Replies

How can you deduce randomness

Are you familiar with error-correcting software algorithms?

Here are five versions of a word, each with one random error in a letter.

ENCYCLOPEDLA
ENCYCLNPEDIA
ENCYCLOPEJIA
ENCYCNOPEDIA
ENCYCLIPEDIA

So what word is the common ancestor?

What if it disagrees with the genome tree (which it does in many cases)?

Can you cite an example?

I take it from your non-answer to my question you do agree that if you and all your siblings and first cousins have blue eyes, you can deduce your grandfather had blue eyes. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a picture of your grandfather to figure out his eye color. If you and your siblings and cousins are all white, I think it's fair to say he was white, too.And you may be familiar with genetic analysis of the royal families of Europe, which used the occurrence of hemophilia in descendants to deduce where the first mutation that caused the disease came from.

Logically, there is no available information that gets one back to a first singularity. Logic has to be bypassed to get there.

I'm trying to lead you, slowly, though that logic. But I can't lead you where you refuse to go.

you do agree that if you and all your siblings and first cousins have blue eyes, you can deduce your grandfather had blue eyes. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a picture of your grandfather to figure out his eye color. If you and your siblings and cousins are all white, I think it's fair to say he was white, too.

Not if he's adopted.

So what word is the common ancestor?

I think you would answer ENCYC. What I would say is all 26 letters of the alphabet came into existence at the same time and that life shares common characteristics and are not necessarily related by common descent, but by similarity; i.e. all life is similar. I think a more relevant representation would be:

ENCYCLOPEDLA
ENCYCLNPEDIA
ENCYCLOPEJIA
ENCYCNOPEDIA
ENCYCLIPEDIA
????????????
????????????
????????????
the question marks represent the common ancestor(s) we have with the chimp. And unless you assume we evolved from other creatures that are still alive, like rats or whatever, the chain is broken at that point. Otherwise you are assuming what you are trying to prove.

You see similarity and see common ancestry. I see similarity and see similarity.

I take it from your non-answer to my question you do agree that if you and all your siblings and first cousins have blue eyes, you can deduce your grandfather had blue eyes. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a picture of your grandfather to figure out his eye color.

I agree you could do that. But I do not see its relevance to speciation. Nor do I see how this gets you to a creature which you have no genetic information for? One without eyes or ears or limbs or organs at all for which we have no genetic information since it became extinct 1 billion years ago?

I know you think it is just a matter of one baby step at a time back to the beginning, switching back and forth from the genome to morphology and back to the genome as needed.

I'm trying to lead you, slowly, though that logic. But I can't lead you where you refuse to go.

I am probably a lost cause, but thanks for the effort.