we see it everywhere in designed objects made by human (both cars and trucks have engine, wheels etc) so i see no difference.
indeed. but we know that even synonymous codons have different functional meaning. thus they are not different from non synonymous codons:
Yes, made by humans. Humans reuse designs because we have limited resources, limited time, and limited knowledge. Are you saying the designer in the case of life has the same limitations?
Also, human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, as you have been shown multiple times.
If different DNA can produce the same traits, then how do you explain shared DNA? Why not different DNA?
We have been told not shown. I think this statement is false.
Then show some human designs falling into a nested hierarchy. You have previously been able to show only bogus examples that actually show only that you donât understand what ânested hierarchyâ means.
Mac computers.
I have given many examples. For example, you can find the same engine in a Toyota car and a Toyota pickup, but two different engines in the same model of Toyota car. You can find the same tires on a Chevy and Ford sedan, but two different types of tires on the same model of Ford sedan. I could go on and on.
If you think I am wrong, the define the shared derived characteristics for a group of human designs and show how they fall into a nested hierarchy.
How do Mac computers fall into a nested hierarchy? What are the shared derived characteristics? What does the phylogeny look like? What method did you use to construct the tree?
Shared are components and software.
Whereâs the nested hiearchy?
You made the same claim in the 5000 comment thread on Common Descent back on theskepticalzone, and you were never able to back it up there. Now youâre just making the same claim again here.
Why do you allow yourself to make claims you canât back up?
A nested hierarchy is a specific pattern of shared features, not simply sharing parts in general. You need to show that this pattern exists in Mac computers, or withdraw your claim that they fall into a nested hierarchy.
For example, if a species shared teats and fur with mammals while sharing flow through lungs and three lower jaw bones with birds this would be a violation of a nested hierarchy. Simply sharing features is not a nested hierarchy.
It would simply be a different hierarchal structure. A bat has wings and is a mammal. Do the wings violate the nested hierarchy?
Does the ability to swim long distances and live in the ocean make whale whale violate the nested hierarchy?
The nature of the hierarchal structure depends on the design requirements. Living organisms are designed at the molecular level and that will influence the hierarchal structure. This is why software designed with bits is the closest comparison.
The point is that it wouldnât be a nested hierarchial structure.
âWingsâ describes a function, not morphological features. Try again.
That is an ability, not a morphological feature.
We are talking about a NESTED hierarchy. Please show us examples of human designs that fall into a NESTED hierarchy.
Wings are a morphological feature.
No, it isnât. Wing is a description of a function for a forelimb. Morphology would be the shape and structure of the forelimb. Here is the bird and bat forelimb:
Those are not shared features.
Bones are shared. Muscles are shared.
The humerus, ulna, radius, carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges are the shared derived characteristics of all tetrapods. None of them are specific to either birds or bats. Teats, fur, three middle ear bones, cusped cheek teeth, and single lower jaw bone are the classic mammalian traits that are not shared with other groups. Feathers and flow through lungs are classic bird features that are not shared with other groups. Do you see how this works?
Added in edit:
For those looking for a primer on phylogenetics, I would strongly recommend Understanding Evolutionâs website which does a great job of introducing the concepts:
As collapsing hinged screens are not shared with non laptop computers.
I see this as evidence for design. I donât see this as any real case for what you are trying to argue that design had no part in this structure.
I can find the same iOS version on a desktop and laptop, and two different iOS on two laptops. Your groupings donât work. Macâs donât fall into a nested hierarchy.
how is that relevant? if wheel is good for a car why not using it also in a truck? who said that a designer should make a different eye type for species A and B and C and actually for every species? it doesnt make real sense to me.
thats the point- its not realy the same trait. synonymous codons can make different traits.
I already stated why it is relevant.
âHumans reuse designs because we have limited resources, limited time, and limited knowledge. Are you saying the designer in the case of life has the same limitations?â
Wheels donât fall into a nested hierarchy.
Why couldnât a designer make a different eye for every species?
You are straining gnats while swallowing a camel.
I can find boned and muscled wing structure on birds and mammals. I can find mammals that donât have wings. I can find fish that breath air. I can find mammals with fins. I can find a mammal with a duck beak (platypus). I can find mammals that Ley eggs.
Your argument fails.