A question of ERVs

[xianghua]

This isn't about biology though.

are you saying that we cant get nested hiearchy in biology by looking at 24 genes?

 

[pitabread]

are you saying that we cant get nested hiearchy in biology by looking at 24 genes?

Again, this isn't about biology. This is about your claim about creating trees with cars, vans and trucks.

You're claiming the tree I posted with 14 characteristics didn't have enough to be valid. Yet, the tree you posted with cars, trucks and vans listed even fewer characteristics.

Therefore, you appear to be saying the tree you drew isn't valid.

You are contradicting your own claims.

 

[46AND2]

so you are talking about most ervs that are shared between human and chimp. not about nested hiearchy. why the creation scenario is better? because only the creation scenario can explain the existence of living creatures and only the creation model can explain how ervs were made in the first place. evolution cant (we cant explain for instance how the viral genes evolved stepwise or how some creatures were able to lived before they got these ervs). this is why the creation scenario is the best explanation in this case.

No, I'm talking about the nested hierarchy. Come up with a better explanation for the pattern we see. Hint: finding a few data points which don't land in the pattern does not mean the pattern is not there, when there are literally tens of thousands of data points fitting the pattern.

For example, I work in the semiconductor industry, making computer chips on silicon wafers. At certain points, we have to test our machines to make sure that they are not adding "dust" particles to the top of the wafer. Occasionally, we would get a wafer that had thousands of particles, and you could see the shape of a star within the picture of those particles. We know there is a particular part, called a showerhead, that can go bad and cause this kind of pattern.

Using this analogy, what you are trying to do with ERVs is point to the couple dozen particles which don't land in the star pattern, and ignore the thousands of particles in the star pattern altogether. Then you claim that the showerhead is not an issue, but rather something else. Yet, your something else fails to ever address the star pattern.

 

[xianghua]

You're claiming the tree I posted with 14 characteristics didn't have enough to be valid. Yet, the tree you posted with cars, trucks and vans listed even fewer characteristics.

i actually refer to the majority of parts among these vehicles. let me make it simple: do you agree that a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then to a car?

 

[xianghua]

No, I'm talking about the nested hierarchy. Come up with a better explanation for the pattern we see. Hint: finding a few data points which don't land in the pattern does not mean the pattern is not there, when there are literally tens of thousands of data points fitting the pattern.

but we find the same with designed objects. so the claim about nested hierarchy as evidence for non design is pointless:

 

[Speedwell]

but we find the same with designed objects. so the claim about nested hierarchy as evidence for non design is pointless:

View attachment 249095

That diagram is a lie no matter how many times you post it. It does not represent the true developmental history of those vehicles.

 

[pitabread]

but we find the same with designed objects. so the claim about nested hierarchy as evidence for non design is pointless:

View attachment 249095

And once again you are posting false information and contradicting yourself.

 

[pitabread]

i actually refer to the majority of parts among these vehicles.

On the diagram you posted you referred to things like mudflaps and "stairs". You think those are major parts of vehicles?

Are you sure you know what a vehicle is?

let me make it simple: do you agree that a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then to a car?

Again, you're trying to change the subject.

Look the reality is this: You make claims about trees of vehicles which are wrong. When shown that your claims are wrong, you turn around and make more claims contradicting your original claims. Then you turn around and repeat your original claims again, contradicting yourself once again.

There is no consistency to your thoughts or arguments here. I have no idea what you are even trying to argue.

 

[46AND2]

but we find the same with designed objects. so the claim about nested hierarchy as evidence for non design is pointless:

View attachment 249095

1. You have been shown repeatedly how your pattern breaks down and is not a nested hierarchy.
2. Do you really want to claim that viral insertions (and broken genes) are designed by god to form a pattern that looks exactly like they are being spread across multiple species through inheritance? Why would he do that?

 

[xianghua]

1. You have been shown repeatedly how your pattern breaks down and is not a nested hierarchy.

were?

 

[xianghua]

On the diagram you posted you referred to things like mudflaps and "stairs". You think those are major parts of vehicles?

no. i just show them as a part of the nested hierarchy.

Again, you're trying to change the subject.

.

no at all. i want to show you that its also true for the majority of parts. so it will be easier if i choose a bicycle for start.

 

[mark kennedy]

were?

The key here is 'repeatedly', they are just going to argue this in circles, that much is obvious.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The key here is 'repeatedly', they are just going to argue this in circles, that much is obvious.

Are you talking to the pot or the kettle?

 

[pitabread]

no. i just show them as a part of the nested hierarchy.

Except they clearly aren't. For example, mudflaps have nothing to do with how a vehicle is classified. Mudflaps could be on cars, vans, trucks, or not at all.

It's an irrelevant characteristic.

no at all.

Yes. Every time I point out that your claim about cars, trucks and vans was wrong, you try to change the subject.

You need to own up to your own claims here.

i want to show you that its also true for the majority of parts.

Except vehicles like cars, trucks and vans are NOT classified based on the majority of parts. Your entire premise is fundamentally wrong.

so it will be easier if i choose a bicycle for start.

If you want to make claims about bicycles, you need to do the following:

1) Construct a data set of characteristics for different objects (bicycles, cars, whatever);
2) Download phylogenetic software and use that data set to construct a proper phylogenetic tree; and,
3) Present your data set and your results.

Once you have done all that, we can talk about bicycles. Until then, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[pitabread]

were?

Seriously?

 

[pitabread]

The key here is 'repeatedly', they are just going to argue this in circles, that much is obvious.

Again, just to clue you in on the history of this discussion:

1) xianghua made a bunch of claims about phylogenetic trees and vehicles (cars, trucks, vans).
2) I tested those claims and it turns out xianghua's claims were wrong. See this post here: A question of ERVs
3) xianghua keeps ignoring the fact his claims were tested and keeps making the same incorrect claims over and over again.

If you want to go to bat for him and try to support his claims, go for it. Otherwise, you're stepping into a conversation without the history ...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i actually refer to the majority of parts among these vehicles.

None of which fall in a nested hierarchy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but we find the same with designed objects. so the claim about nested hierarchy as evidence for non design is pointless:

View attachment 249095

Inventing a graph out of thin air, is not exactly analogous to graphs that are literally the result of objectively plotting out the exact matches of literally millions of datapoints.

Admit it: you pulled that graph out of your sleave. It is not the result of a rigorous study that compares cars, bikes and trucks inch by inch, part by part.

In short: this is at best a demonstration of your ignorance and at worst a demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no idea what you are even trying to argue.

I do. He will argue whatever as long as he gets to diss the science of evolutionary biology.

The only problem though, is that his approach is very similar to a pidgeon's approach when attempting to play chess....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

were?

In just about every reply to the post in which you posted it.
That you keep ignoring them, doesn't make them go away.