Clade

[In situ]

I don't really understand these two terms. Do you mind to explain it?

So you don't know what clustering and distance matrix are (even thou I linked to explanations so you could learn), but still you think you are qualified to say what and what not is assumed in cladistics?

Oh well, this is one clustering algorithm used in cladistics:

1. Based on the current distance matrix calculate the matrix Q (defined below).
2. Find the pair of distinct taxa i and j (i.e. with i =!= j) for which Q(i,j) has its lowest value. These taxa are joined to a newly created node, which is connected to the central node. In the figure at right, f and g are joined to the the new node u.
3. Calculate the distance from each of the taxa in the pair to this new node.
4. Calculate the distance from each of the taxa outside of this pair to the new node.
5. Start the algorithm again, replacing the pair of joined neighbors with the new node and using the distances calculated in the previous step.

Please tell me where common ancestor is assumed here (i.e. where is the occurrence of loop removal).

If I could guess their meaning, how about:

God creates A, B, C, D, ...
A, B, etc. do not need any common ancestor.

You said you was eager to learn, but obviously you did not care to follow the link I gave to neighbor joining, because if you did then you would not need to ask what clustering and a distance matrix is. Instead of trying to learn anything you just decided to cook up your nonsense above.

Like I predicted; you would dodge reality and just deny all the facts....

 

[[serious]]

I really like to learn even a single case that this ancestry-focused classification system is useful to solve a practical question.

As written, paternity tests would be a practical use of an ancestry focused classification system which would not work with simple similarity based systems.

Also, development of vaccines and medicines is greatly aided by an ancestory understanding of groups. For example, a highly conserved mechanism ina bacteria may be a good target for a drug to treat a specific disease.

 

[In situ]

As written, paternity tests would be a practical use of an ancestry focused classification system which would not work with simple similarity based systems.

Also, development of vaccines and medicines is greatly aided by an ancestory understanding of groups. For example, a highly conserved mechanism ina bacteria may be a good target for a drug to treat a specific disease.

I honor your attempt to highlight a practical application but rest assure that no matter how much evidence you present a creationist they will simply doge it and deny it. (Just look at the answer juvenissun gave to my direct question about clarifying where ancestry is assumed in cladistics and which I in a advance already said he would doge). The reason why a creationist denies evidence is that a creationist that does not deny the evidence is per definition of creationisms not a creationist any more. Since a common ancestry is an observed fact more securely established than even gravity juvenissun could as well had asked:

"I really like to learn even a single case that this gravity-focused transfer system is useful to solve a practical question."

If anyone then actual answer the question that gravity is used with great success in ballistics then the standard reply will be that gravity is still assumed. Therefore no score....

Such underlining should not be understood to be on "solving a problem" but on "gravity" because the question itself wants you to agree, silently without objection, on the creationist misconceptions that some key facts in science actually is not factual but assumed before you even started to answer the question.

My standpoint is that there is no point to "prove" anything to a creationist if we first cannot agree on what is fact in science and what is a misconceptions of creationism.

Therefore, would you seriously believe anybody is interested to learn anything that formulates a question in such way? I don't and I am still waiting for juvenissun to explain to me, and anyone else that actual care about what is true or not, where common ancestry is hidden as an assumption in the clustering algorithm of neighbor joining.

The question I asked juvenissun is rigged. If he actually care to just take a brief look at neighbor joining (which his reply to me indicated he did not) he can find an answer to my question. But juvenissun hasn't produced that answered so far and if this situation prevails (I will give him some reasonable time to study this) that will indicates two things:

1. juvenissun is not qualified to criticize cladistics (already established per own admission)
2. juvenissun is not interested to learn anything about cladistics

It is now up to juvenissun to show that he actually is interested to learn this or not....

 

[In situ]

I don't really understand these two terms [clustering and distance matrix]. Do you mind to explain it?

Just for clarification juvenissun:

If you think you can get away by pledging to ignorance after you made the claim that ancestry is assumed in cladistics, then you are wrong. I call you on your bluff that common ancestry is assumed.

You claimed it is assumed, now you show us where this assumption is made, or you will need to admit that you just asserted this to be true with no evidence to back it up with. Just like every other creationist ever before you assumed this to be true without actually checking if the claim is true.

