruence is not what it seems actually is a congruence. Incongruence is congruence. I'm not joking it's exactly what scientists say. Sandy

“How could we test universal common descent?” Well, one way might be to construct a tree of life based purely on morphology and another tree of life based purely on DNA sequences and see how different the two trees are. Similarity between the two trees would be a strong argument for universal common descent. Hasn't this already been done, though... Fred Hickson

Darwinists themselves falsified universal common descent like hundreds of times ... yes, i am talking about convergent / repeated evolution ... Darwinists claim, that species’ features look the same features because they are evo related - share a common descent .... but also, there are hundreds if not thousands of species sharing the same features, but these species are evolutionary not related, therefore, these features evolved repeatedly and independently... converged ... Most absurd examples of repeated evolution are when the same features evolved, devolved and re-evolved again, like here: https://stuffhappens.info/repeated-evolution-giving-a-live-birth-but-then-back-to-egg-laying-lizards-re-evolved-laying-eggs-multiple-times/ Darwinism = a theory of never-ending miracles... Just look at my blog, it is crazy what Darwinists claim.... https://www.stuffhappens.info martin_r