Signal vs. Noise, Part 2: Hunter Opens the Klassen Study Again

[Chris_Falter]

@Cornelius_Hunter

We can say that the species exhibit an approximate nested hierarchy, with the understanding that “approximate” here can mean a pretty lousy model, just like geocentrism is pretty lousy.

That is strikingly bold rhetoric, Dr. Hunter, considering that your “heliocentrism” can make almost no predictions about the orbits of planets, moons, asteroids, etc.

@Chris_Falter

What would a design model predict with regard to:

• Homologous ERVs - Should ERVs be found in homologous or orthologous locations under ID? Should the ratio of homologous to orthologous ERVs vary based on the taxonomic distance of species?
• Vestigial structures such as the sightless lenses of marsupial moles where eyes are expected?
• Pseudo-genes (i.e., vestigial genes) such as the vitellogenin and vitamin C genes in H. sapiens .
• Noise. Dr. Hunter complains incessantly when conventional biologists attribute confounding observations to noise that nevertheless does not erase the evolutionary signal. Given robust predictions by a design model, would the design model nevertheless predict noise in real-world observations ? If so, why?

Dr. Hunter, I would appreciate very much hearing your thoughts on these questions.

@Cornelius_Hunter

Chris_Falter Dr. Hunter, I would appreciate very much hearing your thoughts on these questions.

The bottom line is, these genetic modules that DG produces are a new construct. They fall out of constructing the DG diagram. So what meaning, if any, do they have? I suspect it will be pretty interesting, and whole new ways of thinking will be opened up. But who knows?

Here’s another metaphor that is apt for our discussion:

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

The theory of evolution may have somewhat blurry vision, but it’s the only theory in the hypothesis space that is making any predictions with respect to the vast body of evidence.

Grace and peace,
Chris