Your problem right now is that I know what you said is not true because I can, unlike you, prove that ancestry is not assumed.

 

[juvenissun]

So you don't know what clustering and distance matrix are (even thou I linked to explanations so you could learn), but still you think you are qualified to say what and what not is assumed in cladistics?

Oh well, this is one clustering algorithm used in cladistics:

1. Based on the current distance matrix calculate the matrix Q (defined below).
2. Find the pair of distinct taxa i and j (i.e. with i =!= j) for which Q(i,j) has its lowest value. These taxa are joined to a newly created node, which is connected to the central node. In the figure at right, f and g are joined to the the new node u.
3. Calculate the distance from each of the taxa in the pair to this new node.
4. Calculate the distance from each of the taxa outside of this pair to the new node.
5. Start the algorithm again, replacing the pair of joined neighbors with the new node and using the distances calculated in the previous step.

Please tell me where common ancestor is assumed here (i.e. where is the occurrence of loop removal).



You said you was eager to learn, but obviously you did not care to follow the link I gave to neighbor joining, because if you did then you would not need to ask what clustering and a distance matrix is. Instead of trying to learn anything you just decided to cook up your nonsense above.

Like I predicted; you would dodge reality and just deny all the facts....

If I "need" to learn this, I can find my own links. Otherwise, I do not really care to read your links. What if you link a book to me? Should I read that book? sfs linked one of his paper to me and I still have hard time to look at it.

However, I will consider seriously what you care to explain to me. In the algorithm you quoted (guess they are not your own words, anyway), how do you measure the "distance"? (and it would be better if you can show me the figure)

 

[juvenissun]

As written, paternity tests would be a practical use of an ancestry focused classification system which would not work with simple similarity based systems.

Also, development of vaccines and medicines is greatly aided by an ancestory understanding of groups. For example, a highly conserved mechanism ina bacteria may be a good target for a drug to treat a specific disease.

"Tracing back to the source" is NOT the same as the idea of ancestry in cladistics. We might trace someone's genealogy all the way back to the prehistorical time, but certainly not to the time when human first appeared. So, we can study something about our ancestors and understand something new about ourselves. But we can not do the same with chimps. There is no point to put chimp in a classification which "assumes" the ancestry line. Yes, chimp is similar to us. But we do not need a classification system which "assumed" chimp and us have a common ancestor. This assumption is simply an useless one.

 

[juvenissun]

I honor your attempt to highlight a practical application but rest assure that no matter how much evidence you present a creationist they will simply doge it and deny it. (Just look at the answer juvenissun gave to my direct question about clarifying where ancestry is assumed in cladistics and which I in a advance already said he would doge). The reason why a creationist denies evidence is that a creationist that does not deny the evidence is per definition of creationisms not a creationist any more. Since a common ancestry is an observed fact more securely established than even gravity juvenissun could as well had asked:

"I really like to learn even a single case that this gravity-focused transfer system is useful to solve a practical question."

If anyone then actual answer the question that gravity is used with great success in ballistics then the standard reply will be that gravity is still assumed. Therefore no score....

Such underlining should not be understood to be on "solving a problem" but on "gravity" because the question itself wants you to agree, silently without objection, on the creationist misconceptions that some key facts in science actually is not factual but assumed before you even started to answer the question.

My standpoint is that there is no point to "prove" anything to a creationist if we first cannot agree on what is fact in science and what is a misconceptions of creationism.

Therefore, would you seriously believe anybody is interested to learn anything that formulates a question in such way? I don't and I am still waiting for juvenissun to explain to me, and anyone else that actual care about what is true or not, where common ancestry is hidden as an assumption in the clustering algorithm of neighbor joining.

The question I asked juvenissun is rigged. If he actually care to just take a brief look at neighbor joining (which his reply to me indicated he did not) he can find an answer to my question. But juvenissun hasn't produced that answered so far and if this situation prevails (I will give him some reasonable time to study this) that will indicates two things:

1. juvenissun is not qualified to criticize cladistics (already established per own admission)
2. juvenissun is not interested to learn anything about cladistics

It is now up to juvenissun to show that he actually is interested to learn this or not....

Rubbish.

