the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

Evolution is a theory, not a belief.

Theory based on beliefs.

And the pattern of distribution is a prediction of the theory. It is anything BUT independend. ONLY the specific pattern predicted by evolution may exist in order for it to be supportive of evolution. If this very specific pattern does not exist, then evolution is FALSE.

Creation would mean that is false, and that it started with created animals. You simply seek to assign credit for similarities exclusively to evolution. That is the pattern we see in your little evo tree.

And off course the assumption is that creation was not involved.

Then your belief system is not of God.

For the same reason that the assumption is that magical fairies and genetic extra-dimensional trolls weren't involved either. And that reason is: there is not a single piece of data suggesting such things are involved.

Or the reason a same state past was not involved. Wait...you claim it was! Talk about religion.

Science only includes that which can be demonstrated to be a factor.

Wrong. It cannot demonstrate much at all in the origins issues. It does demo how it loves to obsess over incomplete fossils records, inventing common ancestors, and fanatically ignoring creation.

Regardless of that fact, as explained already, the trees aren't drawn. They are obtained by plotting out independent data points of matches cross species.

Points taken from an incomplete fossil record, inapplicable DNA, and a godless hyper imagination.

That a family tree pops out of that exercise, just means that that is what the data is.
So the tree of life is consistent with a family tree. Just like evolution requires to be the case.

Yet you do not really know what family is what. Your biased and incomplete info from which you get something to pop out of is inadequate for the job. About as inadequate as a magic hat.

(and pssst: it's also the very last pattern one would expect if creationism was true... no designer works like that. ever. it's not even bad design. It's in fact incredibly stupid and wastefull design, if done on purpose)

Wrong. God created us with the trait of being able to adapt and evolve. I expect a lot of that shared ancestor business! But there is no way I will allow some partially informed and religious so called science aficionado to preach that there was nothing BUT the evolving and adapting!!!!

The observed pattern of similarities, as well as the similarities themselves, are predicted by evolution theory.

Name two examples.

What testable predictions does your... creationism make?

God is testable. Every prophesy fulfilled was a test. Every answered prayer is a test. Jesus passed the test.

I dunno... courts seem to be taking it pretty seriously when making decisions regarding alimentations or inheritances etc.

Strawman. Genetics in the modern era has no relation to early man.

Why would life by organized in a family tree, if species didn't share common ancestry?

Because you organized it that way? I mean if the fossil record was incomplete you might group animals totally unrelated to a whale or a horse etc etc together! Then you boast of some so called family.

It is always the same tree that pops out as a result of plotting the actual data. It is not "forced" into such a pattern. It's just the data that falls in that pattern.

Yes, when stating out with only 5% of the data, and being ignorant that there was a creation that started it all off, you force certain outcomes. Ridiculous ones.

It matters to the extent that we shouldn't be finding fossils in places where they don't belong, in context of evolution theory.

Wrong. It also matters that you thought the fossil record was something other than a teensy fraction of a sample of life on earth in any given time in the far past.

For example, we shouldn't be finding fossils of kangaroos in Russia, since they've evolved in Australia and have been there ever since.

So what? Rapid evolving of kinds after the flood explains that. Your beliefs are not the only ones.

We also shouldn't find fossils of mammals in pre-cambrian layers.

Why would we since most life on earth could not leave remains in the former nature??

Again, it matters a lot.
If tomorrow we would encounter wild kangaroos in a jungle in south america, that would pose a real problem. Considering evolutionary history of the species, wild populations should only exist in australia. There haven't been any land bridges since they evolved, so they couldn't have left the continent.

Post flood evolution. Ho hum.

If the bone structure of a bat's wing, for example, would be constructed completely differently then the fore-limbs of humans or cats, or the fins of a whale, then that would again pose a big problem for evolution.

The same Guy designed the bones. No surprise there.

None required. Phylogenetic trees, are based on genomes and anatomy of extant species.

False. Show us the genome of something say, before the KT layer era?

We do have some DNA of more "ancient" times, like for example of neanderthals, off course. And those too, make perfect sense hierarchy-wise.

Very post flood man. Gong.

You can create trees based on body parts, bone structures, genomes, parts of genomes, single genes,.... all independently from one another. And it's the same tree every single time.

Genomes? You have some for trilobites? Body part and bones?? What is that supposed to tell us about what came from what? You seem to have been sold a bridge.

