A question of ERVs

[xianghua]

None of which fall in a nested hierarchy.

so a tipical bicycle is more similar to a car then to another bicycle? what can i say...

 

[pitabread]

so a tipical bicycle is more similar to a car then to another bicycle? what can i say...

Why don't you try downloading phylogenetic software and try constructing a tree with a data set based on bicycles and cars? Until you do, you don't have any support for your claims.

 

[xianghua]

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.

this is the problem. we see mudflaps in the majority of trucks but only in a minority of cars. so its clearly a trait that is almost specific to a truck.

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

in most cases they are. this is the problem with your assumption. a bicycle share most of its parts with another bicycle then with a truck. this is the reason why its called a "bicycle" and not a "truck". simple logic.

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

you see how you are trying to avoid the discussion now?

 

[pitabread]

this is the problem. we see mudflaps in the majority of trucks but only in a minority of cars. so its clearly a trait that is almost specific to a truck.

Majority and minority is not relevant. If a trait may or may not show up on a particular object, then that is what is known as a polymorphic trait. In other words, it's a trait that may have multiple possibilities.

If a trait can have multiple possibilities, then it can't by definition be a defining characteristic.

So no, mudflaps are not and have never been a defining characteristic of trucks.

in most cases they are. this is the problem with your assumption.

Again, cars, trucks and vans are not defined by the majority of their parts. This isn't an assumption; it's based on how vehicles are actually classified. And vehicle classifications typically are based on relatively few characteristics including gross curb weight, wheel base and intended function of the vehicle.

You appear completely unfamiliar with how vehicles are classified.

a bicycle share most of its parts with another bicycle then with a truck. this is the reason why its called a "bicycle" and not a "truck". simple logic.

So why don't you try constructing a data set based on a sampling of various cars and bicycles and then use phylogenetic software to see what sorts of trees you get? You keep making claims, but you aren't supporting them with anything.

Are you afraid you might end up disproving your own claims? Or do you just not know how phylogenetic trees are constructed in the first place?

you see how you are trying to avoid the discussion now?

I'm explaining what you need to do to support your claims. So far you haven't been able to support anything you've claimed.

And on top of that, when I tested your claims about cars, trucks and vans, it turns out your claims are false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so a tipical bicycle is more similar to a car then to another bicycle? what can i say...

That's not what I said. And you know it.

 

[xianghua]

So why don't you try constructing a data set based on a sampling of various cars and bicycles and then use phylogenetic software to see what sorts of trees you get? You keep making claims, but you aren't supporting them with anything.

for several reasons:

1) i need to find such information and i dont think that such information even exist.
2) even if its exist we are talking about more then 1000 parts. so its almost mission impossible.
3) why to do that when we can do it in more simple way like the one i already gave? 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.

 

[pitabread]

for several reasons:

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

If you don't think it's possible to find information about characteristics of bicycles or cars, then why do you keep making claims based on characteristics of bicycles and cars?

(Also, the information does exist, you just need to Google it. You have Google right?)

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

Bicycles have far less than a 1000 parts. Have you never seen a bicycle before?

And you don't need that many characteristics or parts to create a data set for a phylogenetic tree. To create a meaningful tree and test for statistical congruence, you only need at best a handful of parts.

I've already shown you how it is possible and I used 14 characteristics of vehicles.

I'm sure you could easily come up with 10 characteristics yourself and construct a tree based on bicycles and cars. You do know how to do this, don't you?

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

Because what you are suggesting doesn't demonstrate anything about creating phylogenetic trees. The only way to support your claims about creating phylogenetic trees about bicycles and cars is to create phylogenetic trees about bicycles and cars.

All you are doing is making excuses to avoid doing the work.

(In reality, I think you don't know how and don't want to admit it.)

 

[xianghua]

Bicycles have far less than a 1000 parts. Have you never seen a bicycle before?

i clearly talked about cars you know.

And you don't need that many characteristics or parts to create a data set for a phylogenetic tree. To create a meaningful tree and test for statistical congruence, you only need at best a handful of parts.

not realy. if its true then i can give you many cases that dont fit well with the phylogenetic trees. so 10 traits will not help to show the real phylogeny too.

 

[pitabread]

i clearly talked about cars you know.

