Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

randman, Palaeontologists manage to tell them apart without pouches & plantenta by just the fossil bones, which was my point.Try again...

quote:

---

If marsupials/placentals were so convergent, we wouldn't be able to tell them apart. But we can do so, & do so easily, No denying that convergent evolution exists, but that it totally masks other data is clearly falsified by the fact we recognise marsupials & placentals in the first place. Remember the cladogram that Ned predicted? Nor can marsupials be anatomically identified just by their reproductive strategy, they can be recognised by other anatomical features.
  —mark

---

What do you mean by this? The 3 bones you mention were in place before placentals, marsupials, & monotremes diverged. What makes you think it was convergence? I am admitting it, & more power to its collective elbow, but it's neither here nor there to the conclusion of common decsent. The shift in the placement of cetacea within the artiodactyls is a perfect example of this. You seem to want this to mean that cladistics should be binned, whilst totally ignoring the fact the data taken as a whole is congruent in a way that overwhelmingly supports descent.I acknowledge & accept all the data, you look at the incongruence & ignore the larger congruence.This is worth repeating. My great-grandmother smoked like a trooper all her life & lived to the age of 93. Given that this is an above average age, I therefore conclude that smoking is good for you. This is exactly what you are doing by focussing on the examples that you want to see, & ignoring the rest. My view takes in the data as a whole & as a result I am able to see the signal through the noise.I have provided an example of congruency that is 135,135:1 against. In order to render this statistically insignificant, you are required to provide 135,135 cladogram pairs that have zero congruence, such is the nature of corroborative evidence. I won't hold my breath. You have to show that it does place significant limits, which you haven't done. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The evidence that it doesn't is in the congruence of unrelated data sets. I overstate my case? Says the person who gets evidence of non-random mutations & makes all sorts of unwarranted extrapolations about the frequency & effects of such a phenomenon on congruency, & wild claims of determinacy. It is incumbent on you to show convergence is so prevalent at all levels that it renders cladistics moot as a tool for inferring descent. It is incumbent on you to show why multiple, independent sequences & morphology are an expectation of convergence.For example, whales are most similar morphologically & genetically to artiodactyls. Why doesn't one genetic study point to a whale fish affinity? Another canines, another ursids, another sharks? Seals, & sealions, anyone? Surely the environment that a whale finds itself under should force similarities with organisms sharing similar niches in order to force convergence? But whales don't, the evidence consistently points to an artiodactyl ancestry, not a shark ancestry, not a sealion ancestry, not a canine ancestry, not a primate ancestry, an artiodactyl ancestry.There is no reason why any genes phylogeny should be congruent with any other genes phylogeny, nor any "metabolic" gene sequence with morphology.I have admitted divergency occurs, I simply deny that it occurs as much as you would like. The evidence of this is that descents prediction of congruent phylogenies is borne out, & this is not consistent with convergence, convergence would ruin it, which is rather your point, after all. Also, I have pointed out to you known phylogenies exist where divergence, rather than convergence is the norm. If convergency was prevalent, large marine animals like whales, sealions etc would show convergence beyond obvious adaptations to their environment. They would be more similar heamaglobin-wise, cytochrome c-wise, NADH-wise, morphology-wise, etc. But they are NOT. They show affinities with very different clades that exist in totally different environments.Sequence & morphology based cladograms cannot be explained by convergence. The only explanation that explains the data is common descent.Markps Might I suggest you start smoking 40 cigarettes a day, it will result in a longer lifespan. The evidence clearly supports this conclusion. This message has been edited by mark24, 06-09-2005 05:58 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Clearly contradicted by the fact that that they do match more than we would expect. Check any of the phylogenies that have been presented here. There is a broad agreement with the morphologically derived expectation. The data here exactly matches the morphological expectation. That's three 8 taxa phylogenies, 135,135^2:1. 18,261,468,225:1 I don't call that being molecular data not reflecting morphological data, do you? The data may become more ambiguous towards the terminal nodes of any given "recent" cladogram, which is likely the complaint here. Or on data where divegences are extremely old where "noise" is more likely to mask signal, but the overall pattern is still way, way more congruent than we have any reason to expect.Do you have 18 billion cladograms with no congruence to render the three conclusions statistically insignificant?The nature of the evidence isn't that a "mere" 50% congruence, & therefore a 50% incongruence represents ambiguous results. The sheer number of potential trees means a congruence is an unlikely event & therefore a likely signal.