Clade

[juvenissun]

Actually incorrect, universal common ancestry is not actually a part of evolutionary theory nor is it vital to evolution being valid.

Why not?

If chimp and human do not have an common ancestor, would it make the idea of evolution false?

 

[Armoured]

Why not?

If chimp and human do not have an common ancestor, would it make the idea of evolution false?

No. Why would it? Before I understood about ribosomal coding, I thought it perfectly reasonable that life may have occurred multiple times, and various life forms we see today are the result of utterly separate family trees, merely following the same chemical pathways and natural selection paradigm. Not as recently as the human ape split, but theoretically, there's no reason why not if natural selection is a universal principle.

Of course, ribosome coding does, in fact, strongly suggest that every living thing on earth has a common ancestor. But there is no reason to believe an organism of a completely different lineage won't be found tomorrow. It wouldn't affect the validity of the ToE one iota.

 

[In situ]

If you can not answer my simple response, then why don't you just go away?

I asked first: WHERE IS COMMON ANCESTRY ASSUMED?

You have not only been avoiding that question all the time, but you completely ignored it (by cutting it away when you quoted me) and when that did not work claim my argument to be "rubbish" and when that did not work you now continue drop smoke shield in the hope to distract.

Answer my question, else everything else you have to say which is based on that unsupported claim of yours is "rubbish".

But perhaps, as alrady said, it is easier to admit it; you don't know.... You don't know how to answer because your statement is based on faith, a statement repeated as a mantra among creationist until they started to believe it to be true. But believing something to be true does not make it so unless you actually can show it to be true as well.

That which can be asserted with no evidence, can be discarded with no evidence...

So, why should i take creationist on their words only?

All creationist want the game to be scientific, so lets play the scientific game then; Where is your evidence to support your claim that ancestry is assumed in cladistics?

How do you measure the "distance"

A distance is a metric of space. The metric defines distances between the elements in this space. A distance is simply the length between two elements (a pair) in this space. How the distance itself is measured, i.e. how the metric is defined, is application dependent.

Is that answer clear enough?

in your whatever algorithm?

The "whatever algorithm", which you so disrespectful refer to it, is called Neighbor Joining, have you already forget that?

Anyway, I did not had to answer this question, I only did it because I have the feeling you are not asking because you want to learn anything (which is obvious as you refuse to address the questions I have) but to check if I know what I am talking about; sure check my card as much you want, but unless you can convince me that you really want to learn anything then google university is at your disposal at any time - because I don't have any, whatsoever, obligation to fill in the gaps of your own ignorance just so you can deny the facts afterwards.

You are the one claiming that ancestry is assumed. If you do that, are critical to a scientific theory, then you better be prepared to defend that claim as well. However, how answering your question on how distances is measured clarify little what your foundation is for your claim that ancestry is assumed in cladistics.

The truth is, and we both know this, common ancestry is not assumed, and you cannot point to where it is assumed simply because it isn't assumed. All you do is playing the creationist games of avoiding answer direct questions otherwise your bluff is all to obvious - including your own self imposed denial of facts.

That which can be asserted with no evidence, can be discarded with no evidence...

Because.....

The claim that ancestry is assumed is nonsense; common ancestry is implied from the observed fact that life is a nested set and as such common ancestry is a fact. Fact does not need to be assumed. Period. That is why your claim about "assumptions" is such obvious silly nonsense for anyone that actually know what they are talking about.

It is just as much nonsense to say it is assumed that fruits comes from fruit trees and then when somebody point outs that apples grows on apples tree then you object this by claiming that there is still plenty of other fruits that is "just assumed" to grow on trees, and as well to point out that some apples never been observed to be picked form a tree, and so on for ever. Such arguments are pure nonsense. (This is an analogy for the denial of transitional fossils, i.e. the physical evidence for common ancestors, if you didn't get that).

I would not be surprised is you disregard all this as "rubbish" as well because that what denial is all about in the end, to call fact rubbish, isn't it?

 

[In situ]

Why not?

Because the pesky evolutionist Carl von Linne's study already showed that life is a nested set.....

If chimp and human do not have an common ancestor, would it make the idea of evolution false?

No, but your question indicates you do not (or do not want to) understand the theory of evolution.
(The only way for Human and chimp not to have a common ancestor is not to share unique characters, but they do therefore they have a common ancestor).

