the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

great. so what is the difference between this and that?:
View attachment 222923

vs:

Let me explain why your vehicle tree is not impressive. Lets look at the actual hierarchy you posted. It consists of only 4 "taxa": bicycles, cars, trucks and airplanes. There are only 3 possible unrooted trees with 4 taxa. The simple way of thinking about it is that the truck could be on the same node as either the bike, the car, or the plane. You show the truck on the same node as the plane, so that means the bike and car are on the other node, and the two nodes are connected to form your tree with four taxa.

You had three possible trees, and in my opinion a simple sniff test says you picked the wrong one! It makes no sense to group the truck with the plane and the car with the bike. It makes more sense to me to group the truck with the car, since they are so close. So I think you will get better results if you switched the car and the airplane.

If you include the root, your tree has 15 possibilities. However, you then are completely wrong, for you show the truck to be closer to the airplane than the car. A simple sniff test says this is baloney.

Let's do another quick sniff test. Does your chart tell us if a member has metric bolts? No. Does it tell us if a member has a particular grade of metal? No. Does it tell us if a member is made in America? No. For many parameters, the grouping is totally incompatible with how things are made. So your grouping has little predictive power. So your grouping is not consistent.

But you will pick out parameters such as bike pedals and two wheels and say that proves bikes are different from cars. First, you can't just ignore the parameters that do not match. But even if you do confine yourself to your cherry picked set of parameters, do you even have a clear grouping in these parameters? Where do you place the motorcycle? Is that closer to a car or a bicycle? If you group it closer to a car, now you cannot say that only the bikes have two wheels. If you group it closer to the bike, then you cannot say all bikes are powered by pedals. So which is it?

And where do you place the surrey (four wheels with pedals). Again, if you place it closer to cars, now you cannot say only bikes are pedal powered. If you place it with bikes, then you cannot say all bikes have 2 wheels. But those vehicles need to go somewhere. They don't fit in your hierarchy.

So what do you do with everything in the middle?

What about the human powered flying machines? Are they bikes or airplanes? What about motor vehicles that can also fly? Are they cars or planes? You can't just simply throw them out of your hierarchy. You would never accept it if we simply tossed out dolphins and bats to make things work.

With animals we account for all the parameters, all the convergencies, etc. and find complex hierarchies that are highly consistent. I didn't say perfectly consistent. I said highly consistent. (You will ignore this paragraph and ask about convergencies, yes?)

 

[doubtingmerle]

actually even talkorigin admit that its also true for creatures:

"Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."

so there is no real difference here.

Talk.origins are dealing with meaningful trees, with dozens of taxa. As I explained to you many times, the number of arrangements grows exponentially with more taxa. Talk.origins shows a tree that had a trillion trillion trillion possible combinations. If one can analyze all those options and narrow it down to three or four, that is significant.

You, however post a vehicle tree that has three possible combinations. When you have three possible combinations, and narrow that down to three or four, you have not done anything.

Not only did you post a simple tree with three possible combinations, but you selected the tree that says that trucks are closer to airplanes than they are to cars!

 

[Jjmcubbin]

No. There is no person typing on the far side of the universe. You have only one observer and one point of observation in the big universe. In this case, it is an insignificant blue speck.
The laws of nature exist as we speak. Plants cannot pop up in a few minutes with our laws. It is not science that makes the laws. It is science that is able to read some of them.
That has what to do with either far space or time there??

Any force out there making something move must operate in the time of that area. We cannot look at our fishbowl and how fast things move here as the way to see how much time is involved there.

I don't know much about time dilation, but it is a thing in relativity, so why don't you read up on it.
Time dilation - Wikipedia
So the plant growth law (that plants pop up in a few minutes) is not a law. I repeat, never have I heard of such a law. Please, provide a link.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I suggest that evo grouping trees are not intelligently designed.

Indeed, they aren't.

They are rather brainlessly drawn based on matching data points.
They aren't "designed" to be certain way or so...

It's just counting matching genes and mapping the results on a graph. And a family tree is what pops out.

These days, we even have software doing it automatically. And it's as blind and unintelligent as can be. It takes input, compares and maps and then presents output. It's not pre-programmed or designed to give a certain type of output.

It is just programmed to count matches and map those matches. That's it.

And it results in a family tree. Because it is a family tree.

 

[dad]

I don't know much about time dilation, but it is a thing in relativity, so why don't you read up on it.

Because the issue in far space is not relativity spacetime dilation. All that basically does is make a grid and then assume that all the universe obeys the grid rules of time and space. 'Oh, if we had 2 observers at far points on the grid, they would see...such and such' They have NO other observer, only the one point of observation here. Here in the fishbowl we live in. Here, yes, one explanation for time dilation is gravity bending space.

Now if time were different, then I guess what was being dilated also would be different. If time were not the same, then we also could have n distances to any star! Therefore whe looking at gravity, we need to ask how much gravity is really at work, if the distances and sizes of the stars are not what we thought. In other words I would not expect the same gravity from a golf ball as I would fro Jupiter. Unless we know the size of the star, the what gravity it would have changes vastly.

Come to think of it, science declared 95% of the universe dark stuff largely for the reason that what we see does not fit what they expect in the way of gravity..etc!!!

So the plant growth law (that plants pop up in a few minutes) is not a law. I repeat, never have I heard of such a law. Please, provide a link.

Of course that is not a law it is ridiculous. The laws of nature see trees growing over many years generally now. So the laws make trees grow that way.

In the bible we see trees grew in weeks. So that does not sound like our nature at the time. Whatever laws were in place allowed such rapid growth then.

 

[dad]

Indeed, they aren't.

They are rather brainlessly drawn based on matching data points.
They aren't "designed" to be certain way or so...

The evo tree of God's life on earth may be brainlessly drawn, I can grant you that.

It's just counting matching genes and mapping the results on a graph. And a family tree is what pops out.

There is a creation family tree. Too bad that most life on earth was not represented in the fossil record, and you have been trying to connect the dots using a tiny percentage of the facts. Dna would have similarities, like a child building animals with play dough. There would be dough in every animal!

These days, we even have software doing it automatically.

Hey, I could rig up a little fan belt and camera to take pics of the kid's various colored and sized animals and hire a secretary to categorize them...so? If I claimed the animals were not created by the kid, but from an explosion in a cosmic play dough factory, I could make a tree based on that.

And it's as blind and unintelligent as can be. It takes input, compares and maps and then presents output. It's not pre-programmed or designed to give a certain type of output.

Doesn't help if you don't know who made it, or even so much as that it was made!

It is just programmed to count matches and map those matches. That's it.

And it results in a family tree. Because it is a family tree.

Creation tree.

You look at the play dough and nothing else. You do not even have a good sampling of the animals to look at that you make a silly tree from.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The evo tree of God's life on earth may be brainlessly drawn, I can grant you that.

Funny how you now state the exact opposite then you previously. And both times, you thought you were being clever. Hilarious.

There is a creation family tree.

"I'm right, even when I'm wrong!!"

Too bad that most life on earth was not represented in the fossil record

Why would it?

, and you have been trying to connect the dots using a tiny percentage of the facts

We don't require a single fossil to determine that extant life has common ancestry.
Just like we don't require access to your parents in order to determine that your sibling, is your biological sibling.

In fact, we barely even need access to you or your sibling. A DNA sample of both, is enough.

In fact, we could anonymise both your DNA samples, mix them up with loads of other random DNA samples, sequence them all and then pick out the biological siblings among them. It's even almost trivial to do so these days.

Dna would have similarities, like a child building animals with play dough.

Mere similarities, is not what collective DNA shows. Nore is it something that would support evolution. It's a specific type of similarities that support evolution. More specifically, it pattern of distribution of such similarities.

There would be dough in every animal!

But the distribution of matching "dough" accross species, wouldn't line up in a family tree, like it does when the populations are the result of common ancestry.

Hey, I could rig up a little fan belt and camera to take pics of the kid's various colored and sized animals and hire a secretary to categorize them...so?

"So"?
So.... that has nothing to do with anything being talked about.

