“Computational phylogenetics is the application of computational algorithms, methods, and programs to phylogenetic analyses. The goal is to assemble a phylogenetic tree representing a hypothesis about the evolutionary ancestry of a set of genes, species, or other taxa.”
That is the math that we use to test the theory of evolution.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:121, topic:36621”]
But, of course, there are deeply mutually adverse theories, and therefore of claims of explanatory fitness of auxiliaries that do the actual explaining of the specifies.
[/quote]
Evolution is the only theory that makes testable predictions based on mathematical models, and those models are supported by evidence. They do explain the specifics.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:121, topic:36621”]
Without the body to encounter the real world, the brain is effectively in a jar with no real knowledge of the specifics.
[/quote]
We do have bodies that encounter the real world. That real world includes fossils, living species, and genomes.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:121, topic:36621”]
Nevertheless, the main point I am making is that any main theory necessarily depends on auxiliary theories (just like the brain depends on the organism that is beyond the brain itself and through which the brain learns of the world) And in many cases, we can mistake some things about the world, i.e., whether auditory perception exists out in the air through which the ‘sound’ travels; whether an apple’s ‘taste’ is occurring in the apple that is not being eaten; and whether etc…
[/quote]
If you want to claim that scientists are mistaken, then you need to present evidence that they are mistaken. It isn’t valid to ignore evidence simply because people could be mistaken.
I have simplified it so that you do not need to resort to elaborate verifications. Each one of my points would be easy to refute as wrong - - if they were wrong.
This is not “grossly simplifying” - - it is “simplifying to the point that refutation would be easy if the refuting facts existed.”.
There is no interpretation at risk. You have no contrary facts, because none exists.
If you genuinely think my challenge is feeble and poses no obstacle to your discussions, I suggest, then, that you focus on putting my Universal Challenge out of its misery - - quickly prove that it is wrong - -
before wasting any more time on the excruciating levels of word gymnastics and paralysis-by-analysis you have been conducting on your threads.
You got that almost right! It is defined, but the definition doesn’t make sense.
…and then you start counting survivals? Totally missed the point there. If fitness (not observed) = survival (observed), then “fitness” is superfluous. Get rid of that nonsense.
Genetics change continuously. No micro/macro anything.
No contempt - just don’t see the point of recycling the same discussion.
@T_aquaticus
If anything, the transportation tree is the one that is unique for sure because we know the history and what led to what.
If you don’t have that, and you don’t, the rest is magic hocus-pocus. I asked and you don’t have the “relative fitness” vs. your buddy either.
Math models galore. I have a few on flying pigs - do you want the Star Trek or Star Wars version? I know, I know, you want the Avatar version now that I am fresh out.
On Dobzhansky - Ok, I see ‘irrelevant’. Can you say ‘illogical’? Come on. Who’s a big boy?
The point is that the theory of evolution is supported by a tremendous preponderance of evidence and works very well for predictive work. Why not start proposing alternatives to the theory of gravity, while you are at it?
And that is why we don’t do paternity tests. Between the time a man fathers a child and the time he is taken to court for child support, his genetics might be different.
Daniel Pech, you write
"And sweeping predictions in regard to DNA, such as that of exons and introns, have had to be scrapped in the face of new evidence. You cannot tell me that all such predictions were accurate, because I know they weren’t."
I do not understand this. We still have exons and introns. Which ones are those specific predictions that you say had to be scrapped? What exactly means scrapped in this matter?
How is population genetics “hocus-pocus”? You aren’t making any sense.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:125, topic:36621”]
Math models galore. I have a few on flying pigs - do you want the Star Trek or Star Wars version? I know, I know, you want the Avatar version now that I am fresh out.
[/quote]
No theory of gravity : “Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.”
Gravity is an observation. Relativity makes sense for now, but that can change. Darwinism just doesn’t make sense.
So what is your fitness? And how much is your friend’s fitness?? How do you measure “fitness” independent of survival???
Does your “fitness” change when you get sick/old? ** How about in the morning/evening??
“Fitness” is total nonsense.**
It’s hard to estimate fitness for an individual organism, and the concept is of little value when applied to one. So why are you asking?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:135, topic:36621”]
How do you measure “fitness” independent of survival???
