the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

Are we talking about deriving a tree from DNA or are we talking about deriving a tree based on morphology?

depend what are you testing for. if you have only fossils you need to test their morphological traits.

You're just repeating yourself without explaining anything.

Again, how would you go about deriving a phylogenetic tree based on "parts"? If I wanted to create a phylogenetic tree, how exactly would I go about doing that?

I'm asking you to explain the steps.

you can check for how many parts are shared between several groups. like the tree base on fossils.

 

[pitabread]

depend what are you testing for. if you have only fossils you need to test their morphological traits.

Best we stick to morphology then.

you can check for how many parts are shared between several groups. like the tree base on fossils.

And how does one check this? And how does that result in a tree?

 

[xianghua]

And how does one check this? And how does that result in a tree?

since any given object will be more similar to another object then to others you will always get a tree.

 

[pitabread]

since any given object will be more similar to another object then to others you will always get a tree.

You're still not answering the question. I'm asking you how the tree is created.

If I wanted to create a tree, what steps do I need to follow to create the tree?

 

[doubtingmerle]

since any given object will be more similar to another object then to others you will always get a tree.

Fine. Create a nested hierarchy tree with the first 12 chemical elements that most scholars will agree with.You cannot do it.

Create a tree with the 12 vehicles I listed for you that most people will agree with. You did not even try. You know you cannot do it. Sorting them into three groups is not a tree. I want to see a tree similar to the tree with 30 living things I sent to you. You cannot do it.

You can brag about doing it but you can not do it. Bragging about it and doing it are two different things.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so how you will call this?:

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

ichthyosaur share at least 20 characteristics with a dolphin. what is the different? talkorigin even give us several examples: "some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers". again: we find many equal examples and they just call it "convergent evolution".

I call convergence " convergence".

Again the talk.origins page you quote repeats over and over that it is not sufficient to find a few characteristics that don't fit well with a nesting. As long as the CI is much greater than the value needed for a statistcally significant tree, it is evidence. So please quit quoting one sentence out of context to make it look like he is saying the opposite of what he argues in detail for many paragraphs. That is dishonest. As his chart shows, numerical analysis for evolution typically finds the right tree with well over the minimum required value of CI.

im not sure what do you mean by english bolts but lets say that a specific truck will be very different from other trucks . so it will be true for this specific case (if it will be realy that different ). the rest trucks will still be similar to each other.

I may be dating myself here. Back when I worked on cars you used a 3/8 inch wrench, not a 10 mm wrench on American cars. So you may need to go back a few years, but find an old Chevy pickup and an old car with fasteners sized in inches, and put those beside a 2018 truck with metric fasteners. Then count the number of parts that match. Count the number of parameters and features that match. I contend that a base 57 Chevy pickup will match in more features to a base 57 Chevy Bel air than to a fully loaded 2018 Toyota pickup.

 

[dad]

THAT'S NOT EVOLUTION!!!

verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1.
to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
to gradually change one's opinions or beliefs:
candidates who are still evolving on the issue; an evolved feministmom.
5.
Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptivestate or condition:
The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probablyarboreal.


Perhaps you mean biological evolution.

I think in watch/car analogies, the developing by a developer is the main issue...not some higher adaptations of life already existing.

 

[Speedwell]

I call convergence " convergence".

Again the talk.origins page you quote repeats over and over that it is not sufficient to find a few characteristics that don't fit well with a nesting. As long as the CI is much greater than the value needed for a statistcally significant tree, it is evidence. So please quit quoting one sentence out of context to make it look like he is saying the opposite of what he argues in detail for many paragraphs. That is dishonest. As his chart shows, numerical analysis for evolution typically finds the right tree with well over the minimum required value of CI.


I may be dating myself here. Back when I worked on cars you used a 3/8 inch wrench, not a 10 mm wrench on American cars. So you may need to go back a few years, but find an old Chevy pickup and an old car with fasteners sized in inches, and put those beside a 2018 truck with metric fasteners. Then count the number of parts that match. Count the number of parameters and features that match. I contend that a base 57 Chevy pickup will match in more features to a base 57 Chevy Bel air than to a fully loaded 2018 Toyota pickup.

It is possible that you will find a mix of fastener types in some cars which were assembled in the US with imported metric-based components (transmissions, etc.).

 

[dad]

remember that we are talking about the average. most animals are actually quite small and dont need much place (mean they need much less then 1 square foot). so you will have more then 1 square foot for the big animals.

They say there are 200 plus species of squirrels. A little room big enough for 2 squirrels would probably be a few square feet. But even if it was cruelty to animals and only 1 square foot, you need 200 of the rooms for just modern squirrels.
Actually, one squirrel with tail is about 1.8 meters long!

Laotian giant flying squirrel - Wikipedia

Then there is this one at about a meter long.

Then there were the giant tigers and bears and etc that used to live. One example is a beaver the size of a bear, or a 2000 pound sloth!!