If I claimed the animals were not created by the kid, but from an explosion in a cosmic play dough factory, I could make a tree based on that.

First of all, you could not.
Second of all, I just explained to you that phylogenetic trees aren't drawn based on any preconceived ideas. They are not even drawn, per say.
They are the result of mapping genetic/anatomical matches with no preconceived goal in mind.

It's just a question of
"this thing has A, which other things have A? this, this and this."
"this thing has B, which other things have B? this, that and such and such."

It's just counting and mapping the matches. No more, no less.
That a family tree is what that exercise results in, is just the pattern that it results in. The pattern happens to match exactly what should exist if evolution is true. It didn't have to. But it does.

Doesn't help if you don't know who made it, or even so much as that it was made!

This again has nothing to do with anything.
It seems you are doing your very best to avoid having to admit the obvious.

Creation tree.

Call it what you want to. It won't change that it's completely consistent with a family tree, which is required to exist if evolution is accurate.

Nobody set out to create a family tree. People just studied organisms and mapped matches. And that exercise happened to result in a nested hierarchical tree. Which is what a family tree is.

You look at the play dough and nothing else.

Science looks at the DNA, the anatomy, the embryonic development, the geographic distribution of species, the fossil record,....

And all of these independend fields of study, result in the exact same tree.
Again, it didn't have to be like that. It just is.

You can stick your head in the sand and deny it or deny the implications thereof.... but one can wonder what good that would do. Except off course, exposing how utterly void of meaning, value and merrit creationism really is.

You do not even have a good sampling of the animals to look at that you make a silly tree from.

lol

We've sequenced the genomes of many, many species and more are added each day.

Pick a species, any species...
Then google that species and see for yourself to what ridiculous detail we have studied it. From DNA to anatomy.

If you wish to discuss a lack of samples, perhaps look to yourself and ask yourself how much samples you have of anything supernatural.

 

[xianghua]

Let me explain why your vehicle tree is not impressive. Lets look at the actual hierarchy you posted. It consists of only 4 "taxa": bicycles, cars, trucks and airplanes. There are only 3 possible unrooted trees with 4 taxa. The simple way of thinking about it is that the truck could be on the same node as either the bike, the car, or the plane. You show the truck on the same node as the plane, so that means the bike and car are on the other node, and the two nodes are connected to form your tree with four taxa.

You had three possible trees, and in my opinion a simple sniff test says you picked the wrong one! It makes no sense to group the truck with the plane and the car with the bike. It makes more sense to me to group the truck with the car, since they are so close. So I think you will get better results if you switched the car and the airplane.

If you include the root, your tree has 15 possibilities. However, you then are completely wrong, for you show the truck to be closer to the airplane than the car. A simple sniff test says this is baloney.

Let's do another quick sniff test. Does your chart tell us if a member has metric bolts? No. Does it tell us if a member has a particular grade of metal? No. Does it tell us if a member is made in America? No. For many parameters, the grouping is totally incompatible with how things are made. So your grouping has little predictive power. So your grouping is not consistent.

But you will pick out parameters such as bike pedals and two wheels and say that proves bikes are different from cars. First, you can't just ignore the parameters that do not match. But even if you do confine yourself to your cherry picked set of parameters, do you even have a clear grouping in these parameters? Where do you place the motorcycle? Is that closer to a car or a bicycle? If you group it closer to a car, now you cannot say that only the bikes have two wheels. If you group it closer to the bike, then you cannot say all bikes are powered by pedals. So which is it?

And where do you place the surrey (four wheels with pedals). Again, if you place it closer to cars, now you cannot say only bikes are pedal powered. If you place it with bikes, then you cannot say all bikes have 2 wheels. But those vehicles need to go somewhere. They don't fit in your hierarchy.

So what do you do with everything in the middle?

What about the human powered flying machines? Are they bikes or airplanes? What about motor vehicles that can also fly? Are they cars or planes? You can't just simply throw them out of your hierarchy. You would never accept it if we simply tossed out dolphins and bats to make things work.

