Re: Co-optation Today

Treus 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.

This is really very simple. If A causes B, and nothing else would cause
B, then given B we infer A. A is a tree, B is a particular pattern in
DNA sequences called a nested hierarchy. Now you can attack this
reasoning in three ways. You can argue that A doesn't cause B, or you
could argue that something else also causes B, or you can argue that the
logic is invalid. Which are you attempting here?

and
we don't know of anything else that could do so.

Argument from ignorance.

This is the way all science works. We can only test theories we have
thought of against other theories we have thought of.

It's *part* of how science works. There is also the requirement of
rigor which you continue to ignore.

I notice that when your claims are shown to be false you change the
subject. What do you mean by rigor? How would you know whether
phylogenetic analyses are rigorous when you know nothing about how they
are done? I think they're rigorous. In what way are they not?

Why is this not good
evidence?

It's a good start and a bad conclusion.

When I ask "why", what I mean is for you to give reasons, not make naked
assertions. Is that clear now?


It should be clear to you that I was granting your evidence.

So explain why, given the evidence, you reject the conclusion.

Similarly, fusion would produce the sort of data we get from
the sun, and we know of nothing else that would. And that's all we have.
Why are the two cases different, and why do you accept one and not the
other?

The measurable properties of solar fusion can be formulated
exclusively in measurable terms of necessary effects from sufficient
causes. Not so with your phylogenesis.

How would you know, since you have no idea how phylogenetic analysis works?


Then take the opportunity to make your case. Or do I have to download
some software first?

My case rests on the weight of evidence contained in DNA sequences. You
can't just look at those sequences and know what tree they support.
There are bits of evidence that are that simple, like presence or
absence of particular pseudogenes or retroelements. But that's not what
we were talking about.

As for sequence data, I have recently given you a link to another post
of mine where I explain a very simple case, human relationships to the
other apes. Perhaps we could discuss that. The penguin case is the same
in principle.

I sure would like to know who these supposed scientists are who have
admitted to you that penguins quite easily could always have been
penguins. I doubt they really exist.

The subject of penguins wasn't brought up, though maybe I should
mention it next time.

It would be hard for you to mention it next time if you don't know who
the people you were talking to are, or what their specialties might be.
We established you don't know that. Perhaps, since you remember that
penguins were not discussed, you could tell me what was discussed, and
what these unknown people actually admitted. That might be useful.

Basically a subset of what I have been expressing here. No one
admitted anything directly. I drew my own conclusions. Only one person
was interested in perusing the topic and we'll do so next time we
meet. I let the conversation move back to social chitchat which was
the purpose of the meeting.

Why are you so reluctant to tell me anything? You haven't said anything
here, except that nobody actually admitted anything. Apparently you were
able to read their secret hearts anyway. Can you remember what these
supposed scientists' specialities were?

Why are you so fixated on this unrelated matter? The supposed
scientists are managers at a biotech startup, so it seemed like the
right bunch to broach the topic with. I had other things on my mind at
the time than remembering the precise details of their professional
training.

What makes you think that managers at a biotech startup would know
anything about phylogenetics? And I hope I don't have to remind you that
you're the one who brought them up. If you now admit that their views or
admissions or secret, unexpresssed thoughts are irrelevant here, that's
fine with me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Human" defined by Junk (non-Coding) DNA
    ... demonstrate conservation, ... Conservation is excellent evidence of function, ... corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. ... Why do you need to see a statistical test, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Human" defined by Junk (non-Coding) DNA
    ... demonstrate conservation, ... Conservation is excellent evidence of function, ... corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. ... Why do you need to see a statistical test, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... level of phylogenesis and not reversible in time. ... This recalls the question of whether observational evidence exists ... Or we could merely notice that a nested hierarchy implies a temporal ... trying to explain Bayesian inference to you. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Human" defined by Junk (non-Coding) DNA
    ... demonstrate conservation, ... Conservation is excellent evidence of function, ... corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. ... "Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_For_Kim_G._S._=D8yhus?=
    ... >>>motility without a fairly large minimum system size and specificity. ... that you do not provide evidence where you provide no evidence. ... Yes, through mutation, recombination, and reuse of sequences, like ...
    (talk.origins)