Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft

Jack Dominey wrote:

In <462Nf.8837$XE6.6211@trnddc07>, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Jack Dominey wrote:

In <5JnLf.17452$gh4.12341@trnddc06>, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Jack Dominey wrote:



In <bPQJf.1474$0z.983@trnddc01>, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:


I'm suggesting that your "evidence" is that "A" looks like "B".



It's not that simple, as anyone informed enough to know that dolphins
aren't fish would know. There are specific patterns of similarity in
living things - patterns which aren't found in manufactured objects
like cars.



You're saying there aren't patterns of similarities among cars?



Sure there are similarities. They don't fit the pattern for living
things. If they did, you'd never have automatic and manual
transmission versions of the same car.


Or black and white versions of the same human? Or long haired and short
haired versions of the same dog? Or...


I rather think that the difference between automatic and manual
transmissions is more fundamental than skin color (or paint job),
don't you? If not, we probably shouldn't bother continuing the
conversation, since our understanding of what's important is so
different.


Wow!! Have you driven much lately? Ever drive an unfamiliar car? Was it
a major feat requiring hours of retraining? Or was pretty much
everything in basically the same place as the car you're familiar with?



Please explain how this is supposed to be analagous to some features
of living things.


Cars can be traced back to a common ancestor.


No. Cars don't reproduce.


A nested hierarchy can be drawn up which shows this evolution.


There is no nested heirarchy for cars based on their features.


It will, of course, ignore many
"borrowed" features - just like the evolutionary nested hierarchy does.


Since you think there are many "borrowed" features, you won't have any
problem listing a few, will you?


"Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not
hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced
relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."
W. Ford Doolittle, Science 286, 1999

?No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many
individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic
incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its
root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the
makeup of the primary groupings themselves. . . Clarification of the
phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive
problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different
analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic
trees.?
Woese, Carl. 1998. The Universal Ancestor. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 95:6854-6859.

Quotes taken from:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html

.

Relevant Pages