With animals we account for all the parameters, all the convergencies, etc. and find complex hierarchies that are highly consistent. I didn't say perfectly consistent. I said highly consistent. (You will ignore this paragraph and ask about convergencies, yes?)

first: its only a cladogram rather then a "phylogoenetic tree". here is a more accurate tree:

also remember that a phylogenetic tree only shows an evolutionery distance rather than a morhpological distance (remember the lungfish case for instance which is closer to human than to other fishes). now, as you can see: this is very similar to this tree:

and non of them can prove a common descent rather that a common designer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

first: its only a cladogram rather then a "phylogoenetic tree". here is a more accurate tree:

View attachment 223114

also remember that a phylogenetic tree only shows an evolutionery distance rather than a morhpological distance (remember the lungfish case for instance which is closer to human than to other fishes). now, as you can see: this is very similar to this tree:

and non of them can prove a common descent rather that a common designer.

Still repeating the same falsehoods that have been refuted to hell and back a dozen times over, I see.

 

[dad]

We don't require a single fossil to determine that extant life has common ancestry.
Just like we don't require access to your parents in order to determine that your sibling, is your biological sibling.

You can't determine anything from current genetics unless previous genetics was the same actually. As clever as you think science is, it has no genetics from the period of Noah. So all you have basically is a little pile of play dough to run amok misinterpreting and miscategorizing.

In fact, we barely even need access to you or your sibling. A DNA sample of both, is enough.

That will not give us an evo tree, more like an evo weed.

In fact, we could anonymise both your DNA samples, mix them up with loads of other random DNA samples, sequence them all and then pick out the biological siblings among them. It's even almost trivial to do so these days.

About as impressive as taking some pink play dough animals, shuffling them in with other colors, then telling us how clever you were to see how you could find the pink stuff.

Mere similarities, is not what collective DNA shows. Nore is it something that would support evolution. It's a specific type of similarities that support evolution. More specifically, it pattern of distribution of such similarities.

No it isn't. The pattern is independent of beliefs you seek to impose on it.

But the distribution of matching "dough" accross species, wouldn't line up in a family tree, like it does when the populations are the result of common ancestry.

If the animals were created with the play dough, they would match.

First of all, you could not.
Second of all, I just explained to you that phylogenetic trees aren't drawn based on any preconceived ideas. They are not even drawn, per say.

Let me explain to you they actually are. One preconceived idea used is that creation was not involved.

They are the result of mapping genetic/anatomical matches with no preconceived goal in mind.

Matching created play dough animals God made t your preconceived notions.

It's just a question of
"this thing has A, which other things have A? this, this and this."
"this thing has B, which other things have B? this, that and such and such."

Same deal with created animals. They should share the play dough used to make em.

It's just counting and mapping the matches. No more, no less.

There are no matches unless they existed first. The fact they exist requires a creator. We can look at the similarities in a proper light also. Your belief system has no monopoly on how we connect dots or group stuff. Nor can you say the similarities are all due to evolution. Nor can you invoke common ancestry.

That a family tree is what that exercise results in, is just the pattern that it results in. The pattern happens to match exactly what should exist if evolution is true. It didn't have to. But it does.

Since is also matches creation...so what? Since you can't prove the similarities are due to evolution...so what? Your tree is about as impressive or meaningful as some kid gathering play dough animals, and saying 'see, they all have play dough in them, and so this is what should exist if there was an explosion at the play dough factory'

Newsflash: it is also what should exist if other kids created the animals with play dough bougt from the factory.

Nobody set out to create a family tree. People just studied organisms and mapped matches. And that exercise happened to result in a nested hierarchical tree. Which is what a family tree is.

Long as the tree is only with organisms you study, and NOT with imagined common ancestors, fine. We can group them many ways. Nothing to do with origins! You did not study creatures in Adam's day.

Science looks at the DNA, the anatomy, the embryonic development, the geographic distribution of species, the fossil record,....

The fossil record is irrelevant since it represents a tiny fraction of life on earth. Geography doesn't matter, since a lot happened since creation. Anatomy doesn't matter since creation produces anatomy, not just evolving. No DNA EXISTS from dinos, or Adam's generation etc, so modern DNA has no connection to origins.

