No, you do not unless you artificially limit the features you consider. Fuel injection, back up cameras, cruise control, new formulation coatings, airbags, microchips, all appear within the same time frame across vehicle category branches and clearly violate hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is not only about new traits appearing; it is also defined by by the absence of traits. Bats are just as defined by the absence of feathers as birds are by the presence of feathers. The tree of life is dominated by a comprehensive branching of traits. Technology is dominated by common best practices solutions which are incorporated into successive generations of otherwise independent categories. That makes technology, including cars, a web and not a branching tree.
I worked my career in engineering. Please do not attempt to tell me that I constrained my designs to a nested hierarchy.
So here you were speaking solely about pandas? That wasn’t at all clear. And again your “prediction” is after the fact. You have only mentioned the genes in which convergence and/or positive selection (not the same thing) was detected in pandas.
Why does it give us good reason to suspect that? And why did you say this in an answer to my question about how we know the pandas belong to separate created kinds?
But “higher than species level” and “created kind” are not at all the same thing or even similar things.
In the case of the pandas, that isn’t true. Nor does it have anything to do with created kinds.
Again, nothing to do with the question actually asked, about created kinds. And they belong to different families not because of their differences in anatomy and diet but because of their phylogenetic relationships. That’s why giant pandas are bears, despite significant differences in anatomy and diet between pandas and bears.
Not relevant to the question.
No, they arose independently in response to the same environmental or ecological pressures. At least that’s true for the changes associated with diet. And you should know that convergence happens within families as well as between them, so this is not in fact evidence that the pandas belong to different families. That evidence is instead phylogenetic.
Not until you explain, coherently and rationally, why common design should lead to nested hierarchy among species. Then what you go on to describe is a ladder, not a nested hierarchy. You appear not to know what a nested hierarchy is, so it’s no wonder you can’t provide any evidence of how one might form.
So far it isn’t a possible or even coherent explanation. Before you can test an explanation, you actually need an explanation.
So you say. But you have offered no evidence that you can in any single case.
So morphological differences do not diagnose separate kinds, in contradiction to your prior claims. Got it.
That’s not a theory and it’s not an explanation. There is no reason to suspect that this sort of design would result in a nested hierarchy of species. Your definition of species, incidentally, is incoherent and if applied could result in all manner of mutually contradictory groups. This cut-and-paste does not improve with age or repetition.
Assertion is not the same thing as explanation.
@Meerkat_SK5: if you don’t stop doing that, I’m going to request that you be banned from the site. This is plagiarism.
“I actually do think plants are conscious. In a book called The deep structure of biology. Anthony Trewavas in one of the chapters [mumble] plants display several features which resemble conscious behaviour. They display phenotypic plasticity, which is the plant’s version of movement. They target areas to grow into and they can make choices. They are able to sense their environment, communicate through chemical reactions, display territorial behaviour and compete for space.”
No, the plant version of movement is movement. Luckily the book is partly available on line, so I checked the original text:
“Plants and animals differ fundamentally in the way they express behaviour in response to signals. In plants, it is phenotypic plasticity; in animals it is movement.”
While this looks a bit dubious to me, it’s nowhere near as dubious as IP’s version. Though having listened to IP, @Meerkat_SK5 has botched IP’s ideas as much as he’s botched everyone else’s.
Yes, you are right. I just realized this. We actually can’t conclude yet whether the red and giant panda are created kinds. We still need to do the methods that show discontinuity between the pandas and certain outgroup taxa, indicating that they may not share a common ancestor with those taxa.
We just know that they are separate families. However, separate families does not necessarily mean they created kinds, which leads me to address this…
Correct. Because common descent and common design explain the phylogenetic patterns, similarties, and differences, we have to use a holistic approach. In this case, we need to use the Baraminic Distance Correlation (BDC) with Simple Matching & Pearson Correlation and Classic Multidimensional Scaling (MDS). This will allow us to exclude other outgroups based on other factors besides phylogenetics.
This leads me to address this…
I have already explained how this sort of design could potentially result in a nested hierarchy of species. The study I gave you shows how modular principles, which is related to engineering, produces nested hierachies when applied to regulatory networks.
For instance, the role of global transcription factors in coordinating the activity of different functional modules or tissues is essential for the proper development, function, and adaptation of animals.
It ensures that animals are able to respond effectively to changing environmental conditions, and maintain homeostasis in the face of changing physiological demands.
Now, you dismissed this because you think ,for some reason, that modular design principles only apply to regulatory networks.
However, this could easily apply to whole populations as well. God would be the global transcription factor that coordinates the different traits or archetypical genomes in organisms to produce coordinated adaptations to the environment.
