JAM
Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007
|
[quote] [quote]Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.[/quote] Can you supply that quote from Darwin?[/quote] Already done. Please explain how his prediction was wrong. [quote] [quote]They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks. ... But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies. [/quote] That's not true.[/quote] Quote | Most components can also be organized into nested hierarchies. |
No, very few can. As Richard pointed out, many will be identical and others will be outsourced to other companies. We don't see either of those things in biology. We get (allowing for systematic and experimental errors) a single, identically-branching nested hierarchy when we look independently at either functional or nonfunctional differences. Quote | Speaking from experience (since my job involves troubleshooting and repairing very large, complex, industrial CNC machinery) I can verify that the parts of a machine evolve right along with the machine and can be placed in separate but superimposable NHs. |
Then show us the data. Quote | Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period. Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in. |
Yes, but that isn't remotely close to showing that they and their components will fit into a single NH. Quote | Quote | The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted.
| Where did Denton assume a ladder? I don't remember that part. |
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html Read the last half of part III. Quote | Like I said, I'm willing to look at any and all evidence. I'm less interested in opinions though. |
Then why have you offered nothing but opinions? Quote | Quote | Quote | Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.
|
Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.
|
OK, Quote | you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance... so please save your lying for ignorant lay people. |
Does that qualify? |
No, because there's not a single name in there. [quote] Quote | Quote | Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences.
|
OK |
Then why do you go back on that below? Quote | Quote | What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?
|
When was it designed or when was it implemented? I have no idea when it was designed, but when it was first implemented can be found out I guess - if you find the earliest fossil evidence for that fish. |
Fossils aren't needed for this. This provides much more detail than fossils. And you can do both design and implementation. Just give me a date that explains the relationships between these sequences. MET explains this beautifully. Quote | Quote | Quote | I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows. You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.
|
It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?
|
I don't know the answers to those questions but I'm not afraid of them - I just need to figure out what you're asking and how you're arriving at your conclusions. |
My conclusions don't matter--what matters is whether your hypothesis can explain this evidence and make predictions about evidence you haven't seen yet. Quote | I need to see the evidence for myself - I won't just take your word for it. |
I'm showing you evidence and you are denying that it is evidence. Quote | The tree is theoretical in that it is just a graphic representation of a proposed relationship. |
Daniel, now you're just lying. There is nothing theoretical about that tree; it simply shows the mathematical relationships between the sequences. It is evidence. So, my question is, what hypothesis do YOU advance that explains these relationships and predicts the relationship of other data to these data? Quote | How do you know these genes are not convergent? |
If they had converged, they wouldn't be predicted to have this mathematical relationship with each other. However, for you to understand that, you'd have to grasp the concept of NESTED hierarchy, and you clearly don't.
Again, MET explains this relationship and makes predictions about where new sequences will be placed--before we have them.
Your job is to propose a hypothesis. Instead, I predict that you will continue to falsely claim that these trees are theoretical.
|