Unfalsifiable Phylogeny

[Rumraket]

Thank you very much, coming from you that is high praise!

 

[Rumraket]

Turns out our dear friend lifepsyops has an... interesting youtube channel, where he defends among other things: GEOCENTRISM. Not just solar system geocentrism, Cosmic geocentrism, the whole fucking universe revolves around a stationary earth. lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6FL2gkm2Sg

Apparently he also believes such things as the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, 9/11 conspiracy bullshit, Hollywood has a satanic agenda, Flood geology claims, THE ILLUMINATI. You name it, he believes it.

Michael Shermer wrote about people like this in "The Believing Brain".

Also, he makes his views there pretty clear:

I agree. Creationists are still fallible, no matter how much Biblical truth they embrace. I don't care if every creationist in the world says one thing, I will side with what I believe to be a plain reading of scripture. Let God tell the truth and all men be liars.

So he affirms the age old creationist nutbag methodology: If reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.

Might as well have said "I will let Henry Morris shit in my mouth and I will tell him with tears in my eyes that I like both the taste and the smell if he says his shit is god's will".

 

[Inferno]

See also this thread!

 

[Isotelus]

Although this discussion is probably over, I thought this was pertinent: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6118/456.abstract

A paper came out this year that again found support for Pegasoferae (Chiroptera + Perissodactyla + Carnivora); however, note that this was not their main objective. Recall the Zhou et al. (2011) paper that was included as a response to the OP, which pointed out that Nishihara et al. (2006) were premature in erecting Pegasoferae as they omitted Pholidota and certain Cetartiodactyl lineages from their analysis, but nevertheless found evidence for monophyly in Fereuungulata (Pholidota + Carnivora + Perissodactyla + Cetartiodactyla), making their initial hypothesis and conclusions inconsistent. It wasn't the phylogeny itself that was the problem per se, but the incomplete assessment. Having read both the main portion and supplementary material of this new paper, it seems they too omitted not only Pholidota and Cetaceans from their analysis, but Eulipotyphla as well. Moreover, mitochondrial sequencing placed Chiroptera as an outlier within Laurasiatheria, which would make it most closely related to Eulipotyphla...which would fit with the current consensus. As a result, I don't have much confidence in the conclusions drawn by this paper, especially since the successive addition of data increases the resolution and improves the results such that they begin to increase the level of congruence. Incidentally, this applies directly to lifepsyop's citation of Cannarozzi et al. 2007 (see pages 41-43 where the Primate/Rodent group was re-established, and where it also rejected Pegasoferae: http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/arnason2008.pdf).

Also, this may be just me, but I dislike the name Pegasoferae. It's almost as silly-sounding as Whippomorpha.

 

[Frenger]

Great thread! I've learnt more about phylogeny in the 30 minutes it took to read all this then I have in the last year.

Great work guys.

 

[lifepsyop]

I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket, and he refused to respond to my original phylogeny challenge in the OP, instead wanting to drag the discussion into other specific areas where he feels comfortable.

Rumraket's schtick is to toss out pages of information, claim that such results could not be derived unless Common Descent is true (which is almost always apparently false), and know that most readers won't have the stamina to dig in and examine the claims. I lost interest weeks ago.

My original argument stands. With the rescue devices of incomplete lineage sorting, and the extent to which it has been used (as I clearly demonstrated in the OP), Common Descent is extremely well insulated from falsifiability.

What's more, the claim that ERV's found in major lineages supports Common Descent is basically a sham. As I've shown, those ERV sites could be mixed around in practically any order and still be able to be rescued.

This is why Rumraket is avoiding the OP and kicking up dust with other topics. He wants to confuse the simple issue I've laid out, and dazzle readers.

Anyways, enjoy the cyber-stalking.

 

[Rumraket]

I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket, and he refused to respond to my original phylogeny challenge in the OP, instead wanting to drag the discussion into other specific areas where he feels comfortable.

Rumraket's schtick is to toss out pages of information, claim that such results could not be derived unless Common Descent is true (which is almost always apparently false)

This claim is a demonstrable falsehood. I have said now multiple times that the data can be rationalized by design, but I've also explained that any concievable pattern can. Simply put, there is no concievable observation we could not rationalize with "that is what the designer wanted".

The great irony is in the accusation that common descent is unfalsifiable, while it is in fact design which is unfalsifiable.

In the end it comes down to this: Science deals with testable hypothesis and drawing inferences from observations of extant mechanism. You're postulating an unobserved supernatural mechanism operating in the deep geological past, and you're pissing about us not taking it seriously when we have an empirically observed mechanism producing the very same patterns we are asked to explain. I'm sorry, the observed mechanism wins.

Once again, all the mechanisms of evolution are observed facts.
Mutations observationally happen, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Incomplete lineage sorting observationally happens, and we have good reason to think it would have in the past too.
Horizontal gene transfer observationally happens, and we have good reason to think it would have in the past too.
Convergent evolution observationally happens, and we have good reason to think it would have in the past too.
Genetic drift and natural selection observationally happens, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.
Extant natural environments observationally change, and we have good reason to think they would in the past too.

Which is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation then? The observed one that doesn't require us to erect uneconomical unobserved entities: Evolution.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket...

Bullshit!

If I were at my computer and not on an iPod Touch, I would link back to all the posts I made that directly addressed every posts you made. I would even post other uses that have addresed your posts directly. Stop projecting your faults on to me and other uses of this forum.

 

[Prolescum]

...and know that most readers won't have the stamina to dig in and examine the claims.

You're evidently unfamiliar with our readership.

 

[australopithecus]

I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket, and he refused to respond to my original phylogeny challenge in the OP, instead wanting to drag the discussion into other specific areas where he feels comfortable.

Rumraket's schtick is to toss out pages of information, claim that such results could not be derived unless Common Descent is true (which is almost always apparently false), and know that most readers won't have the stamina to dig in and examine the claims. I lost interest weeks ago.

My original argument stands. With the rescue devices of incomplete lineage sorting, and the extent to which it has been used (as I clearly demonstrated in the OP), Common Descent is extremely well insulated from falsifiability.

What's more, the claim that ERV's found in major lineages supports Common Descent is basically a sham. As I've shown, those ERV sites could be mixed around in practically any order and still be able to be rescued.

This is why Rumraket is avoiding the OP and kicking up dust with other topics. He wants to confuse the simple issue I've laid out, and dazzle readers.

Anyways, enjoy the cyber-stalking.

You're not interesting enough to stalk, you disingenuous little child.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I stopped posting because the only poster left offering engagement on data was Rumraket, and he refused to respond to my original phylogeny challenge in the OP, instead wanting to drag the discussion into other specific areas where he feels comfortable.

Rumraket's schtick is to toss out pages of information, claim that such results could not be derived unless Common Descent is true (which is almost always apparently false), and know that most readers won't have the stamina to dig in and examine the claims.

Tu quoque.

I lost interest weeks ago.

My original argument stands. With the rescue devices of incomplete lineage sorting, and the extent to which it has been used (as I clearly demonstrated in the OP), Common Descent is extremely well insulated from falsifiability.

What's more, the claim that ERV's found in major lineages supports Common Descent is basically a sham. As I've shown, those ERV sites could be mixed around in practically any order and still be able to be rescued.

This is why Rumraket is avoiding the OP and kicking up dust with other topics. He wants to confuse the simple issue I've laid out, and dazzle readers.

Anyways, enjoy the cyber-stalking.

Again, tu quoque.

Rumraket - along with others - admirably answered your attempt to obfuscate the issue of whether evolution works as science explains it or not.

Kindest regards,

James