We've sequenced the genomes of many, many species and more are added each day.

Unless there was DNA in Noah and Adam's day that does not matter at all.

If you wish to discuss a lack of samples, perhaps look to yourself and ask yourself how much samples you have of anything supernatural.

Plenty. We have evidences and observations of things supernatural through all history and in all lands. We have not one speck of DNA pre flood.

 

[1watchman]

As the saying goes: "a mind persuaded against it's will is of the same opinion still". We must come to God by faith and obedience to His immutable Word, and that one must first believe there is a God or else all arguments are mute. If looking at this magnificent universe and the orderly and functional earth, and all the genius of life, does not convince us that a superior mind created it, then as God says: Satan has blinded the minds of them who choose to believe not (2 Corinthians 4:4; John 3:12; John 6:64; John 8:24; etc.). That will seal one's eternal fate to condemnation forever ---for as science well knows: "no energy is lost --it just moves on", and our soul is created energy so will face eternity someplace, which God has told us about in His Word of faith.

 

[Speedwell]

As the saying goes: "a mind persuaded against it's will is of the same opinion still". We must come to God by faith and obedience to His immutable Word, and that one must first believe there is a God or else all arguments are mute. If looking at this magnificent universe and the orderly and functional earth, and all the genius of life, does not convince us that a superior mind created it, then as God says: Satan has blinded the minds of them who choose to believe not (2 Corinthians 4:4; John 3:12; John 6:64; John 8:24; etc.). That will seal one's eternal fate to condemnation forever ---for as science well knows: "no energy is lost --it just moves on", and our soul is created energy so will face eternity someplace, which God has told us about in His Word of faith.

Believing is one thing; demonstrating with empirical evidence according to the scientific method is quite another. The impression I get from these creationists is that they think faith is second-rate, that they won't be convinced until they can prove it with science.

 

[dad]

As the saying goes: "a mind persuaded against it's will is of the same opinion still". We must come to God by faith and obedience to His immutable Word, and that one must first believe there is a God or else all arguments are mute. If looking at this magnificent universe and the orderly and functional earth, and all the genius of life, does not convince us that a superior mind created it, then as God says: Satan has blinded the minds of them who choose to believe not (2 Corinthians 4:4; John 3:12; John 6:64; John 8:24; etc.). That will seal one's eternal fate to condemnation forever ---for as science well knows: "no energy is lost --it just moves on", and our soul is created energy so will face eternity someplace, which God has told us about in His Word of faith.

Chilling. Kind of like trying to see with dead eyes.

 

[dad]

Believing is one thing; demonstrating with empirical evidence according to the scientific method is quite another. .

So demonstrate that DNA was the same in Noah or Adam's time? Demonstrate that evolution is how all the creatures are related? Demonstrate that the evo tree even represents a proper whole sample of life on earth? Demonstrate that the animals were not designed wonderfully?

Believing is one thing. Claiming the animals all fell out of the evo tree is another.

 

[doubtingmerle]

here is a more accurate tree:

View attachment 223114

First the good news: You listed the best possible unrooted hierarchy for these four "taxa". Congratulations. In fact, it could even turn out to be statistically significant depending what you mean (see comments below).

Now the bad news:

1) There are only 3 possible unrooted arrangements of four taxa. It took you two guesses to get the one I think is best.
2) I already told you this is the best tree in my last post to you.
3) Your whole tree breaks down when you add intermediates such as mopeds, motorcycles, ATVs, and surreys. Try it. Show me where motorcycles and surreys go on your tree. The whole pattern starts to break down.
4) You cannot simply ignore things like mopeds, motorcycles, ATVs, surreys, station wagons, minivans, passenger vans, cargo vans, SUVs, and human powered flying machines. That would be like biologists ignoring dolphins, bats, monotremes, and otters. Scientists can't skip the hard to class taxa, and neither can you.
5) The division between cars and trucks might work if "cars" on your tree are represented by an ideal car and "trucks" are represented by an ideal truck. But if "cars" means the set of all cars, and "trucks" means the set of all trucks, the pattern breaks down. There are a huge number of characteristics that apply to some cars and some trucks but not all. Every one of those parameters is a strike against the car to truck split you show. Although there are some parameters where trucks tend very frequently to be different from cars, they are overwhelmed by the many parameters which can go either way in both sets. That totally destroys your consistency index and the statistical significance of your tree.
6) Again, you need to show a tree of meaningful size. The number of possible trees increases exponentially with more taxa. Try adding in the vehicles I mentioned above. It is not enough to simply build a tree with some plausibility. You must either show a) that obviously most people would agree this is the correct tree, or b) that statistically it shows to be significant when studied with a representative set of variables.

