More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus

As you know I don't have problem with evolution. But I don't see how the example support darwinistic explanation of the evolution. I would say that such congruence even contradicts "random mutation" conception as source of it.

I suppose that every convergence in Nature is explained by darwinist by random mutation as its primary source. If there is no random mutation then natural selection have nothing to operate upon.So this case maybe support evolution but I do not see how it support darwinistic explanation of it.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

It's only proof for darwinists.I see explanation that two unrelated organisms speciate in the same way via undirected random mutation picked up by natural selection as utterly ridiculous and as darwinistic fancy.

quote:

---

The assertion that two completely unrelated organisms would be "programmed" to speciate in the same way, at the same position in time and space, is ridiculous

---

As you see it was Crashfog who used teminus-technicus "to speciate", not me. I only made paste-copy. So direct your linguistic attention to him and explain him basics of your common evolutionary concepts.I am looking forward on "Is evolution finnished" to your darwinistic explanation why are swans white.

Ok - this is quotation from your pdf article having 9 pages but almost 4MB!

quote:

---

This amount of cospeciation is more than expected by chance
alone (P < 0.01; reconciliation analysis, as implemented
in TreeMap 1; Page, 1995). These comparisons indicate
that cospeciation between gophers and lice is extensive.

---

So it indicates that cospeciation governed by darwinistic random mutation is not random. It means that cospeciation governed by randomness is not governed by chance. Or better - cospeciation caused by random mutation and natural selection is more probable as caused by pure chance.

Instead of explaining basics of darwinism you should better explain the sentence from the article:

quote:

---

This amount of cospeciation is more than expected by chance
alone.

---

What have authors of the article on their mind?
Something like cospeciation caused by "random mutation" is better explanation as cospeciation caused by "chance mutation"?

Crashfrog and you are trying to divert discussion. You should explain sentence from the article discussed:

quote:

---

This amount of cospeciation is more than expected by chance alone.

---

One of darwinistic pillars is random mutation. You should explain how random mutation and natural selection is more succesfull in cospeciation as "chance alone". Punktum.

One would say that cospeciation in the case discussed was somehow directed and has nothing to do with chance. Yet considering darwinistic "random mutation" as source of this "selected" cospeciation is of interest. And if there is math in the West that gives better results with "random mutation" as with "pure chance" I will sleep well tonight.

This is the first respond to the question after a flux of arrogant posts.The "if selection of random mutations were itself random" is the first answer to the question.But in such case we should take into consideration all possible mutations that weren't picked up by selection. It would mean that ratio of all possible mutations to the mutation preferred by selection is 100:1. Such a ratio is very unusual. Let us consider that to a cospeciation led 10 mutations of gene with 100 nucleotides. (Give another example if you like). I see there almost infinite possibilites of mutation. From this almost infinite all possible mutations (1 mutation of nucleotide in given sequence, two mutation or 10 mutations but on different places etc...) only one was picked by natural selection. All others should be detrimental while weren't picked.In the case of of ratio 100:1 between "random mutation picked by natural selection" and "pure chance" or "random mutation only" I dare say that evolution is directed. It means that one of 100 random mutation in gene lead to cospeciation. Such ratio is very high. Such ratio doesn't support "random mutation selected by NS" but directed evolution (orthogenesis) instead. Such great ratio suggest somehow directed mutation in the given genes. Yet if probability that random mutation wouldn't lead to cospeciation is only 0,01 (by "pure chance") than the article support directed evolution - orthogenesis very. Such theory of orthogenesis is something I agree with.
It would mean - supposing your explanation and my reasoning are correct - that given article dispute darwinistic explanation instead of confirming it: Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

And why we are sure that such cospeciation needs darwinistic explanation - chance 1:100 by "pure chance" considering millions of years of evolution is more than probable to occurs. Such high probability of "pure chance" can explain cospeciation as well - even without "natural selection" that "picked out of hat" morphology made by "random mutation". Such high probability means that cospeciation would occurs whatever happens. Such high probability means that cospeciation is inevitable. That cospeciation is governed by inevitability, by probability = 1. By Nomogenesis.

