Branching Trees - A question for evolutionists

[pitabread]

you used something like 10-15 traits. i showed that even by using more than 20 traits (genes) in living things we can get different result. thus using just few traits should be problematic.

Then demonstrate it.

how do you get to that conclusion? does your car has a truck engine? doest your car has a truck wheels? doest your car has a truck size?

Simple, I looked up the regulations on how vehicles are actually classified. You can find this information easily yourself if you wanted. For example here is the US Federal Highway Administration's classifications of vehicles: Office of Highway Policy Information - Policy | Federal Highway Administration

In this case classification is based on intended use and number of axles/wheels.

Engine type has nothing to do with it. Wheel type has nothing to do with it. Size has nothing to do with it.

We've been through all of this before. Do you not remember?

im almost sure that the answer is "no" since most cars dont have trucks traits.

But what is a "truck trait"? Have you ever actually looked into how vehicles are classified?

i do think that we can do that. lets start with simpler comparison- bicycle and a car. do you think that in general a regular bicycle is more similar to other bicycle than to a car?

This isn't a question you need to ask me. This is something you need to test yourself. I've told you how to do this:

1) Download some phylogenetics software (there's lots of free software available; I used Mesquite last time: Mesquite Project)

2) Chose a bunch of vehicles and create a character matrix for them.

3) Start creating some phylogenetic trees and see what results you get. Try it with cars and trucks and see how they sort themselves. See if you get different results than I got last time.

 

[SLP]

no. since in general a whale is more similar to a land mammal than to a fish.

How did you determine that?

Your car analogy seems to be entirely about superficial appearance. Why adopt more in-depth analytical criteria only when the shallowness of your argument is exposed?

when is say "general" i refer to the whole creature, including internal morphology and not just external.

Not with your car analogy, though.

Why?

 

[SLP]

yes i remember. but you need to do so by testing most of their parts and not just few of them. otherwise i can say the same about these cases that we can find in living things too:

Gene Study Shows Turtles Are Next Of Kin To Crocodiles And Alligators

43 genes support the lungfish-coelacanth grouping related to the closest living relative of tetrapods with the Bayesian method under the coalescence model

so when the number of traits is so low, we can get wrong results.

Did you read the second one?
Did you look at the 4 hypotheses? With ray-finned fishes as the outgroup, the other three taxa all formed a clade. So what are you proposing was 'overturned' in that paper, when the specific intraclade grouping was an open question??

And why didn't praying produce the correct answer? Why wasn't this presented in unambiguous language in Scripture? And where do robot penguins fit into all this?

 

[xianghua]

Then demonstrate it.

i just did. the scientists cant figure out the correct tree since the genes tell differet story.

In this case classification is based on intended use and number of axles/wheels.

Engine type has nothing to do with it. Wheel type has nothing to do with it. Size has nothing to do with it.

that is the problem. they only consider few traits out of many. i refer to the whole object.

But what is a "truck trait"?

bigger wheels for instance. or back-up beepers.

This isn't a question you need to ask me. This is something you need to test yourself.

ok. here are types of bicycle:

and here are types of cars:

image from Cars types. Different car types icons set in detailed flat style. sedan and minivan, hatchback and coupe. car sale concept.

we can clearly see that all bicycles are more similar to each other than to cars.

 

[pitabread]

i just did. the scientists cant figure out the correct tree since the genes tell differet story.

I'm referring to your claims about the trees I constructed via cars and trucks. You haven't demonstrated that I used too few characteristics.

that is the problem. they only consider few traits out of many. i refer to the whole object.

a) You aren't referring to the "whole object", because you haven't defined what that means.

b) You're not the authority on how cars and trucks are categorized.

bigger wheels for instance. or back-up beepers.

Nope. Neither of these characteristics are defining characteristics of trucks. Not all trucks have back-up beepers. Not all trucks have bigger wheels.

<snip>

we can clearly see that all bicycles are more similar to each other than to cars.