[/quote]
You estimate fitness by reproduction, not survival. You can survive as long as you like, but if you can’t reproduce, your fitness is zero. [quote=“NonlinOrg, post:135, topic:36621”]
Does your “fitness” change when you get sick/old?
[/quote]
Sure, you can define fitness for different points in an individual’s life, but what would be the point? I can’t think of any use for the concept applied that way.
Why are you ignoring (a) the actual definition of fitness, and (b) the actual reasons that biologists find it a useful concept? If you’re ignoring them because you don’t know them, you really should learn more about real evolutionary biology. Because there’s little point in having a discussion about a concept that exists only in your own mind.
Also, you never did tell me why evolution lets us make lots of different quantitative predictions, predictions that intelligent design doesn’t make.
The fact is, genetic differences can lead to phenotypic differences which can be shown to affect reproductive success. There are many stochastic factors involved in the life of organisms and it can be hard to peel apart the individual effects of all influences but there are relationships between genes and relative success in passing on those genes that can be deduced.
I encourage you to push him up against the wall on this “Fitness Tautology”. This is the topic that many an Evolutionist struggles to explain … so if you gave him a “case study” based on mathematically calculated examples of “Fitness”… or something you think works along those lines - - it will be an educational breakthrough for a great many others.
"In virtually all instances, the activity of each individual enzyme is but one component in a vastly complex metabolic network, and each enzyme variant may account for only a small proportion of the total genotypic variance of classical components of fitness, such as viability, mating success, fertility or longevity. This complexity can, in some cases, be overcome by means of targeted selection experiments, in which particular growth conditions are imposed in order to identify physiological differences resulting from enzyme variants"
What this tells you, is there’s no such thing as “fitness”, and in fact they selected certain organisms by determining the growth conditions.
As exemplified before: in a small farm, only organisms closely related to their wild cousins survive, but agribusinesses have no problem growing chickens with oversize breasts and research labs grow all kind of populations with specific genetic mutations requiring tight environments to survive. Although all these have different phenotypes, they do not possess an intrinsic phenotype “fitness” independent of the environment.
The accuracy of a theory is not determined by NonlinOrg’s ability to make sense of it.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:135, topic:36621”]
So what is your fitness? And how much is your friend’s fitness?? How do you measure “fitness” independent of survival???
[/quote]
Fitness is measured by the ability of your genes to be propogated to the next generation. This includes kin selection which makes it a non-personal measure of fitness. For example, the fitness of a worker bee is measured by the ability of the queen bee to procreate. Since humans are a social species we have to take kin selection into account.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:135, topic:36621”]
“Fitness” is total nonsense.**
[/quote]
The accuracy of a theory is not determined by NonlinOrg’s need to call it nonsense. That’s not how science works.
There is such a thing as ‘fitness’. One can’t use the word ‘selected’ as above without implicitly invoking some concept of ‘fitness’ relative to the phenotype(s) being selected. Measurements of fitness may be difficult but it is always relative to reference conditions. Dykhuizen et al, were able to peel apart the effects of particular mutations that affected the kinetics of particular enzymes and correlated fitness, measuring the relative rate of competitive growth in a chemostat, with the flux of metabolites as measured and as predicted by the effects of the mutations on the metabolic pathway.
The paper explicitly describes how they determined the fitness surface relative to the activities of two enzymes in the metabolic pathway under the culture conditions.
In the conclusion section of the article, the authors write:
In nutrient-limited chemostats, in which growth rate is proportional to the rate at which the limiting nutrient is metabolized, fitness is proportional to flux, and the relation between enzmatic control coefficients and fitness control coefficients is straightforward.
The reason why fitness is related to metabolic flux in this case is that the ability to grow and outcompete siblings in the chemostats is directly dependent on the rates at which a limiting nutrient is metabolized. The more lactose a bacterium can take in and convert, the more growth. Bacteria in the same environment with less efficient systems cannot compete. This is all about fitness. It is a simple system, which makes the relative fitness quantifiable and traceable to the effects of specific mutations in two proteins examined.