Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?

> > No, the talk-original FAQ does not have any place where it nicely
> > organizes the various lines of evidence and the various factors of
> > theory. It merely answers a lot of stupid questions from YECs and
> > IDiots, giving point-by-point rebuttals, but not putting the whole
> > thing into any sort of coherent whole.
> I like "29+ evidences for macroevolution". Why don't you?

I never saw it when I was browsing the talk.origins FAQ.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Let me look again and see if I can find that specific link:
Linkname: [FAQs]: The talk.origins FAQ archive (1 of 2)
URL: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/talk-origins/archive/part1/
I went into HTML-source mode, and don't see any link with that comdesc URL.
It must go through an extra level of indirection. Do you happen to know
the path from the FAQ to that comdesc page?
Trying a different approach, using Google to search for the URL explicitly:
Google can show you the following information for this URL:
* Find web pages that link to www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 125 linking to
nflZ-6st9PAJ:www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. (1.05 seconds)
The first of the 125 matches is:
Linkname: A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
That doesn't look like anything any reasonable person would have
followed to get general summary/list of evidence for evolution.
Nothing else in the first group of ten that belongs to the FAQ in any way.
In the second group of ten:
Linkname: TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for March 2004
URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar04.html
Why would anybody know to look there for the link to evidence??
Linkname: Kansas Evolution Hearings: Edward Peltzer and Russell Carlson
URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo3.html
Ditto. If you're just looking for a summary of evidence, after somebody
told you to look in the FAQ to find the evidence, this would not be a
reasonable place to look.
In the third group of 10 links:
Linkname: TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for April 2005
URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/apr05.html
(Not reasonable place to look for summary of evidence, as before.)

I'm tired at this point. You please tell me where in the FAQ you
believe there's a question pertaining to general summary/list of
evidence that would be reasonble to follow, which then links to the 29
evidences.

Unless I've overlooked something obvious on multiple attempts to
search through the FAQ for such an obvious link, I think there needs
to be a FAQuestion of the following form:
"I think evolution is just a belief system, like any other religion.
I've heard there's evidence to support evolution, but I've never seen
any."
Then that could link directly to the 29-evidences page, or to an
intermediate page that linked to 29-evidences as well as other nicely
organized collections of evidence.

I've looked at the FAQ again just now. There's a question:
"I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?"
which would seem to be a good place to put the 29-evidences link, but
there are links to three other documents, none of which link to
29-evidences. But better would be addition of my new question, or
perhaps a less confrontrational question:
"I've heard bits and pieces of evidence in favor of evolution, but I've
never seen a coherent listing of the various types of evidence. Where
might such be found?"

By the way, I eyeballed through the entire FAQ one more time, and I
don't see any links to any of those pages I found by working backward
using Google. If you believe there's a path from the FAQ page-by-page
to the 29-evidences page, please cite the path. (The note that says
"read the entire talk.origins archive" is *not* a valid "path" IMO.)

What I'm going to do now is ignore the claim that there's a path from
the FAQ to that 29-evidences page, and use your newsgroup article as my
only known path to the page.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Those are not the same thing. Either can be established without the other.
It's confusing as to whether this document is about evidence for
macroevolution or for common descent or both.

Introduction
* Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
(It sounds like it's giving evidence for common descent, *not* for
macroevolution)
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#theorytobetested>
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically
considered and weighed against the scientific evidence.
I.e. no evidence whatsoever for evolution is here, only for common descent?

Let me back up to the previous section:
* Universal Common Descent Defined
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#common_descent>
U niversal common descent is the hypothesis that all living,
terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species
originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a
geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of
one original species or communal gene pool.
I have a problem: I don't believe there is yet any evidence for
Universal Common Descent, only for very-large common descent. We might
be able to trace each of the three domains from a single origin (each)
to all modern species of such domain, but there's no clear evidence
that the trunks of those three large clades can be traced back to a
single all-encompassing common ancestor. So for me personally, I'd like
to skip to the alleged such evidence. Searching for it now... couldn't
find anything specifically showing that the three domains definitely
have a common ancestor. I think I'll have to dismiss this Web page as
not the kind of listing of evidence I was seeking. Its biggest problem
is that it is all-or-nothing, evidence for Universal (not just
large-groups) Common Ancestry, and survives or falls as a whole
depending on whether it establishes or fails to establish this grand
hypothesis.

