Molecular phylogeny - a problem instead of a solution

[TheLurch]

Yes, let's do that--starting with molecular phylogeny of metazoan phyla.


Please give me the specifics.

I listed a few of your errors just 3 posts prior. You barely even have to scroll. You confused theories and techniques, predictions and results. These are fundamental aspects of science. You got them wrong, and all you care about is just moving on and pretending that none of it ever happened.

It happened. And while I'm waiting to acknowledge that you made significant errors about the process of science, please stop creating a straw man of my arguments.

[lee_merrill]

Molecular phylogeny isn't a theory. It's a technique.

The theory part is the view that organisms can be sorted out by comparison of proteins or genes.

Predictions are not the same as results. Results are what you use to test predictions.

I meant that the result of a theory is a prediction, in this case that organisms can be successfully organized by their genes.

Finally, you've identified a grand total of two examples. One of them (the bats) can potentially be solved by getting genome sequences - remember that all its issues with molecular phylogeny were based on a limited number of genes. Only the second is a case where scientists have identified a case where the technique does not produce reliable results (rapid diversifications in the distant past). This is not a contradictory result. It's a case where a specific technique doesn't work.

Well, different trees for an organism or group of organisms, is indeed contradictory.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And while I'm waiting to acknowledge that you made significant errors about the process of science, please stop creating a straw man of my arguments.

How am I misrepresenting your argument, though?

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

The theory part is the view that organisms can be sorted out by comparison of proteins or genes.
I meant that the result of a theory is a prediction, in this case that organisms can be successfully organized by their genes.

If those are what you meant, then you misspoke earlier, because your words did not convey what you meant. The least you could do is acknowledge that when someone specifically addresses your misstatements, rather than just breezing past that as if none of it ever happened.

In any case, you're still misspeaking, because none of this is theoretical - many trees have been built with high statistical certainty using these methods. It's a fact, not theoretical, and the techniques are a key part of the public health response to coronavirus variants.

How am I misrepresenting your argument, though?

Everything from "surely you're not saying" down.

[shunyadragon]

Well, no, a theory is in trouble if it generates contradictory results.

Blessings,
Lee

Your view of contradictions is based on an ancient religious agenda, and . . . ah the phoney disengenuous phoney arguing from ignorance. . Contradictions and unknowns in science is the fuel for furthr reasearch.

[rogue06]

I listed a few of your errors just 3 posts prior. You barely even have to scroll. You confused theories and techniques, predictions and results. These are fundamental aspects of science. You got them wrong, and all you care about is just moving on and pretending that none of it ever happened.

It happened. And while I'm waiting to acknowledge that you made significant errors about the process of science, please stop creating a straw man of my arguments.

I have to wonder how Lee thinks science works. Does he think that if an experiment contradicts the findings of hundreds or even thousands of other experiments that you should therefore throw out those results and start from scratch? Or does he realize that such a finding means that new experiments need to be designed and conducted in order to explain the contradiction?

[lee_merrill]

If those are what you meant, then you misspoke earlier, because your words did not convey what you meant.

I think I said what I meant, though.

In any case, you're still misspeaking, because none of this is theoretical - many trees have been built with high statistical certainty using these methods. It's a fact, not theoretical, and the techniques are a key part of the public health response to coronavirus variants.

A procedure that succeeds in some instances, and fails in others, is still in need of repair.

Everything from "surely you're not saying" down.

But I asked "how", not "where". I took the four cases you mentioned, and argued that the first three did not apply, thus the fourth one did. This is not a strawman.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I have to wonder how Lee thinks science works. Does he think that if an experiment contradicts the findings of hundreds or even thousands of other experiments that you should therefore throw out those results and start from scratch? Or does he realize that such a finding means that new experiments need to be designed and conducted in order to explain the contradiction?

The second statement, is my view.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

The second statement, is my view.

Blessings,
Lee

Your prior posts and threads strongly indicate otherwise.

[lee_merrill]

Your prior posts and threads strongly indicate otherwise.

Can you quote me on that? I don't believe I've ever made such a statement.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I think I said what I meant, though.

But you didn't. You said a theory generated results. You then defended that phrasing by saying that theories generate predictions. As if predictions and results are the same.

They are not. Theories, results, and predictions are all key components of science, and they're all very distinct things. You seem to be arguing that some of them are interchangeable. I'm willing to believe that you actually know better than that, but assuming you do, you should be apologizing for your sloppy phrasing when someone calls you out on it, not defending yourself as being correct. If you don't know better, then you shouldn't be arguing at all.

A procedure that succeeds in some instances, and fails in others, is still in need of repair.

A procedure that measures quantum effects fails when used on a basketball. Is that in need of repair?


You probably think I'm being pedantic and trying to avoid the issues with the Science paper. I'm not. If we can't agree on how science functions, then we can't come to any agreement on scientific experiments or their implications. We need to sort this out first.

[lee_merrill]

But you didn't. You said a theory generated results. You then defended that phrasing by saying that theories generate predictions. As if predictions and results are the same.

They are not. Theories, results, and predictions are all key components of science, and they're all very distinct things. You seem to be arguing that some of them are interchangeable. I'm willing to believe that you actually know better than that, but assuming you do, you should be apologizing for your sloppy phrasing when someone calls you out on it, not defending yourself as being correct. If you don't know better, then you shouldn't be arguing at all.

I apologize for not being more precise in my phrasing.

A procedure that measures quantum effects fails when used on a basketball. Is that in need of repair?

Certainly something is amiss here. But I'm not sure that quantum theory applied to a basketball, and contradictory trees generated by molecular phylogeny, are comparable.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I apologize for not being more precise in my phrasing.


Certainly something is amiss here. But I'm not sure that quantum theory applied to a basketball, and contradictory trees generated by molecular phylogeny, are comparable.

Blessings,
Lee

That is due to your lack of knowledge of science blinded by your ancient religious ID agenda.

[shunyadragon]

I apologize for not being more precise in my phrasing.

. . . than you need to apologize for many years of meaningless threads and posts.

Certainly something is amiss here. But I'm not sure that quantum theory applied to a basketball, and contradictory trees generated by molecular phylogeny, are comparable.

Blessings,
Lee

Your ignorance extends to the modeling of science through math and chaos theory.

[rogue06]

Can you quote me on that? I don't believe I've ever made such a statement.

Blessings,
Lee

As I said "indicated" as in how you respond to any new discovery that doesn't immediately fit into the current theory. You've started several threads indicating that evolution is in trouble, needs to be rethought if not abandoned.