Re: Co-optation Today

Charles Brenner wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Treus wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Treus wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Treus wrote:

The most obvious general example is the periodic table of elements.
Example of what? It's not a nested hierarchy.
Sure it is. Sodium is 1) an element that is 2) a metal, specifically
in 3) the alkali metal series.

A very revealing statement. Perhaps I should have guessed much sooner,
since I could understand none of what Trues was saying about
phylogenies, the extreme extent to which he and Harshman were simply
talking past one another.

The periodic table can be understood to describe a hierarchical
classification. But the analogy with a phylogeny is poor. To be fair,
it's hardly obvious what "nested hierarchy" is supposed to mean --
having some passing familiarity with phylogenetic trees I assumed I
understood, but on thinking more critically the truth is I could not
give a clear explanation.

Here: a nested hierarchy is a set of groups in which each group has one of two relationships with each other group; either the two groups are wholly disjunct, or one group is entirely included within the other. Partially overlapping groups are right out. Phylogenies can further be described as natural nested hierarchies: only one hierarchical arrangement of groups will work.

And I don't think that a person who has not
either studied or tried to invent a phylogenetic algorithm (e.g. for
DNA sequences) is likely to appreciate what a phylogeny is and does.

This is not a real nested hierarchy. Metals and non-metals, alkali
metals and other metals grade into each other.

Is that really the point? If metals and non-metals, alkali metals and
other metals, were clear distinctions, would that repair the analogy?
I know questions sound argumentative, but I'm just asking because the
point isn't clear to me.

It would if that were the only logical way to classify the elements.

Of
course, the current explanation for that is also evolutionary, though
with a critical difference. The array of observed atomic species was
entirely predictable through demonstrated principles given the
hypothetical starting state without need of extrapolation from
incremental phenomena to presumed (and untested) causal sufficiency
for categorically dissimilar effects. This does not mean it actually
happened as described, but we do have a possible causality which fully
accounts for all the necessary details at every stage of the process.
If you're trying to say that we can't know anything about phylogeny
until we have a theory that predicts from first principles every species
we see in the present, that's absurd. If you're trying to say something
else, I don't know what.
I'm not saying you can't know anything about phylogeny, just that your
theory still does not have enough credits to graduate from a
classification scheme to an empirically founded formulation of
causality. Your situation would be greatly improved by a demonstration
of just one new trait, on the scale of novelty attributed to
phylogenesis, produced through your proposed mechanism.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Most of the unclarity resides in
"new", "on the scale of novelty attributed to phylogenetis", and "your
proposed mechanism".

Mysterious to me too. Is the "mechanism" evolution itself (a bit
stylized to attribute *that* to John Harshman, impressive advocate
though he is), or is Trues imagining that a phylogeny is a mechanism?
More evidence of talking past?

You got me. But it's "Treus". Whatever that means.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... DNA sequences) is likely to appreciate what a phylogeny is and does. ... metals and other metals grade into each other. ... If metals and non-metals, alkali metals and ... stylized to attribute *that* to John Harshman, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... This recalls the question of whether observational evidence exists ... show that one character preceded another in phylogeny. ... Or we could merely notice that a nested hierarchy implies a temporal ... inference say that it can be used to discriminate between conflicting ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... This recalls the question of whether observational evidence exists ... show that one character preceded another in phylogeny. ... Or we could merely notice that a nested hierarchy implies a temporal ... inference say that it can be used to discriminate between conflicting ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... It's not a nested hierarchy. ... non-radioactive alkali metals, or do you separate radioactive elements ... Now why should life fit a nested hierarchy while minerals don't? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Co-optation Today
    ... This recalls the question of whether observational evidence exists ... show that one character preceded another in phylogeny. ... Or we could merely notice that a nested hierarchy implies a temporal ... inference say that it can be used to discriminate between conflicting ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading