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.
Forget about “objective”, they aren’t even nested, as drawn: ‘square’ and ‘private/commercial’ presenting problems.
1) Who exactly made you the authority on these things?
2) Is a particular characterization systematic not nested if it “presents problems” like that?
check it out
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780126801262500335
peace
Nothing there supports anything you’ve claimed. Or does it? Why did you link to that?
The only thing in the idea of common descent that constrains the present at all is the idea that all organisms must descend from a common ancestor.
It’s the uniformity of nature that makes the past constrain the present
check it out
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110658245
Well there you go.
If you think that evolution and common descent are equivalent then that is a whole different kettle of fish.
The point is to justify your acceptance of common descent (seen in isolation) as a conclusion rather than a assumption.
I know, communication and justification can be hard
no the observation that all fish are chordates does not mean that all chordates are fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure
peace
because fmm is confused (or seeking confusion) between attributes and members.
private/commercial is a problem for the “hierarchy” as drawn, because private helicopters and commercial automobiles exist. It doesn’t nest.
Far bigger problem with the quadrilaterals though
Tell, me fmm, if you are the authority on these things.
Is a square a rhombus, or is a square a rectangle?
Because it cannot be both…
I have not claimed anything. Ive only asked a couple of questions
DNA jock seemed to be implying that a tree was nested only if there were no “problems” with it and HGT makes constructing the early tree of life problematic.
I thought the article was self exclamatory
peace
So you are denying the reality of miracles as performed by Jesus and documented in the bible? Do you agree with this:
So either miracles don’t disrupt the regularities of nature, in which case they are not miracles at all, or they do and it is indeed the uniformity of nature that makes the past constrain the present unless god decides it won’t.
Which is it?
Does your link support DNA jock or your position?
I’m not an authority on anything
I’m just asking a question. Do you have to be an “authority” to recognize a nested hierarchy?
That certainly lessons the evidentiary power of nested hierarchy don’t you think?
peace
from the summary
quote:
Networks of genetic interactions at the base of the universal tree have been suggested to be so intense as to render useless the concept of a single cellular ancestor for contemporary lineages. A central issue surrounding the universal tree is the location of its root. Unlike the trees showing Archaea and eukaryotes as sister groups, protein trees clustering Archaea and Bacteria together (AB tree) always portray one or both domains as para/polyphyletic groups. Such tree topologies are evidence for HGT between Archaea and Bacteria, the patterns for which can often be complex.
end quote:
It certainly sounds problematic to me
peace
Why do you think that? Given you think that each creature was created independently from any other creature why would we be able to nest anything at all in any sort of hierarchy?
The mere fact that it objectively exists should give you shudders, for if what you believe was in fact true there would be no such signal. But there is.
Problematic for who? As I just noted it’s more of a problem for you, for if you accept what you just quoted then that is incompatible with special creation.
And yet we still see a tree. Whereas under special creation we’d expect to see the orchid model, right?
https://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard
You have a jacked up idea of what miracles are.
Miracles are simply very unlikely events with redemptive importance.
Nature is uniform because it’s creator is faithful and consistent.
If an event disrupted the “regularities of nature” it would mean that God is fickle and arbitrary or weak it certainly would not be a miracle
peace
Special creation (whatever that means) is not even being discussed here.
We are talking about common descent and whether it’s entailed by a nested hierarchy.
peace
I never said anything of the sort and I don’t believe that. Like I said I have no dog in this hunt.
Perhaps because categorizing from the general to the more specific is what we humans do to make sense of the world and the world tends to make sense.
peace
You think? 🙂
Let me ask a question, before going further down this particular rabbit hole. Why does it matter that the nested hierarchy be “objective” rather than whatever the alternative is? What actual difference would it make?
Surely people were using the nested hierarchy as evidence for common descent long before Theobald discovered that the nested hierarchy is an objective nested hierarchy.
Why does the argument over common descent hinge on that one small detail?
Somebody hear a rooster crow?
That was one of the things Theobald wrote that had me scratching my head.
No the miracles in the bible are not disruptions of “regularities of nature” they are very unlikely events with redemptive importance just as I said.
peace
I was trying to discuss it. Maybe I’ll start a new thread. 🙂
John has already said it isn’t and has given the reason why.
Merriam-Webster: entail; to impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result.
That’s fine. Branching descent implies the nested hierarchy and the fossil secession. We observe the nested hierarchy and fossil succession, supporting the hypothesis.
Note: hypothetico-deduction doesn’t prove a hypothesis. And alternative hypotheses are certainly an important consideration in evaluating scientific claims.
Naah, fifth, I was merely pointing out that a tree should actually, y’know, be tree-like. Which your two examples were not. Try not to put words into my mouth.
Your failure to answer the simple question
“Is a square a rhombus, or is a square a rectangle?”
is duly noted.
Sometimes typos are funny.
😀
The alternative is a subjective pattern, such as seeing patterns in random data.
That the nested hierarchy is objective means that we can use data to verify predicted correlations.
Theobald did not discover that the nested hierarchy is objective, which has been known since Linnaeus. He independently supported the hypothesis.
I thought they were.
I guess my opinion was not objective enough. Perhaps I should have asked an authority on nested hierarchies before I made the determination or I could have done some statistical analysis to make sure 😉
I’d say a a square is a rhombus and a rectangle
Just like a crow is a bird and an omnivore. 😉
peace
branching descent is not the same thing as common descent and implies is not the same thing as entails
strike two
peace
Meaningless tripe.
My God, you really don’t get anything, do you? The “uniformity of nature” is a kind of assumption/observation, and it’s more basic than evolution, something more involved with physics. Life is constrained by its inheritances, although you’ll use any little bit of anything shorn from context to deny it.
And if that’s what you got from what I wrote, you’re very poor at reading comprehension. As previously observed.
It would be nice if you could understand such a case, rather than find anything inappropriate to use as a weapon against it.
With those like you, yes.
How very stupid that response is. That wasn’t what I suggested in the least, you just don’t get the most basic facts.
How cute that you try to teach those who understand what you flail around with.
Glen Davidson
Yeah, you probably did.
Glen Davidson
You learned to count to two. I’m impressed, didn’t see that one coming
If you prefer the term common descent, that’s fine, but we were referring to branching descent from common ancestors. What did you think it meant?
Merriam-Webster disagrees saying entails means implies as a necessary result. It’s the deduction in hypothetico-deduction *. However, if you want to provide precise definitions of how you are using the terms, that might be helpful.
* ETA: For instance, if we have branching descent with variation, then the result will be a nested hierarchy of traits. This is a necessary result (an entailment or deduction) of the hypothesis, and something we can test through observation.
–
Edited for clarity
Do you have to be an authority to recognize a Higgs’ boson?
That lessens the evidentiary power of a Higg’s boson, don’t you think?
Btw, I don’t actually think one has to be an authority to recognize a nested hierarchy, but one has to be an expert to actually construct one properly from the data. But whether or not it takes an “authority” is certainly not the measure of the value of evidence.
Glen Davidson
Mean but funny
Teach the uneducated a fact, and ignorance recedes a tiny tiny bit.
Give the uneducated Google, and ignorance can just spit out disconnected facts and links in a manner that avoids actual learning forever.
Glen Davidson
So you admit that what you offered up as an example of a nested hierarchy is in fact no such thing?
Let’s call that progress, and quit while we’re ahead, then.
😉
So there are right ways and wrong ways to create a phylogeny and if you do it the right way you get an objective nested hierarchy and if you do it the wrong way you do not get an objective nested hierarchy.
So it’s the methodology that makes the nested hierarchy objective?
facepalm…
Glen: “to actually construct one properly from the data“
Yes.
That’s not the correct way to put it. Rather it would be more correct to say that if you do it the right way, you can have greater confidence that you are seeing the objective hierarchical structure exhibited by the data.
If you do it the wrong way, you can not have as great confidence you are seeing the objective hiearchical structure exhibited by the data.
No, the methodology makes you able to see the objective hierarchical structure in the data.
No, it’s a nested hierarchy with the usual “problems” that you see with any categorization.
Just like with the Phylogenetic tree where the categorization can be confounded by things like genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer,hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
There really is no such thing as perfect categorization when humans are involved.
That should not surprise anyone and it’s not reason to disqualify any tree. Don’t you agree?
peace
Sure I do
a Higgs’ boson is a particle with mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 having attributes like even parity and zero spin. Anyone is authorized to recognize a Higgs’ boson It’s not like it’s a trade secret.
Do you need to be an authority to know if a nested hierarchy is objective rather than subjective?
peace
fifth:
No, it’s not a nested hierarchy. Those of us who understand nested hierarchies can see that. You can’t.
um, descent from a common ancestor.
You could have common descent even if there is no branching at all as with populations of genetic clones.
Right the key word is “necessary”.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not fully grasp the difference between the terms.
Grandma’s heart attack “implies” that she had a poor diet but it does not “entail” that she had a poor diet.
Get it now?
peace
fifth:
Mung:
Theobald didn’t write that. Fifth did.
Here’s what Theobald wrote:
Theobald is correct, and he is not saying what fifth said.
if only those possessing special esoteric knowledge can understand what a nested hierarchy is doesn’t that lesson the value of nested hierarchy for proving common descent?
If I said that those of us who understand ID can see it objectively everywhere in nature but the reason you don’t is because you don’t understand it you would blow a gasket.
peace
Of course it’s objective if it passes a statistical test we have developed for determining it’s objectivity. 😉
LOL
peace
“Phylogenies we think are objective give high values in the statistical tests we’ve developed so they must be objective whereas those we think are subjective give low values so of course they must be subjective”
You can’t make this stuff up. LOL
peace
fifth,
It doesn’t require “special esoteric knowledge”. It merely requires someone who is intelligent enough to understand what is a straightforward, well-defined and quite public concept.
Naturally, you find it difficult.
fifth’s straw man:
Poor fifth.
It has apparently never occurred to him that there might be ways of validating those tests.
Jesus wept.
How exactly do we validate the validation?
More to the point given atheism how is objectivity even possible.
peace
You are not intelligent if you disagree with keith’s opinions.
How do we know that is the case?
Because obviously the folks keiths thinks are intelligent agree with his opinions
welcome to atheist objectivity
😉
peace
What does atheism (or theism) have to do with nested hierarchies and/or statistical tests of data?
Atheism has to do with objectivity or the lack thereof.
Keiths claims that statistical tests demonstrate objectivity somehow.
I’d like to know how he could possibly know that given his worldview
peace