A question of ERVs

[Speedwell]

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?

What characteristics did you use to place it there?

 

[xianghua]

What characteristics did you use to place it there?

the majority of them. this is why i asked if bicycle is more similar in general to other bicycle.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

So? Bicycles are more similar to each other than they are to wheelbarrows. How come there are no wheelbarrows on your tree? Bicycles are more similar to each other than they are to elephants. How come there are no elephants on your tree?

 

[pitabread]

i used the level of similarity\non similarity among these objects. very similar to what genetics do to make a tree.

That's still not how it works. Phylogenetic trees based on genetics use specific DNA or RNA sequences for their data set and specific algorithms for creating those trees.

So I'll ask again:

What was your data set for your tree? What software? What parameters? What algorithm?

(Although we both already know it's not a real phylogenetic tree. You don't have to keep pretending.)

 

[pitabread]

the majority of them. this is why i asked if bicycle is more similar in general to other bicycle.

Except you didn't use any characteristics. You're basically lying to everyone right now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Here's what's wrong with your tree: it's made up on the spot.

If you want to do this, do it right. @pitabread explained to you how to do it.

Collect a sensible dataset.
Download phylogenetics software.
Input your dataset.
Use the software the generate a tree based on the inputted data.

Off course, this would require you to spend some time and effort. I know it's a lot easier to just make stuff up and draw some nonsense in MS Paint. And to be honest, you can't even do that right.... I mean, seriously.... look at those squibly lines that you drew with your unsteady hand dragging your mouse:

It's ridiculous.

 

[xianghua]

Except you didn't use any characteristics. You're basically lying to everyone right now.

if you say so.

 

[xianghua]

That's still not how it works. Phylogenetic trees based on genetics use specific DNA or RNA sequences for their data set

its basically the same. they basically check the level of similarity\non simillarity to make the tree. this is what i did- making a tree by the level of general similarity.

 

[xianghua]

So? Bicycles are more similar to each other than they are to wheelbarrows. How come there are no wheelbarrows on your tree? Bicycles are more similar to each other than they are to elephants. How come there are no elephants on your tree?

i didnt try to make a tree out of all designed objects. just about several of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i didnt try to make a tree out of all designed objects. just about several of them.

You didn't try to make any tree at all.
You just made one up on the spot and drew it in paint. And didn't even do a good job at that.

 

[pitabread]

its basically the same. they basically check the level of similarity\non simillarity to make the tree. this is what i did- making a tree by the level of general similarity.

No, all you did was draw a made up tree in paint. You didn't use any characteristics to create it.

Otherwise you would be able to answer the questions:

What data set?
What software?
What parameters?
What algorithm?

All you have shown is that you don't know how phylogenetic trees are constructed.

 

[pitabread]

if you say so.

It's obvious, especially given that you already made a bunch of excuses why you couldn't do such a thing in the first place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if you say so.

No, YOU said so. In post #266. In point 1, to be exact.

 

[pitabread]

No, YOU said so. In post #266. In point 1, to be exact.

A running theme of his posts are the constant contradictions...

 

[tas8831]

And then you all keep ignoring that we use virus to alter genomes in genomic alteration.

Alter genomes in genetic alteration? Wow that sounds serious!

Virus that target specific types of cells. So why would we not expect virus to invade two separate species that have similar cellular structure?????

Is it your scientifically informed opinion that ALL viruses behave in this way?

 

[tas8831]

Because you keep ignoring that virus attack the same cells

Is it your scientifically informed position that all virus [sic] act in the same fashion? Asking for a friend.

that they have attack mechanisms designed for.

Ever heard of begging the question?

 

[tas8831]

It's why flu and cold virus attack only the respiratory cells. Why HIV only attack the T-cells.

You sure about that?

Neither insert randomly into random cells throughout the body..... despite your claims to the contrary, reality shows those claims to be false....

Do you think that flu, cold, and HIV are the only viruses there are?

 

[tas8831]

Not all trucks are bigger in size or have more wheels than vans. A Ford Econoline van is larger than a Ford Ranger or Mazda B-2000. Also the Econoline shared a lot of swapped parts with the F-series pickups.
Ford F-Series - Wikipedia
>> For much of its production life, the Ford E-Series vans shared a high degree of mechanical commonality with the F-Series; in the late 1970s, some body components were shared. <<
Further the very large Ford Super Duty trucks don't have more wheels than vans.

It gets even worse the VW models from the 1980s which I have pointed out repeatedly XH dishonestly keeps ignoring. The Golf hatchback, Scirocco sport coupe and Jetta sedan shared a front end and wheels with the Caddy pickup truck.

All of these things shatter his supposed nested hierarchy.

Nice! Creationists cannot even get their analogies right.

 

[tas8831]

The base pairs are 79 mbp and the ERV class 1 listed in the Chimpanzee Genome paper is over a million. That's not thousands of times, do a little basic math and you do know that genomes are measured in base pairs right?

This has got to be an act.
You cannot actually be this obtuse, can you?

And ERV is a THING unto itself. It is not 'base pairs'. The size of the ERVs are irrelevant to their number.

This is just like you maniacal ranting about indels, thinking that all of the nucleotide in an indel must count as mutations. Your inability to make these simple distinctions would be funny if you were not so serious and self-righteous and Dunning-Krugery about it all.

 

[tas8831]

Why do you refuse to measure them in base pairs? When we are talking comparative genomics we should be talking direct comparisons, that means you measure them in base pairs.

Right...

Why, just the other day I was at a genetics conference and a presenter mentioned comparing 2 genes and someone in the audience yelled out "But how many base pairs do these genes have? Why are you ignoring that??? Huh?" And the presenter apologized and ran off the stage....