Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 181 of 288 (796063)
12-21-2016 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by caffeine
12-21-2016 5:04 PM


Re: The purpose of phylogenetics
Well, if you take individual bits of the genome you get all sorts of odd results ...
When I said "bits of the genome" I meant collectively. Obviously size matters.
If 'anything else' could produce that, then it's not evidence of anything.
No, I meant a lack of common ancestry could produce anything else. Because of "evolution is wrong" not being a specific hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by caffeine, posted 12-21-2016 5:04 PM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 182 of 288 (796064)
12-21-2016 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by dwise1
12-21-2016 11:31 AM


Re: The purpose of science
It is true that we often do take what we refer to as an evolutionary approach. That is to say that we will copy some existing code that operates similarly to what we want and then we modify it.
Yes.
Now the analogy with evolution starts to fall apart. During the maintenance phase of the product's life we are constantly required to add new features which are often incompatible with the original design, so we have to burrow back into the code and change the fundamental ways that the software works at its lowest levels. That cannot happen in nature. It would be like the evolution of a new species requiring completely changing how DNA works. Cannot happen. Evolution can only work with what it starts with; you cannot completely reinvent entire systems on the fly.
You could also spill beer all over the keyboard.
I don't think you should take the analogy quite so literally. Human programmers change design scope on the fly and obviously screw things up all the time, usually like you say, not anticipating what kind of effect a new feature will have on the rest of the program.
If you set this fallibility aside then my point still stands, a dominant "evolutionary" pattern emerges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by dwise1, posted 12-21-2016 11:31 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 5:16 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 209 by Taq, posted 12-22-2016 11:53 AM vaporwave has not replied

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


Message 183 of 288 (796065)
12-21-2016 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 5:12 PM


Re: The purpose of science
f you set this fallibility aside then my point still stands, a dominant "evolutionary" pattern emerges.
No.
No ... just ... no. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but it can't be familiarity with the actual business of producing software.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:12 PM vaporwave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 12-21-2016 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 184 of 288 (796066)
12-21-2016 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dr Adequate
12-21-2016 5:16 PM


Re: The purpose of science
DrA writes:
No ... just ... no. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but it can't be familiarity with the actual business of producing software.
I know where he's getting it, from his desire to introduce a designer.
But while we have the fossils, and we have the natural causes and we have the human designers, he ain't got nothing but fantasy.
We got the fossils, we got the natural causes, we got the software designers; WE WIN!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 5:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:28 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 185 of 288 (796067)
12-21-2016 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jar
12-21-2016 5:20 PM


Re: The purpose of science
I know where he's getting it, from his desire to introduce a designer.
Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual)
I think it's pretty much a rule at this point, if you're looking for a philosophical presentation on deities or intelligent design, just ask an evolutionist to make his scientific case for common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 12-21-2016 5:20 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Granny Magda, posted 12-21-2016 6:35 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 190 by Tangle, posted 12-21-2016 6:57 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 7:50 PM vaporwave has not replied
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 7:54 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


Message 186 of 288 (796068)
12-21-2016 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dr Adequate
12-21-2016 5:05 PM


Re: The purpose of science
So that there would in fact be common ancestry and descent with modification, but of designs rather than organisms?
Sure, depending on how ambiguous you want to get with those terms you could also say a wood furniture set is made up of modified descendants of a common ancestral oak tree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 5:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Genomicus, posted 12-21-2016 5:40 PM vaporwave has replied
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2016 7:47 PM vaporwave has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 187 of 288 (796069)
12-21-2016 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 5:36 PM


Re: The purpose of science
Hi vaporwave,
Any idea why primate phylogenies constructed from protein sequences match phylogenies created from synonymous sites?
You spend a lot of time responding to peeps who you also complain are overtly fixated on designers.
I am not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:36 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 6:57 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 188 of 288 (796071)
12-21-2016 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 5:28 PM


