(December 26, 2019 at 1:49 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(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.

That's true for any scientific theory. That's precisely what makes it falsifiable. All you're doing is whittering on about how science doesn't have Absolute Truth.

(December 26, 2019 at 11:35 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(December 26, 2019 at 1:49 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 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.

That's true for any scientific theory. That's precisely what makes it falsifiable. All you're doing is whittering on about how science doesn't have Absolute Truth.

Which it doesn't need to say something is the case

(December 26, 2019 at 11:35 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: That's true for any scientific theory. That's precisely what makes it falsifiable. All you're doing is whittering on about how science doesn't have Absolute Truth.

They're hypotheses not theories. And no, this is about testability not absolute truth. What's the point of raising a straw man lol?

Oh I see. Is it because I used the word true? I was quoting the textbook on Evolutionary Analysis, that's the only reason I used the word:

"Neither Werdelin and Olsson, nor we, nor anyone else, knows the true evolutionary history of the leopard and its kin. Not only do we not know the true history of coat colors, we do not know the true pattern of branching on the tree from the common ancestor to today’s cats. The best Werdelin and Olsson could do was use the available evidence to identify the most plausible scenarios" (p. 113).

My apologies for not putting my references up. I stopped doing it because people find it easier to accuse me of distortion and quote mining, than agree with me. It's more trouble than it's worth. Plus I enjoy sneaking in statements and ideas of leading researchers and seeing you guys say they're uneducated in biology just because you think it's me saying it lol.

Reference: Herron, J. C., Freeman, S. (2014). Evolutionary analysis (5th ed ). Pearson: Boston.

(December 26, 2019 at 10:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: As I told LadyforCamus, I enjoy teaching; possibly as much as I enjoy speculating and conversing about ideas. Throughout this thread I've mostly attempted to correct people's ideas about phylogeny among other things, as well as your views on species and speciation. If you view the information I'm providing you with as worthless, that is your perspective. I personally found it worthwhile refreshing my memory on the subject and reviewing many of the old papers and textbooks I've read on it.

Hi John, can you also teach them that after millions of years worth of time(thousands of generations) cannot turn a fruit fly into anything but a fruit fly? It can however create mutants, flies w 3 wings that can’t fly, deformed and DOA specimens. Evos don’t take this lying down, Why I’ve even been insulted.

How many years will it take the weak minded to overcome indoctrination?

(December 27, 2019 at 11:19 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Hi John, can you also teach them that after millions of years worth of time(thousands of generations) cannot turn a fruit fly into anything but a fruit fly? It can however create mutants, flies w 3 wings that can’t fly, deformed and DOA specimens. Evos don’t take this lying down, Why I’ve even been insulted.

I wonder what you think stops evolution turning things into very different species given time.

What is the process that limits it? 


Here is one example where science has learnt that gills in ancient fish evolved to become the ear bones.

https://www.livescience.com/558-human-ea...gills.html

(December 27, 2019 at 11:19 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Hi John, can you also teach them that after millions of years worth of time(thousands of generations) cannot turn a fruit fly into anything but a fruit fly? It can however create mutants, flies w 3 wings that can’t fly, deformed and DOA specimens. Evos don’t take this lying down, Why I’ve even been insulted.

And apes too are after thousands of generations just apes

One of my favorite videos showing a picture a day of a little baby. Imagine if he had taken a picture every minute of this child's life. And each picture represents a generation of change. From one picture to the next you would never be able to detect any change at all. From 1 minute to 2 minutes. Still a baby. 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Still a baby.

1440 generations later (1 day)  - still looks like a baby.
Day 2
Day 3
Still don't see any change.
But there are changes going on. Very small changes.
Bones are growing, new skin cells, organs developing more and more.

Day 4,5,6,10,20,30
At 30 days you might notice some change. Still a baby though.

Each minute of this child's life you will not be able to see any major change just like one generation to the next, but those small changes are still happening.

As you watch this, on what day did this little girl stop being a baby ?
On what day did she start being a toddler ?
On what day does she become a young woman ?
On what day is she an adult ?

If each second is a generation, then how can a baby ever change into an old woman ?

Enjoy

(December 27, 2019 at 12:43 pm)PRahn127 Wrote: One of my favorite videos showing a picture a day of a little baby. Imagine if he had taken a picture every minute of this child's life. And each picture represents a generation of change. From one picture to the next you would never be able to detect any change at all. From 1 minute to 2 minutes. Still a baby. 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Still a baby.

1440 generations later (1 day)  - still looks like a baby.
Day 2
Day 3
Still don't see any change.
But there are changes going on. Very small changes.
Bones are growing, new skin cells, organs developing more and more.

Day 4,5,6,10,20,30
At 30 days you might notice some change. Still a baby though.

Each minute of this child's life you will not be able to see any major change just like one generation to the next, but those small changes are still happening.

As you watch this, on what day did this little girl stop being a baby ?
On what day did she start being a toddler ?
On what day does she become a young woman ?
On what day is she an adult ?

If each second is a generation, then how can a baby ever change into an old woman ?

Enjoy

Neat video! Thanks for sharing.

What, exactly, is about testability, John? We haven't needed to reference a single untestable thing thusfar.

For you, Yukon...we already discussed this pages ago. Any offspring of a fruit fly will be a fruit fly. This is not an objection to biology, it's an affirmation of biology.