(November 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Fitting" data into a pattern can be the first -and most minor- step in forming a theory, that would be the hypothesis ( and the less "fitting" that has to be done by the person proposing it the better..btw). Whether or not we fit data into a pattern is meaningless unless we can demonstrate the accuracy of the data and the existence of the pattern exterior to our own proposition. This is where the heavy lifting (and overwhelming majority of scientific endeavor) occurs. To be completely blunt, the scientific method is what it is precisely to insulate us from this pattern seeking bullshit that leads some of us to conclude wizards in the absence of wizardry. What you seem intent on ignoring, in your ill-thought out comparison, is that the only similarity between the two is that "human beings do stuff"..........http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html
None of this applies to evolution itself, of course...because it requires no hypothesis. It is an observation. "Studying evolution" in it's broadest sense, since you have been so broad, is a simple act of gathering specimens. Whether or not a pattern exists or the observed change -that we call evolution- is random, or whether the data fits either scenario is another thing entirely. That would be the "by" header in "Evolution by Natural Selection", for example.
So no, John, it isn't a big part of either studying evolution....or proposing it's various mechanisms. But I love how your statement went from "a big part" to "involves" in one post. Which one of these two would you like to explore more thoroughly? I think I've explained why it's not a big part...and how little involvement it has (if any, it depends on the specifics) as a consequence of doing so. If I haven't, feel free to dig deeper.
Quote:After you've read through the pages on the implications and methodologies, you will be armed in the ways of cladistics. Therefore, if you dare, you can take a journey into the real world of cladistics. Should you choose to venture on this journey, pray you are well-armed with good luck and wits!
...
There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:
Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.
There is a bifurcating pattern of cladogenesis.
Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
The first assumption is a general assumption made for all evolutionary biology. It essentially means that life arose on earth only once, and therefore all organisms are related in some way or other. Because of this, we can take any collection of organisms and determine a meaningful pattern of relationships, provided we have the right kind of information. Again, the assumption states that all the diversity of life on earth has been produced through the reproduction of existing organisms...
