Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 288 (795858)
12-18-2016 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 12:12 PM


Re: Introduction
Evolutionists fall back on a strange sort of metaphysics... they work off the assumption that if common descent were false, the pattern of morphology and DNA would necessarily be in discord.
No, you have misunderstood the logic of the scientific method. Of any successful theory, we cannot (and no-one ever does) say for certain that if it was false, it would be falsified in any given way. What we can do is observe that there are many potential falsifications, none of which have come to pass.
(This of course has nothing to do with "metaphysics", it is an epistemological question.)
In the case of evolution, the fact that the study of DNA offers chance after chance of falsifying the theory, and that none of these chances comes up, must surely be regarded as confirmatory unless we are to descend into complete epistemological nihilism.
And yes, this is especially the case given that the only alternative hypothesis (and I use the term "hypothesis" loosely) gives us no inkling of a reason why this should be so.
Ask an evolutionist what the evolutionary limits are to "Convergent Evolution", with regards to morphology. They won't be able to give you any kind of specific answer ...
I would rule out such things as a bat having wings just like a bird, or a duck-billed platypus having a bill actually identical in form and substance to that of a duck.
Perhaps, if you are a creationist, you could say what limits your hypothesis places on such things. Or indeed on anything else. What can God not do by magic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 12:12 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 32 of 288 (795860)
12-18-2016 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
12-18-2016 12:48 PM


Re: Introduction
jar writes:
Not too sure about that.
Corrected, thanks.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 12-18-2016 12:48 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 33 of 288 (795861)
12-18-2016 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Modulous
12-18-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Introduction
There must not be a large path of reduced fitness through morphspace that can be achieved through incremental changes to the genome.
So, when identifying a convergent trait, you just have to assume evolution did not take such a pathway. Simple enough.
But you didn't answer the question. Specifically, what level of morphological complexity (edit: **the traits themselves** not supposed evolutionary pathways) would be impossible for convergent evolution and why?
Edited by vaporwave, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 12:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 1:41 PM vaporwave has replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 34 of 288 (795862)
12-18-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 1:01 PM


Re: Introduction
I would rule out such things as a bat having wings just like a bird, or a duck-billed platypus having a bill actually identical in form and substance to that of a duck.
Okay good that is pretty specific. Now just explain why it would be impossible for a mammalian lineage to convergently evolve feathers and wings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 1:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 1:27 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 1:58 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 35 of 288 (795863)
12-18-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tangle
12-18-2016 12:39 PM


Re: Introduction
For example, taxomic trees were built based on the phyiscal features and functionalities of organisms and their assumed relationships. DNA came along and could have completely debunked the entire concept, yet it confirmed it.
DNA confirmed the pattern of shared physical features and functionalities of organisms. Dogs and cats remain more similar to each other than either is to a jellyfish or a reptile. Surprise surprise... I think evolutionists really make this discovery out to be more than it is.
You trick yourself into pretending the core assumption of common ancestry isn't still there begging the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2016 12:39 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 1:36 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2016 2:10 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 2:18 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 2:35 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 3:22 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 11:45 AM vaporwave has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 288 (795864)
12-18-2016 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:15 PM


Re: Introduction
Okay good that is pretty specific. Now just explain why it would be impossible for a mammalian lineage to convergently evolve feathers and wings.
It would be a fairly massive coincidence, don't you think? Since there are clearly lots and lots of ways to have wings, it would defy probability and beggar belief if, given the small number of times wings have evolved, they did so exactly the same way twice.
Your turn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:15 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 37 of 288 (795865)
12-18-2016 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:26 PM


Re: Introduction
You trick yourself into pretending the core assumption of common ancestry isn't still there begging the question.
It isn't; it's manifestly falsifiable.
DNA confirmed the pattern of shared physical features and functionalities of organisms.
No. For example, it puts a crocodile closer to a hummingbird than, for example, to a Komodo dragon. It puts a coelacanth closer to a dog than to a dogfish. We expect this on the basis of what we know of these organisms' evolutionary history, not their shared functionality.
And of course one could point to the consilience of the DNA evidence with itself. Evolutionary theory predicts that a cladogram constructed on the basis of one lot of DNA (say haemoglobin genes) will be in good accordance with one constructed on another basis, say ERVs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:26 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 38 of 288 (795866)
12-18-2016 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:07 PM


