|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, if you take individual bits of the genome you get all sorts of odd results ... When I said "bits of the genome" I meant collectively. Obviously size matters.
If 'anything else' could produce that, then it's not evidence of anything. No, I meant a lack of common ancestry could produce anything else. Because of "evolution is wrong" not being a specific hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
It is true that we often do take what we refer to as an evolutionary approach. That is to say that we will copy some existing code that operates similarly to what we want and then we modify it. Yes.
Now the analogy with evolution starts to fall apart. During the maintenance phase of the product's life we are constantly required to add new features which are often incompatible with the original design, so we have to burrow back into the code and change the fundamental ways that the software works at its lowest levels. That cannot happen in nature. It would be like the evolution of a new species requiring completely changing how DNA works. Cannot happen. Evolution can only work with what it starts with; you cannot completely reinvent entire systems on the fly. You could also spill beer all over the keyboard. I don't think you should take the analogy quite so literally. Human programmers change design scope on the fly and obviously screw things up all the time, usually like you say, not anticipating what kind of effect a new feature will have on the rest of the program. If you set this fallibility aside then my point still stands, a dominant "evolutionary" pattern emerges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
f you set this fallibility aside then my point still stands, a dominant "evolutionary" pattern emerges. No. No ... just ... no. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but it can't be familiarity with the actual business of producing software.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
DrA writes: No ... just ... no. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but it can't be familiarity with the actual business of producing software. I know where he's getting it, from his desire to introduce a designer. But while we have the fossils, and we have the natural causes and we have the human designers, he ain't got nothing but fantasy. We got the fossils, we got the natural causes, we got the software designers; WE WIN!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
I know where he's getting it, from his desire to introduce a designer. Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual) I think it's pretty much a rule at this point, if you're looking for a philosophical presentation on deities or intelligent design, just ask an evolutionist to make his scientific case for common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
So that there would in fact be common ancestry and descent with modification, but of designs rather than organisms? Sure, depending on how ambiguous you want to get with those terms you could also say a wood furniture set is made up of modified descendants of a common ancestral oak tree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Hi vaporwave,
Any idea why primate phylogenies constructed from protein sequences match phylogenies created from synonymous sites? You spend a lot of time responding to peeps who you also complain are overtly fixated on designers. I am not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi vapourwave,
Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual) "Let the record show", God, how pompous. But hey, by all means, let the record show;
vapourwave writes: The typical rebuttal here has the evolutionist quickly retreating to teleological territory and he begins rambling about how a Creator could do X or Y, etc.... Message 26 No-one mentioned creators before you did, in only your second message I might add. I find it hard to imagine why you would tell a lie that is so easily disproved by the record of this thread. Fact is, until you brought up creators everyone was happily discussing phylogenetics, without any mention of your imaginary friends. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Any idea why primate phylogenies constructed from protein sequences match phylogenies created from synonymous sites? I assume whatever you're driving at is universal to all phylogenies, right? You wouldn't be cherry-picking primates would you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Vaporwave writes: Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual) I'm considering retrieving my opinion of you from the compost heap I threw it on last week. There appears to be the faint possibility that we have a unicorn amongst us - someone who doesn't believe in god/s or creationism yet also doesn't accept evolution. Is this you? Or is that another question you can't answer - like where is the evidence disproving common descent?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2666 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
No-one mentioned creators before you did I did not invoke creation/intelligent design as any part of an argument. I just anticipated the evolutionists would and then they did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Sure, depending on how ambiguous you want to get with those terms you could also say a wood furniture set is made up of modified descendants of a common ancestral oak tree. Bu suppose that I do not want to be ambiguous at all, but wish to describe your idea: "Crude example: start with a vertebrate template, and from a vertebrate template generate a vertebrate-tetrapod template and a vertebrate-fish template, and so on." Now, this is not the same as making furniture out of a tree, is it? A chair made out of an oak tree is not both a chair and an oak tree. But a tetrapod derived from a vertebrate is both a tetrapod and a vertebrate. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think it's pretty much a rule at this point, if you're looking for a philosophical presentation on deities or intelligent design, just ask an evolutionist to make his scientific case for common ancestry. No, for that you need a creationist to join the discussion. At this point even if he himself is too embarrassed to talk about his magical beliefs, it is almost certain that someone else will start mocking them. You brought the subject up, vaporwave, you don't get a free pass. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
d.p.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
vaporwave, your sad attempts to weasel out of your lies fool no-one.
I did not invoke creation/intelligent design as any part of an argument. No, you brought it up as generalised smear against other participants. So-goddamn-what? That's not what you accused people of;
vaporwave writes: Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual) You vaporwave were, beyond question, the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. To pretend otherwise is a lie.
I just anticipated the evolutionists would and then they did. Because you brought it up. The record of this thread quite clearly shows that you originally brought up creators. People responded to that. You then attacked them for bringing it up. I've seen some pathetic antics from creationists, but this is truly pitiful. It's almost as if you don't realise that the stuff you write is available to check. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024