the self replicating watch argument

[pitabread]

Seems to me if trucks weigh more than cars, maybe have different braking systems, heights, tires, fuel, and Etc there would be some sort of statistical differences?

Feel free to test it yourself if you'd like. But when I tested this (see post #1552), I didn't get the results xianghua claimed I should.

Which makes sense given that how vehicles like "trucks" and "cars" are defined is typically based on a limited set of characteristics. Most characteristics appear to be independent of vehicle classification.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The issue is the basis for the tree. If cladistics, or genetics are involved, that is the basis. Genetics is a feature of this present nature. Genetics are determined by and governed by the laws we now have that work on atoms and molecules and life processes. To claim modern day Genetics is the same since the beginning is to claim the laws and nature was the same. That makes it 100% belief. Feel free to show some other basis for your evolution trees.

Now you are asking for the basis for the phylogenetic trees? That's odd, for just last post you were pontificating that the writers of those studies didn't understand statistics well enough to determine if the studies were valid. So it turns out you never even read the summaries and have no idea what they are based on?

You are welcome to criticise a study if you have information they missed, but if you don't even read the study or understand anything about it, don't be surprised if you will be ignored. What can possibly be wrong with reading a study before you condemn it?

Really. Meanwhile, whenever we search for evolution trees, it seems fossils are very much front and center in showing ancestors! As much as you understandably would like to play down the fossil record.

uh no, I am not backing away from the powerful fossil evidence. See, for instance, my thread Are there transitional fossils? .

 

[dad]

Feel free to test it yourself if you'd like. But when I tested this (see post #1552), I didn't get the results xianghua claimed I should.

Naturally man's creations are very inferior. They would not represent the same thing as creations of God. You seem to have taken the created ability/trait of evolving, and used that to make a tree. That sort of tree is fatally flawed, because it only uses evolution and ignores the main issue...creation, and the created kinds where evolving started.

Which makes sense given that how vehicles like "trucks" and "cars" are defined is typically based on a limited set of characteristics. Most characteristics appear to be independent of vehicle classification.

We cannot compare man's creations with God's. Especially what is alive. Notice man's creations are not alive?

 

[dad]

Now you are asking for the basis for the phylogenetic trees? That's odd, for just last post you were pontificating that the writers of those studies didn't understand statistics well enough to determine if the studies were valid. So it turns out you never even read the summaries and have no idea what they are based on?

Asking you to explain the basis for trees has nothing to do with what I know or understand. It has to do with you either knowing what you are talking about, or being shown to actually not know.

You are welcome to criticise a study if you have information they missed, but if you don't even read the study or understand anything about it, don't be surprised if you will be ignored. What can possibly be wrong with reading a study before you condemn it?

What about the study do you claim is valid, interesting, relative, or germane to the issue of the basis for trees?

uh no, I am not backing away from the powerful fossil evidence.

Glad to hear that. I will try to see that you wear that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

as i explained: we dont need it since we know that atruck is more similar to other truck.

Mere similarities aren't the issue.

Nested hierarchies are the issue.

And those don't exist in manufactured products

 

[DogmaHunter]

The issue is the basis for the tree. If cladistics, or genetics are involved, that is the basis. Genetics is a feature of this present nature. Genetics are determined by and governed by the laws we now have that work on atoms and molecules and life processes. To claim modern day Genetics is the same since the beginning is to claim the laws and nature was the same. That makes it 100% belief. Feel free to show some other basis for your evolution trees. Really. Meanwhile, whenever we search for evolution trees, it seems fossils are very much front and center in showing ancestors! As much as you understandably would like to play down the fossil record.

Indeed. The laws of nature were only implemented Last Thursday.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We cannot compare man's creations with God's. Especially what is alive. Notice man's creations are not alive?

Wait, watches don't have babies?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Glad to hear that. I will try to see that you wear that.

No problem. I already "wore" the fossil evidence. As I pointed out, I started a long thread on fossils, and spent a lot of time arguing that fossils are evidence for evolution. Check it out.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Asking you to explain the basis for trees has nothing to do with what I know or understand.

If you already understand the basis for trees, why are you asking me?

 

[pitabread]

We cannot compare man's creations with God's. Especially what is alive. Notice man's creations are not alive?

Maybe you and xianghua should have a conversation about this, because you clearly have very different ideas than him.

 

[xianghua]

However, when it came to the trees of vehicles I constructed, there wasn't any statistical significance between the different trees.

do you agree that most parts of a truck is also shared between other truck but not a bicylce? if so then you get your statistical significance since the basic tree (truck is more silimlar to other truck) still exist.

Which makes sense given there is no hereditary relationships between vehicles.

lets assume just for the sake of the argument that we indeed found such hierarchy among vehicles. in this case you will not conclude design when you see a truck?

 

[xianghua]

(And besides, when I ran trees based on trucks and cars it didn't demonstrate that trucks are "more similar" to other trucks.

so now you actually admit that a truck isnt more similar to another truck then a car?. tell me: its also true for a car and a bicylce?

 

[Speedwell]

lets assume just for the sake of the argument that we indeed found such hierarchy among vehicles. in this case you will not conclude design when you see a truck?

If the truck shows evidence of being manufactured then I will conclude design. Human designers rarely, if ever, adhere to nested hierarchies, but there is no reason they could not, if they wanted.

Once again, design can never be ruled out, it just cannot be proven without evidence of manufacture.

 

[dad]

Indeed. The laws of nature were only implemented Last Thursday.

You have no more proof of that, than claiming they were always the same. We do have ancient history records, and there was nothing about life in old England, or Rome that supports your claim.

 

[dad]

Wait, watches don't have babies?

No. Man's creations, unlike God's are not alive. Therefore any grouping should take that into account.

 

[dad]

If you already understand the basis for trees, why are you asking me?

Because they are ridiculous religious nonsense that cannot be defended or supported.

 

[dad]

No problem. I already "wore" the fossil evidence. As I pointed out, I started a long thread on fossils, and spent a lot of time arguing that fossils are evidence for evolution. Check it out.

It does not matter if some fossils evidence evolving. What matters is in what nature the evolving happened, and whether creation started it all off. It matters if the fossil record is basically a record of creatures who happened to be able to fossilize in the former nature. It matters that the fossil record, if that was the case, would be useless in origins issues.

 

[dad]

Maybe you and xianghua should have a conversation about this,

It is not so much that I agree with him as much as that I disagree with you.

 

[dad]

Once again, design can never be ruled out, it just cannot be proven without evidence of manufacture.

Design can be ruled in when we see something had to be designed.

 

[tas8831]

The issue is the basis for the tree. If cladistics, or genetics are involved, that is the basis. Genetics is a feature of this present nature. Genetics are determined by and governed by the laws we now have that work on atoms and molecules and life processes. To claim modern day Genetics is the same since the beginning is to claim the laws and nature was the same. That makes it 100% belief. Feel free to show some other basis for your evolution trees. Really. Meanwhile, whenever we search for evolution trees, it seems fossils are very much front and center in showing ancestors! As much as you understandably would like to play down the fossil record.

I must have missed it when you provided verifiable evidence for your 'different states past' assertions.


Meanwhile, in real life, science marches on.