Re: Co-optation Today

Inez wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:53pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Inez wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:26pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

I think many of us have been waiting for you to detail exactly what
characteristics the tree has attributed to it without sufficient
empircal justification.

The characteristic of causality, plain and simple. I'm having a hard
time understanding why you're all having such a hard time
understanding this. The network of associations is indisputable,
granted. However, put up something indicating a propagation of
causality up the tree.


I here and now admit freely to not being even remotely an expert on
this, but I can at least explain the parts of your statements that I
don't understand. I may be missing the boat on the whole topic, but I
suppose someone will point that out.

My DNA came from my mother and father. One would expect an analysis
of my DNA sequences to be closer to their's than other people's. This
seems quite "causal" to me, because the fact of my parents
relationship to me caused me to get bits of each of their DNA.

Yes, though your relationship with your parents is not one where we
observe phylogenesis. (Not that you are saying it is. I'm just making
the distinction explicit.)

A broader analysis is essentially the same thing. We know how DNA is
passed down from generation to generation. We know that the more
closely related two creatures are, the more you expect their DNA to be
similar. What's not "causal" about that?

Two genetically similar creatures are certainly "related" (by
definition), but the observation is of categorical, not causal,
relatedness.

If two species are presumed to share a common ancestor, then you would
expect the usually cited genetic similarities taken to indicate
phylogeny. The reverse does not follow. An observation consistent with
common ancestry does not exclude every other possible cause (including
those you haven't thought of yet). There could be many possible routes
to the observed outcome, the correct one you'll discover next week.

I should think that if God created each animal seperately, at least
the non-coding bits of their DNA should either all be exactly the same
or all be randomly different, and no tree could be formed out of
them. If you want to say that it's just a wild coincidence that two
species of birds that look very much alike have similar non-coding
DNA, while insects have much different sequences, well, gosh, that's
too much coincidence for me.


The choice is not Darwin's way or poof any more than the solar system
was either Ptolemy's way or poof.

I'm sure there's tons more about phylogeny that I know nothing about,
but this is where I'm at with it.

Those of us who are unusually optimistic hope
that you will include some thoughts on what empirical justification
might be sufficient.

How about two properties of the tree such that one could not exist
without the other preceding it under phylogenesis?-

Can you propose any such potential properties?

It is not easy to specify nonexistent (my opinion) instances of
theoretical properties. The best I can do for now is be as clear as
possible in defining those properties and wait to see if there are any
takers from the field. If no one has anything fitting the bill, that
in itself speaks volumes:

What are two properties (of organisms) shown to be in a cause-and-
effect phylogenic relationship?

Apparently you don't
consider a double nested heirarchy to be such a property. Why not?

Where is the evidence of *sequence* in this data? There is
relatedness, to be sure, but where do we see evidence that requires
causality to have worked its way up a "phylogenic" tree?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... without sufficient empirical justification. ... The characteristic of causality, plain and simple. ... causality up the tree. ... My DNA came from my mother and father. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... its tree does have causal characteristics attributed to it ... without sufficient empirical justification. ... The characteristic of causality, plain and simple. ... time understanding why you're all having such a hard time ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... >> but that works only for very recent duplications where we have the DNA ... Suppose we have an unrooted tree with three terminal nodes whose genome ... A before the inner node M, and both descendents K and L inherited ... So how do you ever know that X is a clade? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... >>>but that works only for very recent duplications where we have the DNA ... >>>(Which is a circular argument if you're trying to root the tree in the ... > So how do you ever know that X is a clade? ... > species of eukaryotes whatsoever, the unrooted tree looks like this: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... causality is the fundamental principle on which science is based. ... That completely destroys the whole basis of science. ... don't hear the tree fall then you have no evidence worthwhile that the ... tree fell or made/did not make any sound. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)