The Current Status of Ewert's Dependency Graph of Life

More word salad. Do you even know what you have just said? What software program? What tree like structure?

1 Like

No, not challenged in his paper. At no point does Winston employ a method of independent creation to create anything at all, much less refer to any such real process that has zero degree of genealogical descent with modification.

It isn’t clear that there is no genealogy involved in the writing and usage of the java script “modules” Winston has derived a tree from, nor are we told about the degree of consistency of that tree.


Prediction from the paper.

• Software should fit a dependency graph better than a tree, but a tree better than a null model.


The JavaScript applications fit the tree or the depen- dency graph better than the null model. However, the dependency graph is preferred to the tree. This again confirms one of the predictio software can exhibit a hierarchical signal while being produced by a dependency graphns,. Nevertheless, it still fits the dependency graph better than the hierarchical pattern.

I can only repeat myself: It isn’t clear that there is no genealogy involved in the writing and usage of the java script “modules” Winston has derived a tree from, nor are we told about the degree of consistency of that tree.

And there’s still no explanation for the consistency of the nested hierarchy across so many different sorts of data.


How was this determined? What was the data set?


Animals with more similar features have have more similar DNA sequences?

How again does this validate an ancestral relationship?

The Howe diagram shows some inconsistency of the nested hierarchy as John had to appeal to random causes (gene gain/loss) to help explain it.

But that doesn’t have to be the case(and it some times isn’t), so why do they have that when they do, and why not when they don’t?

It is a straightforward prediction and expectation from common descent. We can see it with our own two eyes that branching descent with modification produces a nested hierarchy. It can be shown in real time with evolving populations deriving from common ancestors. That is the most fundamental validation possible in science: Empirical demonstration.

The Howe diagram is not inconsistent with the nested hierarcy, the other way around. John showed that in fact it corroborates the nested hierarchy, lol. Are you okay?


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


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.


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.


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?


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.


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?


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.