Evolutionary Tree

[SteveII]

However, if some genes say we are related to chimpanzees and some genes say we are not, and that conflict is not resolved, that would significantly weaken the theory of common descent. My point was and continues to be that if common descent is called into question in the long run, every other part of the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) that is not an observable fact (in the strong sense of the word) is undermined (which is most of it).

So your point is one huge argument from ignorance. Gotcha.

No, my point was to have a discussion on what happens to the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) if the theory of Common Descent is permanently undermined due to unresolved gene conflicts. I offered my opinion that if common descent is permanently undermined, everything we have inferred about the overall theory is called into question. In light of feedback and further reflection, it does not matter to the question whether Common Descent is an assumption or a conclusion--only that it is intertwined in many of the sub-theories. The question remains unanswered unless your answer is that it cannot be wrong--in which case that is not a very scientific position.

[SteveII]

You've reasserted a point that you -just- conceded...by reference to the very point you wish to call into contention.  

Can I be any clearer?

It seems you are extrapolating the proven fact that we descend from our parents with modification (with the mechanisms of natural selection and mutations) to the idea all life has a common ancestor. Those are not the same thing and the proof of one is not proof of the other.

[SteveII]

I'd be a little more blunt and say that science deals in reality while the supernatural deals in unreality.

Right!  It is all natural, man!  Atoms, dreams, belief in gods, skepticism, hallucinations.  Real, real, real and real.  It isn't natural vs supernatural, it is natural vs nonexistent.

Question. Is the human mind something natural and therefore can be physically examined?

[Crossless2.0]

So your point is one huge argument from ignorance. Gotcha.

No, my point was to have a discussion on what happens to the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) if the theory of Common Descent is permanently undermined due to unresolved gene conflicts. I offered my opinion that if common descent is permanently undermined, everything we have inferred about the overall theory is called into question. In light of feedback and further reflection, it does not matter to the question whether Common Descent is an assumption or a conclusion--only that it is intertwined in many of the sub-theories. The question remains unanswered unless your answer is that it cannot be wrong--in which case that is not a very scientific position.

And until these hypothetical genetic conflicts come to light, what strikes you as the most reasonable inference given what we currently know?

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems you are extrapolating the proven fact that we descend from our parents with modification (with the mechanisms of natural selection and mutations) to the idea all life has a common ancestor.

I haven't, Steve..you, you and no one else, are conflating the two.  Modern Synth -is not- the proposition that all life shares a common ancestor.  Modern synth is the explanation for descent with modification.  Very literaly, the "synthesis" to which it refers is genetics and darwins theory of natural selection.

Those are not the same thing and the proof of one is not proof of the other.

No shit, which is why one being wrong.........wouldn't effect the other............

I have consistently and repeatedly explained this to you (and not just me)..you ape my own comments without even realizing it. How did that happen, do you think? Assuming that one is false...as you positively insist, regardless of whether or not one actually is, you know, false (which it isn't)....doesn't alter the other. Are we done, are you done?

[downbeatplumb]

So your point is one huge argument from ignorance. Gotcha.

No, my point was to have a discussion on what happens to the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) if the theory of Common Descent is permanently undermined due to unresolved gene conflicts. I offered my opinion that if common descent is permanently undermined, everything we have inferred about the overall theory is called into question. In light of feedback and further reflection, it does not matter to the question whether Common Descent is an assumption or a conclusion--only that it is intertwined in many of the sub-theories. The question remains unanswered unless your answer is that it cannot be wrong--in which case that is not a very scientific position.

Stop reading the religious sites they lie to you.  The old way of determining the relationship of animals to each other  was based on superficial things, but now the genes are looked at and this reveals a more complete story. The idea that science refining a theory is cause to reject it is laughable. Common descent is the answer that best fits the evidence and remains so.

[SteveII]

It seems you are extrapolating the proven fact that we descend from our parents with modification (with the mechanisms of natural selection and mutations) to the idea all life has a common ancestor.

I haven't, Steve..you, you and no one else, are conflating the two.  Modern Synth -is not- the proposition that all life shares a common ancestor.  Modern synth is the explanation for descent with modification.  Very literaly, the "synthesis" to which it refers is genetics and darwins theory of natural selection.