You keep changing the topic so it's hard to know what you are talking about it at a given time.

not realy. if its true then i can give you many cases that dont fit well with the phylogenetic trees. so 10 traits will not help to show the real phylogeny too.

We're talking about things that are ultimately statistical in nature. You don't need every single characteristic to generate something and test for congruence. Adding more is just going to yield diminishing returns.

So you could, if you wanted to learn how, sample a bunch of characteristics for a bunch of bikes and cars and construct a phylogenetic tree.

But I think the real issue is you don't actually know how.

 

[xianghua]

You keep changing the topic so it's hard to know what you are talking about it at a given time.



We're talking about things that are ultimately statistical in nature. You don't need every single characteristic to generate something and test for congruence. Adding more is just going to yield diminishing returns.

So you could, if you wanted to learn how, sample a bunch of characteristics for a bunch of bikes and cars and construct a phylogenetic tree.

But I think the real issue is you don't actually know how.

someone already done it (table 1):

Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? - creation.com

so or so: bottom line is that we can make a tree out of designed objects too.

 

[pitabread]

so or so: bottom line is that we can make a tree out of designed objects too.

It's not a question of whether or not you can create a tree from designed objects. It's whether or not a tree of designed objects will have the same statistical congruence that trees of living things have.

And the answer, based on my own testing, is they do not.

 

[xianghua]

It's not a question of whether or not you can create a tree from designed objects. It's whether or not a tree of designed objects will have the same statistical congruence that trees of living things have.

And the answer, based on my own testing, is they do not.

i just show you above that they are.

 

[46AND2]

i just show you above that they are.

If you did, then you should have no problem proving it by downloading the software pita suggested, and inputting the data.

 

[pitabread]

i just show you above that they are.

No you didn't.

Not only is that tree on the linked page not a real phylogenetic tree, it's obviously wrong based on the characteristics they listed. For example, they list windshields as a characteristic that appears after motorcycles, but motorcycles and even bicycles can have windshields. And likewise, you can have cars, trucks and other vehicles without windshields. Windshields are not a defining characteristic of those things.

This is why phylogenetic trees of designed objects make now sense. When characteristics are interchangeable, you're not going to get a meaningful tree.

At any rate, if you want to make your argument, you need to first construct a phylogenetic tree based on a real data set. But you don't appear to know how to do that.

 

[pitabread]

If you did, then you should have no problem proving it by downloading the software pita suggested, and inputting the data.

He doesn't know how.

 

[xianghua]

For example, they list windshields as a characteristic that appears after motorcycles, but motorcycles and even bicycles can have windshields. And likewise, you can have cars, trucks and other vehicles without windshields. Windshields are not a defining characteristic of those things..

but this is exactly what we find in biology: we cna find traits that shared between other groups but not in some species between these groups. so by this criteria we cant make a tree out of living creatures too. so what is your point?

 

[pitabread]

but this is exactly what we find in biology: we cna find traits that shared between other groups but not in some species between these groups. so by this criteria we cant make a tree out of living creatures too. so what is your point?

This is why trees are tested for statistical congruence. With evolution and hereditary constraint, most traits are still going to be a result of inheritance. Thus the trees we see in biology, while they may appear different will often still have statistical congruence. This suggests that the hereditary relationships are real.

Whereas with designed objects (in the case of the cars, vans and trucks trees I tried), I couldn't get any statistical congruence no matter how many trees I created. Which makes sense since none of the designed features on those objects are constrained by hereditary.

All of this falls in line with what we know about the difference between biological organisms versus manufactured objects like cars.

 

[46AND2]

He doesn't know how.

But...if he doesn't know how to construct a nested hierarchy, then how can he claim that one can be created from data of designed characteristics?

 

[46AND2]

i clearly talked about cars you know.




not realy. if its true then i can give you many cases that dont fit well with the phylogenetic trees. so 10 traits will not help to show the real phylogeny too.

What you don't get is that phylogenetic trees aren't just drawn like an artist's rendition. They are plotted, mathematically.

That's why you need to respond to pita's challenge to actually use the software.

 

[xianghua]

Whereas with designed objects, I couldn't get any statistical congruence no matter how many trees I created

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".