This isn't how phylogenetic trees work. Phylogenetic trees are fundamentally statistically derived. Meaning you have to derive traits, construct a character matrix, and then construct a tree via a phylogenetic tree construction algorithm.

You still have not tried to do this. Do you not understand how phylogenetic trees work?

 

[xianghua]

I'm referring to your claims about the trees I constructed via cars and trucks. You haven't demonstrated that I used too few characteristics.

i demonstrated with living things. so i see no difference.

a) You aren't referring to the "whole object", because you haven't defined what that means.

it means that we need to check all the parts of the objects or most of them and not just few.

Nope. Neither of these characteristics are defining characteristics of trucks. Not all trucks have back-up beepers. Not all trucks have bigger wheels.

do you agre that most of them do have these characteristics?

This isn't how phylogenetic trees work.

we need to start with this data to build a tree.

 

[pitabread]

so i see no difference.

That's the issue. If you want to rebut my prior experiment with constructing trees of cars 'n trucks, you have to do so by constructing trees with cars 'n trucks.

If you think I used too few characteristics, then try doubling the number of characteristics and see if you get results closer to what you think you would get.

But posting random biology articles has nothing to do with the prior trees I constructed. Either address the experiment I performed or don't.

it means that we need to check all the parts of the objects or most of them and not just few.

So you say, but you've yet to demonstrate this. All you have is an unsupported assertion.

Are you ever going to try to construct a phylogenetic tree?

do you agre that most of them do have these characteristics?

"Most" is not relevant.

From the perspective of characteristics, things like back-up alarms or tire size would be polymorphic traits (since they can vary even among individual vehicles). You need to treat characteristics appropriately.

we need to start with this data to build a tree.

You better get to it then. Start compiling the data. Show us how it's done.

 

[SLP]

we need to start with this data to build a tree.

Show us a robot penguin that we cannot tell is a robot.

 

[xianghua]

"Most" is not relevant.

its very relevant since it shows almost unique traits of trucks compare with cars. so bigger wheels for instance will have more chance to appear in trucks in thier "phylogeny".

You better get to it then. Start compiling the data. Show us how it's done.

i start with the bicycle. a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle than to a tipical car. so this is my first step:

do you agree so far?

 

[pitabread]

its very relevant since it shows almost unique traits of trucks compare with cars.

"Almost" doesn't count. If it's not a unique trait then it's not a defining trait of that particular taxa. And in the case of things like back-up alarms or tire size, they are most certainly polymorphic traits since they can be swapped in and out at will.

What you are suggesting is arbitrarily manipulating the data to get the results you want. But that's not how things work.

so bigger wheels for instance will have more chance to appear in trucks in thier "phylogeny".

It's not about "chance". It's about discrete traits. Either they are unique to a particular taxa or not.

Specific wheel size is a not a unique trait among vehicles. Back-up alarms are not unique traits among vehicles.

i start with the bicycle. a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle than to a tipical car. so this is my first step:

View attachment 265143
do you agree so far?

Nope, this is not the first step.

The first step is to select specific "taxa" (e.g. specific models of bikes, cars, trucks, etc) and construct a data set of individual characteristics for each taxa you are comparing.

You need to start by compiling and posting your data set. Let us know when you've accomplished that.

(You also need more than two individual taxa since a phylogenetic tree of only two things has no meaning. I'd suggest starting out with eight to ten individual objects.)

 

[SLP]

If history is a guide, Lifepsyop will be back in a couple of weeks or months starting a new thread with a brand new totally unassailable disproof of evolution - just like all the other "science" threads he started....

 

[xianghua]

Nope, this is not the first step.

The first step is to select specific "taxa" (e.g. specific models of bikes, cars, trucks, etc)

no. we already know that a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle than to a car. thus we dont need to test many kinds of bikes. only bikes comprae to cars.

 

[pitabread]

no. we already know that a tipical bicycle is more similar to other bicycle than to a car. thus we dont need to test many kinds of bikes. only bikes comprae to cars.

That's not how phylogenetic trees are constructed.

Sounds like the first step for you is to do some research and learn how phylogenetic trees are actually created. Once you do that then maybe we can finally discuss them properly.

