Zachriel is Ignorant of the Common Descent Concept
This is too funny, an evolutionist choking on the concept of common descent. See it for yourselfs-
Zachriel posted:
A family tree is not common descent, that is, unless you have a habit of marrying your cousins. In most cases, mating is between families, not within families.
So only people who marry their cousins can have descendants? Really?
Earlier Zachriel posted:
If we group each organism with all of its descendants (forming clades), then yes, we would have a set pattern such that each subset is contained within its superset. That's due to the tree-like structure. The obvious deduction is that the traits of the leaves, given descent with modification, would naturally group together such that each subset is contained within a superset. The set patterns would closely match.
So I said that a family tree is a clade (by Zach's definition) yet it doesn't form a nested hierarchy. That is when Zachriel sed that shit about a family tree not being common descent.
Common Descent in a nutshell:
Parents have offspring that are slightly modified versions of themselves. These offspring then have offspring that are slightly modified versions of them. And so on until the offspring no longer resemble the original parents, and it keeps going and possibly diverging and converging.
That is how the tree pattern is formed.
But how stupid does an evolutionist have to be to not understand that? Or is it that Zachriel sees that it has stepped on its own little brain and will say anything to distract from that fact?
Can't lose the nested hierarchy debate to us so Zachriel goes into full denial mode.
posted by Joe G @ 8:40 PM
At 10:27 AM, Zachriel said…
Joe G: So only people who marry their cousins can have descendants?
By definition, it's called common descent if they share a common ancestor. If you look at a typical family tree, it's doubtful you and your wife share a close ancestor.
Joe G: So I said that a family tree is a clade (by Zach's definition) yet it doesn't form a nested hierarchy.
A clade is an ancestor and all its descendants. A typical family tree includes spouses, who do not share the common ancestor of the tree.
Son - Daughter in Law
does not form a clade because the Daughter in Law does not share the common ancestor of the tree.
If you restrict the family tree to just the paternal line, then it would form a clade.
Son1, Son2
At 7:31 AM, Joe G said…
By definition, it's called common descent if they share a common ancestor.
Then you really can't say anything is common descent.
If you look at a typical family tree, it's doubtful you and your wife share a close ancestor.
Close ancestor? Way to move the goal-posts.
A clade is an ancestor and all its descendants.
And there is no way of knowing that.
Ya see parents have offspring that are slightly modified versions of themselves. These offspring then have offspring that are slightly modified versions of them. And so on until the offspring no longer resemble the original parents, and it keeps going and possibly diverging and converging.
It appears that Zachriel is ignorant of how common descent occurs.
At 7:43 AM, Zachriel said…
Joe G: Then you really can't say anything is common descent.
In evolutionary biology, common descent refers to species. The hypothesis is that most or all organisms share common ancestry.
Joe G: Close ancestor? Way to move the goal-posts.
No, just looking at the typical family tree, which has members that do not show a common ancestor.
Joe G: That is how the tree pattern is formed.
This is not the same pattern due to the posited furcations from speciation and evolutionary descent.
Nope. A clade has a population as one node and then populations that allegedly came from that as other nodes. It does NOT have the common ancestor as that would be an individual.
Zachriel just sacked cladistics.
A clade (from Ancient Greek κλάδος, klados, "branch") or monophylum (see monophyletic) is a group consisting of an ancestor and all its descendants, a single "branch" on the "tree of life".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade
A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/imagedetail.php?id=260
In evolutionary biology, common descent refers to species.
And it occurs exactly as I said. That you choose to ignore what I said proves that you choose to be willfully ignorant.
And I know how a clade is defined. However by your "logic" we cannot know the common ancestor(s).
Strange that humans and chimps can share a common ancestor but two humans cannot.
The hypothesis is that most or all organisms share common ancestry.
It is an untestable hypothesis
Joe G: And it occurs exactly as I said.
What occurs? The statement we replied to was "Then you really can't say anything is common descent."
Joe G: And I know how a clade is defined.
Joe G: It does NOT have the common ancestor as that would be an individual.
In evolutionary biology, the common ancestor and each descendant is a species population. Through a process of speciation, species divide into new species. This creates an uncrossed tree.
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/thumb/0/04/Evolution_tree_of_life.png/300px-Evolution_tree_of_life.png
Joe G: Strange that humans and chimps can share a common ancestor but two humans cannot.
Humans are all related, however, the typical family tree does not show these relationships. Generally, on a typical family tree, mating is a cross with other families, which have their own trees.
If you wanted to take the entire genealogy of humans, then they do share a common ancestral population. However, as humans reproduce sexually, there have been rampant crossings, as all humans are cousins to one another. This is not the pattern posited for evolution.
And it occurs exactly as I said.
What occurs?
Common descent. Do try to keep up.
In evolutionary biology, the common ancestor and each descendant is a species population.
Even a grade-school child can see that is bullshit. A common ANCESTOR is a population? So populations reproduce, do they?
