If you don’t know what it means, how are you pontificating on the subject? Everything that follows is nonsense.
2 Likes
I don’t think a subset of data creating a star tree is relevant to this argument but maybe you can enlighten me.
Question: Is Bill Cole smarter than Trigger*?
*Either one
Function doesn’t matter for the argument I’m making. It’s irrelevant. Constraint is what matters.
Also irrelevant to the test I’ve described.
2 Likes
I doubt I can. I’ve been trying for years to communicate the most basic facts to you, without any success. But here goes:
A particular model of separate creation (one you have from time to time seemed to endorse) predicts that taxa of “separate starting points” will result in a star tree. We do not see such a star tree, and that’s evidence against that particular model. We could try to test your preferred model, but you have never said what it is in any way sufficient to determine what it predicts. My prediction, though, is that you will never do such a thing. Not only are you incapable of it, but doing so would not be to your advantage.
1 Like
Since Trigger is dead and stuffed, then no.
I hope you aren’t referring to RLP…
Right over my head, I’m afraid.
It will only depending how you compare the data. If I made a hypothesis that all primate species are separately created I think based on your criteria that would create a star.as you interpret it. If I look at the comparative gene data that would also generate a star pattern is that correct?
No. That was just word salad. A separate creation hypothesis (of one sort) doesn’t create a star. It predicts a star. Since we don’t see a star phylogeny, that hypothesis is wrong. This isn’t about my interpretation. It’s about what we would expect if the hypothesis were true. Now, if by “comparatice gene data” you refer to the presence/absence of orthologs, yes, the hypothesis would predict that new genes and gene losses would not show a nested hierarchy. But of course they do, so the hypothesis is again falsified. You still haven’t provided your hypothesis.
2 Likes
In this case there may be no gene gains or losses as each species has the same gene set. What I am saying is that we predict a star and indeed get a star pattern. As the same primate species have the same gene sets.
From what hypothesis? And what is “indeed get”? We don’t get a star in actual reality, we get a nested hierarchy.
What does that even mean? You mean all primate species have identical sets of genes? If so, what exactly does that mean? Do you mean to say they have genes performing similar or identical functions, that have similar but non-identical sequences?
1 Like
All primate species were separately created.
Each primate species has a unique set of genes from being uniquely created. A human set…a chimp set etc
That’s the opposite of what you said before:
“What I am saying is that we predict a star and indeed get a star pattern. As the same primate species have the same gene sets.”
You also need to define what you mean by same, unique, and so forth.
2 Likes
Okay so zero common descent of any primate species.
So, not the same gene set. A different “unique” set for each. Is that with like some overlap, or like zero shared genes between them? And sequences, completely unique with no similarity, or similar?
1 Like
I think it’s once again clear Bill doesn’t know what he’s saying. He’s just blurting stuff out.
1 Like
Like all vertebrates they have shared genes and genes that are not shared.
We “indeed get a star pattern”? Have you been listening, like, at all? Based on this conversation I think like 90% of the stuff that people say here goes completely over your head. So let’s start from the beginning.
What is a star tree, in your own words?
2 Likes
Then where is the counter argument? You “don’t understand”, “goes over your head” and “blathering stuff out” is all based on no counter argument. I have shown a case predicts a star and generates a star which matches actual genetic data per the discussion with Dr Harshman.
Let’s wait for his response. Like you other then his constant attempts to gain authority in his arguments he will ultimately go where the data takes him.
Why do you think I need a counterargument? You haven’t said a single thing of substance in this entire discussion. You’ve somehow had the delusion this whole time that you’re actually making a cogent argument against us, when we’re actually just trying to help you understand what these studies even mean. I’m still not convinced you even know what the significance of ancestral convergence is, and you certainly don’t know what a star tree is.
When you provide an actual hypothesis to test, I’ll provide an actual counterargument.
“generates a star which matches actual genetic data”? No, we don’t observe a star, which is the entire point that Dr. Harshman is making. He literally just said
we don’t see a star phylogeny
Again showing how most of the stuff said here goes way over your head. But per your wishes, I’ll stop responding to you and let him take over from here.
3 Likes