Dr. Winston Ewert put forward his module hypothesis, but I put forward an alternate module hypothesis at the domain and motif level of proteins. It is based actually on papers by evolutionists who have pointed out that the problem of “Promiscuous Domains” remains an unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.
When I put Promiscuous Domains on the table in the Common Design vs. Common Descent thread, the TSZ Darwinists ignored the problem and then declared victory. I viewed their non-response as evidence they didn’t understand the problem and/or preferred to ignore it.
Perhaps pictures are worth ten thousand words. From the NIH, that great source inspiration for the Intelligent Design community, we have the CDART database viewer.
From the CDART viewer, I provide a few of the thousands of diagrams that show the promiscuity of protein domains. The diagrams below show the classical zinc finger ZF-C2H2 “ZF” domain and the Plextrin Homology “PH” domains. Note how the location of domains is “shuffled” to different locations in different proteins. It’s as if proteins are made by different lego-like parts in different order and position. My preliminary look into small 4-amino acid motifs that are the target of phosphorylating kinases suggests the the problem of promiscuity goes all the way down to small motif levels.
Such promiscuity is more consistent with common design than common descent.
Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 5
Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 157
Click to see all CDART Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Architectures
This is where they claim that historians have very low standards … therefore god exists.
You cannot know if there was a single “deterministic origin event.” All you have going for such a claim is misinformed conjectures.
Nope. Just misinformed conjectures.
The issue of promiscuous domains and commond follows along similar lines as that of the Eukaryote/Prokaryote divide.
I discussed Change Tan’s paper with a Christian pre-med biology student who was at the time a Christian Darwinist. Within an hour, he was was converted to a creationist. He could accept miralces, so I just had to put forward a reasonable improbability argument.
I offer this diagram from Change Tan’s paper. John Harshman and other phylogeneticists can make protein phylogenies of the 96 or so universal essential proteins ( in diagram C). But as I tried to point out to John, it is a complete non sequitur to say that because the 96 essential proteins can be arranged in nested hiearchies, that it explains the origin of other proteins!
The proteins essential but unique to eukaryotes can, because they are essential, be said to have “poofed” into existence because without them the organism would be dead, therefore it could not have evolved these proteins. One might appeal to some promissory note of some solution that doesn’t require a miracle, but, as I said, it’s only a promissory note, and promissory notes don’t count as evidence that there is a plausible pathway of common descent unless of course, as John Harshman suggests, there are acts of special creation to rescue common descent!
Here is the caption from Tan’s paper:
Here is the diagram:
Click to ENLARGE
It is possible, somehow I thought you admitted fudging the facts to your students make your point . I could be mistaken. Too lazy to try to find the exchange
Entropy,
Another unsupported assertion on your part.
And again
Misinformed,,,Fairytale,,,imaginary friend. These are the words you use in place of argument.
I doubt that John makes such a claim. It would certainly be a non-sequitur. What the phylogenies would point to is where to look for the origins of those proteins, but the phylogenies only show the history of the proteins along lineages, nothing else.
Here’s where you got it wrong. I checked for essential E coli proteins in other bacteria a few years ago. One analysis was done in all the E coli genomes available at the time (maybe 50 or so). Only 90% of these essential proteins were present in all E coli strains. That means that the protein’s essentiality is context-dependent, not an absolute requirement. The very online resource consulted must have some clarification as to how essentiality was defined. For example, some proteins are essential under aerobic conditions, some under anaerobic conditions, some under minimal media, some under rich media, etc.
The very diagrams you’re showing demonstrates that these proteins are not universally essential. Only some are present in all Enterobacteria, some in gammaproteobacteria, etc. Thus demonstrating, again, that their essentiality is context dependent. That means that some proteins might start their history as non-essential, and become essential as the lineage evolves and some other genes are lost, or the organism adapts to some specific niche. This is such a simple scenario that I’d be surprised that you didn’t think about it yourself, except because I already know that you have a very limited mind looking only for things that look as if magically created, and preferring to leave them at that.
I agree that promissory notes don’t count as evidence, but jumping from these genes are essential in a single organism to god-did-it, seems rather irrational. Shouldn’t we default to there might be some reasonable explanation for this, rather than some magical being in the sky did it? Why not wait or look for the evidence of different scenarios instead of jumping to irrational conclusions?
