GrumpyMrGruff wrote: As I commented above, I think the best anyone can do is appeal to parsimony for model discrimination.

All things being equal, that would be reasonable. However, I’ve presented claims and predictions specifically for human origins. And there is no equivalent model from a naturalistic perspective other than presenting the general theory of evolution. Since no competing theory regarding human origins has been presented, all things are not equal and parsimony cannot be invoked.

Thus far you have been reluctant to discuss the designer’s tools (or we can call them mechanisms if you dislike ‘tools’).

To be clear, I do not know the “mechanism” or “tools” the designer used to create humans.

Trivially, if one posits a ‘designer that created all life such that it appears the way it appears,’ it is unfalsifiable (besides being tautological). This statement also has zero explanatory power.

And likewise, if one posits “life evolved so that those that exist had reproductive advantage over the others and those didn’t exist did not have reproductive advantages” would be unfalsifiable and tautological.

And since nobody is claiming any of these things, this is not a valid point for discussion.

In a previous post, you state that your skepticism regarding the evolutionary explanation for diversity of species stems from the inability to differentiate analogous and homologous structures. I’m not saying that you’ve argued the following specifically, but one could claim all animals (or all primates, or just humans) were specially created with the observed patterns of genetic and morphological similarity and no one could never falsify this statement.

My claim would be easy to refute, just produce an objective method to differentiate analogous and homologous features.

Conversely, we have no reason to accept a model with zero explanatory power (and zero corresponding falsifiability). Sure, all organisms’ genes could be analogous creations of a designer (unfalsifiable).

Let’s bring the discussion closer to home and avoid presenting strawman arguments. I’ve provided ways to falsify my model.

What reason do we have to think so? How parsimonious is this explanation in the absence of a known design mechanism for generating this pattern of analogous diversity?

You have yet to establish that evolution can generate analogous diversity.

The only way I can currently think of to falsify what I claim using molecular genetic evidence is what I stated earlier – “Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.” For the purposes of this discussion, just the genetic steps from the common primate ancestor to humans would suffice to falsify the Human Creation Model. I would agree that modern genetics is not able to do this now. But, if it’s ever done in the future, the model I proposed would be falsified.

Granting for the sake of argument that a viable evolutionary trajectory between chimps and humans could be found, it would not falsify claims of special creation for the reason given above.

No, I would accept that my model would be falsified if it can be produced in the future.

Saying, for example, that mankind originated in the Mideast is at best a corollary to the premises of your model because it does not describe any new data we may collect (i.e., it’s not a prediction about the future).

The predictions are not necessarily predictions on data that we may collect, but simply logical steps from the claims of the model itself. Also, the data to support my model has only surfaced recently. The model would still be applicable before any of the data was found.

Describing (based on your model) what patterns of new data (archaeological, biological, anthropological) may yet be uncovered in the present day would constitute a prediction.

And what would be such predictions for human evolution?

You have yet to show that your model is even capable of providing similar predictions and falsification criteria.

I’ve produced my model quite clearly with predictions and falsifications. If your model with predictions has been produced, I’ve missed it.

Again, if you dislike ‘tools,’ how about mechanisms? I’m not talking about knowing the brand name of jackhammer used to carve Teddy’s nose, but rather the assortment of mechanisms available to fashion the sculpture.

If it was a supernatural agent, there’d be no way for me to know what tools or mechanism that the designer used.

Let’s extend your Rushmore example. Mount Rushmore is suddenly transported to a mountain range on a distant planet. It is the metaphorical watch on Paley’s now-cosmic beach. An alien flies by. It has never seen humans (or human faces) – heck, it doesn’t even have eyes. How can it determine that Rushmore is artificial? Minimally, it needs to know the potential mechanisms used to construct it (contra the natural processes of the planet that may’ve formed it). If you disagree, would you please explain?

My only point is that it is not necessary to know how something is created to posit that it was created. Going into the area of design will be a long road that is not really on topic with this thread.

If [identification of all intermediate genomes between species] is even impossible in principle, then there’d be no way to unequivocally prove common descent through genetic evidence.

The scientific method never proves anything. You know that.

Yes, I know that. But, often evolutionists (and those participating in this thread) will state that evolution is a fact.

I’ve already shown how it may be falsified.

I think the discussion on this has been placed on hold for now.

If this is true (and if it’s impossible to know the genome of extinct organisms), then it’d be impossible to construct a tree of life diagram based on genetics.

This is incorrect. Phylogeny constructs trees based on the nested hierarch of genetic similarity in compared sequences.

I’m talking about extinct organisms. How can the tree of life be constructed based off the genome of extinct organisms?

I’d appreciate if you’d point out where you’ve offered “definitive proof,â€� because such proof is impossible within a scientific framework.

To me, these would show that human evolution occurred:
– A gradual transition is found from animals to humans in the fossil record.
– Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.

I’ve explained how known mechanisms can account for the genotypic (hence phenotypic) diversity of life and what new data can falsify this model.

I missed where you explained it. All I’ve seen is an extrapolation of microevolution.

But, if you say that [reconstructing the extinct genomes from known genomes] would be impossible even in principle in the future, then I’ll defer to you to provide methods to prove common descent.

You’re being a bit careless with ‘proof’ again. I can see this going back and forth for a long time. Do you agree that mechanistic, falsifiable, parsimonious explanations are the best we can do?

Words can sometimes get in the way. We’ll use your terminology of “conclusive evidence” instead of “prove”.

If so, I think I’ve already made my case that evolution provides the most parsimonious explanation. I’m waiting for you to make yours.

I’ve made my case in this post and my previous post.

One might see [competing hominid phylogenies] as evidence of human evolution. I see it as evidence of the intractability of being able to coming to a consensus of arranging hominid evolution to man.

My purpose with this figure was to show that you are demanding too high a resolution from necessarily incomplete data.

This is the same explanation that Darwin gave when the fossil record did not show gradual changes. After more than 150 years, the problem still exists.

If one goes on the data alone, one cannot determine a consistent hominid phylogeny. One possible explanation is that the data is incomplete. However, another possibility is that there is no such relationship. So, another prediction of the human creation model is that no matter how many more hominid fossils are found in the future, it would not reveal one hominid phylogeny.