Re: Co-optation Today

Treus wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Treus wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Treus wrote:

John Harshman wrote:


Let's explore further.
Let's not. There's no reason for me to broadcast personal details at
present.
This is hardly personal. I'm merely asking about your scientific
background. You know mine already.


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?
The biophysicist appears to have left the Planet of the Apes in
disgust.
Why are you so reluctant to give straight answers to simple questions?

Why are you so reluctant to stay on topic?


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.
Have you accounted for all the details inherent in phylogenesis in
terms of repeatable observations of defined phenomena? If so, why the
"what would stop it happening?" response to skepticism about point
mutations being arbitrarily cumulative?
Yes, I've accounted for all the relevant details. We see mutations, we
see them accumulate. We don't see them accumulate over millions of years
because we haven't been watching that long. Similarly, you've seen
fusion in the lab. But you haven't seen it on a solar scale. Maybe
there's some unknown process that prevents fusion from happening if it's
ramped up to a huge size. Or maybe the sun is what it looks like, and
DNA sequences are what they look like too.

We'll put aside for the moment that solar fusion is, in fact,
observable through its characteristic products
Good, because this is also true of phylogeny.

And also of pixie dust (if that is one's theory), which is why I
skipped over this point.

This is silly. We have no basis for deciding what the characteristic products of pixie dust are. We do have a basis for deciding what the characteristic products of solar fusion and phylogeny are.

and look at a more
significant difference between it and your phylogenesis.

The theory of solar fusion is formulated with causal sufficiency. That
is, even if the sun were a completely hypothetical object, the process
to which we attribute its relevant properties is expressed such that
a) each intermediate state is described entirely in terms of
observables in every respect it is necessary to the overall evolution,
and b) the sequence of said states is produced through a causality
consisting only of observed phenomena.

Your phylogenesis differs from solar fusion in both regards,
especially the first.
Not that I can see. Why do you say that?

Is each intermediate state of phylogenesis described entirely in terms
of observables in every respect that state is necessary to the overall
evolution?

I don't know, because this boilerplate of yours doesn't seem to convey any clear meaning.

I thought, perhaps wrongly, that you had pretty much
admitted otherwise and your tree was not so detailed (by which I don't
mean populated with unique organisms). Can you produce that sort of
description for every necessary step of the process (which, of course,
would include phenotypic expressions to some operational extent)?

Again, it's not clear what you're asking about here. But it sounds like you're indulging in a popular creationist tactic: assuming that in order to know anything, we must first know everything; as long as there is anything unknown about the evolutionary process, evolution is wrong.

I can produce a description adequate to the needs of phylogenetic analysis. Nor more is necessary.

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?
Insufficient evidence of the sort necessary for a causal
interpretation of your data.
What sort would that be, exactly. Please be specific. Tell me exactly
what I would need in terms of real data, not your usual vague
pronouncements.
Something that *requires* a time evolution among the internal parts of
the tree, such as one property of your tree that *could not* exist
without another property of your tree preceding it under phylogenesis.
Again you are not being specific. When your explanation starts with
"something", that's a good clue. Try again. If I want to demonstrate
that a phylogeny is true, what data would I need to gather?

Substitute "anything" for "something" and any data that meets the
description will do.

Again you are not being specific. When your explanation starts with "anything", that's a good clue. Try again. Are you constitutionally incapable of being specific? If you have no idea what data would look like, just admit it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... near necessity, or very strong possibility) of the imagined *process* ... require "phylogenesis" based on subjective judgements of obviousness, ... the necessity of solar fusion is found nowhere in the data we ... so does the tree explanation of sequence data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... near necessity, or very strong possibility) of the imagined *process* ... require "phylogenesis" based on subjective judgements of obviousness, ... the necessity of solar fusion is found nowhere in the data we ... so does the tree explanation of sequence data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... near necessity, or very strong possibility) of the imagined *process* ... require "phylogenesis" based on subjective judgements of obviousness, ... the necessity of solar fusion is found nowhere in the data we ... so does the tree explanation of sequence data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... near necessity, or very strong possibility) of the imagined *process* ... imagine to be happening in the long term? ... require "phylogenesis" based on subjective judgements of obviousness, ... so does the tree explanation of sequence data. ...
    (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)