LOL!!!!
Right, because DNA wasn't inherited by off spring,

Well, if the DNA was different, I suppose they would inherit whatever genes they did have. We inherit modern ones...so? You would need nature to be the same to claim they were always the same genes and life processes.

 

[xianghua]

First the good news: You listed the best possible unrooted hierarchy for these four "taxa". Congratulations. In fact, it could even turn out to be statistically significant depending what you mean (see comments below).

Now the bad news:

1) There are only 3 possible unrooted arrangements of four taxa. It took you two guesses to get the one I think is best.
2) I already told you this is the best tree in my last post to you.
3) Your whole tree breaks down when you add intermediates such as mopeds, motorcycles, ATVs, and surreys. Try it. Show me where motorcycles and surreys go on your tree. The whole pattern starts to break down.
4) You cannot simply ignore things like mopeds, motorcycles, ATVs, surreys, station wagons, minivans, passenger vans, cargo vans, SUVs, and human powered flying machines. That would be like biologists ignoring dolphins, bats, monotremes, and otters. Scientists can't skip the hard to class taxa, and neither can you.
5) The division between cars and trucks might work if "cars" on your tree are represented by an ideal car and "trucks" are represented by an ideal truck. But if "cars" means the set of all cars, and "trucks" means the set of all trucks, the pattern breaks down. There are a huge number of characteristics that apply to some cars and some trucks but not all. Every one of those parameters is a strike against the car to truck split you show. Although there are some parameters where trucks tend very frequently to be different from cars, they are overwhelmed by the many parameters which can go either way in both sets. That totally destroys your consistency index and the statistical significance of your tree.
6) Again, you need to show a tree of meaningful size. The number of possible trees increases exponentially with more taxa. Try adding in the vehicles I mentioned above. It is not enough to simply build a tree with some plausibility. You must either show a) that obviously most people would agree this is the correct tree, or b) that statistically it shows to be significant when studied with a representative set of variables.

Again, you will not be able to build a large, unique, consistent tree with a representative group of vehicles. If you think you can, try it.

again: what is the problem?:

 

[xianghua]

single genes,.... all independently from one another. And it's the same tree every single time.

were you get this stuff from?

Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence

"In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other"

so different genes make different trees.

 

[dad]

No, one doesn't need to know the distance of the object. The gravitational acceleration is calculated purely from the stellar spectrum, and in particular from the widths of the absorption lines in the spectrum.

I googled gravity acceleration in stars.



"You can determine masses of stars and planets in a similar way: by measuring the acceleration of objects orbiting them and the distance between the star or planet and the object."

1. Gravitational Acceleration: g = (G × Mass)/(distance from the center)2.
2. Comparing gravitational accelerations: acceleration at position A = acceleration at position B × (distance B/distance A)2.
3. Calculating mass: Mass = (g × distance2)/G."

Gravity Applications

Distance is apparently required both for mass, and for gravitational acceleration.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[doubtingmerle]

again: what is the problem?:

View attachment 223228

First you haven't clarified if "cars" means all cars or just a single sample caricature. If it means all cars your tree is ruined already for the reasons I posted. If it only means a caricature of a car, your tree is too simple to represent all vehicles.

Also you left out surreys, the four wheel bikes that I asked you to include. See http://www.internationalsurreyco.com/four-wheel-surrey-bikes/four-wheel-bicycle/, for instance. Since you post mopeds on the path to cars, that indicates motors would come first. So then where do you post surreys?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's not a real tree, that's the problem. Drawing things in Paint is not how these things are constructed.

Why are you ignoring that fact?

In fairness to Xianghua I had asked him to do this. Yes, I know trees are done by mathematical analysis, but there is also a level at which a simple tree can be shown to be invalid by a simple smell test. You have shown him that an analysis shows vehicle trees are not hierarchical. He didn't buy it. Of course we could counter by telling him to learn the math, but I thought a simple smell test might help him see why it does not work with cars.

I think I can help him see the problem by taking this tack. If it doesn't work, then the blame is on me , not him, for the fact that we went off on these homemade trees.

 

[pitabread]

actually even talkorigin admit that its also true for creatures:

"Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."

so there is no real difference here.

You need to re-read that quote in context. What the talk.origins page says is actually this:

"Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."​

What they are talking about is what we keep saying. Simply creating a tree (or trees) isn't enough. It's about creating trees that have statistical significance with respect to each other.

as i already asked you: do you realy think that a bicycle is more similar to a car than to other bicycle?

