Sorry, but that is kind of the same, just feels more verbose. I can't change logic, but I can help reformulate. I always try to achieve is P > Q; P therefore Q -- a very typical modus ponens argument. It's the simplest type and can be easily followed. I find it is often easier to break an argument into many arguments following this structure.neo-x wrote:That indeed is a poor argument and I am glad science doesn't do that. If you look up in detail you will see that the next step is to find CA's and see if they carry it and how far back does it go. Does it land us anywhere near a common ancestor? There will be a slew of creatures which should carry the traits or genes at important branchings in the TOL which they do.There is an often made formal fallacy by many evolutionary scientists too, that is, affirming the consequent. Note, the following logic doesn't follow:
1) If P then Q
2) Q is true
3) Therefore P
It's easy to do, I'm sure I've done it, we all do it. So then, let me substitute in the argument from the egg-yolk gene found in humans that is apparently non-functional.
1) If 'we are descended from reptiles' then 'we should carry non-functional genes'.
2) We do carry non-functional genes (Vitellogenin "egg-yolk" genes)
3) Therefore, these egg-yolk making sequences we carry are left over from when our ancestors delinked from reptiles
Note, the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument presented. Yes, you do have a confirmed prediction, and one that might be quite troubling for those who believe God created life forms. It is good evidence, but it is not equivalent to proving that we are descended from reptiles.
The proper argument is:
1) If 'we are BRANCHED from reptiles' then 'we MAY carry non-functional genes' and our nearest and MRCAs MAY show that. And reptiles may carry non-functional genes too when they branched from amphibians and apmphibians may carry the same when they branched off from fish. And we must see if their MRCAs carry the gene in the same way. The beauty is that all life does the same. It isn't an isolated case at all.
2) We do carry non-functional genes and our MCRAs do to. The same way all the other species do to.
3) Therefore, non-functional genes we carried over gradual generations are left over from when our ancestors delinked from reptiles, because the more we go back the more functional they become.
That is not affirming the consequent, k. It is as close to evidence and the nature of it that you can get and I am sorry but I don't know how else to view it.
Sadly this this particular argument, there isn't a knock-down argument that can be made from this, however it can still be rather potent. So let me see if I can restructure using the original argument in a rough kind of way.
1) If 'we carry non-functional genes that are functional in other species and was functional in a common ancestor, then we each shared that same common ancestor via evolution.
2) We do carry non-functional genes (Vitellogenin ("egg-yolk") genes) which are functional in chickens, platypus and other mammels believed to be descended from a common ancestor (reptiles).
3) Therefore we are descended from a common ancestor.
Now this argument might still be rough, but better structured. That said, I don't believe it is still valid because I do not believe the conclusion is necessarily true. In fact, I know it's not, because what Rich Deem believes about creation and psuedogenes, and even myself, can account for psuedogenes fairly easily.
However, any positions that cannot account for such, I believe the argument is quite damaging. So then (1) is true, and only true, if common descent via evolution is the only position that can account for such. If it isn't, then such is merely corroborating evidence for common descent via evolution and all those other positions which accommodate such.
If one can think of possible creation scenarios which explain such, then it isn't a tight knock-down argument in favour of evolutionary theory. As far as I see it, YECs could even accommodate it in the same way they do the age of the universe. I think, such kind of makes God a liar though I know some feel that might be a cheap shot, but I can't help thinking it. I mean, to believe God setup the world just 6000 years ago, and all we observe shows it is much older, well it seems like we're being lied to in creation. Scripture I read, says to test and hold onto the good, that creation (i.e., nature) testifies to God. Yet, some like AiG respond that God has told us in His word how He did it so God's no liar, either we trust in Him or we don't. But then, you know me, and many others here reject their interpretation of Genesis, while I understand how they arrive at such, it isn't at all clear that world must 6000 or thereabout years old. And, I've debated creation interpretations much.
In any case, as for my own position, you might recall I believe God makes use of pre-existing life, like programmers make use of coding frameworks. God might even mix and match this and that biological code. I do find it interesting that there is an underlying code to biology, such in itself smacks to me of a coder. Have a read of my posts some time back here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p168162 (edit: fixed link), some of which you responded to. The only exception I'd add to psudeogenes, is that such can't be damaging, in the sense that species should be still able to have a normal and healthy qualify of life. If they're not damaging then there's no need to remove such code from a species' genome. In fact, we ought to expect damaging genes to be removed if God is creating a new species based upon code in other life forms. So if such is found, then such would be an argument against my current position.
Now I would much prefer all genes have functions. That they don't, does leave me with an unsettling feeling even if my position can account for such. Yet, given the history of previously thought vestigial organs being found to have use, and more and more psuedogenes being found with us, I am always very skeptical whenever someone claims something has absolutely no function. Further, there are other arguments that I see do lean me more towards Progressive Creation and away from Evolutionary Theory (at least as the be-all and end-all). So it's not all clean and a matter of weighing pros and cons.
Something I do know here, is that we're not going to see complete eye-to-eye, but I'm glad whenever we post on such to each other there is a level of respect carried. We each have our tastes and I'm sure you have many other reasons also, and these discussions can get tense. I respect you and your beliefs, I think the best we could hope for is just respecting each other's position as being what it is. Such won't stop us questioning each other, we'll discuss from time to time, like here, but really I don't expect to change your opinion. To be honest, I probably would have been 10 or so years ago, but I'm not at all fussed to change your view. You can reach a certain group of people for Christ, that I perhaps couldn't. The more tools and differences of opinion, the better in outreach for Christ. Same with Hugh. That's ultimately what I see as important.
That's really cool, one of the best ones I've seen. I'd love to see one with greater interactive where you can actually click on the branches and drill down. I'm sure one day there will be something like that, if there isn't already I just haven't found.Neo-X wrote:
if the image doesn'y open properly please see this link:
https://www.evogeneao.com/learn/tree-of-life
Is it prove? I doubt there will ever be enough for anyone.
It probably wouldn't surprise you, that when I Iook at evolutionary cladograms, I see areas where God may have created something new from something previous, sometimes brand new from scratch, and the possibilities for where things may have simply naturally evolved through my Progressive Creation lens.