Heck, even a dragonfly used to be 18 inches!

How about a land scorpion over 2 feet?

https://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-could-seriously-mess-you-up/

Then there were the big birds

"
Argentavis magnificens, the largest flying bird in recorded history. These beasts possessed a wingspan between 19- and 26-feet, and a wing area of 75-feet, which you may notice is only slightly smaller than a Lear Jet. In addition to its staggering size and 240-pound weight, the bird is believed to have swallowed prey as large as cattle in one fell swoop.

7 (Thankfully) Extinct Giant Versions of Modern Animals

etc etc etc etc. No, we cannot assume 1 sq foot would be an average space for animals...or even some bugs and birds.

who said they need to interbreed just after the flood? they can grow up later.

God said. He said to multiply.

It does not fall within the realm of reason to think that some creatures waited decades to start reproducing!

Some creatures had to feed other creatures you know. We would not have an eagle waiting most of it's life for something to eat.

 

[pitabread]

Now try that for 12 cars. For instance, do it for

Ford F-150 pickup truck
Ford minivan
Ford Focus sedan
Chevy pickup
Chevy Suburban SUB
Cadillac
Toyota pickup truck
Toyota corolla
Toyota Camry
Toyota Rav 4
Honda accord
Mack truck​

​

Since we know xianghua won't do this, I took a crack at it. It was fun.

First, I included a couple additional "taxa" including two types of Focus (sedan and coupe), two types of F-150 (XL and XLT), and finally a bicycle to act as a deliberate outlier.

I picked a bunch of arbitrary characteristics including:

1) Manufacturer logo/badge (i.e. Ford, Chevy, Honda, etc).
2) Number of wheels (2, 4 or >4)
3) Number of side doors (2 or 4)
4) Engine type (4, 6 or 8 cylinder)
5) Seating (driver, side passenger, rear passengers)
6) Rear hatch configuration (enclosed trunk, flip-down tail gate, lift-up hatch)

I put them into a binary character matrix (using Mesquite) and generated a tree accordingly. The tree was rooted using the bicycle.

I did have to make various assumptions. I stuck to the base model options as closely as possible using base features (lowest model engines, basic 2-door options for the pickup trucks, etc).

Here is the output:

Right away you can see some of the relationships are just odd. For example, the F-150 XLT has more in common with the Honda Accord than it does with the F-150 XL. Meanwhile the Mack Truck is most closely related to the F-150 XL.

Given the sheer number of options that vehicles have between different base models and trims, it's possible to get wildly different trees depending on what characteristics you change.

For example, here is a tree where I changed a single characteristic: I put a 6-cylinder engine in the Cadillac instead of the base 4-cylinder. Several of the relationships have changed, although I suspect this is primarily due to both limitations around the data set coupled with limitations on generating an optimal tree.

Choosing the underlying data set and tree search criteria, and the resultant number of possible valid trees that can result from it can have a significant impact on the output.

For example, here is another tree with the seating and door characteristics removed. Now the F-150's are more closely related, but the Tacoma is more closely related to the RAV4.

 

[doubtingmerle]

​

Since we know xianghua won't do this, I took a crack at it. It was fun.

First, I included a couple additional "taxa" including two types of Focus (sedan and coupe), two types of F-150 (XL and XLT), and finally a bicycle to act as a deliberate outlier.

I picked a bunch of arbitrary characteristics including:

1) Manufacturer logo/badge (i.e. Ford, Chevy, Honda, etc).
2) Number of wheels (2, 4 or >4)
3) Number of side doors (2 or 4)
4) Engine type (4, 6 or 8 cylinder)
5) Seating (driver, side passenger, rear passengers)
6) Rear hatch configuration (enclosed trunk, flip-down tail gate, lift-up hatch)

I put them into a binary character matrix (using Mesquite) and generated a tree accordingly. The tree was rooted using the bicycle.

I did have to make various assumptions. I stuck to the base model options as closely as possible using base features (lowest model engines, basic 2-door options for the pickup trucks, etc).

Here is the output:

Right away you can see some of the relationships are just odd. For example, the F-150 XLT has more in common with the Honda Accord than it does with the F-150 XL. Meanwhile the Mack Truck is most closely related to the F-150 XL.

Given the sheer number of options that vehicles have between different base models and trims, it's possible to get wildly different trees depending on what characteristics you change.

For example, here is a tree where I changed a single characteristic: I put a 6-cylinder engine in the Cadillac instead of the base 4-cylinder. Several of the relationships have changed, although I suspect this is primarily due to both limitations around the data set coupled with limitations on tree generation.

Choosing the underlying data set and tree search criteria, and the resultant number of possible valid trees that can result from it can have a significant impact on the output.

For example, here is another tree with the seating and door characteristics removed:

Thanks. I find this very interesting.

