So you think a nested hierarchy is just a matter of “putting things in order”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
At some point you are going to have to admit to yourself you have no understanding of this topic, and are embarrassing yourself by trying to talk about it here. This is already apparent to pretty well everyone else on this thread.
No, that is wrong. For instance, a family tree is a nested hierarchy, but your uncle could be younger than you. That does not mean your uncle was magically created out of dust as a separate “kind.”
I will again ask (and you will again, no doubt, refuse to answer): Give us your understanding of the data that is used to derive phylogenetic trees, and how this is analyzed. Imagine you have been asked to explain this to a middle school class, and tell us what you would say.
For months you have been making this same argument repeatedly, because you still do not understand what a nested hierarchy is, nor do you understand the phylogenetic signal, even though these concepts have been explained to you countless times.
You will only understand the criticism if you actually stop to learn about the concepts on which you’re commenting.
@scd I would really appreciate a response to this, as well.
A designer could create groups with a mixture of mammal and bird features, fish and bat features, lizard and ferret features, or any combination of features. There are nearly infinite numbers of possible combinations of features that a designer could use, so why do we only see one possible pattern out of so many, a pattern of a nested hierarchy?
What is your explanation for gene families not following the nested pattern?
Almost all gene families follow the nested pattern. The few which don’t have been identified as de novo genes which arose in specific lineages.
How many dozen times are you going to ask the same question and ignore the answer?
First, you need to show that they don’t. This requires complete gene annotations which we don’t have right now. You also need to factor in gene loss. As more genes are annotated you will see some of these gaps filled in. Also, if gene loss has occurred then you will see losses that follow a nested hierarchy. With enough coverage, you can actually trace back through a lineage and figure out where the gene was lost.
Why aren’t many genes different comparing mice when you have a species that is globally distributed and has accumulated 300 million generations? Why is gene loss not occurring here to a frequency we see in the Venn diagram between Zebra fish chickens mice and humans?
That sentence doesn’t make any sense. Are we comparing one mouse to another? Are they globally distributed, or are they missing in some lineages?
There has been a lot more time since humans and mice shared a common ancestor than the time since two mice shared a common ancestor. Not that hard to figure out.
What is preventing gene loss or gene family variation between like animals that are globally distributed? Why are they retaining essentially the same family of genes if gene loss is as common as the Venn diagram shows given common descent as a working hypothesis?
Selective pressure and environmental conditions. If the ancestor of primates had been in an environment where vitamin c was difficult to come by then we probably wouldn’t have a GULO pseudogene, as one example.
Again, selective pressures. If a mutation interrupts a gene and that mutation is deleterious then the intact allele is selected for.
You also need to show us what this rate is. How common is it? How many times was a gene lost per million years?
The premises of your questions are false, so they do not require answers.
Globally distributed animals will have different environmental conditions. I agree with you that the data is immature. If when the dust settles the gene families are close to the Venn diagram then common descent as a significant explanation for the data will fade away.
No, you just don’t understand the Venn diagram, despite receiving clear explanations from people who are expert in the relevant field.
That is revealing of your personal approach to this subject, and of nothing more.
ok. so here is out of place fossil according to my criteria (image from wiki):
take a look at the bottom left corner. that fossil (actually a track fossil) predate most of the “missing links” between fish and tetrapod. thus instead of finding 12345 we find 15234. other out of place fossils are scansoriopteryx and chimerarachne.
toys of transformers can be arrange in groups.
but they are claiming that they evolved from a similar common ancestors, as you can see above in the tetrapod evolution. so although they are not direct ancestors they are still suppose to represent them.
basically a phylogenetic tree suppose to represent the relationships between species by checking similarities and differences among them. so if an ape is more similar to human than to a fish, that ape should be closer to human than to a fish on that tree.
actually mammals do have genes that in birds are used for feathers developmant, and we can find a dino with bat-like wings like the ambopteryx, and even a slug that can do photosynthesis like the elysia chlorotica. so we find many mix of traits among many species.
Wishful thinking. You are ignoring gene loss.
As do other amniotes. The distribution of these genes follows a nested hierarchy.
What we don’t see is numerous and obvious examples of morphological features specific to birds mixed in with morphological features specific to mammals. For example, we don’t find species with feathers and three middle ear bones.
Show us that they are homologous.
Your criteria are wrong.
You never mentioned single parts prior to this so you seem to be moving the goalposts. And now we are talking about transformer toys? I have no interest in discussing imaginary toys.
