Re: Phylogenetic question for John Harshman

On Aug 30, 3:07 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 30, 5:20 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Aug 30, 11:20 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 30, 4:02 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

spintronic wrote:
On Aug 30, 2:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Could you make any nested hierarchy you like, as
detailed as possible?
No, for two reasons. First, you have not described the organisms in any
comprehensible way.

What specifically would you like to know?

I would like to know what the heck you think you're talking about. If
you want me to assemble a tree, you need to give me a set of organisms
and a list of homologous characters for each of them.

In othere words you don't know.

Shame, it was a very simple question!

And you were too stupid to comprehend the answer.

Here, I will type slowly so as not to confuse you.

N e e d s e t o f o r g a n i s m s. N e e d h o m o l o g o
u s c h a r a c t e r s.
T h e n c a n b u i l d t r e e.

Get it through that horrific miasma you call you mind- you have not
provided sufficient data to construct a meaningful tree.

Chris

Second, there seems to have been no branching
descent in this system, as far as I can tell.

There is.

Perhaps, but not as far as I can tell.

So if "I" made a tree you are not in a position to
tell me it is wrong!

If you like, you could imagine a hypothetical organism
consisting of one gene (you have to start somewhere right).

This "entity" reproduces by means of that gene.

Eventually a mutation either changes the gene
"A -->B". "OR" adds a second gene "A"_2, and they both carry on,
reproducing, and undergoin modification. etc etc etc

This is just about as clear as your previous attempt. I suspect your
inability to communicate what you mean results from not knowing,
yourself, what you mean.

Maybe.

But I will keep asking until 1 of two things happen.

1) You answer.
2) You admit you can't.

I don't care either way!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Really?

Augray did just fine.

Then build your discussion from Augray's answer.
We would like to help you understand this stuff,
if we can convince you to take the material seriously.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Phylogenetic question for John Harshman
    ... No, for two reasons. ... you have not described the organisms in any ... you want me to assemble a tree, you need to give me a set of organisms ... So if "I" made a tree you are not in a position to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Sees!
    ... organisms a powerful tool for dealing with the environment as it is ... There is no evidence that any planning is ... made for emotional reasons rather than rational ones. ... involves lots of intelligence, but not rationality. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Phylogenetic question for John Harshman
    ... No, for two reasons. ... you have not described the organisms in any ... So if "I" made a tree you are not in a position to ... consisting of one gene. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... I am keen to know your reasons. ... I read on the Internet some years ago now, ... species doesn't fit all types of organisms any more, ...
    (talk.origins)