Re: Introduction
But you didn't answer the question. Specifically, what level of morphological complexity (edit: **the traits themselves** not supposed evolutionary pathways) would be impossible for convergent evolution and why?
I answered the question you asked; you didn't ask this question.
This question is ill-formed and cannot be answered. What is a 'level of morphological complexity (or a trait itself)'? What does it mean for something to be 'possible' 'for convergent evolution'? The best answer I can give you, without any further information is 'the only limit to complexity is set by the amount of time, energy and resources available', but this isn't 'for convergent evolution' since this is meaningless.
I suggest you have attempted to run before you learned how to crawl. Try starting from simpler beginnings and maybe you will be illuminated.
So, when identifying a convergent trait, you just have to assume evolution did not take such a pathway. Simple enough.
This, for instance, is backwards. You don't assume evolution did not take a pathway, but if you can identify that evolution must have taken such a pathway you have demonstrated it is impossible (or rather, you can identify certain probabilities, and you can pre-define certain probabilities as essentially 'impossible').

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:07 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:38 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 288 (795867)
12-18-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:15 PM


Re: Introduction
Hi vaporwave, and welcome to the fray.
Message 24 Evolutionists paint a false picture for the public. They imply that if common ancestry were false, then assembling phylogenetic models would be impossible. The models would break down.
But this is not true.
Common ancestry could be false, and one could still derive phylogenetic models that gave the appearance of evolution.
Please provide an example.
Note that the phylogenetic models can be used to predict new finds, and they are tested everytime a new fossil is found.
If you have arranged branches based on genetic traits, but the morphology and anatomy don't reinforce it, then the evolutionists can propose that some of those traits must have evolved independently of each other... and voila, you have accommodated contradictory data into the model.
When the model fails the hypothesis is reevaluated and altered to fit the new data -- that is how science works.
This is not to disparage the methodology... it is all very practical and extremely interesting. It is just dishonest to present such phylogenetic models as hard evidence that proves common ancestry is true.
There is no proof of scientific hypothesis or theory, just disproof and validation. Validation is where all the evidence is explained by the hypothesis\theory, including new information from testing results.
The theory of common ancestry is derived from the theory of evolution:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
This process has been observed to occur in virtually every living species, and it is a FACT. This is also called "microevolution."
(2) Speciation is the process whereby parent populations are divided into two or more reproductively isolated, independently evolving, daughter populations.
This process has been also observed to occur, and it is a FACT. This process forms nested hierarchies of species, which is what biologists mean by "macroevolution."
(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
So we see that common ancestors are predicted by this theory, and this then makes a testable hypothesis.
Message 26 Ask an evolutionist what the evolutionary limits are to "Convergent Evolution", with regards to morphology. They won't be able to give you any kind of specific answer, because tomorrow, in order to reconcile the phylogenetic data, they may have to assume an even more complex morphological trait evolved multiple times.
Convergent evolution is limited by the ability of mutation and selection to achieve adaptation to a current ecology (see (1) above). As soon as that need is filled stasis would likely set in.
Message 33 So, when identifying a convergent trait, you just have to assume evolution did not take such a pathway. Simple enough.
But you didn't answer the question. Specifically, what level of morphological complexity (edit: **the traits themselves** not supposed evolutionary pathways) would be impossible for convergent evolution and why?
Curiously I was just posting on this issue on another thread ... see The Great Creationist Fossil Failure, Message 1121. Note that the internal differences are not being selected to change, there is no pressure for them to do so.
Message 34 Okay good that is pretty specific. Now just explain why it would be impossible for a mammalian lineage to convergently evolve feathers and wings.
Because there is no selection pressure for that to happen. Bats are sufficiently successful with the wings they have, and going towards a bird like wing would mean a devolution, which would be selected against (less fit than the existing species).
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:15 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 40 of 288 (795868)
12-18-2016 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:26 PM


Re: Introduction
vaporwave writes:
You trick yourself into pretending the core assumption of common ancestry isn't still there begging the question.
Nope. It makes a prediction, and I've given you a few ways to prove it wrong. Hard, evidence-based factual ways to prove common descent wrong. Your lot have had 150 years to do it - still nothing but waffle on forums.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:26 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 41 of 288 (795869)
12-18-2016 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:26 PM


