‘Trigger’ was a character in Only fools and horses (UK comedy) who persistently and incorrectly called one of the other characters ‘Dave’. Trigger was played by actor Roger Lloyd Pack, who is dead, but AFAIK not stuffed.
P.S. I think colewd is dumber than RLP’s character. He may be dumber than the original Trigger was while alive. But I’m not sure he’s dumber than a stuffed horse.
My emphasis:
And lo, he did.
Reusing parts will not necessarily form a nested hierarchy, as you have been shown multiple times now. Humans reuse parts when they genetically modify organisms, and the result is often a massive violation of a nested hierarchy.
Added in edit:
It’s also interesting that you think the designer would have the same limitations as humans. We reuse design because it takes more effort, time, and resources to design something from scratch. If the designer is omniscient and omnipotent no such limitations would exist. It would be just as easy for such a designer to start from scratch and not reuse a single part as it would to reuse parts.
With that said, there are times where humans do use different designs. For example, Google Chrome on Windows and OS have different underlying code, and yet they look nearly identical and act nearly identical when interacting with them. You can use multiple types of programming languages to arrive at the same software solution. The same thing applies to biology. There is no expectation of reusing parts if life was designed.
I write code. I often take bits and pieces from different programs I have already written, and the result is not a nested hierarchy.
What evidence, if found, would discount multiple origins?
Correct. Moreover, when life “reuses” parts, we still see nested hierarchies in characteristics that do not affect function, as was demonstrated to @colewd for actin.
This is not observed for reuse in designs. For example, BMWs and Toyotas can use identical 10mm bolts from the same supplier. This is a huge violation of superimposable nested hierarchies.
The only reason for God to do this is to fool us.
God had or has similar limitations that human video game designers have. Once he chose atoms to be the basic components of the universe His limits were defined.
Whatever happened to the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient?
And do video games create a nested hierarchy?
And did He have to choose atoms as the basic components of the universe? He is omniscient and omnipotent. Also, do you really think that the fact that atoms are the building blocks of the universe somehow constrains God to use a nested hierarchy?
First of all there’s nothing about life being made of atoms that entails God is required to re-use the same or similar gene sequences in such a way that they produce a nested hierarchy. That just isn’t a real constraint on genes. It’s a constraint that is entirely imaginary. In your head.
Second, God is supposed to have created atoms, so whatever their limitations was His choice too.
Either way you end up with a deceptive God.
Then how are humans able to design organisms in a way that violates a nested hierarchy? Are humans more powerful than God?
Also, note the goalpost moving by Bill. First, he said that we see a star phylogeny in many cases, and that this is evidence for separate ancestry. After he was shown that this is wrong (we don’t see a star tree), he said that we can’t determine based on the data whether there is a star phylogeny or a nested hierarchy, and it all depends on one’s assumptions. Now he’s saying that nested hierarchies are proof of creation because supposedly the omnipotent God was confined to designing nested hierarchies, despite the fact that human designers don’t use nested hierarchies, apparently meaning that God has limitations that even humans don’t have.
Tell us, Bill, what is your actual position? Are star trees predicted by common design? Or are nested hierarchies predicted by common design? And why do you think that God is so limited?
As I frequently point out, IDcreationism is bad theology because it diminishes God.
Bill, the problem here is that the God you describe is MORE limited than humans.
As an obvious example, humans have designed and constructed many split proteins that have zero activity unless both halves are present at the same location. Why hasn’t God ever done this?
That’s a lot of goalpost moving! It’s also an accurate description of Bill’s ever-changing positions.
At some point, just pointing and laughing is the only sensible response.
Andrew I don’t think you can isolate cause through a pattern in an isolated piece of the data. The data is very complex and there are may cuts you can take at it. Multiple origin events is still the most likely conclusion at this point IMO. There has been no persuasive argument against this (Reasons to believe’s position). The evidence you cited was not persuasive because it lacked a broad look at the data and could not in itself refute multiple origin events.
The evidence we have is God made a design choice for this universe and that was to use atoms as the basic building blocks of the Universe. With these components God built the universe and live plants, animals with human observers. Humans created many technologies with those components. We have yet to scratch the surface of our capabilities to use these components to advance society. I would say that the design is limited.by the characteristics of matter but what we are observing is beyond spectacular.
You didn’t answer these questions.
I would add #3:
If God had to design complex eukaryotes so that they fell into a nested hierarchy, then why can humans design complex eukaryotes in a way that violates a nested hierarchy?
And #4:
Why does the reuse of parts require a nested hierarchy?
Word salad aside, are you saying that you no longer see a star tree? Why aren’t you answering a straightforward question?
Perhaps you should consider doing so!
Based on ignoring the data.
No argument is needed. The data speak very clearly. That’s why you’re pretending this is about rhetoric.
Broad “looks” at the data (I’ve done them, you haven’t) show nested hierarchies at multiple levels.
We have no evidence for any design choices by God or anyone else.
Humans make very cool split proteins, apparently your idea of God isn’t smart enough. Why?
I would say that you are avoiding making observations.
So you say. You haven’t provided any hard evidence for any of your statements, only word salad, goalpost moving, and obfuscation.
So you say. You still haven’t even demonstrated that you understand the evidence I cited. You still haven’t explained what a star tree is in your own words.
Also, in that entire post, you didn’t answer my question. Do you think that separate ancestry predicts a star tree, or a nested hierarchy? You seem to have changed your mind about this several times in this conversation alone, so why don’t you settle the matter for us and show us if you actually know what you are talking about.
Because his God is a God of the ever-shrinking gaps.