the self replicating watch argument

[PsychoSarah]

How would we know reactions in a different nature?

-_- there is no difference between the chemistry of a footprint made by different animals. All footprints made in the same mud should be able to fossilize relatively equally, and the differences in depth of the footprints clearly don't matter because their are plenty of fossilized dinosaur footprints that are from animals roughly the same weight as humans around. Face it, you are done.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If the flood was around the KT layer, then neanderthals are long long long after the flood.

Yeah, I wasn't replying to you there, obviously. Someone else claimed that Neanderthals died out before the flood, so why not respond to them?

 

[xianghua]

Uh no, it is not simply dividing into four groups. First they are divided into 17 groups. Then the complex nesting arrangement of the taxa is shown. Finally, diagrams like this are consistently shown to have high statistical significance.

There are a million billion possible unrooted trees with 17 groups. In spite of so many possibilities, multiple factors confirm this is the correct one.

again: all those points fit with this image too (8 groups):

so where is the difference?

Science shows that the number of convergences are small compared to the data that fit perfectly.

realy? how small? give me a number.

 

[pitabread]

ok. but we agree that a bicylce is more similar to another bicylce than to a car. right? and the same is true for airplane and a car. right?

*sigh*

Let me put it this way:

If I walked into a parking lot containing a bunch of bicycles and a bunch of cars, I could sort them into two groups.

In fact, I'd even be willing to say that those two groups of objects might have enough distinct characteristics that they would sort themselves into two groups via phylogenetic algorithms. However, picking sufficiently distinct objects solely for the purpose of lumping them into two groupings seems rather pointless.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, phylogenetic tree construction isn't about sorting things into a couple broad groups. Phylogenetic tree construction involves taking a whole bunch of different things and creating hierarchical trees that show the relationships of all the things in question. And then creating more trees via other characteristics and seeing if one can get statistically convergent trees to confirm those relationships.

As I already tried with cars and trucks, I didn't get statistically convergent trees. And I'm willing to bet if you tried the same thing with a bunch of bicycles and a bunch of cars, you likely won't either.

 

[pitabread]

this isnt what we see here:

I've already demonstrated that cars and trucks don't sort themselves like that. Why continue to argue something that has already been shown to be false?

 

[doubtingmerle]

again: all those points fit with this image too (8 groups):

so where is the difference?

Back to this? I already answered this in detail. See

the self replicating watch argument

And

the self replicating watch argument

You just ignore my responses and hope to impress the rubes by pretending I never answered.

Pathetic tactic, that.

realy? how small? give me a number.

Again, answered many times.

Again, it depends on how many criteria you have. Scientists look at all the criteria they can for the taxa they are comparing, and then calculate the consistency index. For the study to significantly prove something, the consistency index has to be above the curve shown on the graph at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 . You were told that over and over. You just ignore it.

Multiple studies for life show conclusively that they are significant. These studies have been peer reviewed and accepted. Do you dispute them? Then go through the calculations and show where they went wrong. It is not my job to do your homework for you. I don't know how many problems it takes for the consistency index to drop below the curve. It depends on the situation. If you think some of those studies have enough convergencies to fall below the curve, you calculate it and show where the scientists went wrong. It is not my job to do your work for you.

You were told this over and over. You just ignore it.

 

[pitabread]

You were told this over and over. You just ignore it.

And yet we continue to respond in vain...

Hopefully the lurkers get something out of this, because xianghua sure doesn't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And yet we continue to respond in vain...

Hopefully the lurkers get something out of this, because xianghua sure doesn't.

I'm not sure why, but I always click on this thread to see what Xianghua and Dad are saying. Maybe it doesn't accomplish much to be here, but I do keep myself entertained and I have learned a lot from being here. Perhaps some others have learned from what we said also.

 

[dad]

Ah, now you change to saying that the nested pattern is indeed because of evolution. Yes, I agree, the nested pattern we see in cats is because cats evolved. The nested pattern in the horse tree is because the horse family evolved. On that we agree.

