Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Prove it. Show us how to construct a nested hierarchy of cars using shared and derived traits.
Your whole argument really does rest on this one claim. If you can't show how cars can be put into a single objective nested hierarchy, then the rest of your argument crumbles.
I already explained this to Split_Rock. According to your theory of evolution, the *evidence* for a nested hierarchy could have been lost due to a high rate of loss and/or replacement of traits that define such nested groups.
Thus evolution could accommodate the lack of a nested hierarchy, while still proposing it exists, only 'masked'.
Nice try. I never said that cars could be put into an "objective" nested hierarchy. And neither is there an"objective" nested hierarchy of common descent. For instance, birds could potentially nest within a common ancestor shared with mammals, instead of within reptiles/dinosaurs. Proposed phylogenies are not objective.
Both types of nested hierarchies are affected by subjective interpretation and in both hierarchies, non-nesting character traits may be assumed "independent convergences" or "swapped modules" as usincognito likes to call them.
Another example is found in bats, where the wings of megabats, (proposed to be more closely related to primates than microbats), were seriously considered to have evolved their wings independently of other bats. So we see a trait as complex as bat wings could be potentially 'swapped' out of their nesting within the common bat body-plan if it led to a more greatly 'resolved' phylogeny.
And I already gave you an example of this in whales and that they still fit in the nested hierarchy.
You're skirting the issue. What if the traits that classify whales as mammals happened to be lost due to a high rate of loss/replacement of those traits?
Loudmouth:
If you can't show how cars can be put into a single objective nested hierarchy, then the rest of your argument crumbles.
Nice try. I never said that cars could be put into an "objective" nested hierarchy.
And neither is there an"objective" nested hierarchy of common descent. For instance, birds could potentially nest within a common ancestor shared with mammals, instead of within reptiles/dinosaurs.
Proposed phylogenies are not objective.
Both types of nested hierarchies are affected by subjective interpretation and in both hierarchies, non-nesting character traits may be assumed "independent convergences" or "swapped modules" as usincognito likes to call them.
Another example is found in bats, where the wings of megabats, (proposed to be more closely related to primates than microbats), were seriously considered to have evolved their wings independently of other bats. So we see a trait as complex as bat wings could be potentially 'swapped' out of their nesting within the common bat body-plan if it led to a more greatly 'resolved' phylogeny.
You're skirting the issue. What if the traits that classify whales as mammals happened to be lost due to a high rate of loss/replacement of those traits?
Loss of lactation, hair, being warm blooded, and the other traits? As if that would happen within our lifetime.
But yes, if they lost those traits that define them as mammals, they would no longer be mammals.
Huh? The point is that this would have happened over millions of years of unobservable mystical evolution time.
That's the point. They would fall outside of a nested grouping within mammals due to a rapid loss of defining characteristics, even if they had actually evolved from mammals originally.
That's the point. They would fall outside of a nested grouping within mammals due to a rapid loss of defining characteristics, even if they had actually evolved from mammals originally.
You're skirting the issue. What if the traits that classify whales as mammals happened to be lost due to a high rate of loss/replacement of those traits?
That is simply incorrect. Since birds share many more derived characters with reptiles than they do with mammals, they cannot be places as sister group to mammals.
DNA sequences are not affected by subjective interpretations.
And what exactly is the problem with convergent evolution?
Once a mammal, always a mammal. You cannot escape your ancestry.
Birds could potentially be placed much closer to mammals.
Birds could potentially be placed much closer to mammals. That was the whole point of this discussion, not what is observed today, but what Evolution could accommodate if observations were different - that Evolution theory could accommodate multiple positions of birds, etc., thus it is not fulfilling any predictions of some "objective" nested hierarchy.
Evolutionary phylogeny could potentially accommodate multiple, highly contrasting outcomes, so it can not then claim one of those outcomes as evidence for Evolution.
Also since much of this discussion was based around the possible discovery of "mammal feathers"... far from falsifying evolution, this character trait would simply strengthen an alternative view of phylogeny.
Of course they are. Just look at molecular clock assumptions and incomplete lineage sorting. Extremely subjective.
Almost everything is subjective when you're dealing with imaginary common ancestors.
It's a device that can be used to rescue non-nested traits in phylogeny the same way it could be used to explain "swapped modules" on designed objects like cars.
This is purely hypothetical and in no way is observed in how any organisms are nested now. That's the point. Organisms are nested based on the traits they have & share not the on the ones they don't.
Besides where would you put them? They would still be vertebrates, still belong to chordata, still be animals, and still have eukaryotic cells, etc.
Who knows... The point is that evolutionists would still be able to accommodate the non-nested pattern by invoking a rapid loss of traits that define the nested group.
It could be argued that selection pressures were so high on the loss/replacement of those traits, that fossil evidence may be totally lacking, thus the nested hierarchy signal would be masked. i.e. "natural selection did it."
Yet, it doesn't.
Yet, it doesn't.
Yet, it doesn't.Molecular clocks are only relevant when we are giving times to the trees, and here we are not.
Incomplete lineage sorting is only an issue in very shallow phylogenies,
Furthermore, the sheer amount of data that we have today (hundreds of thousands of loci per species) eliminates most of these problems.
They would only be imaginary if there were no fossils.
It's funny how this "device" always demonstrates that evolution did, in fact, happened. Take bats and bird wings. Superficially very similar and serving a similar function. Structurally and genetically, completely different. A clear example of a morphotype that evolved twice to fill the same niche.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?