But that tree isn’t based on any data. You just made it up.
3 Likes
I’m afraid that shows that you have no idea how phylogenetic analysis works. It seems you have not read any of the papers referenced for you, or even the ones you reference yourself.
2 Likes
I wonder, do you think we could get a parts list of some cars and put it into a phylogeny program? Has anyone done this before?
You could, but you would probably need more analysis, actual character coding on shapes and such too. To my knowledge nobody has ever done it. But I’d say it’s incumbent on all the creationists who keep saying they could do it.
There was a data set of cartoon characters that came with McClade; that’s the closest I know of.
actually it is. a bicycle is more similar to other bicycle then to say a car. its an observable fact.
a phylogenetic tree is a tree that base on similarity percentage among living creatures. whats wrong with that?
What’s wrong with that is that it isn’t true. Please consult the methods section of any paper on phylogeny. See if that’s how they do it. Hint: it isn’t.
I might give you that, though of course mere similarity isn’t how trees are built. But now let’s consider a motorcycle. Where on your tree does that belong? How about a 3-wheeled motorcycle? A 4-wheeled, pedaled vehicle? And how does an airplane fit? You really haven’t thought much about all this.
2 Likes
are you saying that if we will go by similalrity percentage alone, it will not produce the same tree bascially? or are you rferering to the time scale? you can call it a cladogram if you want. i have no problem with that.
what about this one?:
No. We would in fact produce a roughly similar tree in the majority of cases. What I’m saying is that’s not how it’s actually done, and just going by similarity will produce the wrong tree in a fairly large minority of cases. Especially if you just go, as you do, by a quick visual impression. That way you get, for example, lungfish and trout together, excluding humans.
No better than the others. You’re just making up a tree based on intuitive surface impressions. And you could have made up different trees if your intuitive impressions had gone some other way. Isn’t it obvious that airplanes, for example, are an entirely different lineage from wheeled ground vehicles? You can make up anything you want to following what one could laughingly call your methodology.
1 Like
Everything. You’re completely missing the concept of nesting.
He’s saying that you should learn how phylogeny is done. You seem to have a huge problem with that.
if i was not clear till now: of course that i meant to genetic smilarity and not just mere morphology.
as fish is different from a reptile. so?
You are making it clear that you still don’t get it. It’s not just similarity, genetic or any other kind!
In my opinion he does get it. Thats what makes a market.
You can get even closer to biology by making a tree of computers with similar or compatible software.
No, trees of computers don’t give you nested hierarchies for both the whole entities AND their components (hardware or software), and it’s not a market.
The fact that you don’t get this either is informative, though.
Can you back this assertion with an argument?
See my clarification above. I prefer to back up assertions with data.
Can YOU back up your assertion that computers form nested hierarchies that are congruent with their components (which they would have to be if they are anything close to biology) with data?
If you take computers designed by the same company you can get almost the same tree. Same ergonomic look and feel same processor architecture same memory architecture same software operating system. It is a result of common design methods.
No, you don’t, because you have identical CPUs in computers from different companies with different operating systems.
Therefore, computers are not like biology. Do you really not grasp the concept of the hierarchy of the components matching that of the assemblies?
I am talking about computers from the same company. You are changing the argument. When we have the same designer group the tree starts to look a lot like biological trees. Twin nested hierarchies and the whole shooting match.