Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

But if you admit that mutation took place, I do not understand why you believe the observed diversity could have occurred without it. As I asked earlier:

If the model is heterozygosity + recombination + mutation = current diversity, then what would you expect if a critical component of their model is subtracted?

“But if you admit that mutation took place, I do not understand why you believe the observed diversity could have occurred without it”

You have been asking about what “could have occurred”, not what did occur. It's a question about potential. Since there are mechanisms other than mutation influencing diversity, no specific mutation rate is required to explain diversity in the creationist model. So your earlier claims about what the mutation rates must have been for the Young earth creationist model to be plausible are not logically a requirement of that model.

[one.opinion]

45 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Since there are mechanisms other than mutation influencing diversity, no specific mutation rate is required to explain diversity in the creationist model.

So if standard mutations (transitions/transversions/indels etc) never occurred, you would expect the diversity of life to be exactly the same as what we observe now?

[Tristen]

10 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

So if standard mutations (transitions/transversions/indels etc) never occurred, you would expect the diversity of life to be exactly the same as what we observe now?

No. Not "exactly the same". You continue to confuse potential with actual. My claim is that diversity doesn't require mutations. I am NOT claiming that mutations haven't contributed to actual diversity.

[one.opinion]

30 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I am NOT claiming that mutations haven't contributed to actual diversity.

So wouldn’t a better model be one that includes mutations as necessary, if that fits better with what we observe? Isn’t the whole purpose of a model to take as much available information as possible to try to account for all factors in a subject of study?

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

So wouldn’t a better model be one that includes mutations as necessary, if that fits better with what we observe? Isn’t the whole purpose of a model to take as much available information as possible to try to account for all factors in a subject of study?

My model does incorporate mutations - but logic does not necessitate mutations to produce diversity. I haven't proposed a model that excludes mutations. But the path of our conversation has been to debate the theoretical limitations of diversity from a starting population of two - to asses your claim about the required increase in mutation rates of the YEC model.

Initially, you made use of proposed mutation rates - which were based on the secular assumption that we started from a simple common ancestor. Therefore, that model assumes all differences are essentially derived from mutations. You then proposed that, in order to make the YEC time frame plausible, those secular mutation rates would have to be increased by the same difference in magnitude as exists between the secular and YEC time frames. Since the YEC perspective proposes that most of the diversity in life existed in the created ancestors, secular calculations about mutation rates can have no logical bearing on YEC models. The premises upon which the secular mutation rates are calculated are logically, mutually exclusive to the premise of YEC. So you can't just say since the YEC model takes so much less time, that means mutations happened so much quicker.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Tristen

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, Tristen said:

My model does incorporate mutations - but logic does not necessitate mutations to produce diversity.

Of course — standard recombination is a major contributor to genetic diversity.

I read your comments like “Yes – I think extant dog diversity could exist without mutations” and concluded that you believed that mutations were not a necessary component of observed diversity. Was my assumption incorrect?

Edited January 8, 2019 by one.opinion

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Of course — standard recombination is a major contributor to genetic diversity.

I read your comments like “Yes – I think extant dog diversity could exist without mutations” and concluded that you believed that mutations were not a necessary component of observed diversity. Was my assumption incorrect?

The problem I see with how you read my comments is you continuing to confuse potential with actual. For example, when you say "extant dog diversity", you are speaking to actual, but when you say "could exist" you are speaking to potential. And so I interpret that to mean "Could that level of diversity be explained by mechanisms other than mutation?" - to which my answer is yes. That is a theoretical possibility given the known mechanisms of diversity.

But when I simply say "yes", then you ignore the potential aspect of the question and appeal to the actual - e.g. "Well we know mutations did occur, therefore you are demonstrably wrong". I'm assuming it's unintentional, but you have been using the question as a kind of logic trap.

Perhaps I should rephrase my position - My model acknowledges that mutations both occur, and contribute to diversity. However, in my model, diversity is not logically dependent on mutations. Therefore, mutation rates based on secular assumptions cannot be applied to my model with any logical legitimacy.

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Perhaps I should rephrase my position - My model acknowledges that mutations both occur, and contribute to diversity. However, in my model, diversity is not logically dependent on mutations.

Thanks, this does help clarify what you mean. I think that since we know both recombination and mutation did occur, the logical conclusion would be that both are necessary for extant diversity. Loss of either one would have resulted in less diversity than we now observe. How would you use data to support your model?

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Thanks, this does help clarify what you mean. I think that since we know both recombination and mutation did occur, the logical conclusion would be that both are necessary for extant diversity. Loss of either one would have resulted in less diversity than we now observe. How would you use data to support your model?

“I think that since we know both recombination and mutation did occur, the logical conclusion would be that both are necessary for extant diversity”

I think your wording still awkwardly confuses actual with potential. Just because something occurred one way doesn't mean it was logically obligated to happen that way – i.e it doesn't mean it was necessary for it to have occurred that way.

 

“Loss of either one would have resulted in less diversity than we now observe”

I don't think we can conclude that either. If things were different, things would be different. Who knows what effect the loss of mutations would have on diversity?

 

“How would you use data to support your model?”

I'd use the patterns in the genetic data to support the concept of created kinds. I'd use the rapid differentiation of dog breeds to demonstrate that diversity within closely related groups can descend from more highly diverse ancestors. I wouldn't use mutation rate data because I don't think the premise is justified. It's a very broad question.

 

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think your wording still awkwardly confuses actual with potential.

I accept that A model that discards mutation is possible. I just don’t see value in a model that differs from reality.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't think we can conclude that either. If things were different, things would be different. Who knows what effect the loss of mutations would have on diversity?

Why would that not be a logical conclusion? Since you accept Jeanson’s model of heterozygosity + recombination + mutation = level of diversity we now observe, then subtraction of any one of these factors would result in reduction of diversity. I realize that it isn’t simple arithmetic, but it seems like a rather simple conclusion to me.

Do you think heterozygosity and recombination were essential, but for some reason, mutation was not?

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'd use the patterns in the genetic data to support the concept of created kinds. I'd use the rapid differentiation of dog breeds to demonstrate that diversity within closely related groups can descend from more highly diverse ancestors.

I don’t see how this is related to your conclusion that mutations aren’t necessary. To me, the rapid diversification only supports the necessity of mutations.

 

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

It's a very broad question.

Yes, it is. But since you are contending what even YEC scientists believe, I was wondering if you were aware of any sort of data that would support your unconventional conclusion.

My biggest source of confusion at this point is why you think a model that differs from reality is valuable. Jeanson’s model clearly doesn’t prevent him from holding a YEC viewpoint and I can’t think of any other reason why such a model would be worthwhile.