No. No. There is no horse family that we know about because the fossils you have are so totally unrepresentative of life on earth in the past. Yes, a lot of evolving did happen from the kinds, but science is in no position yo know what is what!

But the nested pattern in nature goes far beyond the family level. You accept evolution at approximately the level of the family. If what we saw in nature was distinct family-kinds, with no obvious nesting of the families, then your view might have merit. But that is not what we see. Even if we take families as the taxa, and seek to find how the families interrelate, we find a nested hierarchy leading up to these families. So if a nested pattern within a family is evidence for evolution, why is not a nested pattern leading up to families also evidence for evolution?

Why not? Because you have no clue what a family really is. Your so called families are based on maybe 5% of life on earth that could fossilize!

You are correct that fossils within a family are evidence for evolution within a family, and not necessarily for what led up to the families. For that we need to turn to the fossils that led up to the families. And there again we find many transitional fossils, such as the whole tree of mammal like reptiles that led to all of the mammal families. If transitional horses are evidence of horse evolution, why are not transitional mammals evidence of mammal evolution?

Wrong. You CANNOT turn to fossils since they would NOT exist if most life on earth could NOT fossilize in that different former nature.

And for the record, when I refer to evolution, I have not been insisting that it has to be "Gosless". The evidence is for evolution, regardless of whether "Gos" was involved.

Here is the thing...to be godly as I see it we need to start with creation.

 

[dad]

-_- there is no difference between the chemistry of a footprint made by different animals. All footprints made in the same mud should be able to fossilize relatively equally, and the differences in depth of the footprints clearly don't matter because their are plenty of fossilized dinosaur footprints that are from animals roughly the same weight as humans around. Face it, you are done.

Ridiculous. How a footprint looks does not tell us that they would all have the same composition in the former nature. Not in any way. You are done.

 

[dad]

Yeah, I wasn't replying to you there, obviously. Someone else claimed that Neanderthals died out before the flood, so why not respond to them?

To whom it may concern...they were post flood.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dad,

You still have not explained how you can account for the nested hierarchy we find in living forms if evolution had not occurred. You suggested animals were created that way, but that makes no sense. Other things you think were created, such as streams and rocks, do not have nested hierarchies. The only things that have nested hierarchies are things like languages and ancient manuscripts that were made by copying with modifications. So why is it that life is the only natural thing that has this attribute that makes it look like it was copied with modifications?

No. No. There is no horse family that we know about because the fossils you have are so totally unrepresentative of life on earth in the past. Yes, a lot of evolving did happen from the kinds, but science is in no position yo know what is what!

Well, you said that Noah took a pair of each family into the ark, and they evolved into other members of the family after the flood. You also said all fossils above the KT boundary are after the flood. So if we find fossils above the KT boundary that clearly look like they are in the horse family, wouldn't it be safe to assume they were probably in the horse family?

So what all was in the horse family? Were the horse, zebra, and donkey all in that family? How about the extinct merychippus, mesahippus, and eohippus, all of which have left abundant fossils after the KT boundary? Did these all descend from one pair on the ark?

Missing fossils only imply that some animals may have lived and never been found yet. That does not change the fact that many fossils clearly in the horse family have been found.

Why not? Because you have no clue what a family really is. Your so called families are based on maybe 5% of life on earth that could fossilize!

And if science is not in a position to know what is what, doesn't that imply there is a lot of gray area between families? If families were created distinct, why aren't the divisions between them easy to tell?

Wrong. You CANNOT turn to fossils since they would NOT exist if most life on earth could NOT fossilize in that different former nature.

Ha, so your assumption is wrong. For many thousands of fossils exist from that "former nature".

Here is the thing...to be godly as I see it we need to start with creation.

