|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
You don't assume evolution did not take a pathway Well, if a particular evolutionary pathway is deemed impossible, then obviously the evolutionist will not assume it. That much is certain. The evolutionist will assume whatever he needs in order to reconcile the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Well, if a particular evolutionary pathway is deemed impossible, then obviously the evolutionist will not assume it. If a pathway is known to be impossible, it will be ruled out. What on earth are you trying to say?
The evolutionist will assume whatever he needs in order to reconcile the theory. 'The evolutionist'? This is ridiculous. Talk theory, not your prejudices about people. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
But that's not remotely credible, and could indeed be demonstrated to be false on theoretical grounds --- we know how wings work, after all. But for all you know, the types of wings we see in nature are the only configurations that natural selection is able to find in actual animal populations. Slight deviations may cause fitness to plummet drastically. That would be the inference.... and however surprising or unlikely, you would know it happened... because 'evolution is true.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
If a pathway is known to be impossible, it will be ruled out. What on earth are you trying to say? If an interpretation of the data leads to a conclusion that Common Descent did not take place, then the evolutionists will obviously dismiss this interpretation. Bringing it back to your example, an evolutionist would simply never assume a large path of reduced fitness through morphospace in order to explain the existence of a character trait. By definition of being an Evolutionist he can't assume this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But for all you know, the types of wings we see in nature are the only configurations that natural selection is able to find in actual animal populations. Slight deviations may cause fitness to plummet drastically. That would be the inference.... and however surprising or unlikely, you would know it happened... because 'evolution is true. That's an interesting fantasy you have there about what people would think if it looked like evolution was false. In fact, if it looked like it was false no-one would have thought of it or believed it in the first place. However, this fact, like your self-serving daydream, is by-the-by, because it doesn't look like it's false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Convergent evolution is never chalked up to mere coincidence, but the product of similar functional constraints. ... Which can be observed and documented. They are mutation and selection (survival and reproduction). Again, there has to be some selection pressure and ecological opportunity:
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 can be illustrated as a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. If there is no selection pressure for convergence, it won't happen. When an existing organism already fills an ecological niche, another organism will be under strong pressure to avoid that niche unless it has superior survival and reproductive success. Convergent evolution occurs when neither of these constraints exist, and even then, rarely is the convergence as complete as seen in the flying squirrel and sugar glider -- both evolved from sap and insect diets and the opportunity provided by forest ecology and the pressure to avoid ground predators ... and they live in entirely separate geological locations. ie there was opportunity and there was no conflict. btw - the species don't know they are converging, being totally ignorant of each other. They are just filling an available niche by improving their adaptation to it via (micro)evolution.
... 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. Alternatively, the inference would be that such a result is not necessary to the continued survival and reproduction of either species. Evolution is the survival of those able to survive and breed, it has no goal and nor purpose, nor does it have any need to reproduce something that worked somewhere else. Your fixation on re-evolving feathers is curious and seems to demonstrate a failure to understand how evolution actually works rather than offer a critique of evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
If an interpretation of the data leads to a conclusion that Common Descent did not take place, then the evolutionists will obviously dismiss this interpretation. Again, let's talk theory and data, not what 'evolutionists' will or won't do. Or are you only here to complain about some group of people you don't like? I'm here for philosophy and science. If you have some specific interpretation of some data you want to discuss, or some example of someone dismissing an interpretation for reasons you find problematic then present it. I'm not interested in your gripes against ill-defined people doing non-specified things.
Bringing it back to your example, an evolutionist would simply never assume a large path of reduced fitness through morphospace in order to explain the existence of a character trait. By definition of being an Evolutionist he can't assume this. So fuck the evolutionists! Let's talk actual science, not people. Are you so obsessed with your personal dislikes? The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the data we have. If you disagree, please provide actual details with specific examples. Not innuendo. Thank you. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
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. There is a robust relationship between genetic information and the type of morphology that it organizes. I don't doubt that. But it is not confirmation of common ancestry.