IF god existed and IF creationism is all true and correct then we would not have this discussion. However, the only reason why we have this discussion is because hypothetical IF's are asked by creationists which are already refuted by facts (and then denied by the very same creationist - or do you have evidence for spontaneous generations?); humans and chimpanzees are nested with each other in the three of life, if you think something is wrong with the scientific understanding of this then show us a definition of primates (or mammals for that sake) that does not include humans.

Question: are humans mammals or not?

If we are not mammals why do we have unique characters, such as, fur, milk glands, ovaries, etc, etc, etc that uniquely identify any organism as a mammal?

 

[In situ]

(The only way for Human and chimp not to have a common ancestor is not to share unique characters, but they do therefore they have a common ancestor).

Clarification: this does not mean the ToE cannot be falsified (which question like the one asked most often is design to bait for by creationists). The way this could falsify the ToE is if human, or chimp, violates the principles of a a nested set (by creating unexplained loops in the three of life that cannot be explain by naturalistic means) then for sure ToE would be on very weak grounds, but they don't, and we never seen such unexplained violations, which means there exists no evidence that humans, or any other creature, ever been spontaneously (read: magically) generated.

 

[In situ]

Screwdrivers use the idea of a screws. It bears the meaning of screwing tings, and thus screwdrivers is a system supporting the idea of screws.

Is a screwdriver only ideologic and has no practical use (except labeling)? Since craftsmen will certainly oppose this idea, so I really like to learn even a single case that this screw-focused screwdriver is useful to solve a practical problem. What I meant is that if we do not involve the use of screws, then a screwdriver won't work in a practical sense.

If a hammer is the only tool you have, then every problem will look like a nail....

 

[juvenissun]

No. Why would it? Before I understood about ribosomal coding, I thought it perfectly reasonable that life may have occurred multiple times, and various life forms we see today are the result of utterly separate family trees, merely following the same chemical pathways and natural selection paradigm. Not as recently as the human ape split, but theoretically, there's no reason why not if natural selection is a universal principle.

Of course, ribosome coding does, in fact, strongly suggest that every living thing on earth has a common ancestor. But there is no reason to believe an organism of a completely different lineage won't be found tomorrow. It wouldn't affect the validity of the ToE one iota.

TE has creation as a factor in it. It is out of the question in the argument.

 

[juvenissun]

A distance is a metric of space. The metric defines distances between the elements in this space. A distance is simply the length between two elements (a pair) in this space. How the distance itself is measured, i.e. how the metric is defined, is application dependent.

Is that answer clear enough?

OK, this is clear.
How do you apply that to life evolution? Where is the distance to measure? I assume the measurement is needed for the "neighboring jointing" argument (I still do not know what is that)

 

[In situ]

OK, this is clear.
How do you apply that to life evolution? Where is the distance to measure? I assume the measurement is needed for the "neighboring jointing" argument (I still do not know what is that)

WHERE IS SCREWS ASSUMED TO EXISTS?

You have not only been avoiding that question all the time, but you completely ignored it (by cutting it away when you quoted me) and when that did not work you called my claim that screws exists "rubbish" and when that did not work you now continue drop smoke shield in the hope to distract.

Answer my question, else everything else you have to say about screwdrivers which is based on your claim that screws is only is assumed to exists is "rubbish".

But perhaps, as already said, it is easier to admit it; you don't know.... You don't know how to answer because your claim that screws does not exists is based on faith, a statement repeated as a mantra among screw-denalists until they started to believe screw does not exists. But believing screws doe snot exists does not make it so unless you actually can show it to be true as well.

That which can be asserted with no evidence, can be discarded with no evidence...

So, why should I take screw-denalists on their words only?

All screw-denalists want the game to be scientific, so lets play the scientific game then; Where is your evidence to support your claim that screws are assumed to exists for screwdrivers?

The "whatever algorithm", which you so disrespectful refer to it, is called How To Use A Screwdriver, have you already forget that?

Anyway, I did not had to answer the question about how a screwdriver is used, I only did it because I have the feeling you are not asking because you want to learn to use a screwdrivers (which is obvious as you refuse to address my question on why think screws does not exists) but to check if I know anything about screwdrivers; sure check my knowledge as much you want, but unless you can convince me that you really want to learn how to use a screwdriver then google university is at your disposal at any time - because I don't have any, whatsoever, obligation to teach you how this tool works just so you can deny the fact that screws exists afterwards.

