The Current Status of Ewert's Dependency Graph of Life

Please stop promulgating this dishonest creationist trope. A nested hierarchy is not, and has never been, mere similarity.

4 Likes

And even to the extend the statement is true, that more “similar” organims also have more similar DNA sequences, we haven’t been told why that should be the case on independent creation. We know that there is no such necessary relationship, since the exact same function can be encoded in different (in some cases completely different, 0% similar) sequences of DNA.

3 Likes

I’m curious as to how a (genetic) nested hierarchy could exist without gene gain/loss. Surely without such gain and loss you simply have the unbranched continuation of the original population, a ‘single bare trunk’ lacking any branches, rather than the ‘branching tree’ that is a nested hierarchy.

Far from gene gain/loss merely ‘explaining’ some “inconsistency” in the nest hierarchy, they constitute the nested hierarchy.

4 Likes

Nope. First, it isn’t actually true. Second, you have confused nested hierarchy with a measure of similarity, which it is not.

This just shows that you don’t understand anything about nested hierarchy. Ask yourself this: what would that diagram look like if in fact it fit a nested hierarchy? Would there be gene gains or losses in that hierarchy?

5 Likes

I agree common descent predicts this. What it does not predict is the origin of thousands of unique genes.

In order to make this prediction you need a mathematical model of how this happens. Since this is not likely I would appeal to finding a different starting point than Luca for the hypothesis.

Bill how would you get a nested hierarchy in gene presence-absence, if not by the origin of new genes and loss of old ones?

You don’t need a mathematical model of HOW gene gain or loss happens in order to explain a nested hierarchy in gene presence and absence. You just need to posulate THAT it happens. Of course we do KNOW that it happens as we’ve seen both gene gain and loss occur.

But regarding modeling gene gain, there was a thread on this recently.

Nonsensical statement.

3 Likes

Word salad again. Very frustrating.

1 Like

By different starting points. Your reasoning is circular as you are assuming common descent.

A statement that appeals to using the scientific method as a standard and to stop promoting a theory (LUCA) that is a house of cards.

Why should that result in a nested hierarchy?

No, you are the one who said you agree common descent predicts a nested hierarchy but not the gain or loss of genes, and I’m asking how a nested hierarchy would be produced by common descent in patterns of gene presence and absence, if not by the gain and loss of genes?

Even more nonsense.

Do you truly not care about making sense?

4 Likes

It seems more likely that he tries to make sense but doesn’t know how. I suspect that he’s very sure that he is making sense and that you’re the one who isn’t.

1 Like

If he truly does believe that is the case then that is mind-blowing. I can only hope that even among ID-creationists, Bill is a rare specimen, and that most others really do care about making sense even if we don’t ultimately come to the same conclusions.

1 Like

Again, Bill probably does care about making sense. He just isn’t equipped to do it or to realize when he isn’t.

I have a hard time seeing how one can believe they’re making sense when they don’t, as it seems to me there has to be a pretty significant relationship between your own understanding and your ability to explain something in words.
At least I generally find that to the extend I fail to explain something to someone else it’s because I don’t understand it well enough myself to do so. Unless I don’t know the words for certain concepts of course, but I don’t think that’s the problem here.

2 Likes

Well of course there’s a significant relationship. He doesn’t understand and he can’t explain it in words. But people think they’re making sense when they don’t all the time. They think they understand when they don’t all the time. It’s like you’ve never been on the internet before. Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Bill doesn’t know some of the words, but more importantly he doesn’t understand the concepts, though again he thinks he does.

This seems to be a particularly extreme example considering the length of time Bill has persisted in his delusion that he’s making sense, particularly considering how often and how many different people tell him that he doesn’t. But true there are many examples of people thinking they make sense even when they don’t, though often times they just state opinions, rather than spend so much of their time trying to be an advocate for a particular viewpoint.

Bill isn’t just here stating or reiterating his beliefs(though it does often amount to nothing but that). He does appear to be trying to argue against evolution and advocate for ID-creationism, so you’d think he would have more interest in taking some the most basic and fundamental steps necessary for persuasion: Making sense so you can be understood.

1 Like

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

1 Like

I cannot worry that everything I write will immediately make sense to you or John. Everyone interprets data through their own filters. Both you guys are heavy indoctrinated in the overall reasoning of evolutionary theory.

So does common design as Winston demonstrated.

How would you test the validity of the major transitions supporting the nested hierarchy claim?

Some people’s filters are more blinding and opaque than others. Yours seem to be more dark and constricting than a supermassive black hole.

ROFL.

“Heavily indoctrinated in the overall reasoning of evolutionary theory” is scare words for having an education, and both reason and science on our side.

How is “so does common design as Winston demonstrated” intended to constitute an answer to the question I posed? I’ll try again, how else would you GET a nested hierarchy in the pattern of gene presence and absence but by the loss and gain of genes on different lines of descent?

Different lineages have to be different in order to get a tree (they can’t all be identical), there has to be something that merits a bifurcation of a branch. That is, a branch should split into at least two. But in order for that to happen, one organism has to have something that is different from another organism in order to be recognized as different.
So when it comes to what genes different organisms have, those on one lineage must possess one or more genes those on another linage doesn’t possess. That means genes must either be gained or lost, there is no way around this. If two species are to share common descent, yet not be 100% identical with respect to the genes they have, one or both must gain or lose genes, and different ones. That’s the only way to get a nested hierarchy with gene presence or absence.

The way you phrased that question it doesn’t seem to make any sense. Are you trying to ask how we know certain major evolutionary transitions occurred? Are you asking how we know different clades are related through common ancestors? Something else entirely?

Try harder to ask a sensible question.

2 Likes

Word salad Rum :slight_smile:

I am asking you to directly test the validity of the claim.

Not with a tree pattern but with how reproduction and natural variation explains what we are observing.

There is common descent in the pattern but how do we know if we are dealing with a LUCA LVCA (vertebrate) LMCA (mammal) or LPCA (primate) as the right starting point for science?

This is a foolish question.

LUCA, LVCA, LMCA and LPCA are all abstractions. They cannot be the starting point. I’m wondering why you omitted LHCA (the H is for “human”) on a site that frequently mentions GAE.

1 Like