Re: Co-optation Today

John Harshman wrote:

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.

However, its tree does have causal characteristics attributed to it
without sufficient empirical justification.

It has quite specific characteristics. It's not an ad hoc or arbitrary
explanation. So why did you bring up pixie dust?

To make a point. Phylogenesis, though also ad hoc, isn't quite as bad.
I'll grant you that much.

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 not phylogeny per se, but rather the *causal* interpretation of
your phylogenic tree that is questionable. What would make it as
peachy as (the theory of) solar fusion is two properties of your tree
such than one could not exist without another preceding it under
phylogenesis.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... but we do have a possible causality which fully accounts for all ... principles every species we see in the present, ... or is Trues imagining that a phylogeny is a mechanism? ... religious terms. ...
    (talk.origins)