You are the one claiming that screws does not exists. If you do that and then pretend to want to learn how to use screwdriver, then you better be prepared to not be believed at all – but rather laughed at. However, how answering your question how a screwdriver works clarify little what your reasons is behind claiming that that screws does not exists.

The truth is, and we both know this, screws are not assumed to exists, and you cannot point to where it is assumed simply because it isn't assumed. All you do is playing the screw-denalists games of avoiding answer direct questions about why screws does not exists otherwise your bluff is all to obvious - including your own self imposed denial that the screws exists.

That which can be asserted with no evidence, can be discarded with no evidence...

Because.....

The claim that screws are assumed to exist is nonsense; a screws is implied to hold it all together from the observed fact that screws-heads are observed everywhere in woods, metals plastics etc. and as such the existence of the screw is an observed fact. Fact does not need to be assumed. Period. That is why your claim that screws does not exists is such obvious silly nonsense for anyone that actually been using a screwdriver and unscrewed old screws and replaced them with new once.

It is just as much nonsense to say it is assumed that fruits comes from fruit trees and then when somebody point outs that apples grows on apples tree then you object this by claiming that there is still plenty of other fruits that is "just assumed" to grow on trees, and as well to point out that some apples never been observed to be picked form a tree, and so on for ever. Such arguments are pure nonsense. (This is an analogy for the screw-denalism of old rusty screws, i.e. the physical evidence that screws existed for a very long time, if you didn't get that).

I would not be surprised is you disregard all this as "rubbish" as well because that is what screw-denalism is all about in the end, to deny that screws exists, isn't it?

 

[In situ]

OK, this is clear.
How do you apply that to life evolution? Where is the distance to measure? I assume the measurement is needed for the "neighboring jointing" argument (I still do not know what is that)

I don't play the creationist games, I know their game... and the game is called "at all cost, avoid the real issues that will prove you to be wrong"....

You have claimed that screws (ancestry) does not exist for screwdrivers (cladistics).

The real issue here is to explain to me, and everyone else, why anyone would like to use a tool for something that does not exist before we start to talk about how the tools works, and as well how the best brains in our world can be so stupid that they try to use a screwdriver (cladistics) on nails (non existing ancestry) and still not have figured out that a hammer would be better to use.

 

[In situ]

TE has creation as a factor in it. It is out of the question in the argument.

Do you have any example of spontaneous generation which we need to explain within the theoretical framework of the theory of evolution?

If not, why would a scientific explanation need to include non-observed phenomena?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have any example of spontaneous generation which we need to explain within the theoretical framework of the theory of evolution?

If not, why would a scientific explanation need to include non-observed phenomena?

Typical creationist tactic. Lets add stuff in there, to muddy the waters.

 

[In situ]

"neighboring jointing" argument (I still do not know what is that)

Neighbor Joining is (as I told several times before) an algorithm, not an argument.

With every reply you make you just show how little you actually wants to learn, because you seams to have an amazing ability to forget faster than I am able to "teach" you anything.

 

[In situ]

Typical creationist tactic. Lets add stuff in there, to muddy the waters.

It was pretty clear to me (and self admitted by OP) that the original post was not meant to be anything else the usual creationist nonsense of taunting the theory of evolution with creationistic mantras.

Because, how do you explain to somebody what the practical applications of a tool is when at the same time the person in question denies the existens of the very same things the tool operates on?

 

[bhsmte]

It was pretty clear to me (and self admitted by OP) that the original post was not meant to be anything else the usual creationist nonsense of taunting the theory of evolution with creationistic mantras.

Because, how do you explain to somebody what the practical applications of a tool is when at the same time the person in question denies the existens of the very same things the tool operates on?

Juvy has a bit of a track record.

 

[In situ]

Where is the distance to measure?

In the differences.

 

[In situ]

Juvy has a bit of a track record.

If he want to believe in supernatural force that created life, fine with me, but once he start to claim that scientific observations are "assumptions" and use that as motivation for his supernatural beliefs then, well...

It is like somebody would visit a workshop for craftsmen and ask "why do you use screwdriver when screws does not exists?". Just imagine the stares such person would get. But somehow creationist assumes they can ask the very same and then demand to be taken serious and be treated with respect...

Creationism spits knowledge in the face...