No Zachriel- Parents have offspring that are slightly modified versions of themselves. These offspring then have offspring that are slightly modified versions of them. And so on until the offspring no longer resemble the original parents, and it keeps going and possibly diverging and converging.
Through a process of speciation, species divide into new species.
You are proud to be ignorant. Here, it is very simple:
Joe G: It is an untestable hypothesis
We can't have that discussion as long as you are still confused on the posited pattern involved. It is not the same as the human family tree, which involves rampant crossings.
Humans are all related,
Then my wife and I must have a common ancestor. You lied.
Again, the pattern posited for evolution has to be observed at every level. What is observed at the lowest level, a population, is what should be observed over many generations and many ancestral populations.
Only baraminology predicts reproductive isolation. Evolutionism would be OK without that.
We can't have that discussion
We can't have any discussion as you are a willfully ignorant coward
as long as you are still confused on the posited pattern involved.
You are confused as evolutionism does not posit any specific pattern.
It is not the same as the human family tree, which involves rampant crossings.
It should be the same as one is just an extension of the other.
Zachriel: What occurs?
Joe G: Common descent.
Common descent is not generally considered an occurrence.
Joe G: A common ANCESTOR is a population?
A species, which is a population.
Joe G: So populations reproduce, do they?
Yes, but what we're concerned with is cladogenesis, a species slitting into new species. Are you claiming there is no such thing as speciation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
Joe G: Then my wife and I must have a common ancestor.
Yes, you do. But it probably doesn't show on your family tree. You said, right at the top of the thread, that a typical family tree is a clade, which is not correct, because it doesn't include the common ancestor of a man and his wife.
Joe G: evolutionism does not posit any specific pattern.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=image&pageseq=133
Of course it is.
A common ancestor is an individual. Changing definitions to suit one's purpose is a loser's way.
So populations reproduce, do they?
So you have no idea about how sexual reproduction works.
Then my wife and I must have a common ancestor.
Yes, you do
You said, right at the top of the thread, that a typical family tree is a clade,
Except I never said anything about any typical family tree.
evolutionism does not posit any specific pattern.
So Darwin's words mean nothing to you. You are a image-mining coward.
Can't lose the nested hierarchy debate to us so Zachriel goes into full denial mode
Joe G: Of course it is.
Common descent is a shared relationship, or the theoyr about the shared relationship.
Joe G: A common ancestor is an individual.
In evolutionary biology, the common ancestor is a species.
Joe G: Except I never said anything about any typical family tree.
You were responding to our comment about a family tree. We were clearly referring to a family tree such as someone makes about his relatives. Did you mean something else?
Joe G: So Darwin's words mean nothing to you.
Sure they do. They were accompanied by a diagram. See Darwin 1859.
Joe G: Parents have offspring that are slightly modified versions of themselves. These offspring then have offspring that are slightly modified versions of them. And so on until the offspring no longer resemble the original parents, and it keeps going and possibly diverging and converging. That is how the tree pattern is formed.
At some point, as posited by evolutionary theory, populations diverge sufficiently that they become distinct populations, or species in their own right. This creates a furcating tree, unlike a human family tree which involves crossings at every generation.
Common descent occurs through reproduction. That shared relationship occurred via reproduction of common ancestors.
Every individual is a species of something.
You were responding to our comment about a family tree.
Darwin's tree is a family tree.
And Darwin said that if all transitionals were still around then his diagram would be different- some other natural pattern would emerge.
Parents have offspring that are slightly modified versions of themselves. These offspring then have offspring that are slightly modified versions of them. And so on until the offspring no longer resemble the original parents, and it keeps going and possibly diverging and converging. That is how the tree pattern is formed.
At some point, as posited by evolutionary theory, populations diverge sufficiently that they become distinct populations, or species in their own right.
A population could be any number of individuals. And evolutionism would be OK with rampant crossings as it does not predict reproductive isolation.
Joe G: Darwin's tree is a family tree.
It's a tree of evolutionary relationships, but differs in structure from a typical human genealogical family tree.
Joe G: And Darwin said that if all transitionals were still around then his diagram would be different- some other natural pattern would emerge.
His tree diagram would still apply.
Joe G: A population could be any number of individuals. And evolutionism would be OK with rampant crossings as it does not predict reproductive isolation.
Reproductive isolation is an important component of evolutionary theory. See Darwin 1859.
Darwin's tree is a family tree. Period. Your hand-waving just exposes your ignorance- as if that needed more exposing. And the diagram would be plenty messy if he included all alleged transitionals. Every population could be the pattern of an asteris with lines heading in all directions.
Reproductive isolation is an important component of evolutionary theory.
Reproductive isolation is a prediction of baraminology. Evolutionism would be OK without it.
Joe G: Darwin's tree is a family tree. Period.
It has a different structure than the typical family tree. Note that there are no crosses on Darwin's tree as there is on a typical family tree. With Darwin's tree, every species either goes extinct or forms a clade with its descendants. You can pick any, such as m4 and its descendants, and it will form a clade.
does not form a clade because the Daughter in Law does not share the common ancestor on the tree.
