Nor, indeed, should anyone. Why do people keep posting ChatGPT material here? What on earth is even the point of doing that?
3 Likes
Mainly, it’s been people whose real postings have been criticized as incoherent. Perhaps it’s an attempt to get a better writer to do their work for them.
This statement is problematical for a number of reasons:
-
A data structure may well form a nested hierarchy within a single design, but have for example elements of two or more previous data structures merged together to form a new data structure in a new design which therefore violates the nested hierarchy.
-
Data structures are simply one element of programming. another major element are algorithms. Algorithms tend to be mixed-and-matched promiscuously, and their usage would not tend to reducible to “proper subsets” of each other’s usage.
The Chat GPT verbiage is far too vague to provide any substantiation for your claim. To substantiate it you need to demonstrate that particular designs exhibit a nested hierarchy.
I would suggest Web Browsers as a fairly well-documented (as their design decisions are widely discussed in published sources) example of computer programming design.
Can you demonstrate that Web Browser design follows a nested hierarchy?
Addendum:
You could start with Mosaic, and its descendants Netscape Navigator and Mozilla Firefox.
Then you could deal with the eleven version of Internet Explorer and Microsoft Edge.
Then you could deal with newer browsers like Google Chrome, Safari.
You would need to track things like programming language, rendering engine, features, User Interface, etc, and show that these things follow a Nested Hierarchy throughout the design of successive Web Browsers.
2 Likes
Please, forgive that I should get overly tangential about it; between you, Ewert, and myself, none of us are after all qualified to comment on genetics. Anyhow, not too long ago you were questioning both how common descent predicts nested hierarchies, and how common design does not predict that. But Ewert’s paper was published some five years ago yesterday. And it would appear that its claim is that a nested hierarchy is not what we see between the genomes of different organisms in the first place. Seeing as this was your source, I wonder, why would you waste your own or anyone else’s time on debating which if either model is a better account of why data would show nested hierarchies if nested hierarchies is not what the data shows to begin with?
If large divergence in gene patterns and chromosome counts are not consistent with a descent model, then what magnitudes of divergence in gene patterns and chromosome counts are? I should risk assuming that you and I agree on the following premises:
- A mother and her child have a descent-like relation.
- A grandmother and her grandchild have a descent-like relation.
- Between grandmother, mother, and child, no two genomes are identical.
- A grandchild’s genome is more similar to her mother’s than to her grandmother’s.
In rare cases their chromosome counts are not identical either, but I suggest we focus on one item at a time. So: Some genetic variation is consistent with descent. That means that for the divergence of gene patterns to be too large to be consistent with descent, there must be some soft or hard cut-off, some amount of genetic divergence that’s right around the edge between what would be consistent with descent and what would not. How much is that, in your opinion, roughly speaking? That is to say, what is the maximum difference there can be between a being and its most distant ancestor? Please, also show how you arrived at this number.
Is it?
Why? Also, as before, how almost-the-same is almost-the-same enough? If some difference is permissible, where is the cut-off? Why is it there and not anywhere else?
Is it? How so? What data does it fit better? What data does it predict (ahead of collection) more accurately?
With or without design, genetics diverge within families. This is one fact among all of “what we know about reproduction”. Since I already asked how much is “much”, I shall not do so again. I’ll ask “why would you expect this” instead: What mechanism, in your opinion, gets in the way of that divergence continuing on indefinitely? Please, propose an experimental setup by which one could consistently measure the numeric values of that natural law’s parameters.
So, to summarize: common design predicts a nested hierarchy; common descent does not; and we don’t see a nested hierarchy in life. Therefore, common design is true and common descent is false. Finally, a coherent argument.
3 Likes
You know, we get a completely different heirarchy when we arrange organisms by their names in alphabetical order. Yet another thing ID explains but evolution doesn’t!
4 Likes
This is not what Winston claims. Here is his claim.
If the true explanation for life’s pattern of reuse is the dependency graph, why has it been interpreted as a nested hierarchy? According to the dependency graph hypothesis, the tree is simply a subset of the true de- pendency graph. Attempts to determine the correct tree of life have simply been uncovering the tree which best approximates the entire dependency graph. This works because some modules contribute much more similar- ity to species which depend on them than others. Life resembles a nested hierarchy because a nested hierarchi- cal structure is similar enough to a dependency graph structure to approximate it.
After 5 years the new Venn diagrams that have become available are supporting this thesis.
The variation here is partly due to genetic recombination. A process that can change the location with genes inside chromosomes. What we are observing is different gene arrangements which is very different.
Yes it is. The odds of a gene sequence evolving twice is very small.
It easily explains the difference in gene arrangement and chromosome counts and does not put the burden of their formation on random change and fixation.