Again, you will not be able to build a large, unique, consistent tree with a representative group of vehicles. If you think you can, try it.

 

[Astrophile]

Now if time were different, then I guess what was being dilated also would be different. If time were not the same, then we also could have n distances to any star! Therefore whe looking at gravity, we need to ask how much gravity is really at work, if the distances and sizes of the stars are not what we thought. In other words I would not expect the same gravity from a golf ball as I would fro Jupiter. Unless we know the size of the star, the what gravity it would have changes vastly.

In fact, one can calculate the gravitational acceleration in a stellar atmosphere from the profiles of its spectral lines. I don't know the details of the calculations, but spectral analyses published during the 1970s, when I was at university, included the values of the surface gravity; these were similar to the surface gravity of the Sun, implying that the stars that were being analysed were similar in mass and radius to the Sun.

 

[dad]

In fact, one can calculate the gravitational acceleration in a stellar atmosphere from the profiles of its spectral lines. I don't know the details of the calculations, but spectral analyses published during the 1970s, when I was at university, included the values of the surface gravity; these were similar to the surface gravity of the Sun, implying that the stars that were being analysed were similar in mass and radius to the Sun.

I don't think so. To know gravitational acceleration we must know distances. That seems obvious.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't think so. To know gravitational acceleration we must know distances. That seems obvious.

No, one doesn't need to know the distance of the object. The gravitational acceleration is calculated purely from the stellar spectrum, and in particular from the widths of the absorption lines in the spectrum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't determine anything from current genetics unless previous genetics was the same actually.

Repeat that next time you are in court over a paternity test. See what happens.

As clever as you think science is, it has no genetics from the period of Noah. So all you have basically is a little pile of play dough to run amok misinterpreting and miscategorizing.

And here comes the "last thursday" argument again.
You are so far gone, it's not even sad anymore.

That will not give us an evo tree, more like an evo weed.

I have some evo weed in my garden. Good stuff.

About as impressive as taking some pink play dough animals, shuffling them in with other colors, then telling us how clever you were to see how you could find the pink stuff.

And now we're into ignorant ridicule.
Whatever makes you avoid dealing with the facts, right...

No it isn't

yes, it is.

The pattern is independent of beliefs you seek to impose on it.

Evolution is a theory, not a belief.
And the pattern of distribution is a prediction of the theory. It is anything BUT independend. ONLY the specific pattern predicted by evolution may exist in order for it to be supportive of evolution. If this very specific pattern does not exist, then evolution is FALSE.

But as it turns out, it exists. So yea....

If the animals were created with the play dough, they would match.

But they wouldn't fall in a nested hierarchy.

Let me explain to you they actually are. One preconceived idea used is that creation was not involved.

You seem to be confusing "explanation" with "mere assertion".

And off course the assumption is that creation was not involved. For the same reason that the assumption is that magical fairies and genetic extra-dimensional trolls weren't involved either. And that reason is: there is not a single piece of data suggesting such things are involved.

Science only includes that which can be demonstrated to be a factor.
Regardless of that fact, as explained already, the trees aren't drawn. They are obtained by plotting out independent data points of matches cross species.

That a family tree pops out of that exercise, just means that that is what the data is.
So the tree of life is consistent with a family tree. Just like evolution requires to be the case.

(and pssst: it's also the very last pattern one would expect if creationism was true... no designer works like that. ever. it's not even bad design. It's in fact incredibly stupid and wastefull design, if done on purpose)

There are no matches unless they existed first.

lol....
yes, in order to observe the match, the match needs to exist.

