Ok, well I’m not promising anything right now, but it’s a research project I’ll keep in mind and pass along to others concerned.
OK, that’s fair.
But to be clear: At this point you have no evidence or good reason to believe that a nested hierarchy of the sort used in evolutionary theory can be produced for non-evolved, designed artifacts like automobiles. To your knowledge, this has never been demonstrated. Correct?
2 Likes
To my knowledge, I don’t know why the same techniques and principles being applied in cladistics to produce these nested hierarchies couldn’t theoretically be applied to any large dataset of different things with varying levels of similarity to one another. And I don’t view it as an evidence of common descent because it begs the question to begin with. The method only has validity if you assume common descent.
Why? Even if he could do it it doesn’t mean it’s no longer for evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. Special creation doesn’t. Just because creation was compatible with a nested hierarchy doesn’t mean it doesn’t favor common ancestry.
How can you possibly claim this when you don’t know the first thing about phylogenetics?
3 Likes
Yes, as we suspected, you really do not understand the concept of the nested hierarchy at all. It’s OK, there are plenty of resources available to help you, and plenty of people here at Peaceful Science willing to teach! This article from Khan Academy is a great overview:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/tree-of-life/a/building-an-evolutionary-tree
So,let’s apply that to the example of cars. We will presume that cars were not intelligently designed as separate “kinds” but instead evolved from a common ancestor.
Let’s suppose the most common ancestor of all cars that exist today was four door car with a carburetor.
This gave rise to a new species called “convertibles” that had a soft, retractable roof.
The convertibles then diverged into two other species, one that still retained the four door design, but another that is a two door coupe.
The coupe then diverged into two other species, one of which replaced the carburetor with an electronic fuel injection system.
So we will now have the following species of cars:
-
Four doors, hard top, carburetor
-
Four doors, convertible, carburetor
-
Two doors convertible, carburetor.
-
Two doors, convertible, fuel injection.
If we knew nothing else other than arrangement of those three phenotypic domains (four door v. two door; hard top v. convertible; carburetor v. fuel injection) we would be able to reconstruct the phylogenetic tree I outlined above, thru the techniques described in the Khan Academy article.
However, suppose if we instead had a situation where those six phenotypic variations could be found in any combination. So in addition to the above species, we would have a four door hardtop with fuel injection, or a two door hard top, and all other possible combinations. It would no longer be possible to construct a scenario in which these were descended from a common ancestor. Try it and see.
The reason is that, if evolution is true, new features that arise in species are transferred vertically, from parent to offspring, rather than horizontally between lineages (that is, of course, an oversimplification). So when the mutation occurs that produces a fuel injection system, this will only be found in the two door convertible lineage. It will not be found in other lines (four door, hard top) because is arose later than those features arose.
Of course, as you know, this is not how it works in cars. Fuel injection systems now exist in all cars, because cars to not evolve. They are intelligently designed.
Does that help, or do you need more?
2 Likes
No problem. Just assert there was a common ancestor to both varieties that is yet-undiscovered. Just the same answer given to @stcordova to explain away the translation system problem he noted.
Additionally, you are only showing that with some configurations it would be possible yet with others it may not be. But just because it is possible to construct a nested hierarchy does not mean you have demonstrated anything about their actual origin.
There are not enough facepalms in the entire cosmos.
3 Likes
Give me an example. Construct a phylogeny that could produce every single possible combination of those phenotypic traits.
But the number of configurations that would be incompatible with a nested hierarchy vastly outnumber those that are compatible. Are you really going to suggest that the fact that, over and over, with millions of species, the fact that compatible configurations are all that are found is just a matter of luck? Since you creationists are fond of using arguments from great big numbers, maybe calculate the odds of that happening.
3 Likes
Exactly what do you think you demonstrated there? That God could have created “kinds” with the appearance of having evolved thru common ancestry? What scientific or theological principle suggests he would do that?
This “appearance” is in the imagination of the evolutionists. The problems get swept under the carpet.
1 Like
No, because creationists don’t believe every single species was created independently.
Oh no, not the “flower” again! Bill, we’ve talked about this. The diagram doesn’t show what you think it does, and in fact it’s good evidence of common descent on the standard tree. Human and mouse share 1602 unique genes while human and zebra fish share only 73. The most populated cells require only a single gain or loss, while those requiring two gains or losses have few occupants. Do you remember any of this?
2 Likes
What do you think was created independently, then? How can you tell what species belong to the same “kind”?
That’s a tough one. I’ll leave it to the baraminologists like Dr. Matthew Cserhati to try and figure out.
It shows deviation from what common descent would predict. There is more to come John as we get better sequencing data in the data base.
How’s that working out for him? And do you then agree that you aren’t competent to discuss phylogenetics or baraminology?
And if we could only find compatible configurations within what creationists call “kinds”, that would be support for the creationist concept, and against the evolutionary one. That is not what is found, though. The nested hierarchy is demonstrated no matter how far one goes up the tree. How does creationism account for this?
Sorry, but no. Common descent predicts a certain number of convergent losses of genes. Homplasy exists. The point is that it’s much rarer here than homology.
2 Likes