ETA: There’s something very wrong with how these pie charts were made. The note says that E coli had 300+ essential genes, but the figure shows 600+. From the analysis I made it should be 300+. I think that the pie chart is misleading because the figure should not be a pie chart, since that assumes that the total genes is the sum of what’s in the pie, but enterobacteria are gammaproteobacteria, which means that the total number of essential genes is over-counted.
She needed very little encouragement then. Call me a suspicious bastard, but your conversion stories make me doubt the level of conviction your “darwinists” started off with.
I haven’t made a single unsupported assertion Bill. That you wouldn’t read my explanations doesn’t mean that I didn’t give those explanations. You said you would not read them, at least for the case we were talking about above (FMM’s imaginary friend). So how could you know if I supported anything or not? Magically?
They make me doubt the level of intelligence those “darwinist” started with. From calling themselves “darwinist” they look a bit mentally-suspicious already.
Entropy,
How specifically did you support the claim that FMM’s friend is imaginary?
I am asking this rhetorically as I don’t think you can.
It seems like it has about the same support as calling his friend real. He has a specific version of God, evidence of a generic version might not emcompass his.
Specifically enough that you’d be convinced, if only you’d read it.
Entropy,
So this is your support for you prior claim. It is in itself an unsupported claim. Do I sense an infinite regress of unsupported claims. 🙂
newton,
It is called labeling to make you unsupported claim have an impact. Donald Trump was the master of this technique.
Are you claiming that you do get revelations from an all-powerful all-knowing being?
Are you saying that if I notice something deeply wrong with some claims, I cannot conclude that such claims are nothing more but the claims of a not-too-brilliant individual, rather than the revelations of an all-powerful all-knowing god? Seriously?
Some pretty dumb claims can just as well be revelations from an all-powerful all-knowing being? Seriously? Do you understand the problem with that claim at all?
If you cannot understand the problem there, then all I can tell you is that I won’t be impressed by the revelations you might claim to get from an all-powerful all-knowing god. After all, if an obvious problem like that flies over your head, then your god’s revelations would also be indistinguishable from the imagination of a not-too-blilliant individual. Therefore such god would also be imaginary, even if you never get to understand why.
Bill (cloewd),
I take this back:
I wasn’t counting on you being unaware of the absurdity of getting revelations from an all-powerful all-knowing god that look exactly like the imagination of a not-too-brilliant individual.
Entropy,
Absurdity….Imagination of a not-too brilliant….individual. Your spinning the Irish yarn dude. There is no substance here. Also do you understand eukaryotic cellular action relative to variable cell division required for multicellular organisms. Do you understand how the cell cycle is controlled?
As I said, if you’re unable to understand the absurdity, then you won’t understand why I’m not impressed. I’m still not impressed, and my conclusion stands on pretty strong foundations.
I take it then that you also believe that you have direct communication with an all-powerful all-knowing god, and I therefore conclude that your god is also imaginary.
I understand that all right. I’ve done some analyses in this respect myself.
What I do not understand is what that has to do with people showing poor intellectual skills, even at some basic stuff like reading some simple sentences for comprehension, claiming to have revelations from an all-powerful all-knowing god, and still expecting me to believe that their imaginary friend might as well be real.
It takes a trained scientist to not be able to tell the difference. 🙂
You still don’t get it? Nobody says that nested hierarchies explain the origins of even the 96 essential proteins, much less others. What they actually do is demonstrate common descent. Now of course protein phylogenies can tell us something about the origins of some proteins, for example that gene duplication is the initial step in the evolution of paralogs.
Really, I would think your demand that Entropy’s supporting his claim that Fifth’s version of a deity is imaginary is required implies fifth has supported his claims that his version of a deity is real. Otherwise ,you would be doing what you accused me of doing.
And there are lots of versions of God, some have to be imaginary.
There are lots of versions of the planet earth, some have to be imaginary.
There are lots of versions of skepticism, some have to be imaginary. 🙂
newton,
This is a fair comment however I know that FFM is talking about the Christian God and Entropy would struggle greatly against biblical scholars with trying to support the claim that the Christian God is imaginary.
All but the one I believe in.
They all could be imaginary
If one starts with the assumption that the Bible is reliable proof.
If special creation is unentailed, and untestable then common decent is as well.
Is that your position??
peace
It’s not remotely the same.
“everything” does not originate in the mind of finite biased humans.
It’s only the stuff that originates in the mind of biased finite humans that is equally subjective.
a “reception” begins with the revealer
If there were no revelation there could be no reception.
God being omnipotent can if he chooses insure that his message is received regardless of the condition of the receiver. He can even supernaturally recreate the receiver if he wants to. This process is called regeneration.