For example, in a population of animals living in a particular environment, the designer would preprogram favorable traits that are coordinated with each other. In contrast, the individuals that do not have the preprogrammed traits would not adapt to that particular niche.
Over time, these coordinated adaptations can result in the formation of distinct lineages or species that are adapted to different ecological niches. Moreover, this could lead to the emergence of subpopulations within the larger population that are specialized for different nutrient sources, which would create a nested hierarchy of species.
What?!?! Plagiarism
It is not plagiarism:
No, Chat GPT does not plagiarize. Chat GPT is a language model trained on a large text dataset and generates original content based on the input it receives. However, Chat GPT may produce content similar to existing content, which could be mistaken for plagiarism. Chat GPT and Plagiarism Issues You Might Concern (awesomescreenshot.com)
Instead, It is unique content based on the input of the user and It is commercially free for everyone to use.
Lastly, I specifically said in post 421 to let everyone know:
Yes, this is why I am going to rely on the ChatGPT to better navigate your guys objections and questions going forward. It is pretty darn useful.
So I am not plagiarizing or being dishonest here.
No, I did read further and couldn’t find a single prediction or observation (outside the ones I mentioned) that wasn’t already explained by Owen’s theory. It is up to you now to point out where I may be mistaken.
What is the evidence that life is constrained by ancestry? Mammals can be designed to walk and swim. They can also fly. Some reptiles have four limbs some have none. Some birds can fly others cannot. Some can swim.
Ancestry alone does not explain these vast differences. Honestly cars seem to have more constraint than living organisms. If you could design cars so they could be modified by simply functionally modifying a sequence (DNA) then maybe we would see the diversity we observe in living organisms.
Even if one took that as granted, there are two other things you’re not doing as well: thinking, and conversing. You should either start thinking and conversing, or leave. This ChatGPT nonsense is tiresome.
Stick a pin in one of your posts and you’ll find somewhere. For one thing, it’s highly unlikely that Owen’s theory predicted anything about DNA coding redundancy, transposons, or endogenous retroviruses. But the first thing you’re mistaken about is that you think I’ll believe you when you only say you’ve read something.
Exactly. You can still recognize them as belonging with mammals, reptiles, and birds, despite adaptations to various ecological niches. That is due to ancestry.
Yes. If cars could swipe right on dating apps and mate, then maybe we would see the diversity we observe in living organisms. Perhaps AI will get there.
How do you argue this is not the product of design? Mammals, reptiles, and birds are simply man made categories. Its subjective. I could call a dolphin a fish or a bat a bird depending on the subjective criteria I chose. The ability to categorize features has nothing to do with the origin of the organisms. The large variation contradicts the claim of ancestry as populations have limited variation due to purifying selection and genetic drift.
Until there is a real mechanism identified that can generate novel functional sequences there is no real theory beyond changes to existing populations.
If it’s any consolation, I too do not consider utilizing ChatGPT plagiarism. The language model is not a creative agent, after all. Dishonesty, too, if asserted, is surely not demonstrated in this habit in particular. I think doing this is grossly disrespectful, though, contemptuous perhaps, as @Puck_Mendelssohn put it, and announcing that you would do this in no way serves to infuse any grace into it, especially not if you go on to almost never mark yourself a distinction between your words and the bot’s. You are perfectly content with not engaging with the argument, and with not having anywhere near enough of a grasp of the topic to attempt any such engaging. What you cannot do, however, is concede any such incompetence (nor have it conclusively demonstrated to your own and everyone else’s satisfaction by, say, a test on a topic you implicitly claim some understandings of the basics of - just saying). You have a game to win here, after all. So, instead, you rather waste other people’s time by liberally having them argue with a bot in place of an actual interlocutor, if that’s what it takes to get them to walk away and leave you to declare some vacuous victory. That is what makes it contemptuous. The total lack of respect for either the topic or your fellow users. Dishonesty I’m sure most here have built a tolerance for. Plagiarism is disgusting, all right, but at least it’s not insulting, usually. This is.
Of course, the labels “mammals”, “reptiles”, and “birds” are subjective, but the FEATURES that make the organisms what they are aren’t subjective. Those features put them into a beautiful nested hierarchy. I don’t believe you are that dumb to not understand this?
It is if it isn’t labeled. The default assumption for unlabeled text is that the poster wrote it. If somebody else wrote it, even if that somebody isn’t really a somebody, that’s the definition of plagiarism. Even if he announces that he’s going to do it.
Though I suppose we could change the default assumption: everything @Meerkat_SK5 posts should be considered to be coming from a chatbot unless explicitly stated otherwise. But as you say, that shows a gross lack of respect for the reader. There’s no reason to suppose that he even understands the chatbot’s output and so would be unable to answer questions or challenges. What point could there be in replying to him? Or perhaps to it.