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 03:18 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 04:07 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, That the marsupial moles diverged from other marsupials relatively early is neither here nor there. Something has to diverge earlier than other groups within the same taxon, & by definition will form a "distinct line". In the same way the suiformes & cetacea diverged from other lineages within artiodactyla & formed "distinct" lineages.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 07:50 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 07:53 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Why you think repeatedly pointing out something I already accept is actually going to change my opinion is beyond me. Maybe you should switch from transmit to receive once in a while.That's right, the evidence required a shift within a taxon, the artiodactyls. ALL the evidence point the same way. Once again you can't see the wood for the trees. The wood you are so fastidiously avoiding is that against all odds the data gets much more congruent than incongruent. The cetacea moved within the order, but the rest of the sub-taxa are the same. What a coincidence! How the devil did that happen?But even ignoring the rest of the congruence in the data sets (& you clearly need no help ignoring the fact that both the molecular & morphological data places pigs, peccaries, chevrotains, peccorans, hippopoamti, as well as odonticetes & mysticetes in the same taxon), lets take a look at the bit it allegedly got so unforgivably wrong.The molecular data points to cetaceans being nested within the artiodactyls, the morphological data agrees that the cetacea should be nested in the artiodactyls too (Mesonychids ARE artiodactyls, by the way..), & not the:Perissodactyls, paenungulata, rodentia, chiroptera, primates, carnivora, xenarthra, ameridelphia, australidelphia, multituberculata, docodonta, triconodonta, symmetrodonta, enantiothornes, hesperornithiformes, icthiornithiformes, anseriformes, galliformes, podicepiformes, gaviiformes, sphenisciformes, pelecaniformes, procellariformes, gruiformes, charadriiformes, columbiformes, ciconiiormes, falconiformes, strigiformes, caprimulgiformes, apodiformes, coraciiformes, piciformes, passeriformes, pelycosauria, therapsida, testudines, araeoscelidia, younginiformes, placondontia, nothosauria, plesiosauria, sphenodontia, squamata, prolacertiformes, crocodilia, pterosauria, saurischia, ornithischia, aistopoda, nectridia, microsauria, temnospondyli, gymnophiona, urodela, anura, anthracosauria, seymoriamorpha, diadectomorpha, thelodonti,heterostraci, arandaspida, astraspida, galeaspida, osteostraci, ctenacanthiformes,hybodontiformes, xenacanthiformes, symmoriformes, eugeneodontiformes, petalodontiformes, iniopterygiformes, chongrenchelyformes, ptyctodontida, rhenanida, acanthoraci, petalichthyida, phyllolepida, arthrodira, antiarchi, saurichthyiformes, paleonisciformes, pholidopleuroformes, perleidiformes, peltopleuriformes, pynodontiformes, parasemionontiformes, amiiformes, osteoglossiformes, anguilliformescrossognathiformes, ellimmichthyiformes, clupeiformes, esociformes, gonorhynchiformes, cypriniformes, charachiformes, siluriformes, salmoniformes, stomiiformes, aulopiformes, myctophyformes, polymiciiformes, percopsiformes, ophidiiformes, lophiiformes, gadiformes, atheriniformes, cyprinodontiformes, beloniformes, beryciformes, lampridiformes, zeiformes, gasterosteiformes, dactyliopteriformes, scorpaeniformes, perciformes, pleuronectiformes, tetraodontiformes, diabolepidida, dipnoi, porolepiforms, rhizodontiformes, osteolepiforms, pandericthyida...[That is the list of cladistic taxa ranked as equivalent to artiodactyla; the order. Of course this is just one phyla's list, & there are over 30 others...]Wow? Another fucking coincidence for you to ignore, randman! All the data we have puts cetacea in the same taxon, as well as getting the rest of the taxa in there, too! And you have the bare faced balls to tell me i'm talking bullshit for suggesting an overall congruence? Per-lease!And you seem to take such offence when I accuse you of ignoring the against-all-odds congruences & focus on the incongruence. We have three data sets where the molecular data almost entirely agrees, & the morphological data is also congruent, but gets the detail of cetacean placement within the taxon "wrong", but still manages to place it in the right order, again, against all odds.There are going to be incongruences in most cladogram comparisons. The nature of the data is statistical, & the reasons for incongruence are legion. If common descent were not indicative of reality there would be no congruence between different data sets at all. Yet they exist, & exist in such a way as to represent colossal odds of existing, & what does randman do? Tackle this point head on (post 236, among others)? Don't be silly, he ignores that fact entirely & splits hairs over the incongruences, again. How very intellectually honest. Not.Now, I would like a point by point addressing of post 236, please.