This is possible. It is also possible that your head is so buried in the evolutionary paradigm you have been working in that you cannot process information that contradicts your ideology.
Functional constraint is what we are observing when we observe the sequence data is not mutating at the same rate as neutral mutations. Whats your alternative hypothesis?
Then reproduce or reference it.
You have produced no such hierarchal structure, so thereâs nothing to deny.
You have produced no such hierarchal structure, so thereâs nothing to see, and no facts to examine.
1 Like
Just read the thread. I did it and SCD did it. I donât want to interface any more with people who want to argue that my black shoes are red.
Bill, Harshman didnât deny that. You are still failing to understand almost everything in this conversation. We arenât talking about using sequence data to establish gene families but about the use of sequence data in phylogenetic analyses and the impossibility of using sequence data in Ewertâs scheme.
Irony is first, apparently.
No, you vaguely waved your hand in the general direction of Apple computers, and SCD produced a little tree of vehicles with arbitrary characters made up to fit it. Neither is a real nested hierarchy. That you think so is just more of your lack of understanding. And you arenât wearing any shoes.
2 Likes
This is how sequence data is used in Ewertâs scheme. You are trying to bring your paradigm to this analysis and it is not viable. Phylogenetic analysis assumes universal common descent. Ewertâs dependency diagram objectively looks at the data based on gene families and if they follow a pattern of descent. So far contradictory data has surfaced and has not been explained other then hand waving.
Once you take the mechanism away for explaining complex adaptions you no longer have a theory. Common descent alone does not explain the data. The fact that it is a partial explanation for the nested hierarchy is trivial.
Thatâs not using sequence data, at least not in the way everyone else was talking about. You changed the subject and you didnât even know it.
Itâs not a partial explanation. Itâs a full explanation. Common descent does not, of course, explain the origin of mutations. Nor does it explain the photoelectric effect or the precession of the equinoxes. This is a basic confusion that youâve had from the beginning and that apparently canât be dislodged, even temporarily.
I will further note that you have no explanation for nested hierarchy.
2 Likes
I know how people are talking about it. They are lost in the evolutionary paradigm and are trying to put a round peg into a square hole. The gene pattern being explored is a full time project given the maturity of the gene databases. You add no value suggesting to broaden the project especially in ways that do not test the hypothesis.
Itâs not a full explanation of the diversity of life. It does not explain complex adaptions and that is where the debate is.
Design plus common descent.
Iâve read the thread. You have not produced, reproduced or referenced a hierarchical structure of human designs.
Then learn what colours and shoes are, and stop pointing to your bare knees.
P.S. Ewartâs graphs arenât hierarchies, and scdâs tree is just a cartoon with no actual data behind it.
2 Likes
Of course it (common descent) isnât a full explanation of the diversity of life, regardless of what you imagine that means. It isnât supposed to be. Itâs an explanation of the distribution among species of different characteristics. Itâs the only explanation that fits the data. You have no explanation whatsoever.
Sorry, but that isnât an explanation. It isnât even a coherent statement, as nobody, including you, knows what you mean by it.
1 Like
I does not explain even what you are claiming. It does not explain all the different characteristics like the origin of the flight feather.
Design proposes mind as the mechanism behind complex adaptions. We already know a mind can create complex sequences. Simply asserting that it is not an explanation is not an argument.
Let me repeat. We have a mind behind the origin of new complex reproductive cellular structure and common descent behind extending some of the diversity we are observing.
Bill if you want to believe MAGIC! did it thatâs your right. Just donât be surprised your science-free blithering hasnât swayed a single scientifically literate person.
Pity you have not one tiny shred of evidence for the âdesignâ part.
But to humor you, tell us which parts of the phylogenetic tree of life you think are common descent and which parts are âdesignâ, and why.
PsstâŚhey BillâŚâmindâ by itself is still not a mechanism no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood.
This is you continuing to misunderstand everything. Iâm not going to explain again; if you must, just reread the previous post. Try one word at a time, then try to fit those words into a structure of meaning.
Still not coherent. I think youâre denying that common descent happens beyond some undefined but fairly shallow taxonomic level. But the vague term âdesignâ communicates nothing about what you actually mean.
It does no good to repeat incoherent statements. How far down does common descent go? What explains nested hierarchy beyond that level?
Bill made this cryptic claim on another thread:
Heâs been asked multiple times to explain but seems to have lost his voice. I strongly suspect like most Creationists he just makes it up as he goes. 
1 Like
I simply exposing the weakness in your explanation. Common descent does not do what you are claiming it does.
Design means a mind is ultimately a direct mechanism behind what we are observing.
Design or mind as a mechanism explains the complex adaptions we observe in the hierarchal structure.
Since you seem not to be aware of what Iâm claiming it does, there seems no way to address your claim here.
You donât see how vague and meaningless that claim is?
And back to word salad.