Re: Co-optation Today

On Jan 3, 9:57 pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Treus wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Again: an evolutionary tree would produce the sort of data we see,

So would pixie dust.

Is this just you being annoying, or do you really not understand why an
evolutionary tree would naturally produce a nested hierarchy in sequence
data?

Do you realize that you're bass ackwards? The question is how your
data imply your imagined phylogenesis, not the other way around. Pixie
dust will do the latter.

Pixie dust will explain any set of data, which is why it is not a
scientific theory. Gravity? Could be pixie dust. Disease? Could be
pixie dust? Mike Huckabee winning Iowa? Pixie dust.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... Do you realize that you're bass ackwards? ... scientific theory. ... Could be pixie dust. ... Phylogenesis, like pixie dust, accounts for the data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... evolutionary tree would naturally produce a nested hierarchy in sequence ... Do you realize that you're bass ackwards? ... data imply your imagined phylogenesis, ... That confuses science with mathematics. ...
    (talk.origins)