but i just showed you that they indeed fit with a tree.
but we got many different trees in the past base on several groups of genes. so its not realy true.
You have never shown any such thing.
What exactly are you referring to?
1 Like
So if I measure the temperature in my living room with two different thermometers, and one says 20.8±0.2 degrees C, and the other says 21.0±0.2 degrees C, should that cause us to significantly doubt the hypothesis that temperature in my living room is 20.9 degrees C?
Clearly the thermometers don’t measure the temperature I predict, and they don’t even agree with each other!
these cases for instance:
“Turtles turned out to be not where they were supposed to be on the family tree whenever their genes were included in a research study”
or:
"Within this group, bats were thought to be only distant cousins to horses, but DNA analysis suggests that only cats and dogs are more closely related to horses than bats are "
so many papers contradict each other. far from your “single tree”.
1 Like
john actually talked about “single tree”. of course that if we will check for most genes we will end up with a single tree. but its also t rue for vehicles so i dont see any difference.
Why don’t you answer my questoin? Is it because you don’t understand the analogy?
That’s a complicated one that would take a long time to cover fully. It turns out not to be true, quite. Traditionally, turtles were thought to be “anapsids”, primitive compared to other reptiles and an isolated group. Their morphology is so modified that it was hard to place them well. But back in 1994, Olivier Rieppel did the first rigorous phylogenetic analysis and figured out that they were actually diapsids. Hedges et al. (the paper referenced in your story) analyzed a short sequence of DNA and got an ambiguous result, but it put turtles also within diapsids and for the first time in the neighborhood of archosaurs. More recent, larger analyses have all converged on turtles being the sister group of living archosaurs, i.e. of birds and crocodylians. So what we have here, in contrast to your claim, is increasing consilience resulting from better data.
That’s a misleading headline; it’s really just talking about Pegasoferae. It might be correct. But I don’t see any major contradictions there.
Actually, quite close, though not perfect. Some parts of the tree are easy, others are hard. Longish, fairly recent branches are easy. Short, ancient branches can be difficult. Due to incomplete lineage sorting, some genes actually have slightly different histories than others. Some sequences aren’t long enough to resolve short branches. Inadequate evolutionary models may cause other problems. Nevertheless, the data have a clear structure, much more than expected from anything other than phylogeny.
Hedges S.B., Poling L.L. A molecular phylogeny of reptiles. Science 1999; 283:998-1001.
Rieppel O. Osteology of Simosaurus gaillardoti and the Relationships of Stem-Group Sauropterygia. Fieldiana: Geology New Series 1994; 28:1-85.
4 Likes
as i said: its also true for vehicles. if we will check for most parts we will get almost always the same tree since we are dealing with the majority of parts in these systems. so what is your point actually?
i can say the same about vehicles.
The challenge still stands. Please construct a phylogeny based on shared derived features found in automobiles. You claim that automobiles will fall into an objective phylogeny, so let’s see it.
2 Likes
You have provided no evidence for this claim. I don’t think you can. That’s my point. I have data. You have assertions. There’s a difference.
3 Likes
as i said: we dont have a list of all cars parts so it will be impossible to make a precise tree. but we do know that its possible because its base on simple logic. say that a tipical car has about 100 parts. and say that we check for 10 different cars. do you agree that at least 2 cars will be more similar to each other then to other cars because they share more parts in common then others?
That information is available. All you need to do is look it up. Lacking such information you don’t have any evidence to back your claims.
It is the pattern of similarity among all vehicles that matters.
2 Likes
I really think you should read this paper…
1 Like
I see that you’re still claiming that phylogenetic analysis is just a ranking by similarity. That’s actually the philosophy of a school of systematics that died a long time ago, phenetics. Proponents of phenetics claimed that phylogenitic analysis was impossible, so we might as well just classify based on overall similarity. There’s a reason that idea became extinct. One hopes you will repair your ignorance at some point.
1 Like
No, we don’t know that, and you are trying to avoid having to do the work that could prove you wrong and force you to eat your own words.
Do the work or admit that you don’t know whether your claim is true.
1 Like
so i we will pick up about 10 different cars we will not find 2 that shares more simillarity then others?
lets try it this way: say that all creatures were created by design without a common descent. in this case do we will get the same tree as today or not?
We do not. We won’t get a tree at all, at least not one with beyond chance support. Now, if you could come up with a reason to expect nested hierarchy resulting from separate creation, that would be different.
3 Likes
Of course we will, but that is an irrelevant result. That doesn’t show that cars, vans, and trucks sort into an objective nesting hiearchy. The nesting hiearchy is not about some things being more similar to others. Please read the links that have been given above.
1 Like
I can’t think of a single reason why separately designed creatures would necessarily fall into a nested hierarchy. Can you come up with a reason?
1 Like