Alternatives to Modern Evolutionary Theory


(Mikkel R.) #121

Your attached pictures(?) don’t seem to show up.

(John Harshman) #122

I can see them.

(Mikkel R.) #123

Weird, I just see a big red X as if a dead image link.

(Dale Cutler) #124

These are just opinion:

(Dale Cutler) #125

Could we not make successful predictions within the QH system?

(Dale Cutler) #126

There are no discontinuities in phylogenetic trees?


The problem with these examples is that it isn’t as simple as one organism being smaller or larger than another. For example, a human is not transitional between a mouse and an elephant simply because a human is intermediate in size between the two. Instead, we should be looking at characteristics and not the size of certain features. For example, how is independent rear suspension distributed among vehicles? What about direct injection or carburetors?

Are there discontinuities in phylogenetic trees? Absolutely. Extinction and lack of information from living species creates these discontinuities. If we had genomes and specimens from every individual from every generation that ever lived then there shouldn’t be any discontinuities, but lacking such data we would expect to see discontinuities.

(Dale Cutler) #128

Don’t forget about convergent engineering, y’all. :slightly_smiling_face:


Don’t forget about the difference between analogous and homologous.

(Dale Cutler) #130

I’ll try not to. :slightly_smiling_face:

(Don’t forget about the difference between a stairway with discrete steps and a ramp – you can predict ‘continuous’ descent with both.)


The difference is that the theory of evolution makes the prediction of a nested hierarchy, and that can be tested with both continuous and discontinuous data.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #132

10 posts were split to a new topic: The Current Status of Ewert’s Dependency Graph of Life

(John Mercer) #133

No, and @pnelson’s claim is false.


so first: we both agree that in general most bicycle are similar to each other then to a car. right?


its basically 3 images. 2 of them are bicycle and on is a car (the last one).

(John Harshman) #136

How many times has it been explained to you that phylogenetic analyses are not based on mere similarity?

(Charles Edward Miller) #137




(John Harshman) #138

Could you briefly summarize?


since we are talking about vehicles here the only thing that we can test is physical similalrity. and there is no problem with that. actually even in biology in most cases the morphological similarity fit with the genetic similarity as well. so its not a problem at all.

(John Harshman) #140

Wrong again. Once more: phylogenetic analyses do not rely on simple similarity, whether morphological or genetic. They rely on fit of the data to a single tree. This would be true of vehicles too, if indeed vehicles fit a tree. You need to learn just the least little bit about the field you’re trying to dismiss.