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 02:34 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, I HAVE NEVER DENIED THE POINT!!!!!! In post 236 I explicitly stated I accept it. Why try to convince me of something I am not in denial of? What you utterly & completely fail to see is the overall congruence. How many timess have I laboured the point? It's like telling a five year old its bedtime & they just don't want to hear you.Because of the statistical nature of the evidence, we go with the bulk of it. In the case of whales more evidence amassed that required a relatively small change in placement. What YOU ignore is that rest of the artiodactyl data is congruent. You also fail to explain why.The POINT, is that there is a significant correlation in cladograms of differing datasets, & you refuse to acknowledge or address this.
That there are incongruences does not alter the fact that the congruences exist at extreme odds of existing. The congruence requires an explanation. That explanation is common descent, & nothing you have mentioned has altered that. Don't be an idiot. Congruences against vast odds of occurring are in evidence, in spite of incongruences. Now who's not dealing with the evidence? YAY!!! So will you be explaining 18 billion to one odds of three cladograms being congruent anytime soon? I have made no factual errors. Artiodactyl phylogenies ARE congruent above what we should expect, & so are most of the others, the only fact dodger is you, mate. The reasons for incongruence are legion, it is no surprise it occurs, & focussing on it at the expence of the real phenomena that requires explanation yields nothing. & yet congruence occurs time & again, & in some cases at extreme odds.This is the evidence of common descent, cladistic & phylogenetic congruence, you have never explained why this should occur. It is hypocrisy to assert I have dodged the issue whilst portraying yourself as the only one dealing with the evidence, when it is you that have repeatedly failed to address the evidence of descent..I repeat, congruence is in evidence. For once in this thread, deal with it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 03:46 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, No idea, do you know, based on the historical & developmental constraints of the "starting" organisms? I couldn't access all of your links, but if that's what the evidence suggests, then that's what I'll go with. Thanks for the heads up.I'll paraphrase from post 236, since you couldn't manage to remember to respond to any of the salient points I have been forced to repeat countless times without any success of getting them adressed...The odds of congruence in cladistics explodes as you increase the number of taxa under study. An eight taxa cladogram has 135,135 possible trees, a ten taxa tree has over 43,000,000. So getting two trees that are "only" 50% congruent is actually extremely significant. The reasons for potential incongruence are legion, & we expect noise to mask signal in many cases. Yet a test of the assumption of common descent is that phylogenies will be congruent in a manner that is statistically significant.I have shown you two eight taxa phylogenies (cytochrome c, & NADH) that are 100% congruent against 135,135:1 odds. They are both identical to the morphological expectation, which bring the odds up to 18,261,468,225:1. If this is not due to common descent, then I think us silly-old-evolutionists-who-are-ignoring-the-evidence are owed an explanation as to why the data produces congruency?Trees that are not entirely 100% congruent still beg the same question. There is still a significant correlation, plus the expected "noise" that everyone expects anyway. The Artiodactyl/cetacean phylogeny fits this scenario perfectly. Certainly, the cetacea have moved within artiodactyla, no denying it. But the rest is congruent, again, against some fairly long odds. Again, If this is not due to common descent, then I think us silly-old-evolutionists-who-are-ignoring-the-evidence are owed an explanation as to why the data produces statistically significant congruency?Just to head you off at the pass, cytochrome c & NADH have completely unrelated metabolic functions, & both are uninvolved with morphology. Although cytochrome c may potentially converge with another organisms cytochrome c, there is no reason whatsoever why a cladograms cyt c pattern should should be the same as the NADH’s cladogram pattern, or the morphologically derived tree pattern for that matter.Whales are most similar morphologically & genetically to artiodactyls. Why doesn't one genetic study point to a whale fish affinity? Another canines, another ursids, another sharks? Seals, & sealions, anyone? Surely the environment that a whale finds itself under should force similarities with organisms sharing similar niches in order to force convergence? But whales don't, the evidence consistently points to an artiodactyl ancestry, not a shark ancestry, not a sealion ancestry, not a canine ancestry, not a primate ancestry, an artiodactyl ancestry. There is no reason why the patterns observed in the cladograms & phylogenies should have any congruence whatsoever if common descent is not indicative of reality.The evident correlation is data. Waving your hands & pointing to the incongruence is impressing no-one, neither is your painfully obvious refusal to address the fact of evident congruence against long odds. I again am forced to make the point that the evidence is statistical in nature, & focussing on the incongruence at the expense of the significant congruence is like concluding smoking is good for you because my great grandmother smoked like a trooper & lived to the ripe old age of 93, whilst ignoring the larger body of evidence that contradicts my conclusion.I put it to you that there is no plausible explanation for the evident statistically significant congruence other than common descent. If you wish to show otherwise, you have to do more than provide an if, if, if style argument.