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

The fact they exist requires a creator.

lol, assumed conclusion

We can look at the similarities in a proper light also. Your belief system has no monopoly on how we connect dots or group stuff. Nor can you say the similarities are all due to evolution. Nor can you invoke common ancestry.

Except off course, that ALL the data is consistent with evolution and none of it is constent with "creation".

Since is also matches creation...

It doesn't.

Since you can't prove the similarities are due to evolution...so what?

The observed pattern of similarities, as well as the similarities themselves, are predicted by evolution theory.

What testable predictions does your last thursdayism style creationism make?

Your tree is about as impressive or meaningful as some kid gathering play dough animals, and saying 'see, they all have play dough in them, and so this is what should exist if there was an explosion at the play dough factory'

I dunno... courts seem to be taking it pretty seriously when making decisions regarding alimentations or inheritances etc.

Newsflash: it is also what should exist if other kids created the animals with play dough bougt from the factory.

Why would life by organized in a family tree, if species didn't share common ancestry?

Long as the tree is only with organisms you study, and NOT with imagined common ancestors, fine. We can group them many ways.

No. We can group them in only one way: in nested hierarchies. In a family tree.

I keep saying it, but it seems that it is not registering......
It is always the same tree that pops out as a result of plotting the actual data. It is not "forced" into such a pattern. It's just the data that falls in that pattern.

It factually is a family tree.

Nothing to do with origins! You did not study creatures in Adam's day.

In who's day now?
And when was this? Last thursday, by any chance?

The fossil record is irrelevant since it represents a tiny fraction of life on earth.

It matters to the extent that we shouldn't be finding fossils in places where they don't belong, in context of evolution theory.

For example, we shouldn't be finding fossils of kangaroos in Russia, since they've evolved in Australia and have been there ever since.

We also shouldn't find fossils of mammals in pre-cambrian layers.

And we don't. The fossils we find, always make sense to evolutionary history.

Geography doesn't matter, since a lot happened since creation

Again, it matters a lot.
If tomorrow we would encounter wild kangaroos in a jungle in south america, that would pose a real problem. Considering evolutionary history of the species, wild populations should only exist in australia. There haven't been any land bridges since they evolved, so they couldn't have left the continent.

Anatomy doesn't matter since creation produces anatomy, not just evolving.

Anatomy matters a GREAT deal, since, just like genetics, comparative anatomy is restricted to that nested hierarchy again. Each and every bone in a body, for example, must be accounted for.

For example:

If the bone structure of a bat's wing, for example, would be constructed completely differently then the fore-limbs of humans or cats, or the fins of a whale, then that would again pose a big problem for evolution.

But it doesn't.

No DNA EXISTS from dinos

None required. Phylogenetic trees, are based on genomes and anatomy of extant species. We do have some DNA of more "ancient" times, like for example of neanderthals, off course. And those too, make perfect sense hierarchy-wise.

It's clear that you have no clue how MUCH independent lines of evidence ALL converge on this exact same family tree. This is the strength of the evidence... No matter from which angle you approach this, ALL the data independently fits evolutionary theory.

You can create trees based on body parts, bone structures, genomes, parts of genomes, single genes,.... all independently from one another. And it's the same tree every single time.

The explanatory power of evolution, is through the roof.

, or Adam's generation etc

Last thursday?

, so modern DNA has no connection to origins.

LOL!!!!
Right, because DNA wasn't inherited by off spring, during that magical time last thursday.

Unless there was DNA in Noah and Adam's day that does not matter at all.

Last thursday?
And did you just say that life during those magical times last thursday, might not even have had DNA? For realz?

Plenty.

Point me to one documented example.

We have evidences and observations of things supernatural through all history and in all lands.

Such as?

We have not one speck of DNA pre flood.

What flood? The one that happened last thursday?

 

[dad]

No, one doesn't need to know the distance of the object. The gravitational acceleration is calculated purely from the stellar spectrum, and in particular from the widths of the absorption lines in the spectrum.

So go ahead and explain how.