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; That is a completely non-testable metaphysical/philosophical claim. You can't calculate the chances of such a thing unless you assume some kind of random creature generator in the absence of universal common ancestry. This is a bizarre assumption, yet your whole defense hinges on this "what are the chances" claim which evolutionists try to smuggle in as scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But for all you know, the types of wings we see in nature are the only configurations that natural selection is able to find in actual animal populations. ... Dinosaurs had feathers before some developed wings. There were a variety of feathered wing patterns tried, but one was more successful at survival and reproduction than the others. Being more successful at survival and reproduction than the others is all that matters in evolution. Reaching some alternate goal envisaged by a novice understanding of evolution is certainly not in the cards. Pterosaurs developed skin wings to fly and soar, and they were successful for a while.
quote: In other words, totally different from bird and bat wings, and in no need to have feather wings, in spite of being closer to wing evolution in dinosaurs than bats are.
quote: Once the niche was occupied there was no need to develop further, certainly no need to develop entirely different systems, as all they needed was to become more successful at survival and reproduction than the others. Being more successful at survival and reproduction than the others is all that matters in evolution. Reaching some alternate goal envisaged\imagined by a novice understanding of evolution is certainly not in the cards. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is a robust relationship between genetic information and the type of morphology that it organizes. I don't doubt that. As that is not remotely what I said, I suggest that you read my post again.
That is a completely non-testable metaphysical/philosophical claim. You can't calculate the chances of such a thing unless you assume some kind of random creature generator in the absence of universal common ancestry. And yet I do not. The alternative hypothesis doesn't have to be a "random creature generator"; but if there is no reason why it should produce robustness, then it would be a matter of chance if it actually did. I am mildly curious to know what you think "metaphysical" means. You are wrong. Again, this has nothing to do with metaphysics: this is epistemology; this is the scientific method.
This is a bizarre assumption, yet your whole defense hinges on this "what are the chances" claim which evolutionists try to smuggle in as scientific evidence. And since all science is done this way, it would seem that this is the very essence of scientific reasoning. I must go out now, but I shall be happy to disabuse you of any further errors you may have perpetrated by the time I get back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
That's an interesting fantasy you have there about what people would think if it looked like evolution was false. In fact, if it looked like it was false no-one would have thought of it or believed it in the first place. However, this fact, like your self-serving daydream, is by-the-by, because it doesn't look like it's false. Interesting take. I think if you're committed enough to an evolutionary worldview then it doesn't matter how false it looks. Look at the related field of Origin of Life studies to get some inkling of the metaphysical commitment. It doesn't matter how much the various OoL theories may struggle, the general academic community knows with complete certainty that it happened completely naturally somehow. Edited by vaporwave, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
And yet I do not. The alternative hypothesis doesn't have to be a "random creature generator"; but if there is no reason why it should produce robustness, then it would be a matter of chance if it actually did. Yes indeed. If. Let me know when you're able to demonstrate the reasoning or lack of reasoning of this non-evolutionary creature generator. Until then you're just philosophically speculating to the extreme... Which is totally fine, just don't try to smuggle it in as scientific evidence for your theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
waving vapor writes: It doesn't matter how much the various OoL theories may struggle, the general academic community knows with complete certainty that it happened completely naturally somehow. Again, utter and complete nonsense; that is not anything but a creationist might say. What is actually said is that so far no examples of non-natural causes have ever been found. Until someone actually presents a non-natural cause for examination and can explain how such non-natural causes work there is no reason to suggest non-natural causes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vaporwave Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
What is actually said is that so far no examples of non-natural causes have ever been found. Until someone actually presents a non-natural cause for examination and can explain how such non-natural causes work there is no reason to suggest non-natural causes. Let me rephrase that. No matter how weak naturalistic origin of life theories may become, no matter how much that claim may appear to be false, the academic community will never consider the central idea of a naturalistic origin of life to be disproved. Perhaps rethought entirely but never dismissed or replaced... (indeed the alternative is not even to be considered) I don't want to get off-topic from phylogenetics here. I'm just offering it as an example of the type of commitment someone may hold to an evolutionary style worldview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
vaporwave writes: I don't want to get off-topic from phylogenetics here. I'm just offering it as an example of the type of commitment someone may hold to an evolutionary style worldview. Do you accept that common descent is falsifiable?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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024