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman,Please explain why cetacean milk caseins, long & short interspersed elements, & morphology must mutate/evolve is such a way as to place them in the artiodactyl order, since it seems so inevitable to you?Please explain what it is about cytochrome c's primary structure, NADH's primary structure, & morphology that makes the 8 taxa phylogeny cited return identical cladograms.Please be specific.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 07:27 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randmnan, I have already told you I have no idea of the odds, neither do you.However, I have been asking why unrelated data sets should show similar patterns for many posts now, so if anyone gets to adopt the childish, "I asked first" mentality, its me, OK?Now, I ask again: MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-11-2005 04:05 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Post them. They don't "draw a cladogram after the fact". Have you learnt NOTHING? The data, regardless of whether it sequence data or morphological data, have similar algorithms applied to them like clustal, in order to derive a cladogram/tree.You also ignore the fact that in most cases the morphological data & conclusions predated the molecular. This is why molecular data is forcing changes in our conclusions, remember?The rest of post 293 has already been dealt with at length. Focussing on the incongruence at the expense of the congruent, again. Yada, yada, yada. If you remember, all you could manage in response to that post was accuse me of not accepting that molecular data warrants clade placement changes when I explicitly said a much in a previous post.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-11-2005 04:40 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Post the data. No, the data has algorithms applied to it & is congruent to a greater or lesser degree with other data, or it isn't.Or are you suggesting this is one big lie? That the figures are massaged to look congruent? Post 215's 100% congruence is a lie, too? How did I manage to pull that off & make it congruent with the pre-Heniggian expectation?How did Masato Nikaido, Alejandro P. Rooney, and Norihiro Okada, manage to pull off an overall congruence with Giessler? Same for John Gatesy, Cheryl Hayashi, Mathew A. Cronin, and Peter Arctanderg's study? I look forward to your explanation of why camels, pigs, peccarries, mysocetes, odontocetes etc always fall within artiodactyla, rather than: Perissodactyls, paenungulata, rodentia, chiroptera, primates, carnivora, xenarthra, ameridelphia, australidelphia, multituberculata, docodonta, triconodonta, symmetrodonta, enantiothornes, hesperornithiformes, icthiornithiformes, anseriformes, galliformes, podicepiformes, gaviiformes, sphenisciformes, pelecaniformes, procellariformes, gruiformes, charadriiformes, columbiformes, ciconiiormes, falconiformes, strigiformes, caprimulgiformes, apodiformes, coraciiformes, piciformes, passeriformes, pelycosauria, therapsida, testudines, araeoscelidia, younginiformes, placondontia, nothosauria, plesiosauria, sphenodontia, squamata, prolacertiformes, crocodilia, pterosauria, saurischia, ornithischia, aistopoda, nectridia, microsauria, temnospondyli, gymnophiona, urodela, anura, anthracosauria, seymoriamorpha, diadectomorpha, thelodonti,heterostraci, arandaspida, astraspida, galeaspida, osteostraci, ctenacanthiformes,hybodontiformes, xenacanthiformes, symmoriformes, eugeneodontiformes, petalodontiformes, iniopterygiformes, chongrenchelyformes, ptyctodontida, rhenanida, acanthoraci, petalichthyida, phyllolepida, arthrodira, antiarchi, saurichthyiformes, paleonisciformes, pholidopleuroformes, perleidiformes, peltopleuriformes, pynodontiformes, parasemionontiformes, amiiformes, osteoglossiformes, anguilliformescrossognathiformes, ellimmichthyiformes, clupeiformes, esociformes, gonorhynchiformes, cypriniformes, charachiformes, siluriformes, salmoniformes, stomiiformes, aulopiformes, myctophyformes, polymiciiformes, percopsiformes, ophidiiformes, lophiiformes, gadiformes, atheriniformes, cyprinodontiformes, beloniformes, beryciformes, lampridiformes, zeiformes, gasterosteiformes, dactyliopteriformes, scorpaeniformes, perciformes, pleuronectiformes, tetraodontiformes, diabolepidida, dipnoi, porolepiforms, rhizodontiformes, osteolepiforms, pandericthyida...Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

WK,What program did you use for this? Can I download it?Thanks,Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

WK,Great, thanks mate.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Bah! I'm running WinXP, & there isn't a version of that.