Here's a site with the very basics to get you started: Reconstructing trees: A simple example

 

[lifepsyop]

Were you aware that the genomes of many organisms have been fully sequenced and no such alternative 'potential phenotypes' have yet been discovered?

Epigenetics - Wikipedia

In biology, epigenetics is the study of heritable phenotype changes that do not involve alterations in the DNA sequence.[1] The Greek prefix epi- (ἐπι- "over, outside of, around") in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" the traditional genetic basis for inheritance.[2] Epigenetics most often involves changes that affect gene activity and expression, but the term can also be used to describe any heritable phenotypic change. Such effects on cellular and physiological phenotypic traits may result from external or environmental factors, or be part of normal development.

Phenotypic plasticity - Wikipedia

The developmental effects of nutrition and temperature have been demonstrated.[17] The gray wolf (Canis lupus) has wide phenotypic plasticity.[18][19] Additionally, male speckled wood butterflies have two morphs: one with three dots on its hindwing, and one with four dots on its hindwings. The development of the fourth dot is dependent on environmental conditions – more specifically, location and the time of year.[20] In amphibians, Pristimantis mutabilis has remarkable phenotypic plasticity.[21] Another example is the southern rockhopper penguin.[22] Rockhopper penguins are present at a variety of climates and locations; Amsterdam Island's subtropical waters, Kerguelen Archipelago's subarctic coastal waters, and Crozet Archipelago's subantarctic coastal waters.[22] Due to the species plasticity they are able to express different strategies and foraging behaviors depending on the climate and environment.[22] A main factor that has influenced the species' behavior is where food is located.


As is typical, evolutionists have very little understanding of actual biology... but does it really matter?

Just keep chanting: "evolution did it.... evolution did it...."

 

[Speedwell]

Epigenetics - Wikipedia

In biology, epigenetics is the study of heritable phenotype changes that do not involve alterations in the DNA sequence.[1] The Greek prefix epi- (ἐπι- "over, outside of, around") in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" the traditional genetic basis for inheritance.[2] Epigenetics most often involves changes that affect gene activity and expression, but the term can also be used to describe any heritable phenotypic change. Such effects on cellular and physiological phenotypic traits may result from external or environmental factors, or be part of normal development.

Phenotypic plasticity - Wikipedia

The developmental effects of nutrition and temperature have been demonstrated.[17] The gray wolf (Canis lupus) has wide phenotypic plasticity.[18][19] Additionally, male speckled wood butterflies have two morphs: one with three dots on its hindwing, and one with four dots on its hindwings. The development of the fourth dot is dependent on environmental conditions – more specifically, location and the time of year.[20] In amphibians, Pristimantis mutabilis has remarkable phenotypic plasticity.[21] Another example is the southern rockhopper penguin.[22] Rockhopper penguins are present at a variety of climates and locations; Amsterdam Island's subtropical waters, Kerguelen Archipelago's subarctic coastal waters, and Crozet Archipelago's subantarctic coastal waters.[22] Due to the species plasticity they are able to express different strategies and foraging behaviors depending on the climate and environment.[22] A main factor that has influenced the species' behavior is where food is located.


As is typical, evolutionists have very little understanding of actual biology... but does it really matter?

Just keep chanting: "evolution did it.... evolution did it...."

Then why did you post two articles from Wikipedia about actual evolutionary biology if you think they reflect very little understanding?

 

[SLP]

By the way - your Wiki-based genetics knowledge does not solve your problems - epigenetics cannot account for what you claim magically exists in the genome:

As is typical, evolutionists have very little understanding of actual biology... but does it really matter?

Just keep chanting: "evolution did it.... evolution did it...."

Even as you keep chanting GodDidIt GodDidIt GodDidIt?

You've certainly got all the silly buzzwords and projection down, that much is obvious.

But I don't see anything to convince a skeptic. I see overconfident (i.e., Dunning-Kruger effect-like) assertions, but I see no evidence or rationale for those assertions., as is the norm in the silly superstition that is creationism.