For one thing the extent of their correspondence to objective truth.
peace
Hey all,
Just a small request. This thread is supposed to be about common decent and it’s relationship to the evidence.
It would be better I think if we could limit ourselves if possible.
The claim was made that an “objective” nested hierarchy is evidence for common decent. I for one would like to see that case made. especially since we have now redefined “objective” to mean something like popular with the majority of the practitioners of cladistics living at the present time.
I realize that for our atheist participants the temptation is there to always make everything about the God that they claim to not believe in.
But maybe we could put that tired topic on simmer.
just a suggestion
peace
You are going to have to support that claim. Especially in light of recent clarification as to the intended meaning of “objective”
peace
In my personal experience it’s always been true and reliable.
I seen no reason to begin any endeavor by assuming otherwise.
It’s like my eyes they have proven to be reliable so I trust them until given compelling reason not to.
eta: Dang I just did what I asked that we not do. I’t just so hard to leave challenges like this unanswered
peace
What are the entailments of special creation? Is an omnipotent and omniscient being limited in some way?
Nobody has redefined “objective” in that way. That’s your invention, as far as I can tell. Reality is that which, when you don’t believe in it, doesn’t go away.
The case is simple: we expect to see a nested hierarchy from common descent; we know of nothing else that is expected to cause such a hierarchy. Your attempts to attach the expectation of nested hierarchy to special creation are crippled by your failure to understand what a nested hierarchy is, how it differs from simple categorization, and how nothing of the sort follows from the existence of God, even if your premises about the nature of God are true.
We have already discussed that truly objective nested hierarchy is an entailment of creation.
As far bare “special creation” goes I don’t think there are any entailments.
It looks to me to be in exactly the same boat as common decent in this regard.
peace
Ok
I want to give you every benefit of the doubt
What is your suggested idiosyncratic definition of objective?
That is an interesting take.
It cleaves reality from human experience so much that you could go your entire life thinking something was real and being totally mistaken. In this view there is no way to connect your beliefs about the word and what is real.
Do you disagree with the observation that anything that can be categorized can be placed in a nested hierarchy?
If so explain
absolutely everything else is expected to cause such a hierarchy.
Can you name even one thing that can be categorized that won’t form a nested hierarchy?? You are batting a thousand on this so far
I guess you need to spell out you idiosyncratic definitions of “nested” and “hierarchy” as well.
Hint
It does not bode well when every single word in your argument needs to be redefined in order to make it work
peace
Yes of course, God is limited by his own nature
peace
for a quick exercise lets look at this nested hierachy. (fyi I had to look it up I’m a little rusty on my chemistry)
Alkali metals,Alkaline earth metals,Lanthanoids,Transition metals, and Post-transition metals can all be nested in the metals group
the noble gasses and other non-metals nest together as well
both of these groups together with the metalliods nest into the still larger group of the elements
The elements can then be nested with compounds into the pure substance group.
pure substances will nest with mixtures in the matter group
If you are a duelist then matter will nest with the immaterial in the “total reality” nest.
you get the idea
How is your idiosyncratic “objective nested hierarchy” different??
peace
Since the Bible has recently been brought up you will be happy to know that the books of the Bible can also be arranged in a nested hierarchy
https://www.creativebiblestudy.com/support-files/bible-books-divisions.pdf
You might be interested to know that the bible can also be arranged in a periodic table just like the elements
https://thesovereign.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/booksofthebible-2560×1600.jpg
peace
Do you really think that all imagined Christian gods are the very same? I ask again, is the Christian god you believe in one who gives you revelations? Do you think “His” thoughts after “Him”? If so, then we can safely conclude that your god is imaginary based on the very same evidence. If not, then you’re talking about different gods, even if you both call it “The Christian God” (and their imaginary nature is revealed by different approaches).
I’ve been trying to get you to understand just one of the problems with filth’s god but you refuse to contemplate the idea that someone could imagine a different version of the Christian god than yours. You go all the way to refuse to think of the implications of the lack of consistency between what the source of revelations is supposed to be and the output coming out of those who “think His thoughts after Him.” You prefer to hold to absurdity before acknowledging that people imagine Christian gods differently.
I wouldn’t struggle one bit. They’d struggle to agree on what they’re talking about, and it would become a nice mess of absurdities exchanged between them before they could even start trying to prove that their gods are something other than imaginary. I doubt we’d even get to that point. I also suspect that’s the reason you refuse to contemplate the idea that filth’s god might not be the same you imagine yours to be.