Re: The purpose of science
Hi vapourwave,
Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual)
"Let the record show", God, how pompous. But hey, by all means, let the record show;
vapourwave writes:
The typical rebuttal here has the evolutionist quickly retreating to teleological territory and he begins rambling about how a Creator could do X or Y, etc....
Message 26
No-one mentioned creators before you did, in only your second message I might add. I find it hard to imagine why you would tell a lie that is so easily disproved by the record of this thread.
Fact is, until you brought up creators everyone was happily discussing phylogenetics, without any mention of your imaginary friends.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:28 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:04 PM Granny Magda has replied

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


Message 189 of 288 (796074)
12-21-2016 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Genomicus
12-21-2016 5:40 PM


Re: The purpose of science
Any idea why primate phylogenies constructed from protein sequences match phylogenies created from synonymous sites?
I assume whatever you're driving at is universal to all phylogenies, right? You wouldn't be cherry-picking primates would you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Genomicus, posted 12-21-2016 5:40 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Genomicus, posted 12-22-2016 12:48 AM vaporwave has replied

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


(1)
Message 190 of 288 (796075)
12-21-2016 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 5:28 PM


Re: The purpose of science
Vaporwave writes:
Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual)
I'm considering retrieving my opinion of you from the compost heap I threw it on last week.
There appears to be the faint possibility that we have a unicorn amongst us - someone who doesn't believe in god/s or creationism yet also doesn't accept evolution. Is this you? Or is that another question you can't answer - like where is the evidence disproving common descent?

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 185 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:28 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


Message 191 of 288 (796076)
12-21-2016 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Granny Magda
12-21-2016 6:35 PM


Re: The purpose of science
No-one mentioned creators before you did
I did not invoke creation/intelligent design as any part of an argument. I just anticipated the evolutionists would and then they did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Granny Magda, posted 12-21-2016 6:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Granny Magda, posted 12-21-2016 7:59 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


(4)
Message 192 of 288 (796077)
12-21-2016 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 5:36 PM


Re: The purpose of science
Sure, depending on how ambiguous you want to get with those terms you could also say a wood furniture set is made up of modified descendants of a common ancestral oak tree.
Bu suppose that I do not want to be ambiguous at all, but wish to describe your idea: "Crude example: start with a vertebrate template, and from a vertebrate template generate a vertebrate-tetrapod template and a vertebrate-fish template, and so on."
Now, this is not the same as making furniture out of a tree, is it? A chair made out of an oak tree is not both a chair and an oak tree. But a tetrapod derived from a vertebrate is both a tetrapod and a vertebrate.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:36 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by vaporwave, posted 12-22-2016 7:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 193 of 288 (796078)
12-21-2016 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 5:28 PM


Re: The purpose of science
I think it's pretty much a rule at this point, if you're looking for a philosophical presentation on deities or intelligent design, just ask an evolutionist to make his scientific case for common ancestry.
No, for that you need a creationist to join the discussion. At this point even if he himself is too embarrassed to talk about his magical beliefs, it is almost certain that someone else will start mocking them.
You brought the subject up, vaporwave, you don't get a free pass.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:28 PM vaporwave has not replied

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


Message 194 of 288 (796079)
12-21-2016 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 5:28 PM


Re: The purpose of science
d.p.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 5:28 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 195 of 288 (796080)
12-21-2016 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by vaporwave
12-21-2016 7:04 PM


Re: The purpose of science
vaporwave, your sad attempts to weasel out of your lies fool no-one.
I did not invoke creation/intelligent design as any part of an argument.
No, you brought it up as generalised smear against other participants. So-goddamn-what? That's not what you accused people of;
vaporwave writes:
Let the record show that the evolutionists here were the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. (as usual)
You vaporwave were, beyond question, the first to start talking about gods and designers in this discussion. To pretend otherwise is a lie.
I just anticipated the evolutionists would and then they did.
Because you brought it up.
The record of this thread quite clearly shows that you originally brought up creators. People responded to that. You then attacked them for bringing it up.
I've seen some pathetic antics from creationists, but this is truly pitiful. It's almost as if you don't realise that the stuff you write is available to check.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by vaporwave, posted 12-21-2016 7:04 PM vaporwave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by JonF, posted 12-21-2016 8:05 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024