Quote:Agreed; I don't mind calling phylogenies unscientific. But since they are testable in theory, not in practice, they remain technically falsifiable and scientific.

False

(December 25, 2019 at 11:34 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 25, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: It's basic scientific method that hypotheses must be testable.

Agreed; I don't mind calling phylogenies unscientific. But since they are testable in theory, not in practice, they remain technically falsifiable and scientific.

And just like that the horseshit reveals itself. The notion that entire fields of science are based on the sort of unscientific rubbish that Breezy describes is conspiracy theory at its finest. It's just a few epicycles short of a flat earth. In fact, neither of his statements are true.

Phylogenetic trees are trivially easy to test and falsify. It's a remedial exercise in any second year evolution course and asking Google for "How to Test Phylogenetic Trees" will net you an unsurprising number of second year students trying to get you to do their homework. If this was as impossible as Breezy suggests then we'd be unable to falsify the rubbish from ages past that grouped fish and whales together, untangle the paraphyletic horror that is "yeast", or uncover the fascinatingly indecisive evolution of the tortoises.

If "Phylogenies are only a hypothesis" sounds hauntingly familiar it's no coincidence. It is first kin to "Evolution is only a theory" and is uttered by the same knuckle-dragging, bible-thumpers who have yet to discover the 20th century. If you've taken grade school science then you already know what we call a well-tested hypothesis.

(December 26, 2019 at 1:31 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Phylogenetic trees are trivially easy to test and falsify. It's a remedial exercise in any second year evolution course and asking Google for "How to Test Phylogenetic Trees" will net you an unsurprising number of second year students trying to get you to do their homework.

I can't know what tests you have in mind. But perhaps such a Google search can lead to a few errors on the subject. Methods such as parsimony, bootstrapping, and so on, are used to decide among competing phylogenies for a particular taxa. For example, by helping you find the scenario with the fewest number of events, thereby increasing its likelihood. These methods cannot, however, confirm that a given phylogeny is correct.

No one knows the true pattern of branching for cats (leopards, lions, tigers) for example. The best that can be done is to identify the most plausible scenario.

Quote:I can't know what tests you have in mind. But perhaps such a Google search can lead to a few errors on the subject. Methods such as parsimony, bootstrapping, and so on, are used to decide among competing phylogenies for a particular taxa. For example, by helping you find the scenario with the fewest number of events, thereby increasing its likelihood. These methods cannot, however, confirm that a given phylogeny is correct.

Nope

Correct. A given phylogeny can be a hypothesis, as has been explained to you at length. The notion of phylogeny is not. It is an observation of the most basic facts of biology. The laws of heredity. Facts which you are compelled to reject...but for no reason that you can or care to competently explain or contextualize.

(December 26, 2019 at 1:57 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The notion of phylogeny is not.

Ah right, the notion lol.

Correct. Do you understand? It's as simple as not knowing whether something is a particular subspecies of cat, but knowing that it is, at least, some subspecies of cat. Or, if you prefer some simpler form - I have lots of tomatoes. I would be surprised if you were capable of reconstructing the family tree of each cultivar...but I would expect you to be able to acknowledge that they are all tomatoes.

Is there any reason that you would be incapable of doing so?

(December 26, 2019 at 2:10 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I have lots of tomatoes.... I would expect you to be able to acknowledge that they are all tomatoes.

I acknowledge that all your tomatoes are tomatoes.

Excellent, then we have a phylogeny. Is it merely your hypothesis that all tomatoes are..in fact, tomatoes? Do you think it would be possible, if I handed you three samples of genetic material from my garden, that you might be able to determine which were tomatoes, and which were green beans?

(December 26, 2019 at 2:24 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Excellent, then we have a phylogeny. Is it merely your hypothesis that all tomatoes are..in fact, tomatoes? Do you think it would be possible, if I handed you three samples of genetic material from my garden, that you might be able to determine which were tomatoes, and which were green beans?

We have a taxonomy not a phylogeny. Assuming I knew the genetic composition of tomatoes and green beans, yes, it's plausible to distinguish between the two.