we can make a tree from designed objects too. so a phylogenetic tree isnt evidence for non designed.
Can we? I’d like to see you try.
What about it? You just made up a tree. It’s not based on data, not based on a real phylogenetic analysis. I will concede that you can make up a tree connecting any collection of objects you care to. But that isn’t how actual phylogenetic analysis works. And you have failed to discredit phylogenetics as evidence of common descent.
a phylogenetic tree is just a tree that describe the similarity\difference among living creatures. it doesnt prove they related. so we cant use it as evidence for a common descent. we can actually get a tree if all creatures were created by design too. by the way as a general note :english isnt my native so i dont understand some words here and there in general.
That is your contention. But you have been unable to back it up. You didn’t respond to my challenge except by producing a cartoon version of a tree. So, how does design produce creatures that fit into a tree? It’s something that follows naturally, more or less inevitably, from common descent. But how does design do it?
Oh no, he’s back. Cars, vans and trucks are not self-replicating biological entities. Cars, vans and trucks have been Intelligently Designed by Engineers at Ford, GM and Volvo.
That supports his argument, or rather, it’s a necessary precondition for it. I hope this isn’t considered out of line, but lately you seem to be making knee-jerk comments. Thinking before you post is good practice.
here is a tree base on similarity degree between vehicles:
as you can see its just a classification. like a tree base on creatures:
(image from Home)
All you show is that you can draw a cartoon. It isn’t backed up by data or real analysis. The “tree based on creatures”, on the other hand, is. Your ability to draw cartoons is not at issue. That said, I’d be fascinated to know the reasoning you use to tie trucks to airplanes, exclusive of cars.
You will get no where with him. It is a waste of time.
Of course it is. But it’s no less a waste of time to make invalid arguments in response than it is to make valid arguments. So what’s your point?
actually it is. its base on similarity. so a tipical car is closer to other cars then to say a trcuk. and a tipical truck is closer to other truck then say an airplane etc. by this way we can make a tree base on similarity degree. again: just like living creatures.
yep. here is a more accurate tree:
I staying out of discussion with him, it gets childish really fast. Good luck with him.
Clearly, based on your need to revise the cartoon, you have no idea what you’re doing, and you also have no idea how phylogenetic analysis actually works. I would attempt to educate you, but it’s clear that any such attempt would be futile.
lets face it. the phylogenetic tree doesnt prove any evolution (as we can see above). why its so difficult to admit this simple fact?
Discussion aside, where are you from? Do you have a particular side of the argument you favor? I’m asking so I can give you a title.
But your analogy fails in light of the fact that the homologous parts of the creatures fit the same tree as the whole creatures. That’s the really powerful evidence that you’re ignoring.
If your analogy was valid, if we classified 10-mm bolts from all of those machines by their characteristics, we should see the same tree. We don’t. The airplane and the bicycle could use identical 10-mm bolts, while the ones from the car and the truck could be very different. In fact, some machines of all four kinds are built with metric and some with English measurement systems, an even bigger violation of your tree, as the latter group wouldn’t even have 10-mm bolts.
im from israel. nice to meet. as for your question: i guess that im a kind of id supporter.
are you saying that any given gene that we will check will show the same phylogeny base on the entire genome? because if so its clearly isnt true. many genes violate the general tree.
see above. we find the same in biology.
Only to the extent explainable by horizontal transfer (very rare in eukaryotes) or incomplete lineage sorting, and they violate the tree only in very narrow and specific spots. There’s also a tree to be violated, which should give you pause. There is no tree of vehicles. You can imagine one, somebody else can imagine another, but you can’t get one from rigorous analysis, or at least never the same one twice.
Let us agree that you are completely ignorant of this subject; you have no idea how actual phylogenetics is done. Right?