Making a Tree from Designed Objects?

I’m not.

Many? How many of the ~20000 genes in a typical vertebrate genome violate the tree?

1 Like

Why would common design produce a tree-like pattern?

2 Likes

That’s easy enough to test. I happen to be a fan of Ford Mustangs, owning one myself, and of Ford vehicles in general. You can find a nearly identical 2.3 liter 4-cylinder turbo in both the Mustang and the upcoming Ford Ranger, and yet two Mustangs can have the 4-cylinder turbo or a naturally aspirated 5.0 liter V8. This seriously violates the tree, and there many, many, many more instances of features that violate your tree. Vehicles don’t fall into a statistically significant tree.

4 Likes

It is the statistical significance that matters.

1 Like

And that incredible complexity is eventually reducible! (OK, I’m being a bit hyperbolic in terms of my optimism—but given time, science discovers more and more of the steps involved in the evolution of such complex structures and processes.)

3 Likes

Yet again we are reminded that Common Descent and Common Design look similar only superficially. And any tree diagrams drawn from them are stupendously qualitatively different.

3 Likes

Just to keep this going, let’s see if this tree works for other examples.

First, we have the Toyota AR family of engines.

Oops!! The engine is found a mixture of trucks and cars. If it was a synapomorphy for the node joining cars and trucks then a modified version of the engine should be found in all cars and trucks, but it isn’t. Instead, it is found in a smattering of cars and trucks, and only in Toyotas and their subsidiaries. This is a serious violation of the tree.

We could also look at the Toyota GR V6 engine. Once again, this family of engines is found in a smattering of trucks and cars, an only in Toyotas or their subsidiary brands. Once again, a massive violation of the tree you have given.

We could go through every Toyota engine and find similar violations. A Toyota car and a Ford car are more dissimilar than a Toyota car and a Toyota truck. Let’s be honest. Your tree wasn’t based on any study of similarities or dissimilarities. You never even tried to do that. All you did was throw up a tree and hoped that no one would delve into it. Unfortunately, this is the lack of depth that most creationist arguments suffer from.

3 Likes

One could also point out that some vehicles have carburetors and others have fuel injectors, and that this too fits no tree other than one made from that single character. Or any other component of a vehicle.

3 Likes

I don’t understand. Why is the lemon barfing, and why is the used condom saying “Semper Fi”?

3 Likes

Genetic drift.

2 Likes

The creature’s immune system is battling a stomach ailment.

1 Like

so what is your prediction if common descent is false? in other words: what kind of finding can falsify the claim that all creatures share a common descent?

if we will look at the gorila genome for instance we are talking about 30%. or about 6000 genes that contradict the accepted tree.

but its true for living creatures too. when this happen they just call it “converegent evolution” or “convergent loss” or “ils” and so on. so i see no real difference.

even if it was true, it may be because we are dealing with several designers here and not with a single one. so lets deal with a single company instead first.

again; are you saying that a tipical car isnt closer to other car then to a truck? because if so it make no sense.

But they don’t contradict it very much, certainly not to the extent one might expect if gorillas were a separate “kind”. A small number make gorillas the sister group of humans, an approximately equal number make them the sister group of chimps, and a tiny number make them the sister group of orangutans. But these are all close relatives, just the sort of thing we expect from incomplete lineage sorting given branching events close in time. Why don’t any genes put gorillas closest to cats, frogs, or lobsters? Or even baboons?

Still, you have displayed more knowledge in that post than in all your previous ones. Progress.

1 Like

so if we will find such a case evolution will be wrong?

You answer a question with a question, thus effectively dodging the question. But I’ll answer anyway. No, that isn’t how science works. One tests hypotheses against other hypotheses, preferring the one that best fits the data. And one doesn’t look at a single data point in isolation, instead considering all the data. Now, the expectations of your hypothesis, separate creation, would be that gorillas are equally unrelated to cats, frogs, lobsters, and humans, and we would have no reason to expect any genes to show relationship to any of them. Under common descent, on the other hand, we expect a predominant pattern, and that’s what we see. Even the exceptions to that pattern have a pattern of their own, generally consistent with incomplete lineage sorting. You may be able to find one or two cases of further exceptions, but one data point doesn’t outweigh all the rest of the data.

In short, your ignorance seems to stretch far beyond phylogenetics and into a basic lack of understanding of the process of science.

4 Likes

Convergent evolution involves analogous adaptations, not homologous adaptations. There is a huge difference.

A single designer can mix and match parts from other designs which would violate a tree-like pattern.

I can point to a car and a truck that have the same engine while two cars of the same make and model have different engines. For example, A Ford Mustang and a Ford Ranger both have nearly identical 2.3 liter turbo engines while two Ford Mustangs can have a 2.3 liter turbo and a 5.0 liter naturally aspirated V8. In this case, the car and truck are more similar.

2 Likes

Really? Name 20 of them then.

He’s right, you know. Whether he can name them doesn’t seem relevant.

Wouldn’t that would depend on what tree we’re considering? Vertebrates, mammals or only great apes?