Joe G: Evolutionism would be OK without it.
That is not correct. See Darwin 1859.
It has a different structure than the typical family tree.
That is because it is a generalization and is not all inclusive.
Note that there are no crosses on Darwin's tree as there is on a typical family tree.
Evolutionism would be OK without it.
That is not correct.
What I said is quite correct and Darwin doesn't help you. Darwin did not predict reproductive isolation.
Joe G: That is because it is a generalization and is not all inclusive.
Not sure what you mean, but the typical family tree and the phylogenetic tree are both tree structures. The phylogenetic tree is a specific type of tree structure.
Joe G: Darwin did not predict reproductive isolation.
See Darwin 1859.
Not sure what you mean,
Darwin, 1859
but the typical family tree and the phylogenetic tree are both tree structures.
That is what we have been telling you.
The phylogenetic tree is a specific type of tree structure.
And what specific type might that be?
Darwin did not predict reproductive isolation.
I did and Darwin explains it but explaining it and predicting it are two different things. He had to explain it because Creation predicted it and it was observed. However it it wasn't previously predicted nor observed Darwin would have been OK with that too.
A family tree and a phylogenetic tree are formed the same way. And neither form a nested hierarchy.
At 12:32 PM, Zachriel said…
Joe G: And what specific type might that be?
As we have said repeatedly, the branches are uncrossed, and that means there is only one simple path from any branch to the trunk.
http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/132618390.png
Joe G: I did and Darwin explains it but explaining it and predicting it are two different things.
Cladogenesis is predicted by the theory, and Darwin marshals significant supporting evidence.
Joe G: A family tree and a phylogenetic tree are formed the same way.
If you look at Darwin's diagram, you can choose any node, and it forms a clade. However,
No, that doesn't follow. You could have uncrossed paths and still have a complex path to the trunk.
However it one depicts it such as there are simple paths to the trunk then that is what you will get.
Cladogenesis is predicted by the theory,
No, it isn't.
A family tree and a phylogenetic tree are formed the same way.
If you look at Darwin's diagram, you can choose any node, and it forms a clade.
That is because it is vague, general and not all inclusive.
True or false, Zachriel:
At 1:12 PM, Zachriel said…
Joe G: You could have uncrossed paths and still have a complex path to the trunk.
A simple path just means not repeating the same node.
In a phylogenetic tree, there is exactly one simple path connecting any node with the trunk. In addition, any node with its descendants forms a clade. The situation is different with a family tree.
If Dad and Mom share a distant ancestor, the son can trace to the ancestor either through the Mom or the Dad. There's more than one simple path.
Ancestor of Dad and Mom
Dad - Mom (distant cousin)
If Dad and Mom don't share a distant ancestor, then Mom is not part of the clade based on the distant ancestor.
Ancestor of Dad
Dad - Mom (unrelated)
Joe G: That is because it is vague, general and not all inclusive.
It's because each node is a furcation, and none of the branches cross.
No. The former is formed through sexual reproduction (crossings), the latter is formed through cladogenesis (furcations)
Let's see- a family tree is formed via descent with modification. A phylogenetic tree is formed via descent with modification.
The former is formed through sexual reproduction (crossings), the latter is formed through cladogenesis (furcations).
So sexual reproduction, descent with modification, does not form clades nor furcations? Weird.
By who's definition? Connect many asterisks together without having a common node save for the first. The path back to the trunk will be complex and maze-like.
Also traits can be lost which means a daughter population could resemble some parent population
In a phylogenetic tree, there is exactly one simple path connecting any node with the trunk.
By some strange definition of simple.
And that is because it is vague, general and not all inclusive.
And then there are bacteria. And seeing we have bacteria today they are also leaves on the tips.
BTW this: If you restrict the family tree to just the paternal line, then it would form a clade.
Proves a clade does not form a nested hierarchy as there isn't a nested hierarchy in your "clade"- a paternal LINE is just that, a line.
Joe G: a family tree is formed via descent with modification.
A family tree is formed by sexual reproduction.
Joe G: A phylogenetic tree is formed via descent with modification.
A phylogenetic tree is formed by cladogenesis.
Joe G: So sexual reproduction, descent with modification, does not form clades nor furcations?
If the mother and father don't share a common ancestor, then they are not a clade. If the mother and father share a common ancestor, then there is more than one simple path from their child to the ancestor.
The difference can be visualized by considering a plant tree. With plant trees, the branches don't merge. This is the posited structure of a phylogenetic tree.
However, with a family tree, the branches are merging with every generation, either branches from the same tree merge (mother and father sharing a common ancestor) or branches from different trees merge (mother and father not sharing a common ancestor).
Joe G: By who's definition?
By the standard mathematical definition.
Joe G: Connect many asterisks together without having a common node save for the first. The path back to the trunk will be complex and maze-like.
You would have to draw the network to understand what you mean. If there is more than one simple path, then it is not the topology posited by Darwin.
