Hi Bill,
You already accepted my testable hypothesis that a shared mutation (such as the 8bp indel in ALDOB) found only in the population under study establishes common descent.
Now may I ask: what is your testable hypothesis?
Blessings,
Chris
1 Like
Hi George
There is evidence on both sides of this argument. The amazing coincidence comes from looking at the argument from one side. When you look at some of the details of the amazing coincidences you will find they are not so amazing and contain problems.
Hereâs an interesting question for you: the horse and the donkey are clearly 2 distinct species: they cannot mate to produce reproductively successful offspring.
Do the horse and the donkey have a common ancestor or not? What hypothesis would you use to answer the question?
Thanks,
Chris Falter
2 Likes
Hi Chris
First, thanks for the engaging discussion.
The acceptance for common descent depends on the standard of science we agree validates the hypothesis. If we use inference to the best explanation i.e. the standard Darwin used and the ID community currently use then I would say the 8 base pair is supporting for the hypothesis and based of the information we have common descent is the best explanation of paleognath common ancestry if we remove the ostrich from the mix.
If we use the scientific method then it would fall short of testing the hypothesis since testing is part of the scientific method. Looking at 50 base pairs of DNA would not be enough to make this conclusion.
I think the reality is that we donât have tools yet to test this hypothesis so the inference standard is the best explanation we have and so I would concede the gambit 
This is a very interesting question. They can mate but the offspring is sterile. In my mind to really think this through is to come up with scenarios that we believe are realistic given the nature of the cell and genetic recombination the results from reproduction. If a new complex protein differentiated these animals I would be skeptical.
One question we might ask is: Why is the offspring sterile?
So you say ⌠but saying is easier than showing.
My hypothesis is that if they share a common ancestor, the proximity of their genomes will be proportional to the number of generations back to the common ancestor. Proximity would be measured by DNA sequences of pseudogenes, endogeneous retroviruses, functional genes, and so forthâessentially using the same techniques (such as 23andmeâs) used to determine the number of generations to a common ancestor between two humans.
Really? There are many traits among humans that involve significantly different proteins. Sickle cell anemia, the ability to withstand arsenic poisoning among some indigenous peoples of the Andes, and the different blood types which make certain transfusions deadly are examples that spring to mind.
Thus I donât understand why a significant difference in one protein would predict no shared ancestry.
Blessings,
Chris
2 Likes
Hi Chris
In order to test a common descent hypothesis you would need to show that reproduction and recombination can lead to a transition to specie A and B from specie C. The more dramatic transition you could show the more prevalent common descent would be to explaining diversity. Unless you can test cause and effect you are outside the scientific method.
Look at how Einsteinâs general relativity was tested versus the model he developed.
The hypothesis you are trying to set up is an inference argument with some supporting evidence. I will stipulate you can do that as I believe I can do the same thing for the design inference.
Chrisâ hypothesis is empirically testable. In what way is your hypothesis (whatever it is), empirically testable?
1 Like
The same way. By interrupting observed evidence. Inference to the best explanation or abductive reasoning.
Van Fraassenâs Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation
Samir Okasha*
Thatâs not an explanation. First you need to actually form a hypothesis (which you havenât done yet), then explain how it is empirically testable (which you havenât done yet). This means describing the experiments which will falsify or verify the hypothesis, and explaining how they will falsify or verify it.
Hi Bill,
Could you provide a little more detail about the kinds of empirical testing your hypothesis would entail for the horse/donkey question? If I tried to craft an experimental design from your posts in this thread, I wouldnât know where to start.
I would also be interested to learn what genomic predictions your hypothesis would make.
Thanks and best regards,
1 Like
John
Make sure you are asking questions that the UCD inference can also handle. Certainly if you could test UCD then you would falsify design as far a playing a role beyond the first cell. Design could still be an inference in the hypothesis for the first cell and UCD beyond that if you could test it. I think there are several difficult origins for UCD.
