Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

That is why multiple and independent studies are needed, as is done in phylogenetics.

... which demonstrates nothing really besides the presence of character traits and an assumption that natural selection did it.

 

[sfs]

I would not.

Which suggests that your comments about instrumentalism were indeed a red herring. An instrumentalist values theories because they make accurate predictions. The theory that HIV causes a deadly disease makes excellent predictions, in that people who have HIV do indeed get sick and die from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

... which demonstrates nothing really besides the presence of character traits and an assumption that natural selection did it.

No such assumption is being made. That is the hypothesis being tested.

 

[sfs]

... which demonstrates nothing really besides the presence of character traits and an assumption that natural selection did it.

I'm afraid your comment demonstrates nothing besides your lack of understanding of how to determine phylogenies. There is a quite well developed mathematical machinery for calculating phylogenies (including phylogenies in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting, by the way), and I'm quite sure that you don't know any of it. You make sweeping claims about subjects you don't understand.

 

[lifepsyop]

Let's have some examples, then.

The Polish tetrapod trackways are nearly 20 "million years" out of stratigraphic sequence of the claimed "transition" of fish to tetrapods. Evolution theory had no problem accommodating this discovery by simply saying that fossils of lineages exhibiting more basal tetrapod states survived beyond the more advanced lineages, thus producing a morphologically disordered stratigraphic sequence.

Using the evolutionists' own reasoning, the theory has no trouble accommodating fossils that are clearly out of order by tens of millions of years.

Furthermore, if your theory can accommodate 20 million years fossil discrepancies, please tell me why you can't accommodate, say, a 50 million year discrepancy?

Never gotten a straight answer, never will... It's like asking an evolutionist what the limits to "convergent evolution" are. They just make this stuff up as they go along.

Every time a new genome is sequenced or a new fossil is dug up, the theory opens itself up to potentially be falsified - if the fossil cannot be fit into the phylogeny or it's in the wrong strata

Certain changes in the phyla with increasing evidence is almost inevitable. We're constantly refining our understanding of the world. None of this destroys the value of the theory in explaining or predicting the world.

Equivocation: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Polish tetrapod trackways are nearly 20 "million years" out of stratigraphic sequence of the claimed "transition" of fish to tetrapods.

We still find monotremes like the platypus. Are they out of sequence?

 

[lifepsyop]

I'm afraid your comment demonstrates nothing besides your lack of understanding of how to determine phylogenies. There is a quite well developed mathematical machinery for calculating phylogenies (including phylogenies in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting, by the way), and I'm quite sure that you don't know any of it. You make sweeping claims about subjects you don't understand.

Just out of curiosity, what is the mathematical machinery used to calculate the level of homoplasy in character traits?

 

[The Cadet]

The Polish tetrapod trackways are nearly 20 "million years" out of stratigraphic sequence of the claimed "transition" of fish to tetrapods. Evolution theory had no problem accommodating this discovery by simply saying that fossils of lineages exhibiting more basal tetrapod states survived beyond the more advanced lineages, thus producing a morphologically disordered stratigraphic sequence.

Yes, as this is what the evidence seems to present. We have Tiktaalik, an animal not well-suited for tetrapod movement, being found millions of years after tracks from an actual tetrapod animal. This indicates that there was clearly a niche for the semi-tetrapods such as Tiktaalik. What conclusions would you draw from this? Because here's how an actual professor of biology analyzes the issue:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/07/tetrapods-are-older-than-we-th/

What’s it all mean? Well, there’s the obvious implication that if you want to find earlier examples of the tetrapod transition, you should look in rocks that are about 400 million years old or older. However, it’s a little more complicated than that, because the mix of existing fossils tells us that there were viable, long-lasting niches for a diversity of fish, fishapods, and tetrapods that temporally coexisted for a long period of time; the evolution of these animals was not about a constant linear churn, replacing the old model with the new model every year. Comparing them to cars, it’s like there was a prolonged window of time in which horse-drawn buggies, Stanley Steamers, Model Ts, Studebakers, Ford Mustangs, and the Honda Civic were all being manufactured simultaneously and were all competitive with each other in specific markets…and that window lasted for 50 million years. Paleontologists are simply sampling bits and pieces of the model line-up and trying to sort out the relationships and timing of their origin.