Joe G: Also traits can be lost which means a daughter population could resemble some parent population
We're not discussing traits, but the type of tree that Darwin posited to model common descent.
Joe G: By some strange definition of simple.
By the standard mathematical definition of simple. Here's a simple graph.
The simple path is A to B to C. A not simple path is A to B to A to B to A to B to C.
Joe G: Proves a clade does not form a nested hierarchy
We're still stuck on Darwin's tree diagram.
So sexual reproduction is not descent with modification? Or is Zachriel ignorant of what sexual reproduction entails?
A cladogram is a phylogenetic tree formed by using cladistioc methods- wikipedia on phylogenetic tree
A phylogenetic tree is supposed to show evolutionary relationships that are formed via descent with modification. Again Zachriel is ignorant.
So sexual reproduction, descent with modification, does not form clades nor furcations?
LoL! Without sexual reproduction you will not have a tree of life. You will not have clades. You will not have phylogenetics.
Zachriel is ignorant of how evolution works.
With plant trees, the branches don't merge.
Yes, they can.
Your bluff is duly noted
You would have to draw the network to understand what you mean.
That is incorrect.
If there is more than one simple path, then it is not the topology posited by Darwin.
Darwin was vague, general and not all inclusive. However if you look at his incomplete diagram you will see some nodes have 3-4 branches. They could easily have more. Now use your demented imagination and put more branches on every node each with branches and more nodes with many branches.
Trees are formed by traits. And a family tree is, well never mind as your seem ignorant of how evolution works.
You are stuck on basic biology.
Joe G: So sexual reproduction is not descent with modification?
In the sense of new combinations of traits, yes.
Joe G: A cladogram is a phylogenetic tree formed by using cladistioc methods- wikipedia on phylogenetic tree
Cladogenesis is when a species splits into separate species.
Joe G: Without sexual reproduction you will not have a tree of life.
Non-sexual organisms can also branch into new species.
Joe G: Your bluff is duly noted
"a simple path from v to w is a walk from v to w that does
not have neither repeated edges, nor repeated vertices"
http://comp.uark.edu/~lanzani/2603-NOTES/11.2-website.pdf
Zachriel: You would have to draw the network to understand what you mean.
Joe G: That is incorrect.
So you are unable to provide an illustration.
Joe G: if you look at his incomplete diagram you will see some nodes have 3-4 branches.
That's correct. Nonetheless, the leaves still form clades, and there is only one simple path to the trunk.
Joe G: Trees are formed by traits.
We're not discussing traits. We're discussing the differences between a typical family tree and the type of tree that Darwin drew. Until you grasp the distinction, you will not understand Darwin's argument.
So sexual reproduction is not descent with modification?
Define traits.
That is speciation/ descent with modification as described in the OP.
They form webs and nets, not trees.
a simple path from v to w is a walk from v to w that does
not have neither repeated edges, nor repeated vertices
What about from a to z in which a and z are on different branches?
I have it right here. Come take a look.
Nonetheless, the leaves still form clades, and there is only one simple path to the trunk
Yes, because it is vague, general and very incomplete. Also clades include more than just the leaves.
We're discussing the differences between a typical family tree and the type of tree that Darwin drew.
The type of tree Darwin drew is made up of family trees. You cannot get Darwin's tree without family trees. You seem to be ignorant of that fact. You are also ignorant of how evolution works.
We cannot have a discussion until you clear up that ignorance.
Joe G: Define traits.
A trait is a specific and observable characteristic of an organism.
Joe G: They form webs and nets, not trees.
Not generally. Only when bacteria exchange genetic material (analogous to sexual recombination) does the tree become tangled. Most bacteria still form fairly well defined phylogenetic trees.
Joe G: What about from a to z in which a and z are on different branches?
There is only one simple path that connects any two nodes on a phylogenetic tree, which has the topology of a plant tree. This is not true of all graph-trees.
Joe G: I have it right here.
We're sure you do, but it's a secret!
Joe G: The type of tree Darwin drew is made up of family trees.
No. The tree is made up of the evolutionary relationships between species. All of human history, every love story, every birth, is represented by just a single node. There are no crosses between branches on Darwin's tree diagram.
Is DNA a trait?
Not generally.
Pretty much always.
Only when bacteria exchange genetic material (analogous to sexual recombination) does the tree become tangled.
They do that all of the time.
The type of tree Darwin drew is made up of family trees.
Of course it is. That is how evolution works.
The tree is made up of the evolutionary relationships between species.
And those are formed as I said in the OP.
All of human history, every love story, every birth, is represented by just a single node.
Because the diagram is vague, general and not all inclusive.
There are no crosses between branches on Darwin's tree diagram.
Joe G: Is DNA a trait?
Having DNA could be considered a trait, but traits refers to phenotypic characters.
Joe G: Pretty much always.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/root.jpg
Joe G: They do that all of the time.
Most bacteria only exchange DNA with closely related strains, so it usually leaves the phylogenetic signal intact. See Thomas & Nielsen, Mechanisms of, and barriers to, horizontal gene transfer between bacteria, Nature 2005.