Mice have (theoretically) split from rats greater than 30 million years ago and their generation times are measured in weeks. We agree the house mouse is one species. If we saw the gene arrangement variation in house mice close to the variation between mice and rats then this would support the single origin of rodents hypothesis.
Rodent human gene family venn.pdf (381.0 KB)
But what do the modules in this dependency graph represent? Not what they do in a computer programmer’s graph; there is no functional relationship involved here. It’s just a set of genes that, given the particular taxon set, have the same distribution. They exist because Ewert’s module doesn’t allow for gene loss.
You haven’t explained how the Venn diagrams support that thesis, and that’s probably because you don’t understand the diagrams or anything else about the topic.
And there’s another incoherent claim. As a bonus, you didn’t anser the question @Gisteron asked. Do you even think you did?
What examples do you know of where this is claimed? Who explains gene arrangements and/or chromosome counts by convergence?
How is that relevant to anything?
Why would you assume that differences from short divergence times must be as great as those from long divergence times? That’s a strawman. Please explain how the various Venn diagrams argue against common descent rather than for it.
1 Like
Oh, my apologies for being so unclear earlier. When I said
what I meant by that was that some genetic variation is consistent with descent, and that therefore for the divergence of gene patterns to be too large to be consistent with descent, there must be some soft or hard cut-off, some amount of genetic divergence that’s right around the edge between what would be consistent with descent and what would not. I asked how much that was, in your opinion, roughly speaking, and then clarified that I meant to query you for what the maximum difference there can be between a being and its most distant ancestor was. I also asked you to please show how you arrived at this number.
What variation was partly or fully due to was not my question. What other effects that process can have was not my question. What we were observing was not my question.
Oh, my apologies for being so unclear earlier. When I said
what I meant by that was that because you said that you would not expect much change in genetic makeup based on what we know about reproduction, surely there must be something we know about reproduction that informs this expectation of yours. So I asked you what mechanism gets in the way of genetic makeup change accumulating arbitrarily, in your opinion. This limiter of genetic divergence itself, if it exists in nature, should be something we could mathematically model. Models like that typically have some paramters, scaling factors that tell us the magnitudes of natural quantities in familiar units. I asked you to propose an experimental setup by which one could consistently measure the numeric values of these parameters.
When mouse and rat lineages split was not my question, nor was what their respective generation times were. What could or would support the single origin of rodents hypothesis was not my question.
Again, my apologies for the poor phrasing of my questions that resulted in you talking completely past them. It was not my intent to waste your time like that.
1 Like
The major cutoff is the ability of reproduction to generate new genes like the ones we see in the gene Venn diagrams. Another cutoff is how changes that may very well be deleterious such as gene loss and chromosome change to become fixed the the population.
Reproduction itself is mostly a copying mechanism. When we look at the genetic makeup in humans for example there is very little variation across the species. Where there is deviation such as a gene mutation it is often deleterious which reduces the odds of fixation.
This is your question.
Your question asked for an experiment that is not available at this time for multicellular organisms. I proposed an alternative where data is available.
The reproductive mechanism is mostly a copying mechanism.
If there is no restriction to the variation the reproductive mechanism can generate how do populations (house mouse, rats) remain stable over hundreds of millions of generations?
Why do mice share 375 genes with humans which they don’t share with rats. What reproductive mechanism do you think might cause this? What easily explains this is the separate origin of rats and mice.
They don’t.
Mice have a generation time of about 10 weeks. Hundreds of millions of generations of mice would require at least 40 million years, and 40mya mice weren’t the same as they are now, if they had even evolved by than.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t produced any numbers supporting your own claims.
Do you even know how to do arithmetic?
2 Likes
If we consider the theoretical mice and rat split at 50 million generations ago does that change the argument?
What argument? You have yet to present one.
1 Like
Let’s see:
If there is no restriction to the variation the reproductive mechanism can generate how do populations (house mouse, rats) remain stable since mice and rats split 50 million generations ago?
Yes, that changes the ‘argument’. It makes the flaw much more obvious.
1 Like
It can never be obvious enough for Bill.
1 Like
Whoah, dude.
If only there was some way of calculating the expected number of mutations using the rate of occurrence, generation time, and the time since divergence. This riddle of incomprehensible elementary arithmetic must be up there among the great unsolved problems of topology.
And then if only, if just theoretically, once could conceive of some mechanism that could affect the rate of fixation.
What an enduring mystery.
4 Likes
Do you still believe this? Can you explain your reasoning?
Reproduction doesn’t result in allele frequency change in populations. Mutation, which can happen during reproduction (or at any time in the germ line) can. Differential reproduction, whether through selection or drift, can. But reproduction, of itself, does not.
Now, what do you imagine you meant by it?
1 Like
Without reproduction none of the things you mention are possible. They are by products of the mechanism of reproduction.
Sexual reproduction by definition is differential.
Word salad, again. I can’t help you there.
1 Like