-origin of life
-origin of the first eukaryotic cell
-origin of the first multi cellular life
-origin of the first vertebrates
-origin of mammals
-origin of man
Universal Common Descent is testable. Chris has already explained this well.
1 Like
I am not sure in the donkey horse example what prediction design would make and this may be a transition that fits CD.
The design inference has been helpful to me in the area of cancer research. I was working on a project to come up with a biochemical explanation of how the active form of vitamin d blood levels reduced cancer risk. The hypothesis became the control of a cellular destruction mechanism. When given a second project to find why active vitamin d reduced metastasis risk I looked for the same design concept (destruction mechanism). This turned out to be the solution.
I humbly disagree that what Chris described demonstrates that all species share a common ancestor by reproduction and recombination. I do agree that he has shown evidence that some common descent between species may be true. The problem is much larger. No one has tested two different species splitting of from a common ancestor on even a single node.
Evidence like DNA forms a hypothesis. Testing the hypothesis is another step.
Hi Chris
Here is a description to the scientific method for reference.
Steps of the Scientific Method Detailed Help for Each Step
Ask a Question: The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
For a science fair project some teachers require that the question be something you can measure, preferably with a number.
Your Question
Do Background Research: Rather than starting from scratch in putting together a plan for answering your question, you want to be a savvy scientist using library and Internet research to help you find the best way to do things and insure that you donât repeat mistakes from the past.
Background Research Plan
Finding Information
Bibliography
Research Paper
Construct a Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested. A good hypothesis allows you to then make a prediction:
"If _____[I do this] _____, then [this] will happen."
State both your hypothesis and the resulting prediction you will be testing. Predictions must be easy to measure.
Variables
Variables for Beginners
Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.
You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results werenât just an accident.
Experimental Procedure
Materials List
Conducting an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if they support your hypothesis or not.
Scientists often find that their predictions were not accurate and their hypothesis was not supported, and in such cases they will communicate the results of their experiment and then go back and construct a new hypothesis and prediction based on the information they learned during their experiment. This starts much of the process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was supported, they may want to test it again in a new way.
Data Analysis & Graphs
Conclusions
Communicate Your Results: To complete your science fair project you will communicate your results to others in a final report and/or a display board. Professional scientists do almost exactly the same thing by publishing their final report in a scientific journal or by presenting their results on a poster or during a talk at a scientific meeting. In a science fair, judges are interested in your findings regardless of whether or not they support your original hypothesis.
On what basis?
Chris has already explained how it can be tested.
Chris already understands the scientific method. Heâs asking you to actually follow it. As Chris and I keep pointing out, you still donât actually have a hypothesis or a method of testing the hypothesis. Instead of talking about the scientific method and how to write a hypothesis, you need to actually write a hypothesis, propose a method testing the hypothesis, and then actually test the hypothesis.
The difference between what youâre doing and what scientists do is that they actually follow the scientific method; they actually propose hypotheses, describe in detail how they can be tested and falsified, and then carry out the experiments.
The conversation is going like this.
Chris: What is your hypothesis and how do you propose to test it?
You: I could write a hypothesis.
Chris: Ok, so what is your hypothesis and how do you propose to test it?
You: It would be a great hypothesis, believe me. Those other hypotheses, not even science. Sad.
Chris: But what is your hypothesis and how do you propose to test it?
You: It would be totally testable. I have the best tests, and I have the best science, you can ask anyone.
Chris: You still havenât explained your hypothesis and how you propose to test it.
You: Writing a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. You write the hypothesis and then you test it. Itâs science.
Chris: So what is your hypothesis and how do you propose to test it?
You: I would test it really well. Bigly.
Chris: I think Iâm repeating myself. I think youâre repeating yourself too, but youâre not answering the question.
2 Likes
You keep forgetting that God is fully capable of handling the things that natural laws truly canât accommodateâŚ
You must have spent a very very long time disputing with Atheists, yes?