The only reason creationists get away with their nonsense is that most people does not understand the implication of a nested set and not even what a nested set is. But they are excused, even the best mind of history missed this as well, but these days there exists no excuse not to know for those that actually wants to know (or claims to know).

 

[juvenissun]

Screwdrivers use the idea of a screws. It bears the meaning of screwing tings, and thus screwdrivers is a system supporting the idea of screws.

Is a screwdriver only ideologic and has no practical use (except labeling)? Since craftsmen will certainly oppose this idea, so I really like to learn even a single case that this screw-focused screwdriver is useful to solve a practical problem. What I meant is that if we do not involve the use of screws, then a screwdriver won't work in a practical sense.

If a hammer is the only tool you have, then every problem will look like a nail....

You are confused on the logic sequence.

The idea of screwing existed first, then we have a screw driver to materialize the idea.

The idea of common ancestor is right on the opposite. We see similar life forms first, THEN we have the idea of common ancestry.

And, this is the theme of this thread, the common ancestry is an USELESS idea. It can not even match the simple idea of screwing.

 

[juvenissun]

WHERE IS SCREWS ASSUMED TO EXISTS?

You have not only been avoiding that question all the time, but you completely ignored it (by cutting it away when you quoted me) and when that did not work you called my claim that screws exists "rubbish" and when that did not work you now continue drop smoke shield in the hope to distract.

Answer my question, else everything else you have to say about screwdrivers which is based on your claim that screws is only is assumed to exists is "rubbish".

But perhaps, as already said, it is easier to admit it; you don't know.... You don't know how to answer because your claim that screws does not exists is based on faith, a statement repeated as a mantra among screw-denalists until they started to believe screw does not exists. But believing screws doe snot exists does not make it so unless you actually can show it to be true as well.

That which can be asserted with no evidence, can be discarded with no evidence...

So, why should I take screw-denalists on their words only?

All screw-denalists want the game to be scientific, so lets play the scientific game then; Where is your evidence to support your claim that screws are assumed to exists for screwdrivers?

The "whatever algorithm", which you so disrespectful refer to it, is called How To Use A Screwdriver, have you already forget that?

Anyway, I did not had to answer the question about how a screwdriver is used, I only did it because I have the feeling you are not asking because you want to learn to use a screwdrivers (which is obvious as you refuse to address my question on why think screws does not exists) but to check if I know anything about screwdrivers; sure check my knowledge as much you want, but unless you can convince me that you really want to learn how to use a screwdriver then google university is at your disposal at any time - because I don't have any, whatsoever, obligation to teach you how this tool works just so you can deny the fact that screws exists afterwards.

You are the one claiming that screws does not exists. If you do that and then pretend to want to learn how to use screwdriver, then you better be prepared to not be believed at all – but rather laughed at. However, how answering your question how a screwdriver works clarify little what your reasons is behind claiming that that screws does not exists.

The truth is, and we both know this, screws are not assumed to exists, and you cannot point to where it is assumed simply because it isn't assumed. All you do is playing the screw-denalists games of avoiding answer direct questions about why screws does not exists otherwise your bluff is all to obvious - including your own self imposed denial that the screws exists.

That which can be asserted with no evidence, can be discarded with no evidence...

Because.....

The claim that screws are assumed to exist is nonsense; a screws is implied to hold it all together from the observed fact that screws-heads are observed everywhere in woods, metals plastics etc. and as such the existence of the screw is an observed fact. Fact does not need to be assumed. Period. That is why your claim that screws does not exists is such obvious silly nonsense for anyone that actually been using a screwdriver and unscrewed old screws and replaced them with new once.

It is just as much nonsense to say it is assumed that fruits comes from fruit trees and then when somebody point outs that apples grows on apples tree then you object this by claiming that there is still plenty of other fruits that is "just assumed" to grow on trees, and as well to point out that some apples never been observed to be picked form a tree, and so on for ever. Such arguments are pure nonsense. (This is an analogy for the screw-denalism of old rusty screws, i.e. the physical evidence that screws existed for a very long time, if you didn't get that).

I would not be surprised is you disregard all this as "rubbish" as well because that is what screw-denalism is all about in the end, to deny that screws exists, isn't it?

Could I ask the moderator to delete this irrelevant post? It is annoy.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have any example of spontaneous generation which we need to explain within the theoretical framework of the theory of evolution?

If not, why would a scientific explanation need to include non-observed phenomena?

I really like you go away from my thread. Unless you start to talk about the question in the OP.