Let’s have a serious discussion about phylogenetic systematics.
What are the assumptions, the methods, and the inferences that can be drawn from phylogenetic analysis.
For example, is there anything to the creationist claim that phylogenetic systematics assumes common ancestry and does it even matter?
I’ll be using a number of different references such as Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach and Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics.
This thread will not be password protected, but it will be protected by angels.
What a fucking stupid thing to say: matter producing a force onto matter (or perturbing space) vs angels pushing planets around. Yeah, the same process
GTFO you too
fifth:
Allan:
Indeed.
Fifth, do you think Jesus would approve of your misrepresentation?
The problem is that although we’ve defended common descent, you haven’t grasped our arguments.
The questions you’ve been asking reveal your confusion.
I am trying to help you out by pointing you to a key concept: the objective nested hierarchy.
The two nested hierarchies you cited — the quadrilateral hierarchy and the vehicle hierarchy — are not objective nested hierarchies, and therefore do not constitute evidence for common descent.
Until you grasp this, you will continue to struggle. Set your ego aside and do some reading. This section of Theobald will help you out. If you have trouble comprehending his point, cite the passages that confuse you and we’ll paraphrase them for you.
Mung:
Projection.
newton,
True, but their can be a lack of evidence for the inference or support that something other then design was the cause of a specific thing or event.
😀
The actual entailment is the converse. Common descent implies the nested hierarchy. As there are many observations of the nested hierarchy, this supports — but does not prove — the hypothesis of common descent. The way forward from this is to look for additional evidence, such as the fossil succession.
You might, instead, propose an alternative hypothesis that also entails the nested hierarchy. Keep in mind that a vague notion of intelligence doesn’t entail anything.
You said this:
So yeah, you did say that. Then turned around and said you didn’t.
Why don’t you pay attention to what people are saying, rather than trying to force your absolutes as the standard?
No one said it was the only possible process (faking it is always possible, of course), and that isn’t the point.
Why would it be? It’s the crap you keep bringing up, though
I don’t know, why do you deny that what works to cause the nested hierarchy doesn’t?
How about understanding? Honest engagement?
Glen Davidson
This filthymonarchyguy does that all the time. When called on it, she ignores it and continues as if nothing happened. I doubt you’ll have a straight and honest answer to anything from him.
It would be novel, to say the least.
Glen Davidson
What do you think angels pushing planets around looks like anyway?
For your information It looks just like matter producing a force onto matter (or perturbing space)
😉
peace
That could be it.
How about giving a one sentence summary of your arguments so that my inability to grasp will be plain to all?
No they reveal my impatience to read an actual argument
If you are going to go down that road you need to explain how given atheism objectivity is even possible.
In your worldview who exactly gets to determine what is objective and what is merely subjective though perhaps very popular?
peace
Correct.
Sure thing.
It is true that it is difficult to test the accuracy of trees from characteristics of species, because we usually don’t know the true phylogeny. So in that sense it is difficult. Not impossible, difficult.
Once you have some set of data, you can use that data to make a hypothesis. Basically the tree you make from that data is it’s own hypothesis about a genealogical relationship. You can then test this hypothesis with more data. Use more genetic loci to infer more trees and compare them. Find fossils and see where they fit in the tree. Sequence more species and use their genes to make new phylogenies. The more data we have that converges on the same phylogeny, the more confidence we have that we are homing in on the real phylogeny. This also simultaneously means that the more data we have that converges on the same phylogeny, the stronger the confidence that the species share common descent.
Since when does imply equal entail?
Due to past experience Zachriel You are on a very short fuse
……strike one
Nope,
We are not discussing alternatives we are discussing common decent.
And you said Common decent merely implies a nested hierarchy.
A heart attack implies a poor diet but it in no way entails it.
Do you see the difference?
We can not just assume that grandma died because of a poor diet simply because no one has offered an alternative hypothesis
get it now?
peace
I did say that, but I never said that anyone thought common decent entails a nested hierarchy.
In fact I implied the inverse of that. That you all think that nested hierarchy entails common decent
see the difference?
You might want to provide some evidence for that claim.
In this case at least I did not continue as if nothing happened instead I showed exactly where Glen Davidson was mistaken.
peace
I don’t deny that it does. As I said before I have no dog in this hunt.
I’d just like to see some support for the idea that nested hierarchy means common decent instead of demands that critics prove that it doesn’t.
peace
Then you shouldn’t have written:
Are you saying that what you wrote was a strawman and non sequitur? Of course it is, but you seem to think that your prattle rises above that. Not that it does.
Learn to write so that you get across your point, then.
Scattered across the reams of TSZ twaddle that you’ve generated.
No, clearly the implication was exactly what I said, and you simply denied it. Like usual.
Why peace, because you want to look peaceful when you’re belligerently and obtusely doing the opposite? Seems so.
Glen Davidson
dazz,
Not any special revelation just logic.
here is the syllogism
1) immaterial beings don’t typically interact with matter
2) angels are immaterial beings
3) therefore (all things being equal) angels pushing planets would look just like angels not pushing planets around.
peace
Try this, dimwit:
P1. immaterial beings don’t (typically? lulz) interact with matter
P2. angels are immaterial beings
P3. planets are made of matter
C: therefore angels don’t interact with planets
I wrote the inverse, usually writing the inverse is enough to communicate that you are talking about the inverse
No, I’m saying what I wrote the inverse of what you wrote.
no the implication is not exactly what you said in fact it is the inverse of what you said.
“All rabbits are mammals” is not the same as “all mammals are rabbits”
just like
“nested hierarchy entails common decent” is not the same thing as “common decent entails nested hierarchy”
peace
So that explains the stupid crap you’ve put out here?
You’re back to the same moronic crap as always, that hierarchy should mean common descent. If that were the case, army rank would imply common descent. How dull are your thought processes today? Even worse than usual?
Science doesn’t abide by your pigheaded ignorant little rules, you know.
Certain nested hierarchy does imply common descent, however, that is, common descent should be inferred from specific kinds of nested hierarchy. The highly derivative sort. That doesn’t mean that nothing else goes on, like horizontal transfers, which occur both in language and in life, but the fact that both languages and life are highly derivative of the history of common descent is what gives them their order, what explains so much about them. Essentially, the nested hierarchy seen in life does mean common descent, as no one has ever seen anything else that acted so derivatively, and thus so contrary to actual thought (again, because we know what’s said by the other side, not because the unimaginative mind of the creationist restricts ourselves).
But it’s still inference, and it’s never proof. Just because we don’t know of anything that would reasonably be expected to cause what we see in life other than evolution doesn’t mean that there isn’t any such thing. That said, of course we’ll stick with the one thing that does entail what we see in life at least until a reasonable alternative is proposed.
Glen Davidson
1) given your premises I will grant that logic as long as you grant that (pushing) is not necessarily the same thing as (interacting).
2) how exactly do you know that planets are only made of matter?
peace
I will grant that as soon as you realise your original syllogism was a huge pile of creotard bullshit
Again imply is not remotely the same thing as entail
No just because no alternative has been offered does not “mean” common decent. It only means that no alternative has been offered.
I’m not asking for proof. Far from it
I’m asking for any evidence whatsoever besides nested hierarchy. Which you agree only implies common decent.
Or in the absence that I’d take listing any systematic whatsoever that would rule out common decent so that we can say that common decent is at least a falsifiable idea.
peace
So you’re just saying whatever you like, yet again.
Here’s your post:
Here’s my response:
So bullshit, you just deny and deny, never bothering with the truth of what you actually did write.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
geeze
I asked if nested hierarchy entailed common decent. That was it.
You could have just said no. Or you could have explained why it does not matter.
Instead you went on to talk about the inverse of what I was talking about. After you threw out that red herring did not even demonstrate your claim that common decent
nested hierarchy……. Again I could care less if it did…..but only that common decent
nested hierarchy.
Big whoop
Again if I claimed that the big bang
creation you would blow a gasket.
peace
That’s why I wrote “imply.” Any neurons firing in there? I also said that common descent is the right inference, if the nested hierarchy is highly derivative, like with life and languages.
Try that one in court.
No I don’t agree that it “only implies” common descent. You can’t even bother to write “descent,” either, rather an entirely different word. That implies something.
In court, that kind of evidence would be called “proof.” In science, it’s called inference. And in this case, the inference is at a very high level, it is extremely unlikely that anything else did it, so far as we can ascertain.
Anyway, so look at geologic succession, look at transitionals. And get your head out of your ass and understand what we mean by “imply,” which is not anything like “guess” or whatever idiocy you entertain it as meaning.
And why the fuck don’t you read what others have written? It’s not like I haven’t brought up these issues repeatedly in the last few weeks, but you’re a lazy bum who wants to be spoon-fed answers to your utterly ridiculous questions.
OMG, how dumb can you be? Lack of a nested hierarchy would falsify evolution. Or at least make it highly difficult. You can’t figure that out? And no, I don’t have to come up with something that would falsify it after it’s already passed the two crucial tests of nested hierarchy and geologic succession.
