assertion? It’s simple probability and mathematics. Designers can create in any way they want to. They aren’t constrained . I can design objects that don’t fit a nested hierarchy. So, NO, design does not predict a nested hierarchy. Compatible with != evidence for.
That’s not a nested hierarchy. For example, a dolphin fin is more similar to human arm than a fish fin. Similarities correlate with ancestry in the tree of life, not function.
This does not make any sense.
That appears to be an assertion
Would you agree that a dolphin fin shares more similarities with the human arm than it does with a fish fin?
If so, this violates the rule that you have made for a common designer where similar components will be used for a similar function.
Show me the data.
but i did used the level of similarity between these vehicles. on the same base that you used the level of similarity between genomes. lets face it: we can make a tree base on vehicles. and yet it doesnt prove any evolution.
Nope, that is absolutely false. You didn’t use an characters nor did you use any sequences.
yes id did. the similarity between bicycle group is greater compare to cars.
“The similarity” is not a characteristic. You need to list characteristics. For example, hair, mammary glands, and three middle ear bones are characteristics found in mammals.
and a bicycle has several parts that are tipical to a bicycle but not to a car.
What parts do cars and bicycles share? Which do they not share?
@scd can you construct a table of characteristics that others can add too? Each row would be a type of car or bycycle or plane. Each column would be a characteristics. Each cell would be presence or absence of that characteristic.
Perhaps this might be more noticeable if I used all caps? AT THE VERY BEST, YOU ARE CLUSTERING BASED ON INTUITIVE FEELINGS OF SIMILARITY. THAT’S NOT HOW PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS WORKS. There, was that better?
The difference between a 1/2 in wheel and an 18 in wheel is not intuitive.
If “wheel” is a characteristic then both would have that characteristic, no matter the size. We don’t put Dachsunds in with cats and St. Bernards in a separate category because of their size.
AT THE VERY BEST, YOU ARE CLUSTERING BASED ON INTUITIVE FEELINGS OF SIMILARITY. THAT’S NOT HOW PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS WORKS.
Your now falling back to assertion.
Bicycle wheels and Car wheels have measurable quantitive differences. So does their steering apparatus, and the mode of propulsion and their weight and their number of seats and there amount of wheels.
We can move to computers and get closer to phylogenetic analysis as we could compare 0’s and 1’s of operating systems. At the end of the day calling the tree conclusive evidence of common descent is just an assertion. Designed objects can follow a similar pattern. The differences you see in the patterns between human designs and biological designs is not a case of common descent or design it is the case that biological designs are fundamentally at the molecular level using molecules as coded information.
What is the different DNA code that produces limb A vs limb B? How did code A become code B without producing garbage in the middle of the search?
WAIT A MINUTE HERE!
There is a quick way to defend or reject these contending scenarios… and it is something that is overlooked way too often:
Forensic logic … in other words, the kind of logic that would be used in a court of law.
The logic of common descent is that, barring any wondrously beneficial mutations, the Trend of Descent is that traits are passed on from one generation to another. And so if we encounter a PATTERN of generations where traits, characteristics and parts consistently are delivered to future generations… that’s Evolution.
But if traits, characteristics and parts form a random pattern of appearance… seemingly coming from other generations of other life forms… having no biological connection (by birth and parentage) to the generation where these aspects arrive - - well, that’s not Evolution at all, right?
For example, here is a pretty famous reptile from millions of years ago! The Dimetrodon!
Below is an image of the many different kinds of Dimetrodon there were … different sizes and features … in other words… LOTS of transitional forms!
But the Dimetrodon is not actually a Dinosaur! If you look at the tree below, you can see that the creatures that became Dinosaurs (the Sauropsida) separated from the rest of the beastiary quite early on! Dimetrodon’s appear in the lineage of the Sphenocodntia, which is a branch from the Synapsida (a sibling branch to the Sauropsida).
Dimetrodon’s existed from about 295 to 272 million years ago.
And Dinosaurs didn’t even appear until about 252 million years ago (the rise of the Triassic period). The Jurassic followed Triassic, and the Cretacious period followed the Jurassic.
Where am I going with this? Scientists have been able to put together the connections between species of Dimetrodon, which reconcile to time frame, geographic location of living and the anatomical traits.
This would not be possible if Dimetrodon was simply a random set of design features.
So… if you insist on this awful waste of time … you first have to answer why God would go through the trouble of creating consistent patterns of shared traits that LOOK LIKE COMMON DESCENT… but are in fact an illusion created by how God supposedly used a “tree” or “bush” approach in his grand design of all these life forms!