Joe G: Because the diagram is vague, general and not all inclusive.
The diagram describes exactly what Darwin meant, a furcating tree with no crosses.
Darwin's tree of life is wrong and misleading:
Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
He didn't know how sexual reproduction worked. That means his diagram was based on ignorance. Also the diagram wasn't a prediction. As we said he needed to explain what we observed.
Looking at your link, they make clear that Darwin's diagram refers to a furcating tree with no crosses. So are you finally clear on this?
Zachriel, You are ignorant of common descent. A family tree is an example of common descent. That is because In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor (wikipedia) Myself and all of my relatives share a common ancestor. All of my descendants share a common ancestor.
Seeing that you don't even understand the basics we cannot have a discussion on the topic.
Looking at your link, they make clear that Darwin's diagram...
Is wrong and misleading.
Joe G: A family tree is an example of common descent. That is because In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor (wikipedia) Myself and all of my relatives share a common ancestor.
So your family tree shows that you and your wife are related?
Joe G: Is wrong and misleading.
We'd be happy to have that discussion, but first we want to make sure you understand that the tree Darwin drew is not like a typical family tree. The latter includes crosses between different branches, while the former does not cross.
A family tree is an example of common descent. That is because In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor (wikipedia) Myself and all of my relatives share a common ancestor.
That doesn't follow from what I said. Are you retarded?
We'd be happy to have that discussion, but first we want to make sure you understand that the tree Darwin drew is not like a typical family tree.
That is because it is vague, general, not all inclusive, wrong and misleading.
Tat means only the ignorant would think that it means something. And here you are.
Joe G: That is because it is vague, general, not all inclusive, wrong and misleading.
Your comment is vague, general, not all inclusive, wrong and misleading.
Joe G: That doesn't follow from what I said.
We're discussing a family tree. Does your family tree show that you and your wife share common ancestry? Probably not.
Whether you and your wife share common ancestry or not, sexual reproduction still represents crossed branches, either two branches from the same tree, or two branches from separate trees.
So let's makes sure we understand Darwin's diagram. Darwin drew a tree which had uncrossed branches, the same basic pattern as a spreading chestnut tree. A typical family tree represents crossed branches with every mating.
http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Article%20Images/ChestnutFig04.jpg
our comment is vague, general, not all inclusive,
Darwin 1859
wrong and misleading.
That is what the scientists claimed.
We're discussing a family tree.
And you seem to be ignorant as to what tat entails.
Whether you and your wife share common ancestry or not, sexual reproduction still represents crossed branches,
Ummm Darwin's tree includes sexually reproducing organisms. And yet you maintain it doesn't have any crossed branches. You seem to be confused.
A typical family tree represents crossed branches with every mating.
So Darwin's idea doesn't include mating? You are retarded (or dishonest).
Joe G: That is what the scientists claimed.
We're not up to that yet. You confused Darwin's hypothesized tree with a typical family tree, yet they have different structures.
Joe G: So Darwin's idea doesn't include mating?
Darwin's diagram is on the level of species, not organisms.
On your family tree, do you and your wife show a common ancestor?
Obviously Zachriel is ignorant of the concept of common descent.
You confused Darwin's hypothesized tree with a typical family tree, yet they have different structures.
They shouldn't have different structures and they wouldn't if Darwin's was all inclusive.
There are plenty of individuals in any alleged parent species that are not ancestors of the daughter species.
Joe G: Obviously Zachriel is ignorant of the concept of common descent.
Does your family tree show a common ancestor for you and your wife? You and your son's wife?
Joe G: They shouldn't have different structures and they wouldn't if Darwin's was all inclusive.
That's not the question, what it "should" be, but what it is. Are we in agreement, then, that Darwin's tree is not like a typical family tree, in that the former has uncrossed branches (like a chestnut tree), while the latter has crossed branches.
That isn't a requirement you ignorant fuck.
That's not the question, what it "should" be, but what it is.
What it is is vague, general, not all inclusive, wrong and misleading. That means only a dishonest asshole would even bring it up.
Joe G: A family tree is an example of common descent. That is because In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor
Joe G: That isn't a requirement
On your family tree, who is the common ancestor of you and your wife?
Are we in agreement, then, that Darwin's tree is not like a typical family tree, in that the former has uncrossed branches (like a chestnut tree), while the latter has crossed branches.
Joe G: Myself and all of my relatives share a common ancestor.
On your family tree, who is the common ancestor of you and your wife? Of you and your son's wife?
It is not required that my wife and I share a common ancestor. As I said you are hopelessly ignorant.
Are we in agreement, then,
Only if you agree that you are an ignorant ass.
Joe G: It is not required that my wife and I share a common ancestor.
If a family tree is an example of common descent, then it means
the group, your family, shares a common ancestor. That would include you and your mate, your son and his mate, your sister and her mate, and so on.
How are those question relevant? Do they share my blood line? No.
Stop being an obtuse little prick.
the group, your family, shares a common ancestor.