Glen Davidson
So I’m supposed to answer your leading question your way? Screw that, I’m not playing your illiterate games.
Or I could say what does matter, since you haven’t a clue on that score. Not that you’re going to learn, but I’m not responding in any forlorn hope that you will.
Because you’re trying to control the conversation with your uncomprehending demands.
Yes, it’s been done to death, and you’re never even slightly the smarter for it.
I did not say “only implies.” So quit with the false claims. It correlates to an extremely high degree, in this case.
So you ignored everything but your obtuse misunderstanding of what “implies” means. Quit assuming that your dull incomprehension is the proper measure for anything at all.
Not really, but it is the kind of idiotic claim you’d make. The big problem being, of course, that the Big Bang implies nothing about “creation,” which is something that by no means implies or entails the Big Bang.
But you’re not interested in understanding, merely in repeating your dull dull incomprehension.
Glen Davidson
“make it highly difficult” does not remotely equal falsify.
The reason ID is not considered science is because it is supposedly not falsifiable but I can think of all kinds of things that would make ID “highly difficult”
1) a closed universe
2) no universal natural law
3) spontaneous generation
4) Random causation
etc etc
Of course you don’t it’s a free country.
You don’t have to do anything but die 😉
I was only suggesting a way for you to move forward when folks disagree with your opinion.
peace
yes
1) slight dyslexia
2) lack of attention to detail
3) lack of proof reading
peace
I just asked a couple of questions
Glen,
I think I’ll leave this for a while. you seem to be way to emotionally invested to discuss this right now. I did not mean to upset you
life is to short for you to get this worked up.
peace
peace
I know that, but the problem would be if the geologic succession were still in place. How would you reconcile the fact that one comports with evolution and the other doesn’t?
Theories aren’t really “falsifiable” in the typical sense given. The truth is that theories often have difficulties, but they’re rarely thrown out just because of some unresolved issue, so long as they explain what other theories do not.
So quit with your sophistries. Your 8th grade understanding of science just makes you act like an ass.
The problem with ID is that it is shielded from its own “natural entailments.” ID would naturally predict that life would be made by fitting the best (perhaps best possible, but at least best extant) structures, molecules, etc., to a given problem. What do we find? Not that, rather structures (etc.) that are mostly derivative of earlier structures (etc.). Essentially, it is falsified, it’s just that IDists try to claim that this is no sort of test of ID, rather they want to claim that functional complexity (which we clearly knew existed, and is really no entailment of intelligent design at all) is the test.
So? ID doesn’t work because life doesn’t have the marks of intelligence in it, like picking and choosing the best option from any lineage for the proper function.
You were being the usual disagreeable and obtuse nutjob that you always are. Who cares about your mindless opinion, save that it gets spread ad nauseam over this forum?
Glen Davidson
Then claimed to have written different stuff, whined that I didn’t just answer your misleading questions, and misrepresented what I meant by “implies,” despite the fact that I had clearly written a context about it. Learn to deal with people properly if you want a discussion.
Yeah, it’s funny how false claims make people mad. That’s why it’s always a filthy mess to ever step in and try to discuss anything with you.
No, you just wanted to control the conversation, as always.
Try working on being decent, then.
Glen Davidson
Yes, we all know about that. What do you think that they taught us in Philosophy of Science, or in discussions of Hume? I don’t need your middle school understanding to inform me about these matters.
Frankly, it’s disgusting that you’d imply that I wouldn’t know about these things, just because you remain such a benighted soul. The fact that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation is exactly why people ask for another explanation of things like the nested hierarchy and geologic succession, because, if there were another good explanation, then evolution wouldn’t obviously be the proper conclusion, as it is now.
Induction, inference, whatever, are not proofs of anything. I’ve already been over this, you know, obliquely, by pointing out that proof is not something that science does. Inference to the best explanation is often considered the standard. However, evolution goes well beyond merely “best explanation,” it’s the only known cause that entails either geologic succession or the nested hierarchy, let alone both.
God you’re annoying. If you’d ever bother to learn anything before making stupid objections, you might begin to contribute something.
Glen Davidson
keiths:
fifth:
It’s already obvious. If you understood our arguments, you wouldn’t be asking whether your hierarchies of quadrilaterals or of vehicles suggest common descent. They obviously don’t, because they aren’t objective nested hierarchies.
Again, if you don’t want to continue flailing, you need to understand the distinction between a mere nested hierarchy and an objective nested hierarchy, as discussed by Theobald in this section.
Get off your ass and do some studying.
Looks like Glen blew another gasket.
What I saw in reading that section was a lot of flailing about. It’s a miracle that anyone could even write it much less understand it.