That's odd. For a lot of people here start with science and evolution, and appear to be Christians of high moral character. How dare you claim that you are godly and they are not?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ridiculous. How a footprint looks does not tell us that they would all have the same composition in the former nature. Not in any way. You are done.

HOW?! It's the same freaking mud in my example! It's a glorified dent in mud that gets fossilized, so please do explain how the shape of the human foot, in any way, could influence fossilization so much as to make it impossible within the brief moment of making the imprint. Flipping jellyfish, which are 95 percent water, have managed to be fossilized in this manner, and yet you think humans left something behind in their footprints that makes the mud go "oh no, can't hold this shape"?

You have some nerve to call me ridiculous on this one.

 

[daleksteve]

Easily. What if only 2 of each basic kind existed in the garden? The multiply thingie would maybe be after they migrated outward from Eden! Now, any tough questions? This is too easy.

.

Nice try but your wrong. Even wit 2 of each basic kind he could not every single spices animal in 24 hours

 

[daleksteve]

Nope. Not at all. Besides, Adam was smart and fast, unlike devolved man of today.

And there is no evidence in the bible that Adam was any different from us today.

 

[xianghua]

I've already demonstrated that cars and trucks don't sort themselves like that. Why continue to argue something that has already been shown to be false?

wait. you already admit:

"If I walked into a parking lot containing a bunch of bicycles and a bunch of cars, I could sort them into two groups."

so you can divide vehicles into groups. and then you can do the same for in group vehicles too and get a phylogenetic tree. in any case you will get a tree.

 

[xianghua]

Back to this? I already answered this in detail. See

you just repeating yourself. you already said:

"it is not simply dividing into four groups".

so i showed that it is and you just give my those comments again.

Multiple studies for life show conclusively that they are significant. These studies have been peer reviewed and accepted. Do you dispute them? Then go through the calculations and show where they went wrong. It is not my job to do your homework for you

so you have no real answer to how many convergent cases we need to falsify this suppoose "hierarchy" and you just send me again to talkorigin. fine. i think we have done here.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is the thing...to be godly as I see it we need to start with creation.

Quite right. We need to start with the belief that God created the universe
and us. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with that belief, one way or the other.

 

[doubtingmerle]

you just repeating yourself. you already said:

"it is not simply dividing into four groups".

so i showed that it is and you just give my those comments again.

The information is there. The first link is 10 paragraphs that describes in detail what is wrong with your chart. You ignore it and pretend nobody responded. You are wrong. I responded in detail.

And regarding the tree you posted of animals, that is a complex trees with 17 taxa showing a complex hierarchy. You are simply not saying the truth when you say all it does is divide animals into four groups.

so you have no real answer to how many convergent cases we need to falsify this suppoose "hierarchy" and you just send me again to talkorigin. fine. i think we have done here.

No, I do not just send you to talk.origins. I point out that it is based on multiple studies with links to the primary literature.

If you want to refute those studies, go get one and tell us where they went wrong. Don't ask me to do your homework for you. If you think the study would be invalid if only they accounted for information you know, you do the homework and report back your findings.

As the studies are peer-reviewed, and you appear not to understand the basics of what they are saying, I think you will fail. But certainly try if you wish.

 

[pitabread]

"If I walked into a parking lot containing a bunch of bicycles and a bunch of cars, I could sort them into two groups."

so you can divide vehicles into groups. and then you can do the same for in group vehicles too and get a phylogenetic tree. in any case you will get a tree.

But it's not the same thing. This is what you're not understanding. Sorting things into two groups is NOT the same thing as constructing a nested hierarchy.

Imagine if I divided all the members of your families into two groups: men and women. Is that the same thing as your family tree? Is your family tree just two groups of people?

A phylogenetic tree is a hierarchy depicting relationships between *all* the objects in the tree. Similar to how a family tree is about showing the relationships between all people in the tree (i.e. parents, grand parents, children, cousins, etc). It's not merely about dividing things into a couple different groups.