The Difficulty with Detecting Design

That’s not a nested hierarchy. You’ve merely divided the four cars into two groups.

Despite having been shown several examples of cladograms earlier in the thread, you apparently haven’t got the faintest idea what they are, let alone how to construct them.

I recommend you go here.

3 Likes

Do you know the difference between cladograms and nested heirarchies?
Or do you see them as the same?

Yes. But it’s irrelevant, because what you produced was neither.

I’d could quote Count Rugen here, but you’re more Vizzini than Montoya.

3 Likes

The dolphin groups with humans. The next clade down is dolphin/human/icthyosaur.
Sharks are the outgroup. This is the canonical phylogeny. Here are the forelimbs:

image

Shark:

Ichthyosaur:
image

2 Likes

So have no idea what a nested hierarchy is. Why not just admit that?

Helpful hint: You need to use more than just one category of characterists (petrol/diesel).

2 Likes

OK, now show how those categories are fully nested in one of the other categories, such as VW or Ford, or red or blue.

Uh oh, you can’t do it can you? Why not?

1 Like

Helpful hint: there are differences in the engine, fuel etc… Specific parts found in diesel engine which are not found in petrol engines etc…

As soon as you show me how the color green is fully nested in one category for biological life.

You are asking an irrelevant question.

right. and the cytochrome b phylogeny put human closer to a whale than to a tarsier. no difference here.

Only a small difference when looking at the larger vertebrate phylogeny:

and a small difference when looking at the larger vehicles phylogeny:

see? no difference.

You haven’t even shown how your phylogeny is organized, so it is meaningless. It is also rather easy to find cars and airplanes that group together:

image

1 Like

first: is actually not so easy. only in rare cases we can find such a system (it means that most cars still give us the correct phyloeny). secondly: we find similar situations with living things too:

as i said- no difference.

It isn’t rare at all. It is pervasive in the phylogeny of vehicles. It is further demonstrated by your inability to use characteristics to support your phylogenies.

2 Likes

so most cars have wings and are able to fly?

Make a list of characteristics of vehicles and do a real cladistic analysis, then get back to us.

5 Likes

why should i do that if i already showed that we find the same with living things?

i will tell you more than that. lets say just for the sake of the argument that you are right and we cant do that with vehicles. even in such a case it doesnt matter at all since we all know that vehicles are the product of design. thus even if we find out that we can arrange vehicles in a nested hierarchy it doesnt prove that they evolved from each other. so the argument is wrong in any case.

If you don’t have a cladistic analysis of vehicles then you don’t have the same thing.

The point is that there is no reason for life to fall into a nested hierarchy if life is designed. A designer could have mixed and matched features and genes in almost any combination the designer wanted. However, the theory of evolution predicts that we should see a noisy nested hierarchy, and that is exactly what we see. Design doesn’t predict the pattern we see, but evolution does.

Is that phylogeny based on engine type (eg petrol vs diesel)?

It isn’t, is it? You just added one more invented detail to your blather.

1 Like

If we threw in piston vs. turbine engines we would get yet another completely different phylogeny. There are cars, motorcylces, boats, and airplanes that use turbine engines that would be grouped together in one clade with other cars, motorcycles, boats, and airplanes grouped in a piston engine clade. Massive violations are easy to fine.

3 Likes