 

[juvenissun]

Just for clarification juvenissun:

If you think you can get away by pledging to ignorance after you made the claim that ancestry is assumed in cladistics, then you are wrong. I call you on your bluff that common ancestry is assumed.

You claimed it is assumed, now you show us where this assumption is made, or you will need to admit that you just asserted this to be true with no evidence to back it up with. Just like every other creationist ever before you assumed this to be true without actually checking if the claim is true.

Your problem right now is that I know what you said is not true because I can, unlike you, prove that ancestry is not assumed.

More rubbish.

Get back to the issue, if you dare to.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[In situ]

If I "need" to learn this, I can find my own links.

So even after you admitted that you know nothing about cladistics (but happily makes comment about what is assumed in it) you still think your are in position to tell what you need and need not to learn about it...

In other words what you saying is, as all creationist does, that you are not interesting to learn what you need to learn to understand but only hear and see things that confirms to what you already believe in, because the rest is not interesting...

Otherwise, I do not really care to read your links.

Aha! So you do admit that you never had any intention of wanting to learn anything. Good!

Then we have establish both my points:

1. You have no base for the claim that caldistics assume ancestry
2. Your intention was only to play the rhetoric creationistic game.

What if you link a book to me?

What about it? What about answer the question I asked you instead: where is ancestry assumed in cladistics?

What about that?

Should I read that book?

What if the Earth explode in the next minute. What about that? What shall I do?

You can make up as many hypothetical "WHAT-IF" question you like I still don't have to defend or answer any of that nonsense.

sfs linked one of his paper to me and I still have hard time to look at it.

And? How is all this nonsense about me linking books and you not having time to read a paper stf linked supposed to support your claims that caldistics assumes ancestry?

However, I will consider seriously what you care to explain to me.

I still need to see a creationist do that before I believe it... In any case, I see this statement of yours just as another dropped smoke screen to try to avoid the real issue (see below).

In the algorithm you quoted (guess they are not your own words, anyway)

A correct guess, but you would had known this if you only followed the link I gave you but instead you did not. That only show that you never had any interested in learning what you claimed you wanted to learn and how hypocritical you question was in the first place...

how do you measure the "distance"? (and it would be better if you can show me the figure)

Why continue pretend you want to learn anything when we both know you don't care? I told you I will call you on your bluff, and you give me nothing back, because you have nothing.

Would it then not be so much easier, and above all honest, if you just admit that you have no foundation whatsoever for your empty claim that ancestry is assumed in cladistics?

 

[juvenissun]

.

There is no need to do this. I know you don't have much to contribute from the beginning.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no need to do this. I know you don't have much to contribute from the beginning.

Couldn't miss the entertainment value, but thanks for the compliment.

Don't you have geology papers to grade?

 

[In situ]

More rubbish.

The masters himself in logic made another pwn...

Get back to the issue, if you dare to.

The so called "issue" is a non-issue - as always when it comes to creationistic claims. Type in cladistics in wikipeda, and then follow the link "application outside biology".

 

[In situ]

But we do not need a classification system which "assumed" chimp and us have a common ancestor. This assumption is simply an useless one.

No such assumption is made. If you disagrees, then show us where that assumption is made - don't just claim it!

 

[juvenissun]

Would it then not be so much easier, and above all honest, if you just admit that you have no foundation whatsoever for your empty claim that ancestry is assumed in cladistics?

If you can not answer my simple response, then why don't you just go away?

How do you measure the "distance" in your whatever algorithm?

 

[juvenissun]

Couldn't miss the entertainment value, but thanks for the compliment.

Don't you have geology papers to grade?

No. It is all taken care of by machine and TAs.

 

[bhsmte]

No. It is all taken care of by machine and TAs.

Good more time for you to provide entertainment then.

 

[juvenissun]

No such assumption is made. If you disagrees, then show us where that assumption is made - don't just claim it!

The assumption (in the cladistics) IS the idea of common ancestry. Without that, the idea of evolution would not exist.

 

[juvenissun]

Good more time for you to provide entertainment then.

I wish.
You certainly did not help to my learning, which is my entertainment.
Teach me something. What do you know the best?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The assumption (in the cladistics) IS the idea of common ancestry. Without that, the idea of evolution would not exist.

Actually incorrect, universal common ancestry is not actually a part of evolutionary theory nor is it vital to evolution being valid.