A question of ERVs

[pitabread]

but i just showed here a list from a creationist source which show that we indeed can get a tree.

That's just a picture that they probably drew in Paint, just like the trees you posted earlier.

A real phylogenetic tree is mathematically generated based on a data set. Show me a data set and show me how a tree the was specifically constructed using phylogenetics software.

your objection was that we can find some of these shared traits among other vehicles. and then i explained that its also true for living things. so again: this isnt true. i will ask again: do you think that a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then to a car? if so here is your "statistical congruence".

That's not how statistical congruence works. It's a mathematical (statistical) calculation based on comparing specific trees. It's not something you merely assert.

You know what you need to do: create a data set and then create trees with phylogenetics software. Then you'll have something to discuss.

 

[Speedwell]

but i just showed here a list from a creationist source which show that we indeed can get a tree. your objection was that we can find some of these shared traits among other vehicles. and then i explained that its also true for living things. so again: this isnt true. i will ask again: do you think that a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then to a car? if so here is your "statistical congruence".

How can you assert statistical congruence without showing us any numbers?

 

[xianghua]

How can you assert statistical congruence without showing us any numbers?

its easy. all i need to do is to show that the majority of parts are shared among the same groups. so a bicycle is basically share more parts with other bicycle then with a car, and a car share more parts with other cars then with a bicycle and so on. in the end we will get a tree like this:

 

[Speedwell]

That tree is false because it does not represent the true developmental history of those vehicles.

You can't calculate statistical significance without data. Where is your data? It certainly isn't in that bogus, made up tree.

 

[xianghua]

That tree is false because it does not represent the true developmental history of those vehicles.

just for the sake of the argument say that it is. we are talking about phylogenetic tree and not about the "fossils record" for that tree. do you agree that such a tree can be made from designed objects too?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1) i need to find such information and i dont think that such information even exist.

In other words: you're just making it up on the spot.

Who else is shocked by this incredible news?

2) even if its exist we are talking about more then 1000 parts. so its almost mission impossible.

The human genome consists of some 3 billion parts.
But a mere 1000 already scares you? Or is it just that you aren't willing to put in the work required? I get it... it's much easier to just make stuff up instead. Takes much less effort too.

3) why to do that when we can do it in more simple way like the one i already gave?

Sure.... why go through all the trouble of actually studying and investigating data, when you can just make stuff up?

we know that a tipical bicycle is more similar in general to another bicycle then to a car. this is an observable fact. do you agree with this fact? if so we can continue.

Nobody is arguing that.
But I get it... intellectual honesty, is not part of your daily discourse. In fact, it's pretty detrimental to it.

 

[Speedwell]

just for the sake of the argument say that it is. we are talking about phylogenetic tree and not about the "fossils record" for that tree. do you agree that such a tree can be made from designed objects too?

Generally not, although it is possible that somewhere there are designed objects which can be arranged in that way--it's just not very likely. Certainly you have never done it.

 

[xianghua]

Nobody is arguing that.
.

here you go.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

its easy. all i need to do is to show that the majority of parts are shared among the same groups. so a bicycle is basically share more parts with other bicycle then with a car, and a car share more parts with other cars then with a bicycle and so on. in the end we will get a tree like this:

View attachment 249671

Nice hypothesis.
Now it's time to test it.


Create datasets and present it, including an explanation on how you gathered said data.
Then download phylogenetics software and input said datasets and have it generate trees.

Then post the results here.

Your ms paint lines that you made up on the spot don't count as end results.

 

[xianghua]

Generally not, although it is possible that somewhere there are designed objects which can be arranged in that way--it's just not very likely. Certainly you have never done it.

so a bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then to a car or not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

here you go.

Here what goes?
The exposure of your strawmen and dishonesty?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so a bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then to a car or not?

Yes. X is more like X then it is like Y.

 

[xianghua]

Yes. X is more like X then it is like Y.

great. so you agree with the place of bicycle in this tree, right?;

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

great. so you agree with the place of bicycle in this tree, right?;

View attachment 249672

No.

That tree is made up, as per your own admission in post #266

You're being dishonest again, btw.
Just because I agree with your meaningless tautology that "X is more like X then it is like not-X" does not mean that by extension I'll also agree with all the made up nonsense you post.

 

[pitabread]

its easy. all i need to do is to show that the majority of parts are shared among the same groups. so a bicycle is basically share more parts with other bicycle then with a car, and a car share more parts with other cars then with a bicycle and so on. in the end we will get a tree like this:

View attachment 249671

That's not how any of that works. You don't know how phylogenetic trees are created.

And I've already previously demonstrated that cars and trucks don't sort themselves that way.

You're just repeating the same previously falsified claims over again.

 

[pitabread]

great. so you agree with the place of bicycle in this tree, right?;

View attachment 249672

Where is your data set? What software did you use to create the tree? What parameters did you use? What algorithm?

 

[xianghua]

No.

That tree is made up, as per your own admission in post #266

You're being dishonest again, btw.
Just because I agree with your meaningless tautology that "X is more like X then it is like not-X" does not mean that by extension I'll also agree with all the made up nonsense you post.

so be specific. what is wrong with the place of bicycle in this tree?:

 

[Speedwell]

so be specific. what is wrong with the place of bicycle in this tree?:

Why did you place it there?

 

[xianghua]

Where is your data set? What software did you use to create the tree? What parameters did you use? What algorithm?

i used the level of similarity\non similarity among these objects. very similar to what genetics do to make a tree. if you agree that on general a bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then you should agree that the place of bicycle in this tree is correct:

so what is your objection to the place of bicycle in this tree?

 

[xianghua]

Why did you place it there?

because bicycle are more similar to each other then to a car. so all bicycle kinds are closer to each other then to a car in this tree.