Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 46 of 288 (795877)
12-18-2016 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
12-18-2016 1:41 PM


Re: Introduction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 1:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 3:42 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 12-18-2016 7:09 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


(3)
Message 47 of 288 (795878)
12-18-2016 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 3:38 PM


Theory, not isms
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:38 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 48 of 288 (795879)
12-18-2016 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 3:25 PM


Re: Introduction
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.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 3:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 3:59 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 4:35 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 49 of 288 (795880)
12-18-2016 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
12-18-2016 3:42 PM


Re: Theory, not isms
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 3:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2016 4:17 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


(3)
Message 50 of 288 (795881)
12-18-2016 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 3:44 PM


Re: Introduction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:44 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 51 of 288 (795882)
12-18-2016 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 3:20 PM


convergent evolution ... again ...
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.
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 43 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:20 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


(1)
Message 52 of 288 (795883)
12-18-2016 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 3:58 PM


Re: Theory, not isms
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:58 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 53 of 288 (795884)
12-18-2016 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 3:22 PM


Re: Introduction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 4:39 PM vaporwave has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 54 of 288 (795885)
12-18-2016 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 3:44 PM


Re: Introduction
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:
Pterosaur/Wings
Pterosaur wings were formed by membranes of skin and other tissues. The primary membranes attached to the extremely long fourth finger of each arm and extended along the sides of the body to the ankles.
While historically thought of as simple, leathery structures composed of skin, research has since shown that the wing membranes of pterosaurs were highly complex and dynamic structures suited to an active style of flight. The outer wings (from the tip to the elbow) were strengthened by closely spaced fibers called actinofibrils.[17] The actinofibrils themselves consisted of three distinct layers in the wing, forming a crisscross pattern when superimposed on one another. The function of the actinofibrils is unknown, as is the exact material from which they were made. Depending on their exact composition (keratin, muscle, elastic structures, etc.), they may have been stiffening or strengthening agents in the outer part of the wing.[18] The wing membranes also contained a thin layer of muscle, fibrous tissue, and a unique, complex circulatory system of looping blood vessels.[19]
As evidenced by cavities in the wing bones of larger species and soft tissue preserved in at least one specimen, some pterosaurs extended their system of respiratory air sacs (see Paleobiology section below) into the wing membrane itself.[20]
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:
Homologous Structures
Homologous structures are parts of the body that are similar in structure to other species' comparative parts. These similarities are evidence that life on Earth has a common ancient ancestor that the diverse species have evolved from over time. The common ancestry of the species can be seen in the structure and development of these homologous structures, even if their function is different.
The more closely the organisms are related, the more similar the homologous structures between organisms. Most examples of homologous structures revolve around the limbs of the species being compared. The bone structure within those limbs are similar between closely related species.
Analogous Structures
There are many types of evidence for evolution, including studies in the molecular biology field (like DNA) and also in the developmental biology field. However, the most commonly used types of evidence for evolution are anatomical comparisons between species. While homologous structures show how similar species have changed from their ancient ancestors, analogous structures show how different species have evolved to become more similar.
Speciation is the change over time of one species into a new species. So why would different species become more similar? Usually the cause of convergent evolution is similar selection pressures in the environment. In other words, the environments in which the two different species live are similar and those species need to fill the same niche in different areas around the world. Since natural selection works in the same way in these types of environments, the same types of adaptations are favorable and those individuals with those favorable adaptations survive long enough to pass down their genes to their offspring.
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.
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 48 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:44 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


Message 55 of 288 (795886)
12-18-2016 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 4:19 PM


Re: Introduction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:19 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 56 of 288 (795887)
12-18-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 3:59 PM


Re: Introduction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 3:59 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 12-18-2016 5:13 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 65 by Coyote, posted 12-18-2016 7:14 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2016 9:24 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 57 of 288 (795888)
12-18-2016 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 4:39 PM


Re: Introduction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 4:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 7:12 PM vaporwave has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 58 of 288 (795891)
12-18-2016 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 4:46 PM


More nonsense.
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:46 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 6:15 PM jar has replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 59 of 288 (795895)
12-18-2016 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
12-18-2016 5:13 PM


Re: More nonsense.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 12-18-2016 5:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2016 6:44 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 61 by jar, posted 12-18-2016 6:49 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 7:06 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


Message 60 of 288 (795896)
12-18-2016 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 6:15 PM


Re: More nonsense.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 6:15 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by vaporwave, posted 12-19-2016 7:44 AM Tangle 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