All of this would change drastically if you selected vehicles that had different option packages and you included criteria such as type of fasteners, grade of steel, make of spark plugs, type of brakes, comfort features, safety features, etc. That is the beauty of the tree of life. You get nearly the same tree no matter which features you use as long as you use enough of independent features. With cars, not so much.

 

[pitabread]

Thanks. I find this very interesting.

All of this would change drastically if you selected vehicles that had different option packages and you included criteria such as type of fasteners, grade of steel, make of spark plugs, type of brakes, comfort features, safety features, etc. That is the beauty of the tree of life. You get nearly the same tree no matter which features you use as long as you use enough of independent features. With cars, not so much.

Yeah, I shudder think of how varied the tree could get if I started piling on other criteria.

edited:

So I did. I first changed up my character matrix to include multiple options for each characteristic as opposed to strictly binary as how I started. I then added in some more options for things like gas and/or electric engines, convertibles, roof rails, etc. And of course added some more vehicles.

Now the tree looks like this:

Apparently the Jaguar F-Type Sport evolved in relative isolation given its position in the tree, descended after the split from the Mack Truck lineage, but before every other type of car, van or SUV. Go figure.

At least all the pickups are now clustered together.

 

[pitabread]

Yet another tree, this one with vehicle drivetrain added (i.e. FWD, RWD, etc) plus yet a couple more cars. This dramatically altered the relationships among all the SUVs and cars, with various RWD cars being distant out-crops from the rest. Once again, amazing what adding a single characteristic can do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Great. So how about the guy that claimed early man had genes the same as modern ones?

He'ld have a fairly strong case, considering there's objective evidence supporting that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"
DogmaHunter said: ↑
The fact is that fossils make up for some of the weakest evidence for evolution theory.
Still strong, but among the weakest overall.
The fossil record is very strong evidence.
It's just that in the totality of evidence in support of evolution, it is by far not the strongest kind."

Then you allude to genetics, when we have no genes from early life on earth!

I also explained how the fossil record, while among the weakest evidence for evolution, it is still strong evidence. It's just that the other evidence for evolution, like genetics, is even stronger.

When you have a strong guy and then some other guys who are stronger still, it's perfectly okay to say that among those strong men, that first strong guy is the weakest.

Skyscrapers are big, but among a bunch of big skyscrapers, there's going to be one that is going to be the smallest among them.

See?

Also, we don't need genes from early life, to demonstrate common ancestry.
Just like we don't need genes from your parents, to determine that you and your siblings are biological siblings. We only need a DNA sample of you and your siblings. From there, we can infer that you share biological parents.


It seems you have a lot of work cut out for you, to learn about what is actually going on...

I prefer a sound mind, thanks

Yes, it's very clear that your beliefs are based on your preferences, instead of actual evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it doesn't work that way. Reality works for Christians. Made up religious stories of so called origins science do not work, they are made up.

And yet, it's the theories of science that make your pc work - not prayer or reading scripture.

 

[xianghua]

You're still not answering the question. I'm asking you how the tree is created.

If I wanted to create a tree, what steps do I need to follow to create the tree?

you need the data that tell you how many parts are shared between those cars. im not sure there is a way to do that without a unique software.

 

[xianghua]

I may be dating myself here. Back when I worked on cars you used a 3/8 inch wrench, not a 10 mm wrench on American cars. So you may need to go back a few years, but find an old Chevy pickup and an old car with fasteners sized in inches, and put those beside a 2018 truck with metric fasteners. Then count the number of parts that match. Count the number of parameters and features that match. I contend that a base 57 Chevy pickup will match in more features to a base 57 Chevy Bel air than to a fully loaded 2018 Toyota pickup.

so? as i said: even if one instance will be different we can just solve it by convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution (dolphin and shark for instance). so there is no difference between cars tree and animals tree.

 

[xianghua]

They say there are 200 plus species of squirrels. A little room big enough for 2 squirrels would probably be a few square feet. But even if it was cruelty to animals and only 1 square foot, you need 200 of the rooms for just modern squirrels.
Actually, one squirrel with tail is about 1.8 meters long!

Laotian giant flying squirrel - Wikipedia

Then there is this one at about a meter long.

Then there were the giant tigers and bears and etc that used to live. One example is a beaver the size of a bear, or a 2000 pound sloth!!

ok, but again: the majority of animals arent so big. so its not realy a problem. also remember that we are talking about land vertebrate in general. the number of families among land vertebrate is about 400-600 families if i remember right. so even if we multiply it by 10 or more we will get about no more then 10,000 original kinds. and in this case (that is more close to reality) we will have about 10 square foot per animal.

 

[xianghua]

Once again, amazing what adding a single characteristic can do.

interesting try but different from reality. you should try it with most traits and you will get a single tree that in most case will fit with other trees. its also important to note that we find such contradictions in the animal tree too. depend which traits\genes you choose. many trees change all the time.