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.
Seems to me if trucks weigh more than cars, maybe have different braking systems, heights, tires, fuel, and Etc there would be some sort of statistical differences?
Now you are asking for the basis for the phylogenetic trees? That's odd, for just last post you were pontificating that the writers of those studies didn't understand statistics well enough to determine if the studies were valid. So it turns out you never even read the summaries and have no idea what they are based on?The issue is the basis for the tree. If cladistics, or genetics are involved, that is the basis. Genetics is a feature of this present nature. Genetics are determined by and governed by the laws we now have that work on atoms and molecules and life processes. To claim modern day Genetics is the same since the beginning is to claim the laws and nature was the same. That makes it 100% belief. Feel free to show some other basis for your evolution trees.
uh no, I am not backing away from the powerful fossil evidence. See, for instance, my thread Are there transitional fossils? .Really. Meanwhile, whenever we search for evolution trees, it seems fossils are very much front and center in showing ancestors! As much as you understandably would like to play down the fossil record.
Naturally man's creations are very inferior. They would not represent the same thing as creations of God. You seem to have taken the created ability/trait of evolving, and used that to make a tree. That sort of tree is fatally flawed, because it only uses evolution and ignores the main issue...creation, and the created kinds where evolving started.Feel free to test it yourself if you'd like. But when I tested this (see post #1552), I didn't get the results xianghua claimed I should.
Which makes sense given that how vehicles like "trucks" and "cars" are defined is typically based on a limited set of characteristics. Most characteristics appear to be independent of vehicle classification.
Asking you to explain the basis for trees has nothing to do with what I know or understand. It has to do with you either knowing what you are talking about, or being shown to actually not know.Now you are asking for the basis for the phylogenetic trees? That's odd, for just last post you were pontificating that the writers of those studies didn't understand statistics well enough to determine if the studies were valid. So it turns out you never even read the summaries and have no idea what they are based on?
You are welcome to criticise a study if you have information they missed, but if you don't even read the study or understand anything about it, don't be surprised if you will be ignored. What can possibly be wrong with reading a study before you condemn it?
Glad to hear that. I will try to see that you wear that.uh no, I am not backing away from the powerful fossil evidence.
as i explained: we dont need it since we know that atruck is more similar to other truck.
The issue is the basis for the tree. If cladistics, or genetics are involved, that is the basis. Genetics is a feature of this present nature. Genetics are determined by and governed by the laws we now have that work on atoms and molecules and life processes. To claim modern day Genetics is the same since the beginning is to claim the laws and nature was the same. That makes it 100% belief. Feel free to show some other basis for your evolution trees. Really. Meanwhile, whenever we search for evolution trees, it seems fossils are very much front and center in showing ancestors! As much as you understandably would like to play down the fossil record.
Wait, watches don't have babies?We cannot compare man's creations with God's. Especially what is alive. Notice man's creations are not alive?
No problem. I already "wore" the fossil evidence. As I pointed out, I started a long thread on fossils, and spent a lot of time arguing that fossils are evidence for evolution. Check it out.Glad to hear that. I will try to see that you wear that.
Asking you to explain the basis for trees has nothing to do with what I know or understand.
We cannot compare man's creations with God's. Especially what is alive. Notice man's creations are not alive?
However, when it came to the trees of vehicles I constructed, there wasn't any statistical significance between the different trees.
Which makes sense given there is no hereditary relationships between vehicles.
(And besides, when I ran trees based on trucks and cars it didn't demonstrate that trucks are "more similar" to other trucks.
If the truck shows evidence of being manufactured then I will conclude design. Human designers rarely, if ever, adhere to nested hierarchies, but there is no reason they could not, if they wanted.lets assume just for the sake of the argument that we indeed found such hierarchy among vehicles. in this case you will not conclude design when you see a truck?
You have no more proof of that, than claiming they were always the same. We do have ancient history records, and there was nothing about life in old England, or Rome that supports your claim.Indeed. The laws of nature were only implemented Last Thursday.
No. Man's creations, unlike God's are not alive. Therefore any grouping should take that into account.Wait, watches don't have babies?
Because they are ridiculous religious nonsense that cannot be defended or supported.If you already understand the basis for trees, why are you asking me?
It does not matter if some fossils evidence evolving. What matters is in what nature the evolving happened, and whether creation started it all off. It matters if the fossil record is basically a record of creatures who happened to be able to fossilize in the former nature. It matters that the fossil record, if that was the case, would be useless in origins issues.No problem. I already "wore" the fossil evidence. As I pointed out, I started a long thread on fossils, and spent a lot of time arguing that fossils are evidence for evolution. Check it out.
Once again, design can never be ruled out, it just cannot be proven without evidence of manufacture.
The issue is the basis for the tree. If cladistics, or genetics are involved, that is the basis. Genetics is a feature of this present nature. Genetics are determined by and governed by the laws we now have that work on atoms and molecules and life processes. To claim modern day Genetics is the same since the beginning is to claim the laws and nature was the same. That makes it 100% belief. Feel free to show some other basis for your evolution trees. Really. Meanwhile, whenever we search for evolution trees, it seems fossils are very much front and center in showing ancestors! As much as you understandably would like to play down the fossil record.
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?