Common Design and Phylogenies

[AV1611VET]

So you do acknowledge that taxonomy is correctly done?

"Correct" only in the sense that you can make it look good on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you deny that fatherhood tests works?

Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thinking a little bit more on what you just written here. How convenient isn't it for you to just dismiss the fact that, says, humans share milk glands, hair, diversified teeth, three ear bones, a single lower jaw bone, give life birth, placenta and hundreds of other unique (nested) characteristics with all other mammals as just a coincident?

It is not a coincidence.

It is done by design.

And the technical term is ontological reduction.

A Ford "shares" a fan belt with a Buick and vice versa.

Does that mean they are physically related to each other?

Can you trace a Buick back to a Ford, or a Ford back to a Buick?

 

[The Cadet]

A Ford "shares" a fan belt with a Buick and vice versa.

Would you expect this similarity in fan belt to have any significant influence on the number of doors the car has? Or what radio system is installed? Or whether the windows are automatic? Because if you tell me the type of ear bones an animal has, I can tell you whether they have scales, feathers, or fur. That's the big difference here.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would the evidence need to be different for a true positive?

God having done it.

The way you guys have DNA so interconnected on paper, it would take each and every genus on earth to have its own stand-alone DNA structure before you'll believe in instant creation.

In other words, the DNA profile of every kind would have to ... if reverse engineered ... lead to a dead end.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you expect this similarity in fan belt to have any significant influence on the number of doors the car has?

No.

Or what radio system is installed?

No.

Or whether the windows are automatic?

No.

Because if you tell me the type of ear bones an animal has, I can tell you whether they have scales, feathers, or fur.

I'm impressed.

I really am.

That tells me that God used three different designs of ear bones in making about thirty different kinds.

That's the big difference here.

The big difference here is whether or not God used three different "snap on parts," or whether one ear bone fathered another ear bone, which fathered another ear bone over thousands (if not millions) of years.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A Ford "shares" a fan belt with a Buick and vice versa.

Human made products do not fall into a nested hierarchy. NOT EVEN when they come from a single manufacturer.

Does that mean they are physically related to each other?
Can you trace a Buick back to a Ford, or a Ford back to a Buick?

Furthermore, cars and other such products, aren't biological organisms that self-reproduce with variation. So why you even bring this up, is some kind of mystery.

 

[AV1611VET]

Human made products do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Neither did God's "products."

Furthermore, cars and other such products, aren't biological organisms that self-reproduce with variation. So why you even bring this up, is some kind of mystery.

I would say it is more likely that a Ford sired a Buick than it was that God created Adam from the DNA of Homo Harry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Neither did God's "products."

If by "god's products", you mean living things... then you are factually incorrect.
Living things do fall into nested hierarchies.

I would say it is more likely that a Ford sired a Buick than it was that God created Adam from the DNA of Homo Harry.

I don't know what this means.

I can only repeat myself...

Products that are manufactured in factories do not fall into nested hierarchies - as we would expect.

Living things do fall into nested hierarchies - as we would expect if evolution is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Living things do fall into nested hierarchies - as we would expect if evolution is true.

Living things can be put into nested hierarchies.

There's a difference.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Living things can be put into nested hierarchies.

There's a difference.

No, they factually consist of nested hierarchies.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they factually consist of nested hierarchies.

At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.

Ontological reduction, seen from the outside, looks like things are connected; when, in fact, they aren't.

Special documentation would therefore be required to distinguish ontological reduction from nesting.

Does nesting show man before whales, or whales before man?

(Please answer this. Then I have a verse from Genesis 1 to show you.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.

Ontological reduction, seen from the outside, looks like things are connected; when, in fact, they aren't.

Special documentation would therefore be required to distinguish ontological reduction from nesting.

Does nesting show man before whales, or whales before man?

(Please answer this. Then I have a verse from Genesis 1 to show you.)

Nah, onotological reductionism is a nice phrase, but it is a rather worthless claim on your part. You need to show evidence that it is correct. When you make a positive claim the burden of proof is upon you. Without any evidence there is no reason to believe your version of O R.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nah, onotological reductionism is a nice phrase, but it is a rather worthless claim on your part.

It's a powerful explanation of how man and apes can have the same DNA, but not be linked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a powerful explanation of how man and apes can have the same DNA, but not be linked.

Sorry, it is a weak excuse at best.

By the way, you just indirectly admitted that. I asked for evidence and you could not provide any. That is very telling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.

Ontological reduction, seen from the outside, looks like things are connected; when, in fact, they aren't.

But, at the expense of repeating myself, they factually are nested.

That phylogenetic tree that I linked you to... that was generated by computer based on inputted genomes. It's not a "force fit". It's literally comparing genes and mapping them out and a hierarchical tree is the automated output. It didn't have to be the output, but it is... because that is simply how genomes are structured.

It is what it is and it's not what it isn't.

And what it is, is a nested hierarchy. It is an exercise in futility to argue against that. It's a fact. An observable, demonstrable fact. It's also why fatherhood tests work.

Special documentation would therefore be required to distinguish ontological reduction from nesting.
Does nesting show man before whales, or whales before man?

Both whales and humans are extant creatures that share an ancestor.

(Please answer this. Then I have a verse from Genesis 1 to show you.)

I don't really care what is written in your bronze-age book when the topic is 21st century scientific knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, at the expense of repeating myself, they factually are nested.

QV please: My Snowman Challenge II

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not a coincidence.

It is done by design.

And the technical term is ontological reduction.

A Ford "shares" a fan belt with a Buick and vice versa.

Does that mean they are physically related to each other?

Fords and Buicks do not fall into objective phylogenies. That's the whole point. Life does fall into objective phylogenies.

 

[Loudmouth]

God having done it.

The way you guys have DNA so interconnected on paper, it would take each and every genus on earth to have its own stand-alone DNA structure before you'll believe in instant creation.

You once again demonstrate that you still don't understand what a phylogeny is.

A designer could create a species that has an exact copy of a jellyfish, mouse, human, and hummingbird gene, all mixed together in the same genome. This would VIOLATE a nested hierarchy. It would disprove evolution.

What you can't seem to understand that it isn't simply sharing DNA that produces a phylogeny. It is the PATTERN of shared and different DNA that produces a phylogeny.

Now, can you tell me why God could not create a species with a mixture of DNA from several disparate species?

 

[Loudmouth]

At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.

Ontological reduction, seen from the outside, looks like things are connected; when, in fact, they aren't.

Special documentation would therefore be required to distinguish ontological reduction from nesting.

Does nesting show man before whales, or whales before man?

(Please answer this. Then I have a verse from Genesis 1 to show you.)

Then what pattern of shared DNA would a REAL connection produce? How would it be different from what we observe?