1. Show us your evidence for this "genetic program." And do not say "genome" unless you are prepared to show at least SOME of the genomic evidence for a "program" consisting of "several different potential phenotypes that can be loaded from environmental triggers".
And while you are at it, perhaps you can lay out the evidence for the mechanism by which these hidden phenotypes are kept hidden until they are needed by these mysterious "environmental triggers", and how they are realized once these 'triggers' are manifest.

2. Show us where in any evolutionary scenario anyone has ever posited that the "genetic program" for a fish can be "organized" into one for a human. "Organized" implies that all of the genetic material necessary for a human is already present in the genome of a fish. I should think that even a creationist could see how short-sighted an empty assertion that one is, but then again....

I anticipate little more than some variation on evolution being called a religion some more, accompanied by some additional empty assertions, but one never knows.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Epigenetics - Wikipedia

In biology, epigenetics is the study of heritable phenotype changes that do not involve alterations in the DNA sequence.[1] The Greek prefix epi- (ἐπι- "over, outside of, around") in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" the traditional genetic basis for inheritance.[2] Epigenetics most often involves changes that affect gene activity and expression, but the term can also be used to describe any heritable phenotypic change. Such effects on cellular and physiological phenotypic traits may result from external or environmental factors, or be part of normal development.

Phenotypic plasticity - Wikipedia

The developmental effects of nutrition and temperature have been demonstrated.[17] The gray wolf (Canis lupus) has wide phenotypic plasticity.[18][19] Additionally, male speckled wood butterflies have two morphs: one with three dots on its hindwing, and one with four dots on its hindwings. The development of the fourth dot is dependent on environmental conditions – more specifically, location and the time of year.[20] In amphibians, Pristimantis mutabilis has remarkable phenotypic plasticity.[21] Another example is the southern rockhopper penguin.[22] Rockhopper penguins are present at a variety of climates and locations; Amsterdam Island's subtropical waters, Kerguelen Archipelago's subarctic coastal waters, and Crozet Archipelago's subantarctic coastal waters.[22] Due to the species plasticity they are able to express different strategies and foraging behaviors depending on the climate and environment.[22] A main factor that has influenced the species' behavior is where food is located.


As is typical, evolutionists have very little understanding of actual biology... but does it really matter?

Just keep chanting: "evolution did it.... evolution did it...."

As a human biology graduate, I'm well aware of epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity (both of which have considerable selective advantage) which allow for variation in specific phenotypic features, but not alternative phenotypes - unless you think that an individual, for example, gaining or losing weight, or becoming more or less fit, etc., would be examples of an 'alternative' phenotypes, in which case it's trivially true, and people are switching phenotypes continually, and so what?

 

[SLP]

Looking through some old threads the Lifepsyop started that I might have taken part in - found one on 'Illusions of Phylogeny'. A good one. He claimed that the concept of the molecular clock was a "prediction" of the theory of evolution (it wasn't). He also claimed that the molecular clock was falsified (not really, but OK), and since phylogenetics relies on the molecular clock (it doesn't), it can be dismissed (right...). But he declared it so confidently!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Looking through some old threads the Lifepsyop started that I might have taken part in - found one on 'Illusions of Phylogeny'. A good one. He claimed that the concept of the molecular clock was a "prediction" of the theory of evolution (it wasn't). He also claimed that the molecular clock was falsified (not really, but OK), and since phylogenetics relies on the molecular clock (it doesn't), it can be dismissed (right...). But he declared it so confidently!

Yes; it's a common ploy, say it loudly and confidently and people are more likely to believe it because they can't imagine having the gall and amorality to do that themselves. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote an excellent paper on this kind of person, called 'On Bullsh*t' (full paper here).

 

[SLP]

Yes; it's a common ploy, say it loudly and confidently and people are more likely to believe it because they can't imagine having the gall and amorality to do that themselves. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote an excellent paper on this kind of person, called 'On Bullsh*t' (full paper here).

Thanks for the reminder - I'd forgotten all about that paper!