Of course not. But that's not the point. The point is whether we can take a bunch of arbitrary designed objects and construct statistically significant phylogenetic trees based on underlying criteria.

When I tried this with trucks and cars, I couldn't.

If you want to prove otherwise, then come up with your own data set based on individual objects and underlying characteristics, and generate a proper tree. I've already given you a list of characteristics and vehicles I used and a link to the software.

true. and this is why we get so many different trees base on a single gene phylogeny. as talkorigin admit too.

That's not what they are "admitting" at all. You really need to go back and re-read that page because you haven't understood what they are saying.

 

[pitabread]

In fairness to Xianghua I had asked him to do this. Yes, I know trees are done by mathematical analysis, but there is also a level at which a simple tree can be shown to be invalid by a simple smell test. You have shown him that an analysis shows vehicle trees are not hierarchical. He didn't buy it. Of course we could counter by telling him to learn the math, but I thought a simple smell test might help him see why it does not work with cars.

I think I can help him see the problem by taking this tack. If it doesn't work, then the blame is on me , not him, for the fact that we went off on these homemade trees.

Fair enough, I've deleted my reply.

 

[DogmaHunter]

again: what is the problem?:

View attachment 223228

The problem is that you just drew a diagram with the outcome being determined before hand.

This diagram is not the result of carefull analysis of the actual data. It is not the result of mapping out data points concerning massive datasets that describe each and every one of those vehicles to the smallest detail.

Phylogenetic trees are.

This drawing of yours? Just a dishonest drawing which seems to be meant for only one thing: trolling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

were you get this stuff from?

Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence

"In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other"

so different genes make different trees.

Off course one needs to understand the processes involved and the variations that can occur concerning from which angle you approach it.

There are several aspects and factors that need to be kept in mind when doing such studies.
One needs to understand mutations and what they can do.

So there can be variation in the detailed nodes, yes.
But the overall tree will be the same.

Yes, homo sapiens might have lost gene X along the way. And if chimps and gorilla's didn't, then you have a match between the chimp and the gorilla and not the human.
But that doesn't put humans outside of the group of primates or whatever.


Also, first sentence of your link: "Gorillas are humans’ closest living relatives after chimpanzees"

 

[daleksteve]

So demonstrate that DNA was the same in Noah or Adam's time?

That's easy cause we have a little bit of Neanderthals DNA in with ours today, that suggests that very early modern man bred with Neanderthals and pretty much disproves Adam and Eve being the the first humans.

 

[daleksteve]

.
In the bible we see trees grew in weeks. So that does not sound like our nature at the time. Whatever laws were in place allowed such rapid growth then.

They did not and the bible does not say this. You only think this cause you buy into the flawed and easily disproved 7 24 hour creation day argument.

The days of genesis took place over several thousand perhaps even millions of years, the events of day 6 when adam and eve were created and placed in the garden takes place over several years.

 

[dad]

That's easy cause we have a little bit of Neanderthals DNA in with ours today, that suggests that very early modern man bred with Neanderthals and pretty much disproves Adam and Eve being the the first humans.

Wrong. Neanderthals are recent man. Post flood man. Present nature man. DNA similar to ours is expected. You have no DNA from the time of Adam, and the first 1600 years.

 

[dad]

They did not and the bible does not say this. You only think this cause you buy into the flawed and easily disproved 7 24 hour creation day argument.

Well then, riddle me this..God planted a garden. On day six man ate from that very garden from trees.

I am not sure how many mornings you think there are in six days? The bible lists one every day.

The days of genesis took place over several thousand perhaps even millions of years

So plants from day three had no sun for millions of years?
Nice.

, the events of day 6 when adam and eve were created and placed in the garden takes place over several years.

Says...who? From the moment Adam was created God said trees were our food. So, Adam waited several years to eat?!

In all ways you are clearly absolutely wrong.

Gen 1:29 - And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:

 

[Astrophile]

So go ahead and explain how.

I'm sorry; I didn't study stellar spectra to a high enough level to be able to explain how the temperature and surface gravity of the star are obtained from the spectrum, nor do I have access to any published papers that give these data for any individual star. I should need to have a Ph.D, and several years of post-doctoral experience, to understand it properly. The method involves constructing a model of the stellar atmosphere, and a lot of radiative transfer theory.