I just want to show abundant evidence for large clades, and leave
Universal Common Ancestry as an unresolve question that we might answer
at some time in the future. If we can convince the Creationists and
IDiots that all members of any single phylum are a single clade (except
where the classical hierarchy turns out to be wrong and needs to be
re-organized), that would be enough in my opinion regarding common descent.
Then once that's agreed-upon, we can the discuss what mechanism caused
large-clade common-descent to happen.

(Regarding atomic theory: Atoms, elements, isotopes.)
> I don't think the modern theory of evolution has much at all to do
> with this stuff, except peripherally (without atoms or elements, no
> purines and pyrimidines).

Without atomic theory at the level of atoms and elements, it's not
possible to understand what a crystal really is. Without isotopes, it's
not possible to understand what radioactive decay means. Without
radioactive decay, it's not possible to understand what it means for
decayed isotopes in crystals to sit there as their result instead of
original, and it's not possible to understand the principle of isochron
methods of dating the formation of crystals from cooling magma. Without
dating, you have no reason to believe that fossils were distributed
over hundreds of millions of years, nor any way to specifically date
layers of sediment and their corresponding fossils. Without dating like
that, if one person says a fossil of Triceratops is 100 million years
old, and another person says that same fossil is only 4000 years old.
there's no evidence to say who is correct, it's just a matter of
authority, or personal belief, who is correct.

> I disagree with your first question.

Which part(s) of it do you disagree with? Materials are composed of
atoms? Each atom has a nucleus? A nucleus defines an element per how
many protons it has? There are different isotopes of the same element
per how many neutrons it has in addition to the protons?

> Here is one instance:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr05.html

Ah, I saw that several times. It shows that (assuming you already
accept the idea of evolution, and DNA as a way to track evolution) that
African apes (including humans) are closer together than any of them
are to two non-African apes, and furthermore that within the African
apes human+chimp are tighter than with gorillas. Basically the 3:2 splits
gib+ora / gor+chimp+human
and
gib+ora+gor / chimp+human
are well supported, whereas all other 3:2 splits aren't well supported,
although you confuse the issue by talking only about the first of those
two 3:2 splits. This gives the unrooted tree uniquely as:

ora\ /chimp
>--T--<
gib/ | \human
gorilla

People suggested you trim the set to four species to make the analysis
easier, for example prove that ora+gib / gor+hum is well supported, and
I thought I saw an updated version with 2:2 split, but now you're
reverting to the original confusing version. Caveat: I don't remember
names of who said what, so I don't remember whether you were the author
or one of the people who criticized it or you were neither.

I personally think a four-taxa unrooted tree is the best starting
example, and whoever is maintaining that example should change it to
four taxa if not already done. If you do four-taxa in all possible ways
(i.e. omit one of the five at a time, hence four ways to do it), you
should get these 2:2 splits:
ora+gib / gor+chi
ora+gib / gor+hum
ora+gib / chi+hum
ora+gor / chi+hum
gib+gor / chi+hum
Once you have established all four splits, you then check whether all
five are consistent with a single 2:1:2 unrooted tree of all five taxa,
and indeed they are, which then implies the two 3:2 splits as well.
So I suggest a fully worked-out example for just one of the 2:2 splits,
then exercise for the reader for each of the other four 2:2 splits,
then worked out quickie exercise showing those five 2:2 splits are
consistent with one and only one 5-taxa unrooted tree.
Maybe the author already worked that out sometime and posted it but you
found the older version here.
Or maybe nobody suggested my fine idea before. I don't remember whether
anybody thought of exactly that idea before.

>> <long snip> ... which part of their DNA is being cladogrammed. (Is that a verb??)
> And yes, it's a verb, but you are the first person ever to use it, to
> my knowledge.

<paranoid> I hate being the first like that. Someday OED will want to
know the first usage, and track me down, and use the CIA to divulge my
identity, and all my posting anonymously will have been in vain.
</paranoid>

<double_paranoid> I checked Google Groups just now, and I am indeed the
very first in the history of Usenet to use the past tense form. I
checked the regular Google search, and not a single instance of that
past tense. Maybe I really was the first to use that form ever on the
Internet? </double_paranoid>
..

.

Quantcast