The other phenomenon here is a demonstration of the spottiness of the fossil record. The Polish animal has left us no direct fossil remains; the rocks where its footprints were found formed in an ancient tide flat or lagoon, which is not a good location for the preservation of bones. This suggests that tetrapods may have first evolved in these kinds of marine environments, and only later expanded their ranges to live in the vegetated margins of rivers, where the flow of sediments is much more conducive to burial and preservation of animal remains. That complicates the story, too; not only do we have diverse stages of the tetrapod transition happily living together in time, but there may be a bit of selective fossilization going on, that only preserves some of the more derived forms living in taphonomically favorable environments.

It's all horribly interesting stuff, helping to piece together the past. But hey, time for your model! Given this evidence, what is your model of reality and how do pieces like this fit into it?

Furthermore, if your theory can accommodate 20 million years fossil discrepancies, please tell me why you can't accommodate, say, a 50 million year discrepancy?

The lineage of sponges is estimated to have split off some several hundred million years ago. However, we still have sponges today. Does this somehow mean that there's a "635 million year fossil discrepancy"? No, of course not. It means that upon the divergence of the lineage, there were niches for both divergent products.

Never gotten a straight answer, never will... It's like asking an evolutionist what the limits to "convergent evolution" are. They just make this stuff up as they go along.

I'm not sure that's even a coherent concept. What "limits" are you talking about, exactly? Limits to how similarly different creatures can evolve to each other? Limits to how we delineate them in the tree of life? What, exactly, do you mean here?

Equivocation: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself.

IANAEB. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.

 

[lifepsyop]

No such assumption is being made. That is the hypothesis being tested.

Really... whether or not "natural selection did it" is being tested? Now that's rich.... I wonder what your falsification criteria is for that one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really... whether or not "natural selection did it" is being tested?

Yes. If natural selection, random mutations, and vertical inheritance produced the DNA sequence differences between those genomes then you should get a well supported and statistically significant phylogeny. That is the hypothesis being tested. The falsification, or null hypothesis, would be the lack of a statistically significant phylogeny.

 

[sfs]

Just out of curiosity, what is the mathematical machinery used to calculate the level of homoplasy in character traits?

A substitution matrix, preferably determined empirically, determines the expected rate of homoplasy as a function of branch length. For deep phylogenies, a variety of corrections have to be applied, e.g. to handle long branch attraction and changes in genome composition. For more local phylogenies, e.g. the higher primates, such issues are minor, at least for the nuclear genome. We use exactly the same techniques to reconstruct viral evolution, where in some cases we have the epidemiological data on the spread of the virus as a check. They work quite well.

 

[sfs]

Really... whether or not "natural selection did it" is being tested? Now that's rich.... I wonder what your falsification criteria is for that one.

No, natural selection is not being tested; common ancestry is. It's far more difficult to demonstrate that natural selection was involved than it is to demonstrate common ancestry.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, as this is what the evidence seems to present. We have Tiktaalik, an animal not well-suited for tetrapod movement, being found millions of years after tracks from an actual tetrapod animal. This indicates that there was clearly a niche for the semi-tetrapods such as Tiktaalik. What conclusions would you draw from this?

I already told you my conclusions. That Evolution theory makes no substantial predictions about the fossil record. If you find a fossil 20,30,40.. +?? million years out of stratigraphic sequence then it can be accommodated with "niches".

Thus your previous claim that "if the fossil is in the wrong strata" then Evolution theory will be falsified... is clearly very wrong.

It's all horribly interesting stuff, helping to piece together the past.

More like helping to piece together a good science-fiction story....

But hey, time for your model! Given this evidence, what is your model of reality and how do pieces like this fit into it?