Mung,
You actually had trouble understanding it? A shame that Santa didn’t bring you that new cerebrum.
I’d advise you to pray for one, but that wouldn’t work either.
The fact that he had to immediately resort to examples didn’t strike you as odd? And to add further to the mystery, that his example for “objective” was the very thing he was claiming was objective (languages form objective nested hierarchies)?
And then as if that were not enough, his example contradicted his earlier claim that only evolution could form an objective nested hierarchy. And then languages ought to be evidence for common descent, but he claims common descent is a genetic process, which excludes languages.
Not to even get into how he decided the characters for phylogenetic reconstruction are objective. So yeah, what makes a nested hierarchy objective is still quite unclear.
Mung,
No, of course not. Providing examples is a common way of illustrating concepts. This is news to you?
Makes perfect sense. He was distinguishing subjective nested hierarchies from objective nested hierarchies, so he gave examples of each. Cars form subjective nested hierarchies, while languages form objective ones.
That’s just your poor reading comprehension. Theobald wrote:
The evolution of languages is such a process.
Keep in mind that Theobald is much brighter than you, and so any disagreements you have with him are most likely due to your own errors and misconceptions.
Again, that’s just your poor reading comprehension. Theobald writes:
Mung,
Regarding that section of Theobald, you wrote:
I found it easy to understand, and I suspect most of those on “my side” of the debate did as well.
Could you quote the parts you found difficult to understand? Perhaps we can simplify them for you.
And you are grumpy. 😉
have a nice day.
Good luck convincing someone who actually has a problem with common descent when you can’t calmly offer a civil argument to someone who doesn’t even care about it one way or the other.
i won’t offer you any more advise in that regard because when I do it seems to bring out the cursing 😉
It might be my “8th grade understanding of science” but I’m not sure how geologic succession entails common decent or the other way around.
Just because one species follows another doesn’t seem to entail that they had a common ancestor and common descent doesn’t seem to require any succession at all let alone geologic succession.
peace
You’re great at projecting your nastiness onto others. I responded quite civilly, and you just ran with the bullshit.
Good luck with being decent, if you can ever manage it.
And yet you think your disgusting behavior is just fine
Yes, it’s clear that you know little, and can’t think through simple matters. Somehow you think that qualifies you as a critic of these issues.
Glen Davidson
Yes, it must be my ignorance and inability to think through simple matters that causes me to miss how geologic succession entails common descent or the other way around.
It’s certainly couldn’t be because you haven’t offered an argument for this claim.
now that I know that common descent entails geologic succession I will be sure to use the study of archaeological stratigraphy as evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve 😉
you make it too easy
peace
Go and learn something for once, instead of resorting the usual dumbfuckery.
Honestly, I’m not here to teach those who can’t even see how evolution must successively produce chordates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, then endothermic organisms like birds and mammals. Get some basic education if you can’t think out something that obvious. Find a website that explains things to grade schoolers. Geez. Find out why transitionals matter. Learn the basics.
You bleating away with your ignorance is not any kind of obligation to me. Nor am I sure how to try to explain such simple matters that seem so obvious. Blog comments hardly seem adequate, look somewhere that has pictures and diagrams.
Why are creationists so bleeding ignorant?
Glen Davidson
so you are saying processes above a certain threshold are objective and those below it are considered subjective?
1)According to who exactly?
2) Where did they get the authority to make that particular decree?
peace
That is evolution, we are supposedly discussing common descent.
1) Are you now claiming that evolution equals common descent?
2) you do know fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are all chordates don’t you?
peace
Why do you ask such dumb things?
Common descent is the aspect of evolution that means that the past constrains the present and the future to a huge degree, hence amphibians must be built on and derived from fish morphology, reptiles built on and derived from amphibian morphology, and so on.
I don’t tend to separate evolution and common descent like Harshman does, which is not at all to fault him on that–it’s probably better for discussing common descent in the abstract, after all. So no, I didn’t see the point in calling it “common descent” when I see the whole as evolution, but the important aspect implied remained common descent.
See, it’s just tedious. And it really seems like you could get up to speed better with a bunch of pictures, rather than have me try to explain things to you using words that are simple to me but that you fail to grasp.
Glen Davidson
God, it’s just one dumb thing after another. I was running through an evolutionary progression using the familiar examples, chordates evolving first (which are more than just fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals–tunicates, lancelets), then fishes (yes chordates, how is that an issue?), etc. In that sense, fine, we’re fishes as well. Reptiles too.
Can the nonsense, could you? I don’t need tutoring from the ignorant.
Glen Davidson