Wrong again, as usual.
That would include you and your mate, your son and his mate, your sister and her mate, and so on.
So you are proud to be an obtuse little prick. Got it.
Joe G: How are those question relevant?
Is your wife not on your family tree? That would be unusual. What about your mother and father. Do they show a common ancestor on your family tree?
Joe G: Do they share my blood line?
Your children certainly share a hereditary relationship with their mother.
Joe G: Wrong again
Here's your definition: A family tree is an example of common descent. That is because In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor
A typical family tree will show Mom, Dad, and the kids, usually along with grandparents and cousins. They rarely show that everyone on the tree has a common ancestor.
True but the discussion pertains to a common ancestor- singular. Hopefully you at least know the difference between singular and plural.
But I do understand why you would want to distract and attempt to confuse.
And apparently that is too complicated for you to understand. I even provided an example:
Myself and all of my relatives share a common ancestor. All of my descendants share a common ancestor.
Was that also too complicated for your simple mind?
A typical family tree will show Mom, Dad, and the kids, usually along with grandparents and cousins.
Kids' wives, cousins spouses, etc.
They rarely show that everyone on the tree has a common ancestor.
That is not required by the definition.
That is not required by the definition. But I understand that your simple mind cannot grasp the concept so it has to invent shit out of hole cloth. ("w" intentionally left out)
A family tree is an example of common descent. That is because In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor.
That is a group (that can be split into two groups).
Joe G: True but the discussion pertains to a common ancestor- singular.
Sure, and on your family tree, is there a single common ancestor for you and your mate, your son and his mate, your sister and her mate?
Joe G: Myself and all of my relatives share a common ancestor. All of my descendants share a common ancestor.
Are you related to your children? Is their mother related to your children? So do your children's mother and father have a common ancestor on your family tree?
Joe G: That is not required by the definition.
"a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor"
So does your family tree show a common ancestor for you and your wife? If not, then your family tree includes members who do not share common descent.
Zachriel: If a family tree is an example of common descent, then it means the group, your family, shares a common ancestor.
You and your wife presumably on your family tree. Does your family tree show that you and your wife share a common ancestor? In any case, it still represents crossed branches.
Darwin's tree is not like a typical family tree, in that the former has uncrossed branches (like a chestnut tree), while the latter has crossed branches. Do you still object to that statement?
Some of your relatives have relatives who do not share common descent with you. For instance, your children are related to their mother, but your family tree does not show a common ancestor between you and their mother. Your family tree does not represent a clade.
Mating is a crossing of distinct branches. There are no crosses on Darwin's diagram.
Some of your relatives have relatives who do not share common descent with you.
Yes they do and that is irrelevant to the point.
There are no crosses on Darwin's diagram.
Because it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading. So we understand why you would continue to reference it.
Are you related to your children?
As far as I know.
Is their mother related to your children?
Their mothers are related to them.
So do your children's mother and father have a common ancestor on your family tree?
It's complicated.
So does your family tree show a common ancestor for you and your wife?
If we went back far enough, perhaps. But that is not required by the definition.
If not, then your family tree includes members who do not share common descent.
And that is OK. There are members of a species that don't have any relation to the alleged daughter species.
Darwin's tree is not like a typical family tree,
That is because it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading.
Joe G: Yes they do and that is irrelevant to the point.
It's directly relevant to your claim that a typical family tree represents a clade, or that it is the same pattern as Darwin's tree diagram.
Zachriel: There are no crosses on Darwin's diagram.
Joe G: Because it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading.
Perhaps. But let's make sure we're clear: Darwin's diagram shows a tree with uncrossed branches, unlike a typical family tree which crosses in every generation.
It's directly relevant to your claim that a typical family tree represents a clade,
You sed a family tree is not common descent when obviously it is.
We were using your definition of clade.
And if we group your great-great grandfather with all of his descendants you will not have your pattern of subsets contained within a superset as your great-great grandfather does not consist of nor contain his descendants.
Joe G: You sed a family tree is not common descent when obviously it is.
It's obviously not, as the tree doesn't show a common ancestor for everyone on the tree.
Joe G: We were using your definition of clade.
A clade includes an ancestor and all of its descendents. In a typical family tree, there is no common ancestor for everyone on the tree. The group is polyphyletic, not monophyletic.
Joe G: And if we group your great-great grandfather with all of his descendants you will not have your pattern of subsets contained within a superset as your great-great grandfather does not consist of nor contain his descendants.
We were discussing trees, not sets.
However, sets don't have to be summative to be subsets or supersets. Grandfather has two children.
G = Grandfather and Descendants
C1 = First Child and Descendants
C2 = Second Child and Descendants
C1 ⊂ G
Therefore, even though G ≠ C1 ∪ C2, by definition, G is still the superset of C1 and G is still the superset of C2.
You're smart enough to learn this, though whether you are willing is another matter.
A clade includes an ancestor and all of its descendents.