Predictable. Whenever evolutionists are shown the flimsiness of their own theory they immediately try and deflect focus off of the theory.

The lineage of sponges is estimated to have split off some several hundred million years ago. However, we still have sponges today. Does this somehow mean that there's a "635 million year fossil discrepancy"? No, of course not. It means that upon the divergence of the lineage, there were niches for both divergent products.

Exactly. You make no real predictions about the fossil record while making vast accommodations for fossils that appear far outside of a conventional linear stratigraphic progression.

What "limits" are you talking about, exactly? Limits to how similarly different creatures can evolve to each other?

Yes. Limits on convergent similarities. That's a simple concept, isn't it? So what are they?

I can tell you that every couple of years there is a new level of "convergence" discovered that was not previously expected.

 

[Zosimus]

Quoth Wiki:

Koch's postulates (/ˈkɔːx/)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle,[3] and refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and tuberculosis, but they have been controversially generalized to other diseases. These postulates were generated prior to understanding of modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis that cannot be examined using Koch's postulates, including viruses (which are obligate cellular parasites) or asymptomatic carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health. Koch's postulates have been controversially applied to conclude that HIV does not cause AIDS[4] (in support of HIV/AIDS denialism) and that oncoviruses do not cause cancers.[5]​

You should update your understanding of the world. It's about 50 years out of date. Your belief that these microorganisms do not cause disease is simply completely untenable. Yeah, Koch's Postulates do not universally apply. We know why that is. It's because Koch did not know about things like asymptomatic carriers, incubation time, or even viruses at all, let alone things like the lentiviruses, which can incubate for years without becoming symptomatic.

No, I understand them perfectly. I also understand that germ theory has been accepted even though it did not pass Koch's postulates.

I don't have a problem with that. After all, it's just a theory...

 

[Zosimus]

That is why multiple and independent studies are needed, as is done in phylogenetics.

And what happens when confirming data are found that does not support the hypothesis?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off

“Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the effect,” he said. “But the worst part was that when I submitted these null results I had difficulty getting them published. The journals only wanted confirming data.

Publication bias anyone?

 

[Loudmouth]

And what happens when confirming data are found that does not support the hypothesis?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off

“Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the effect,” he said. “But the worst part was that when I submitted these null results I had difficulty getting them published. The journals only wanted confirming data.

Publication bias anyone?

You do realize that your reference has nothing to do with molecular phylogenies, right?

 

[Zosimus]

Which suggests that your comments about instrumentalism were indeed a red herring. An instrumentalist values theories because they make accurate predictions. The theory that HIV causes a deadly disease makes excellent predictions, in that people who have HIV do indeed get sick and die from it.

There is little evidence to support the idea that HIV causes AIDS.
To the extent that HIV causes problems, it can easily be managed with nutrition.
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031451

 

[Zosimus]

You do realize that your reference has nothing to do with molecular phylogenies, right?

You do realize that molecular phylogenies have nothing to do with publication bias or problems with p-values in published scientific research, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is little evidence to support the idea that HIV causes AIDS.
To the extent that HIV causes problems, it can easily be managed with nutrition.
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031451

Your reference says just the opposite. It is describing a treatment that eradicates or reduces HIV viral loads to prevent immune deficiency syndrome.

 

[Zosimus]

Your reference says just the opposite. It is describing a treatment that eradicates or reduces HIV viral loads to prevent immune deficiency syndrome.

It appears that I must spell everything out for you.

You asked whether I would object to being injected with the HIV virus. I would not object. I took it as understood that I would expect to be paid for such an undertaking -- a bet, if you will. "I bet you $10,000 that HIV will cause AIDS in you. Let's inject you right now."

I would gladly take that bet because:

A) There is little reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS.
B) There is excellent reason to believe that simple nutrition prevents HIV from causing any serious problems, and
C) Even if I became HIV+ (by which I mean that my body failed to fight off the HIV using standard macrophage attacks and had to resort to creating antibodies) that there is a simple, cost-effective way to restore normal immune function.