No, you have merely asserted that. Your attempts to show that it’s true just amount to saying that it’s your premise and that your premise is obviously correct.
I would suggest that your definition of “objective” is the idiosyncratic one. It seems to be “what God thinks”.
Anything can be categorized, so anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. Your problem is that you can see no distinction between “can be placed in” and “forms”, which is the difference between an arbitrary nested hierarchy and a real, discoverable nested hierarchy.
Here you fail to understand the distinction between “can be placed in” and “expected to cause”, which is pretty much the same as the prior distinction.
Again, the problem with the meaning of “form”. None of the things you talk about that can be placed in a nested hierarchy actually form one; you just impose one on them. Real nested hierarchies are not imposed; they exist in the data.
Again, you mistake whose definitions are idiosyncratic.
Agreed, which is why your arguments never work.
Simple, you have just forced the elements (and more besides) into a hierarchy based on picking single characteristics in a particular order. If I picked different single characteristics, or a different order, I could come up with a different hierarchy. Or, better, I could come up with the periodic table, which isn’t a nested hierarchy at all. Your nested hierarchy doesn’t exist independently of your idiosyncratic choices.
The actual nested hierarchy of life, on the other hand, doesn’t depend on picking single characters, or on any order of choice. It relies on picking characters without bias, preferably a lot of them, and looking at the total pattern of distribution. The data must actually be organized in a nested hierarchy in order for that to have a consistent result.
And you have just defeated your own claim. The bible books can be arranged in any number of arbitrary ways, and so do not form a real, discoverable nested hierarchy.
And how does the entail special creation?
No ,actually you have merely asserted it, and I have asserted that it is not part of God’s nature to be bounded in what He creates by human categorization.God is not contingent on His creations.
Now if you want to claim that. Ok. Why are there exceptions to the objective nested hierarchies ?
It stands there.
Not sure why there is anything but bare special creation. That seems to be what the special is about.
Except for the laws of nature and structures of those which offsprings is descended from. And the viability of the offspring .
Not a duelist but how is the immaterial world of things categorized as a nested hierarchy , what are the different properties of immateriality?
Maybe ,but we discussing subjective viewpoints. Of that set.
And it seems special creation is also subjectively biased toward human categorization.
True and without a receiver nothing is revealed. Just like speaking. Unless God is revealing to Himself.
So you say. So we know God is bounded in His creative omnipotence by human categorization in His creation. And we have established that something with even the tiniest part of subjectivity is subjective. Equal in some ways to the completely subjective.
Next.
Sure, but only if it fits into an objective nested hierarchy, correct.
Ok, got God ,then He specially creates a receiver, where does the biased subjective human come in?
Just read about it, it is getting complicated. Lots of work arounds and different interpretations, logically some must wrong. Free will out the door. Kind of Alan’s point, why all the window dressing if in the end it comes to force.
I guess belief is not enough to assure the truth.
Truer words have not ere been written.
peace
Again I would say “special” creation is in the same boat as common decent in that regard. The would both look the same AFAICT.
Unless perhaps we are talking about the particular character of of the creation in question.
Yahweh’s special creation should have entailments over that of Brahama for example.
And creation should have entailments over non-creation as well.
I would be extremely interested if Sal or another YEC could point to some entailments over common decent.
peace
So can organisms as I demonstrated with my grey fox example and then there is the nested hierarchy of Genesis one
here is an interesting “periodic” arrangement of organisms
https://www.amnat.org/an/newpapers/NovPianka.html
quote:
Lizard niche dimensions have evolved in concert; transitions in life history and trophic traits occur in synchrony. Natural dichotomies include activity time, foraging mode, parity mode (egg laying/live bearing), and habitat. Patterns are repeated: Australian desert lizards solve problems in the same ways that African and American lizards do, even when they are not evolutionarily related.
end quote;
peace
I think you need to define discoverable. Especially given your contention that reality need not be tied in any way to human experience.
Given your worldview is there any reason that anything whatsoever should be “discoverable”??
Why ???
peace
The same goes for organisms as I have already demonstrated with my different hierarchys.
Your chosen hierarchy only works if you choose to look only at traits you deem to be sufficiently “heritable” to the exclusion of all other characteristics.
How do we know if a particular trait is sufficiently “heritable”? Why if it can be nested in your chosen hierarchy of course.
The circular reasoning in your argument is tight enough to give you whiplash.
peace