You could read Radiative Transfer by S. Chandrasekhar (Dover Publications Inc., 1960) and The Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars by Lawrence H. Aller (The Ronald Press Company, 1963), if only to see how complex the calculations are. However, to give one quotation in support of my assertion, on page 398 of The Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars, Aller says, 'The Balmer lines provide one example in which theory gives a quantitative explanation of observed phenomena - the actual line shapes as a function of surface gravity. Even the early version of the Kolb theory ... was shown ... to give an adequate interpretation of line profiles in B stars whose surface gravities were known from eclipsing binary data.'

 

[Astrophile]

I googled gravity acceleration in stars.



"You can determine masses of stars and planets in a similar way: by measuring the acceleration of objects orbiting them and the distance between the star or planet and the object."

1. Gravitational Acceleration: g = (G × Mass)/(distance from the center)2.
2. Comparing gravitational accelerations: acceleration at position A = acceleration at position B × (distance B/distance A)2.
3. Calculating mass: Mass = (g × distance2)/G."

Gravity Applications

Distance is apparently required both for mass, and for gravitational acceleration.

Yes, as your link says, 'you can determine the masses of stars and planets ... by measuring the acceleration of objects orbiting them and the distance between the star or planet and the object', but that is not the only method of determining stellar surface gravities. I was discussing the spectroscopic method, which obtains the surface gravity from the spectral line profiles (see post 1776 above); this is entirely independent of the method of using the accelerations and distances of orbiting objects, and it does not require knowledge of the distance of the star.

By the way, the fact that spectroscopic surface gravities agree with the surface gravities obtained from the orbits of eclipsing binary stars (see quotation from The Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars in post 1776) tends to confirm the validity of the two methods and the accuracy of the surface gravities derived from them.

 

[Brightmoon]

Wrong. Neanderthals are recent man. Post flood man. Present nature man. DNA similar to ours is expected. You have no DNA from the time of Adam, and the first 1600 years.

H neaderthalensis is a different species they aren’t Homo sapiens. Their bodies were different and so was their growth rates( they became fully adult at 15) They were closely related enough so that the either species formed viable fertile hybrids. Recent Human ancestry is more of a ring species than most people realize.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry; I didn't study stellar spectra to a high enough level to be able to explain how the temperature and surface gravity of the star are obtained from the spectrum, nor do I have access to any published papers that give these data for any individual star. I should need to have a Ph.D, and several years of post-doctoral experience, to understand it properly. The method involves constructing a model of the stellar atmosphere, and a lot of radiative transfer theory.

Distances are required. Even if they use the star type, that means distance.

You could read Radiative Transfer by S. Chandrasekhar (Dover Publications Inc., 1960) and The Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars by Lawrence H. Aller (The Ronald Press Company, 1963), if only to see how complex the calculations are. However, to give one quotation in support of my assertion, on page 398 of The Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars, Aller says, 'The Balmer lines provide one example in which theory gives a quantitative explanation of observed phenomena - the actual line shapes as a function of surface gravity. Even the early version of the Kolb theory ... was shown ... to give an adequate interpretation of line profiles in B stars whose surface gravities were known from eclipsing binary data.'

What do you think this is saying? In what way would any of this be independent of distance? If we see a spectral line of hydrogen of an unknown distance do you think that will tell us a lot about gravity there? If so..how?

 

[dad]

Yes, as your link says, 'you can determine the masses of stars and planets ... by measuring the acceleration of objects orbiting them and the distance between the star or planet and the object',

So distance must be known. To know distance time must exist at all points the same. We do not know that it does.

but that is not the only method of determining stellar surface gravities. I was discussing the spectroscopic method, which obtains the surface gravity from the spectral line profiles (see post 1776 above); this is entirely independent of the method of using the accelerations and distances of orbiting objects, and it does not require knowledge of the distance of the star.

I doubt that. You don't seem to understand that gravity depends on mass. We need to know how much mass a star has to know gravity there. No? Otherwise, the hydrogen could be from the space station or some such smaller object.

By the way, the fact that spectroscopic surface gravities agree with the surface gravities obtained from the orbits of eclipsing binary stars (see quotation from The Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars in post 1776) tends to confirm the validity of the two methods and the accuracy of the surface gravities derived from them.

Doesn't matter at all if we are looking at golf ball sized little lights. How much gravity depends on the mass. To know mass we need distance. To know distance we need time.