It can't do that. Ya see Zachriel, some members of the alleged parent species didn't have anything to do with producing the alleged daughter species. That means there are members of a clade that are not ancestors.
As I said you seem to be totally ignorant of how evolution works with sexually reproducing organisms. A population of sexually reproducing organisms contains many family trees. Parents have offspring that are slightly modified versions of themselves. These offspring then have offspring that are slightly modified versions of them. And so on until the offspring no longer resemble the original parents, and it keeps going and possibly diverging and converging.
IOW you want us to believe that something that doesn't produce your pattern to somehow, over time, produce your pattern.
Obviously you are not smart enough to learn that.
Z: Even though G ≠ C1 ∪ C2, G is still the superset of C1 and C2, while C1 and C2 are subsets of G. Also C1 ∩ C2 = ∅.
Do you understand this now?
Joe G: It can't do that. Ya see Zachriel, some members of the alleged parent species didn't have anything to do with producing the alleged daughter species. That means there are members of a clade that are not ancestors.
"The ancestor may be an individual, a population or even a species (extinct or extant)."
Joe G: A population of sexually reproducing organisms contains many family trees.
The various branches cross with every mating.
Now, let's make sure we understand Darwin's diagram. It differs from a family tree in that it is a tree with uncrossed branches. Are we okay with this now?
The ancestor cannot be a population and an individual is a species.
Yes I know and you want us to believe that something that doesn't produce your pattern to somehow, over time, produce your pattern.
Now, let's make sure we understand Darwin's diagram.
We understand that it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading. And only a deceptive prick would reference it as if the diagram means something.
It differs from a family tree in that it is a tree with uncrossed branches.
It shouldn't differ from a family tree seeing that family trees are what make it. That it does differ from a family tree is more evidence that it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading.
No tree there. And no nested hierarchy either.
Joe G: The ancestor cannot be a population
The ancestor can be defined as a population.
"A clade (from Ancient Greek κλάδος, klados, "branch") or monophylum (see monophyletic) is a group consisting of an ancestor and all its descendants, a single "branch" on the "tree of life". The ancestor may be an individual, a population or even a species (extinct or extant)."
For instance, Darwin hypothesized that the finches on the Galápagos Islands descended from an immigrant population from the mainland.
Joe G: and an individual is a species.
A species is a population, typically defined as one that is capable of interbreeding, and sufficiently isolated reproductively so that it maintains distinctive characteristics.
Joe G: Yes I know and you want us to believe that something that doesn't produce your pattern to somehow, over time, produce your pattern.
That's not the question. We're still making sure you understand that Darwin's diagram is not the same pattern as a typical family tree.
Joe G: as if the diagram means something.
It's the only diagram in Darwin's Origin of Species, and whether you agree with Darwin's conclusions, his theory has been highly influential, and if you are to understand evolutionary biology, then the diagram does "mean something".
Joe G: It shouldn't differ from a family tree seeing that family trees are what make it.
We can't have that discussion until you recognize the differences between the patterns. Darwin's diagram differs from a family tree in that it is a tree with uncrossed branches. Are we okay with this now?
Joe G: No tree there.
Again, that wasn't the question raised. You had said it wouldn't exhibit a "pattern of subsets contained within a superset". That was incorrect.
And that is total bullshit.
A species is a population,
So an individual isn't a species? LoL!
We're still making sure you understand that Darwin's diagram is not the same pattern as a typical family tree.
It should be the same as a family tree and it would be if it wasn't vague, general incomplete, wrong and misleading.
t's the only diagram in Darwin's Origin of Species, and whether you agree with Darwin's conclusions, his theory has been highly influential, and if you are to understand evolutionary biology, then the diagram does "mean something".
You don't understand evolutionary biology. And until you do there isn't anything to discuss.
Joe G: And that is total bullshit.
Not an argument.
http://www.google.com/search?&q="ancestral+population"
Joe G: So an individual isn't a species?
An individual is a member of a species.
Joe G: It should be the same as a family tree
That's not the question, but whether Darwin's diagram differs, in fact, from a typical family tree. While the latter crosses branches in every generation, the former has uncrossed branches.
Merriam-Webster: species, a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus
It's a fact. And if you understood biology you would known that it is a fact.
An individual is a species. One person is a Homo sapien- that is a species designation.
It should be the same as a family tree
That's not the question,
Then the question is irrelevant.
While the latter crosses branches in every generation, the former has uncrossed branches.
Why are you being an ignorant asshole?
Zachriel: The ancestor can be defined as a population.
Still not an argument.
http://www.google.com/search?&q="ancestral+population"'
Joe G: That is because it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading.
So you agree that Darwin's diagram differs from a typical family tree, in that a family tree crosses branches in every generation, while Darwin's diagram has uncrossed branches.
Zachriel, until you understand how evolution works we cannot have a discussion.
Please demonstrate how a population can be an ancestor. And please tell us why an individual is not a species.
And explain why you continue to reference Darwin's diagram given that it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading.
Joe G: Please demonstrate how a population can be an ancestor.
