Also air vs water vs coolant cooling, electric and hybrid, two-stroke vs four-stroke, cylinder number and layout and may other variants of engine, all found within cars, vans, trucks motorcycles and other vehicles.
“Cars” and “Trucks” would not be single clades or ‘nests’ in an engine-based phylogeny, no matter how wishfully Sal and Ashwin want them to be.
You haven’t shown anything other than your ability to put words next to lines.
“Green organisms” is not a taxon.
Your answer did not demonstrate a branching tree pattern, just all the cars segregated into one of two categories.
Do you even know what a nested hierarchy is?
Precisely my point. In the same way the color red or blue cannot make a group.
So you admit that you failed to demonstrate that you could create a nested hierarchy from the vehicles you were given?
@Ashwin_s @scd, or any other creationists who are taking part in or observing this discussion.
It seem you require a clear and simple explanation of the task that you have claimed you could accomplish.
You claimed that the phylogenetic tree that is interpreted by scientists as evidence for common ancestry is merely an artifact and could be produced from any group of manufactured objects, such as wheeled vehicles.
In order to substantiate this claim you need to actually construct a phylogeny using the same methods and techniques that are employed by biologists when constructing phylogenetic trees of organisms.
This technique does NOT merely involve writing a bunch of words next to some lines, nor creating two arbitrary categories and grouping the items into one or the other.
Please note that this does not require that you accept that the nested hierarchy is valid evidence for common descent. It merely requires that you provide the evidence to support a specific claim you have made.
With that now clarified, I look forward to sincere and genuine efforts to provide this evidence, and a more intelligent and enlightening discussion than this has been so far.
Thanks in advance.
Technically correct, that’s the exact same tree. LOL
Switching the labels on two branches that directly connect to the same node is a visual, not a topological difference. They’d still form the same clade with the same members.
This is false. The claim is about nested heirarchies. Not about phylogenetic trees.
Again false… the claim is about nested heirarchies.
Why are you shifting the goal post?
Phylogenetic trees are examples of nested hierarchies.
You have failed to produce a nested hierarchy, in any event.
Perhaps you could state explicitly what claim you are defending, and how you intend to defend it.
I have done that above…read it, try and understand… and then ask specific questions.
Your point, as best as I can understand it, is as follows:
If I am given four cars, two with diesel engines, and two with petrol engines, I can put then into two categories as follows:
1) Cars with diesel engines
2) Cars with petrol engines
Beyond that, I fail to see what this demonstrates about the nested hierarchy that is found in biology. Could you please elaborate?
correct. but a designer can also made designed objects with nested hierarchy. and even in such a case it will not prove a natural process but design. so the argument is wrong to being with.
I think it needs to be pointed out that four cars with two characters does not amount to enough data to prove or disprove whether cars can be objectively sorted into a nesting hierarchy.
If we think about it we can see that not all characters can be sorted into a nesting hiearchy even for living organisms. So the fact that two handpicked characters from vehicle data also fails to yield a nesting hierarchy is not evidence that NO vehicle data can be sorted into an objective nesting hiearchy.
The problem is that some rather exhaustive work needs to be done to really generate a large sample of vehicle characters such that it could be said that, if we pick a substantial sample of vehicle character data at random from this larger set and try to sort them into a nesting hiearchy, then our failure to do so could be said to have some evidential force. And conversely if we DO end up with a nesting hiearchy, then the creationist argument would that character data from designed objects also exhibit objective cladistic structure now have some force behind it.
But it’s the creationists job to do this work. It is their claim that vehicle data can objectively be sorted into a nesting hiearchy. That can’t be proven by handpicking a couple of potential character states using four vehicles. They need to throw some meat on this argument by increasing the sample size. More vehicles, more characters.
Try 30 vehicles and out of the total list of characters(of which there could be hundreds, or thousands, or millions), pick something like 20 - 40 different ones at random. NOW start to sort them into a nesting hiearchy.
are you saying that we cant find genes between far species that dont exist in some species between them?
Please construct a phylogeny of cars using the same methods and techniques that are employed by biologists when constructing phylogenetic trees of organisms.
Thanks in advance.
Phylogenetic trees and cladograms are means of representing nested hierarchies.
Any nested hierarchy can be represented by a cladogram, and any cladogram can likewise be converted to a nested hierarchy.
Phylogenetic trees are cladograms in which the branches are scaled to represent the time elapsed since each split within the hierarchy (or the emergence of each nest).
Since you have claimed to be able to fit cars into a nested hierarchy, you should also be able to represent that nested hierarchy as a cladogram and, since car technology has developed over time, a phylogenetic tree too.
So when you complain that @Faizal_Ali has asked for a phylogenetic tree instead of a nested hierarchy, its obvious to everyone else here (except maybe Sal) that you don’t actually know what phylogenetic trees and cladograms represent, or how they relate to nested hierarchies.
(I’m reminded of Agatha Christie’s story in which an imposter was unmasked after she replied to a comment about the “judgement of Paris” on the assumption that it referred to the city, when the person being impersonated would have known otherwise. Unknown unknowns can be lethal.)
Design doesn’t predict any specific pattern of similarities and differences. Evolution does predict a specific pattern of similarities and differences, and it is the pattern we observe. Evolution wins.
Added in edit:
I haven’t used this quote in the last few weeks, so here it is:
Yet another good quote from George Romanes
lets try it too. first: say that all creatures were created by design without a comon descent. can we arrange all creatures in nested hierarchy in that case too?
but its possible by design too. right? and if so then the whole argument is falling apart. and by the way evolution doesnt predict it too. remember that in darwin time they knew nothing about DNA.