Those are not the same thing and the proof of one is not proof of the other.

No shit, which is why one being wrong.........wouldn't effect the other............

I have consistently and repeatedly explained this to you (and not just me)..you ape my own comments without even realizing it.  How did that happen, do you think?  Assuming that one is false...as you positively insist, regardless of whether or not one actually is, you know, false (which it isn't)....doesn't alter the other.  Are we done, are you done?

I apologize. I have been using the phrase wrong. I took it to mean the latest synthesizing of all the sub-theories of evolution. I just read that while related, TOL questions are not strictly part of the Modern Synthesis.

[SteveII]

No, my point was to have a discussion on what happens to the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) if the theory of Common Descent is permanently undermined due to unresolved gene conflicts. I offered my opinion that if common descent is permanently undermined, everything we have inferred about the overall theory is called into question. In light of feedback and further reflection, it does not matter to the question whether Common Descent is an assumption or a conclusion--only that it is intertwined in many of the sub-theories. The question remains unanswered unless your answer is that it cannot be wrong--in which case that is not a very scientific position.

And until these hypothetical genetic conflicts come to light, what strikes you as the most reasonable inference given what we currently know?

They are not hypothetical. The only thing hypothetical is if it can't be resolved (currently they don't seem to know how). Dawkins throws out a date of 2050. 

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

[The Grand Nudger]

I apologize. I have been using the phrase wrong. I took it to mean the latest synthesizing of all the sub-theories of evolution. I just read that while related, TOL questions are not strictly part of the Modern Synthesis.

No need for apologies (not like you wronged me...you've been screwing with yourself)...but we're 15 pages in now, and how many other times, how many other threads, have you been leveraging this misunderstanding of yours to reach "wtf?" conclusions...arguing against people who've done nothing other than try to bring some clarity, to you, about the subject you have chosen to indulge yourself in?

How do you maintain the legitimacy of the viewpoint for which you've been arguing now...and how did -whomever- sold you on this shit not figure out what you -just- figured out.....have they been fucking with you? The singular criticism of the current theory of evolution that you have (unless you have others - which we could discuss) turned out to be fundamentally ridiculous.

-I'd be pissed. Those people made you look like a fucking idiot for nothing other than having had placed in them your trust.

[Esquilax]

So your point is one huge argument from ignorance. Gotcha.

No, my point was to have a discussion on what happens to the overall Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis) if the theory of Common Descent is permanently undermined due to unresolved gene conflicts. I offered my opinion that if common descent is permanently undermined, everything we have inferred about the overall theory is called into question. In light of feedback and further reflection, it does not matter to the question whether Common Descent is an assumption or a conclusion--only that it is intertwined in many of the sub-theories. The question remains unanswered unless your answer is that it cannot be wrong--in which case that is not a very scientific position.

The trouble is that you're committing the same mistake that every other ID proponent does: you're going negative, when you'd need to go positive.

"We don't know X, Y and Z, we can't resolve this conflict" is not, and will never be, an argument against a theory in science. The reason for that is that theories don't come into existence based on nothing, they arise as the natural consequence of reams and reams of data, from which an explanatory framework for that data can be made which is probabilistically the best fit.

Scientific theories are models that explain things, and they're always incomplete because our knowledge is incomplete. Saying "you can't explain that!" and "evolution doesn't tell us this!" might be viscerally pleasing to your gut, but it doesn't carry the epistemological heft you seem to think that it does. You aren't going to topple this tower in this way: removing three or four bricks, or pointing out a gap here or there, does not erase the foundational observations that constitute the theory of evolution as a whole. At best, you'd be providing something that would subject the theory to revisions, which is something that's already happened multiple times, none of which required that we scrap the entirety of the theory and rediscover everything again.

Evolution would still be the best explanatory model for the phenomenon we've observed even if you took apart common descent, so you're barking up the wrong tree to begin with, but the real trouble is that you're attempting to bark up a tree simply by pissing on another, unrelated tree. It's not going to work, no matter how many arguments from ignorance you chain together.