It's a biological definition.
ancestor -- Any organism, population, or species from which some other organism, population, or species is descended by reproduction.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_1.html
Joe G: And explain why you continue to reference Darwin's diagram
It's the only diagram in Darwin's Origin of Species, and whether or not you agree with Darwin's conclusions, his theory has been highly influential.
The biological definition is wrong and misleading. It's as if you are unable to think for yourself.
The only way a population could be an ancestor is if the population was a family tree or the only individuals who survived were from the same family tree.
t's the only diagram in Darwin's Origin of Species,
And only an ignorant asshole loser would reference it given that it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading.
That is how Darwin's tree pattern was formed.
Heh-
G = the first car made and every car made after that
C1= the second car made and every car made after that
C2= the third car made and every car made after that
Looks like we can make Zachriel's pattern using just about anything.
Joe G: The biological definition is wrong
It's the definition. We've provided multiple sources. Perhaps you mean incoherent.
Joe G: Common Descent in a nutshell
It also entails reproductive isolation.
Joe G: G = the first car made and every car made after that
So you are in agreement that your previous statement was in error, that subsets and supersets don't have to be summative?
It's the definition. We've provided multiple sources
And yet it is easily disproven.
Nested hierarchies require summativity.
Joe G: And yet it is easily disproven.
How do you disprove a definition?
Joe G: Not necessarily.
Darwin's theory entails reproductive isolation.
Joe G: Nested hierarchies require summativity.
We weren't discussing summativity. We were discussing the difference between the Darwin's tree diagram and a typical family tree, when you introduced a false statement concerning subsets and supersets.
By showing it is incorrect. As populations do not reproduce they cannot be ancestors.
So what? Natural selection brings about changes and that is all that is required for speciation- changes of the form I wrote about in the OP.
We weren't discussing summativity
Of course you were. What do you think "summative" refers to?
We were discussing the difference between the Darwin's tree diagram and a typical family tree,
Had Darwin's tree been specific and all inclusive it would resemble a family tree. Tat you are too stupid to understand that fact just exposes your agenda.
Joe G: By showing it is incorrect. As populations do not reproduce they cannot be ancestors.
Showing that unicorns don't exist doesn't show the definition of unicorns is incorrect. The definition is the definition.
Joe G: Natural selection brings about changes and that is all that is required for speciation- changes of the form I wrote about in the OP.
Joe G: Had Darwin's tree been specific and all inclusive it would resemble a family tree.
So you agree that Darwin's tree does not have the same structure as a typical family tree?
Showing that unicorns don't exist doesn't show the definition of unicorns is incorrect.
LoL! Showing that the definition is INCORRECT means the definition is wrong. The definition of "unicorn" includes that it is mythical.
Natural selection brings about changes and that is all that is required for speciation- changes of the form I wrote about in the OP.
Non-sequitur.
Darwin's tree is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading. Only a deceptive ignoramus would reference it as if it means something.
Joe G: Non-sequitur.
No, it's the reason the diagram is constructed as it s.
Zachriel: So you agree that Darwin's tree does not have the same structure as a typical family tree?
Joe G: Darwin's tree is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading. Only a deceptive ignoramus would reference it as if it means something.
That's a non sequitur. Try to answer the question. So you agree that Darwin's tree does *no* have the same structure as a typical family tree?
The answer is obvious. The branches on Darwin's tree do not cross, while the branches on a typical family tree cross with every generation. But let's hear your answer.
No, the reason the diagram is constructed the way it is is due to the fact that it is vague, general and, incomplete. That is part of what makes it wrong and misleading.
That's a non sequitur.
No, that is the reason why Darwin's diagram should not be used as a reference.
The branches on Darwin's tree do not cross
Because it is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading. Obviously you have issues with dealing with the facts.
You just can't seem to bring yourself to answer the question.
Do you agree that Darwin's tree does *not* have the same structure as a typical family tree?
Zachriel just cannot seem to deal with reality.
Darwin's diagram is vague, general, incomplete, wrong and misleading. That means using it as a reference is meaningless and dishonest.
We'll take that as you are unable to answer.
We'll take that as an admission that Zachriel is a dishonest and ignorant asshole.
That seems to be the best argument you've been able to muster.
It's a fact, not an argument and you can't even muster an argument.
Good luck with that, Joe G. Let us know if you can ever answer the question.
I answered the question. Just because you are too much of an ignorant coward to deal with the answer doesn't mean it wasn't provided.
And why do I need good luck with your being a dishonest and ignorant asshole?
The Clueless Left on Gun Control
What is Parsimony
If Science Looks for Parsimonious Answers... HT Ri...
Language- Evolution By Design
Zachriel, Proud to be a Pathological Liar
Intelligent Design- What do the words mean?
Evidence That Kevin R. McCarthy is an Ignorant Ass...
Take THAT Al Gore- Polar Bear Facts Kick Al's Big ...
Reliable Methodology for Detecting Design
Kevin R. McCarthy is Scientifically Illiterate