If the random mutation is the only source of genetic novelty than mathematical computations about how "random mutation with natural selection" is more probable to occur as "pure chance" is absurd.I underestand that darwinists like math beacuse it gives their stories a look of science. The first who introduced math into darwinistic story of mimicry was F. Muller. It turned out that all his math is wrong because it stands on wrong premises.The mathematics that shows how process of "random mutation" as source of cospeciation is more likely to occurs as "pure chance" is ridiculous.Might be dawninists here do not fully realize that random mutation is inevitable for their story of cospeciation too - let me cite Ernst Mayr:

quote:

---

To be sure, selection for adaptedness is paramount at the second step, but this is preceeded by a first step”the production of the variation that provides the material for the selection process, and here stochastic processes (chance, contingency) are dominant. And it is this randomness of variation that is responsible for the enormous, often quite bizarre diversity of the living world.

---

Considering the text of darwinistic guru I cannot see why darwinists here defend untenable assumption. This untenable assumtion consist on the nonsensical using of math in order to prove how cospeciation governed by "pure chance" is less probable than darwinistic explanation that is fully dependent upon "random mutation" as it source.One of tactic you and your friends (Percy) use here is that I miss the point of the math used. You claim that percentage 0,01 has nothing to do with "random mutation" but with probability of cospeciation. Under the picture 1. we could read this:

quote:

---

Solid circles are cospeciation events involving Geomydoecus that were inferred from reconciliation analysis...

---

Yet such "cospeciation events" are unthinkable without random mutations that preceded them. So you cannot pretend that the mentioned math has nothing to do with random mutation while random mutation is source of cospeciation events. And you should know that random mutation is tantamount to chance mutation.
And if your math prove that observed cospeciation events are more probable by whatever reason as pure chance alone (100:1?) I may use this math for support of Nomogenesis as well, don't you think? It means evolution has nothing to do with chance and is directed.

Nothing. Using math to support how process based on "random mutation" is more probable to occur as the same process governed by "chance alone" is so confusing itself as medieval scholastic maths how many angels fit onto the tip of a needle.

Let us first reconsider confusing "rebuttals" you have given to my question yet. There are only 2-3 responses that tried to explain what exactly p=0,01 means. I see - you would better like get rid of me. So he recommend me to see "reconciliation analysis (Page, 1990) in TreeMap (Page,1995)." Something darwinists on EvC are obviously well acquainted with judging by your behaviour.And One would say that finding a lice on gophers would mean that such a lice would be adapted by darwinistic cospecation with probability 99%. Yet there remain probability 1% that given lice is adapted by "chance alone". Treatment of cancer consists of many processess most of which are maybe unknown. So we can use term "by chance", because there are patients who are not treated and somehow healed anyway. There is not such situation considering evolution. Here are all subjected to mutation and natural selection (according darwinism). And evolution of coespeciation of lice consists also only in darwinistic dyade "random mutation and natural selection". Nothing else. It means that probability that mice of gopher originated out off allmighty process "random mutation and natural selection" is 1%. It means that "natural selection" and "random mutation" play no role of history of such a lice. It would mean that such a lice which originated by "chance only" do not mutate and is not subjected to natural selection. It is exactly what follows from the disease example.

Anyway can you explain your response more in details? - Four sentences would be enough I suppose.
What species did they compare? Did they combine all mammalian species with all insect species, or they combined only all extant species from family Geomyidae with all extant lice species from order Phthiraptera? Or they compared only pocket gopher species with lice species that parasites on them?--I don’t know why you haven’t give this simple explanation in the beginning of the discussion. You would have spared me reading nonsensical answers. For instance Wepwawet in his latest response gave no direct answer again but reccommended me to use google and to observe biblical proverbs instead. To my simple question almost all responses are like that from Wepwawet - long, without any coherent answer but full of nonsenses. If you would like to reduce number of posts that are full of nonsenses you should better start by yourself and your darwinistic friends here. It would help much more I guess.(Anyway feel free if you prefer to start your answer with ancient proverbs, ethernal thruths and how good you and your friends are in phylogenetic analysis, math, statistics etc...)

First you answered this: Now your answer is this: I would say your first answer deal with existing phylogenis from which we choose randomly. The second answer deal with "randomly generated phylogenies" (by computer or phantasy or how?).In fig.2 we see Orthogeomys hispidus connected with line with Geomydoecus chapiny. This is existing cospeciation of two species. Give me please one exmple now that is "randomly generated" or "two species chosen completely at random".You could use also "randomly generated" ingroup nodes instead - if it is crux of cospeciation.Just one example would help very.