Re: Co-optation Today

Treus wrote:
John Harshman wrote:

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.

Pixie dust has whatever characteristics you want it to have, because
it shares a property with all other ad hoc explanations, i.e.
arbitrariness.

Exactly. And phylogeny doesn't have whatever characteristics you want. It has quite specific characteristics. It's not an ad hoc or arbitrary explanation. So why did you bring up pixie dust?

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.

It seems pretty clear to me. Tell me where you need clarification and
I will see what I can do.

Tell me what would be required in terms of observables in order to make phylogeny just as peachy as solar fusion.

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.

That's right, I'm not being specific. I am explaining what qualifies
as evidence of the sort necessary for a causal interpretation of the
phylogenic tree structure. It's a *type* of evidence, consequently its
description is typological, not specific. Anything you can think of,
anything at all, fitting the following description will satisfy the
condition:

A property of your tree that *could not* exist without another
property of your tree preceding it under phylogenesis.

I have no idea what that means. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what that means.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... arbitrariness. ... observables in every respect it is necessary to the overall evolution, ... compare it with your imaginary tree. ... without another property of your tree preceding it under phylogenesis. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... many features connecting the species, ... You don't understand how science works, or what "observables" are. ... But I don't see you doubting solar fusion. ... Now for phylogeny I can measure DNA sequences, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... many features connecting the species, ... *could* be interpreted in terms of phylogeny, ... You don't understand how science works, or what "observables" are. ... know that penguins had flying ancestors without knowing the name of any ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... many features connecting the species, ... *could* be interpreted in terms of phylogeny, ... discovered that is physically (i.e. in terms of observables) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... many features connecting the species, ... *could* be interpreted in terms of phylogeny, ... discovered that is physically (i.e. in terms of observables) ...
    (talk.origins)