Re: Introduction
DNA confirmed the pattern of shared physical features and functionalities of organisms. Dogs and cats remain more similar to each other than either is to a jellyfish or a reptile. Surprise surprise... I think evolutionists really make this discovery out to be more than it is.
Except that the science behind the phylogenies is much much more than this. Again if you look at the breakdown between flying squirrel and sugar glider in Message 1140 you will get an inkling of the depth of evidence being significantly more than you appear to assume.
The same kind of break-down can be done for dogs and cats, if you are interested, but there is more ...
The Great Creationist Fossil Failure, Message 1143: We can also think of fossils as embedded in a matrix of time and space, a 4D supercube, and the critical element in this view is that for species (A) to evolve from species (B) they must be located closely nearby in both time and space. This holds for all species, so you have to be able to link one to the other with both location and time.
Note that a prediction from the 4D supercube model was used to find Tiktaalik:
quote:
... To find a transitional fossil between land animals and fish, we start by looking at the very first tetrapods to show up in the fossil record. Then, we look for fish which had a similar pattern of bones in their fins as the tetrapods had in their limbs. ...
Located the right time and place in the 4D supercube and voila: the intermediate fossil between fish and quadruped is found ....
That is a prediction from the phylogenetic tree common ancestry hypothesis.
You trick yourself into pretending the core assumption of common ancestry isn't still there begging the question.
Not an assumption, a scientific hypothesis based on observed empirical evidence, and tested by each new find, whether genetic or fossil.
If it is constantly being tested then that hardly qualifies as "pretending" now, does it?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:26 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 42 of 288 (795870)
12-18-2016 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:26 PM


concilience
DNA confirmed the pattern of shared physical features and functionalities of organisms. Dogs and cats remain more similar to each other than either is to a jellyfish or a reptile. Surprise surprise...
There are actually 3 different lines of evidence leading to our current understanding of the natural history of life on earth:
  1. DNA
  2. fossil morphology
  3. location in the geologic\temporal matrix
To fit an organism into the phylogeny these 3 things must agree. The DNA structure must be more similar than other less closely related species; the fossil morphology must be more similar than other less closely related species; the location must be more congruent or connected than other less closely related species.
When these 3 bits of evidence from entirely different sets of information come together then their concilience provides added confidence to the validity of the hypothesis or theory:
quote:
In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:26 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 43 of 288 (795874)
12-18-2016 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 1:27 PM


Re: Introduction
It would be a fairly massive coincidence, don't you think? Since there are clearly lots and lots of ways to have wings, it would defy probability and beggar belief if, given the small number of times wings have evolved, they did so exactly the same way twice.
Convergent evolution is never chalked up to mere coincidence, but the product of similar functional constraints. Perhaps these constraints are so fine-tuned in the case of feathers/wings that natural selection only ever finds the same configurations in morphospace. That would be the inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 1:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 3:25 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 4:00 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 44 of 288 (795875)
12-18-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 1:26 PM


Re: Introduction
You trick yourself into pretending the core assumption of common ancestry isn't still there begging the question.
I think I should expand on my response to this a little, since my response was in fact basically "nuh-uh".
It is, I suppose true that you could take any large set of objects with lots of measurable characteristics, assume common ancestry, and shoehorn them into a cladogram.
But the theory of evolution predicts that in the case of living organisms (or at least those which are complex, multicellular, and so not susceptible to lateral gene transfer) since they were produced by a process of copying with variation, the set should be robust with respect to the methods, by which I mean that the cladograms produced by the phylogenetic methods should not be highly sensitive to exactly which measurable characteristics of the set we use, so long as it is reasonably large.
If the set was not produced by copying with variation, there is only an infinitesimal chance that it would have this property of robustness by accident; so we would in fact (with overwhelming likelihood) notice if common ancestry was a false assumption. Unless you can hypothesize a reasonable alternative to evolution that would necessarily, and not just by chance, produce the same appearances ... in which case I would like to hear of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 1:26 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 288 (795876)
12-18-2016 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 3:20 PM


Re: Introduction
Convergent evolution is never chalked up to mere coincidence, but the product of similar functional constraints. Perhaps these constraints are so fine-tuned in the case of feathers/wings that natural selection only ever finds the same configurations in morphospace.
But that's not remotely credible, and could indeed be demonstrated to be false on theoretical grounds --- we know how wings work, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:20 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024