Re: Co-optation Today

Treus wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Treus wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


Treus wrote:


Inez wrote:


On Jan 3, 9:57pm, 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.

Yes, indeed. Ad hoc explanations are a dime a dozen.

Phylogenesis, like pixie dust, accounts for the data. A tougher task
is constructing a theory whereby the data itself leads you to
phylogenesis.


This shows again that you have no idea how phylogenetic analysis works.
Doesn't it embarrass you even slightly that you are so certain about a
subject you are entirely ignorant of?

The data itself does lead you to the tree. A lack of relationship (no
phylogenesis in your personal language) would lead you to what's called
a star phylogeny, i.e. one in which no taxon is reliably linked to any
other particular taxon, and they are all connected in a pile at the root
node. If instead we get a tree that shows clear relationships among
species, consistently so when different data are used, that's very good
evidence for the reality of that tree.

Doesn't it embarrass you even slightly to be so chronically on
vacation from proper methodology as to unceasingly confound
correlation with causation?

I repeat that you have no idea how science works.


Rather than addressing the argument directly.


I'm guessing you're
some kind of engineer. Is that right?


No. I'm guessing you have a thing for unfounded assumptions.

Let's explore further. What is your profession? What sort of degree do
you have. I believe you've called yourself a biophysicist at one point.
Are you a scientist?

Your observed "phylogenic" state is merely
a complex association, a correlation of properties. The necessity (or
near necessity, or very strong possibility) of the imagined *process*
of "phylogenesis" to which you ascribe it is found nowhere in your
actual data. Yet you keep taking that unfounded leap. Where is your
process, or sufficient components thereof, in action such that we can
extrapolate *exclusively* from what we actually observe to what we
imagine to be happening in the long term? If your "phylogenic" states
require "phylogenesis" based on subjective judgements of obviousness,
then fine, but let's be clear that is what we're dealing with.


Similarly, the necessity of solar fusion is found nowhere in the data we
get from the sun.

Maybe not, but the explanation we use both a) accounts for the all the
details inherent in the transformation in question and b) does so
exclusively in terms of repeatable observations of defined phenomena.

Why, so does the tree explanation of sequence data.

It's an inference from that data, no more. All science
is like that. How do you know that there's nothing other than fusion
that could explain that data? No, I haven't thought of anything else,
but how can you rule out everything I haven't thought of?

You are incorrectly stating my position. See my last comment and
compare it with your imaginary tree.

I don't see the difference. What makes you think my tree is imaginary?
Hey, here's a laboratory experiment I haven't mentioned before, which is
probably relevant. It's been shown that phylogenetic methods work well
in resolving known, laboratory-generated phylogenies (of viruses, the
only "organisms" that evolve fast enough for a tree to happen in the
lab). Would you care for a citation?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... Could be pixie dust. ... Phylogenesis, like pixie dust, accounts for the data. ... The data itself does lead you to the tree. ... imagine to be happening in the long term? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... Could be pixie dust. ... Phylogenesis, like pixie dust, accounts for the data. ... The data itself does lead you to the tree. ... It's hard to imagine what you would consider "founded". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... Could be pixie dust. ... Phylogenesis, like pixie dust, accounts for the data. ... The data itself does lead you to the tree. ... imagine to be happening in the long term? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... Could be pixie dust. ... Phylogenesis, like pixie dust, accounts for the data. ... The data itself does lead you to the tree. ... other particular taxon, and they are all connected in a pile at the root ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... Could be pixie dust. ... Phylogenesis, like pixie dust, accounts for the data. ... The data itself does lead you to the tree. ... It's hard to imagine what you would consider "founded". ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast