That’s because you only read the abstract, which is talking about Alcidae as a whole, not the particular divergence between the great auk and the razorbill, Pinguinus and Alce. You have to look at Figure 2. Ironically, if as you have previously claimed, the fossil record is complete, since the oldest fossil of Pinguinus is only around 5 million years old you should place the evolution of this new body plan even later; otherwise you have to postulate a ghost lineage, and I know you refuse to do that.
3 Likes
How do you determine who is reliable or not?
For instance you’ve already overestimated Axe’s expertise and relevance in his field, which suggests more than a little bias at work here.
6 Likes
This, and I suppose he can correct me, if I misunderstood him, may be what John Mercer means when he says that Lee and users like him are mistaking claims for data. Indeed we cannot, and nor is it expected that we would, replicate each and every experimental study in our own lab before we come to trust a publication in a prestigious journal. Certainly doing the same statistical analyses on publicly available data sets such as, say, genomes, is within the grasp of even the unlearned, but that in its own right requires a degree of trust in the correctness of the sequence published, and is at any rate an exception very specific to the sort of studies done on data sets like this, and does not apply generally to all of science.
Expertise in a field of science does not begin nor end with mere literacy. Keeping an enormous list of references does not make one a scholar, and, for that matter, having sparse knowledge or recollection of a field’s history does not make one unqualified in principle to comment. Of course one gets to cite previously published results, even those one had no part in producing, and one is not an inferior researcher for relying where applicable on the work of one’s peers. However, as we do our own studies, as we collect and review data, we obtain an appreciation for the methods employed for this, and for the mistakes that can happen at various steps in the process. By “looking at the data” – not replicating every study, but even just by doing our own – we develop a sense for what works, what does not, and why. And though we may end up approving of ultimately erroneous results occasionally, whilst at times also rejecting broadly unproblematic drafts, each folly is a far cry from having zero clue whatsoever, much less from arrogantly insisting that the whole paradigm needs an overturning for it. To put in the work does not mean re-building all the giants whose proverbial shoulders we stand on, but rather it means seeing some of the data, enough to legitimately count oneself among the ‘peers’ one swaps works between for review, and enough to grow an intuition for what sounds plausible and what does not, that is any more reliable than a coin flip.
The error people like Lee make in “only looking at the paper, not the data” is not that they specifically have not replicated what ever study they cite. It is rather that they take very strong positions, often times against the consensus and even against the positions of the authors they cite, without ever having reviewed any data pertaining to the field. They invested so little of their time and effort into studying the topic that they are entirely unable to tell what even is a reliable source, let alone the meaning of the things it says. They have no clue even of how much there is to have a clue of, and yet they issue “challenges” as if anyone’s time was well spent attempting to satisfy their untrained intellects. The citation to them ultimately comes down to a mere rhetorical token, just words to be played in the debate-game, because of how profoundly unfamiliar they are with – and thereby disrespectful of – any of the actual real work (the “data”, as it were) that went into writing those words to begin with.
6 Likes
Correct. I’m also pointing out that IDcreationists like Lee hide behind hearsay. They are clearly afraid to go to the evidence itself. That’s the fear driving quote mining.
Definitely. It’s about doing. It’s worth noting that everyone, without exception, who embraces IDcreationism quits doing any science relevant to IDcreationism. That’s not contradicted by the tiny number of papers in BioComplexity that present no new data. IOW, even the bigwigs of IDcreationism are afraid of the evidence. That’s why Axe has done nothing to follow up his 2004 paper – for 22 years. This despite having plenty of money from the DI. To any real scientist, this inaction speaks more loudly than any words Axe will ever produce.
Correct. They are obviously afraid to do so. It’s an absence of faith.
It’s also worth noting that expertise is a mere rhetorical token–touted (even when irrelevant) for those with whom they agree, completely ignored (even when obviously relevant) for those with whom they disagree. The hypocrisy is astounding.
4 Likes
You’re violating the Ninth Commandment twice in one sentence.
Here, you obviously only believe people who say things you wish were true. You repeatedly reject using the scientific method for yourself and you reject its products for hearsay.
You’re afraid. You don’t have faith in the claims you are making.
2 Likes
Most point mutations don’t, so you’re still wrong.
You’re violating the Ninth Commandment again. You do nothing of the sort. You’re afraid of the evidence.
There’s no examining of evidence there. You just admitted your violation.
You can’t do that without examining the evidence yourself. Using the word “examining” in a false way doesn’t cut it.
Then the evidence should be prioritized over hearsay. Why not try it?
Now you’re moving the goalposts. Your claim was explicit:
And now you pretend its about proof. So, CHALLENGE: demonstrate that the only evidence we have for Julius Caesar’s existence is “someone said it”, meaning that you must have looked at all the available evidence, right? That’s what only means.
It appears that you understand as little about history as you do about science.
I for one have never heard of an indel, even a one-base indel, being called a point mutation.
1 Like
It is in some definitions, but it doesn’t matter–Lee is still wrong. Just as his previous definition was wrong:
Have you told him what “residue” means in this context?
If it helps to clarify, this particular thread of the discussion seems to have started with this:
@lee_merrill construed “the amount o fgenetic change” to mean changes in the amount of “genetic material.” Those are not necessarily the same thing, even though they are not standard terminology. A point mutation could still be considered “genetic change”, though it does not change the amount of “genetic material” if that is measured in bases.
You misunderstand, the “No” was claiming you misunderstood what I said, I was not addressing the truth or falsity of your statement here.
But I don’t think either innumerable counterexamples or “It seems intuitive” will give you what you are demanding here, a ratio.
But only if our experience corresponds with reality! But this is the very point at issue, you can’t use that as proof of your conclusion.
I do rely on my intuitions, to some degree, but I want to know about the foundations of our reasoning, are they reliable? Saying “it works well enough” is not telling me whether the foundations are real, and firm. Certainly Darwin and Haldane were aware of us trusting our intuition and experience, and yet they saw that more is needed. And you seem not to see this, somehow.
So why do people give reasons such as “I was tired”, when they do something unreasonable? They are claiming an unreasoning cause! And because of that, people should not consider what they did as really coming from them. And people do indeed compare the claims of a madman or a delirious person with their own experiences, in this sense, they will look for unreasoning causes! For in their experience, that is a prime cause of unreasonable conclusions. “I got drunk once, and saw snakes on the wall, and so this man probably has a similar cause to his conclusion, an unreasoning cause, and so I reject his claim of snakes, I know he has been drinking.”
No, we don’t, we don’t reject the conclusions of a delirious man because we have gone looking for the claimed snakes again and again, and we haven’t found them. It’s because we know of other causes for this, of unreasoning causes, so once we know the man has been drinking, we don’t go looking for snakes, we never did this.
I addressed this, certainly our reasoning is imperfect, it’s healthy to acknowledge we need help, and to go for help when we need it. I suppose if our reasoning was perfect and uncompromisable, we would tend to set ourselves up as some sort of gods! “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton)
I agree, strength is inherently limited.
But no one ever thought or claimed (I certainly don’t) that an immaterial ability is necessarily unlimited!
I’ll take that as a “yes”, So, when have you done this with delirium? Or are you agnostic on this?
But Axe does use the word fragment, but in his second part of his argument, he doesn’t. So I conclude that this second part is without fragments like he had before, this seems quite reasonable.
But I don’t see just Pinguinus in Figure 2, there are two such entries, which did you mean to point out? And there are lots of Alca of various types, but no Alce, per se.
But I don’t say the fossil record is complete, I say that more sampling in the Cambrian will probably not turn up many new fossils we haven’t seen before. That’s my claim…
There are many factors for reliability, such as a person who has good reasons they can present for their conclusions, who has good perception, as in pointing out things people tend to overlook, such as having good character, as in being willing to change their view when the evidence points to a correction, and so on. And it turns out no one here has been able to refute Axe! In all this long discussion, amid all the claims of victory, show me just one point that has gone without response here, and which has proven unanswerable.
Well, I have read books by evolutionists, such as “The Beak of the Finch”, I am not afraid of data and of arguments that contradict my view, hence my return to posting here! Glad to hear what people (scientists!) who hold to the consensus have to present by way of evidence.
But you both seem to be the ones merely engaging in rhetoric, when you make such statements! And I don’t ignore counterarguments, here or anywhere else, yes, let’s look at the evidence for conclusions, on both sides.
So only scientists, people who use the scientific method, can find out truth? And I don’t reject scientific conclusions out of hand, I believe in heliocentrism, and the big bang, and so on. And if I only believed people who said what I wish was true, I would never change my mind! But I have, for example, I used to believe Bishop Ussher calculated the age of the earth accurately, I don’t believe his calculation is correct now. And I prioritize knowing the truth, I don’t actually seek to fulfill my wishes.
“All we want are the facts, ma’am” (Joe Friday, Dragnet)
Alright, now you seem to be back to insisting I must do experiments myself, I must recreate a paper’s results before I believe them. Like court evidence is only allowed if it’s recreating the actual crime! There are many forms of evidence, which usually involve trusting an authority, such as an eyewitness, in the court example, such as a published and peer-reviewed paper, in a journal, such as trusting a book written by a recognized author with credentials.
No, I take it on good authority because I have read much that implies Julius Caesar was a real person, by sources I trust, such as reading parts of Gallic Wars (“Alle Galli in tres partes divisi est” I still remember that, somehow! Though I probably misspelled some words), such as reading encyclopedias. I don’t insist on looking at actual inscriptions and copies of documents myself.
And what prevents me from dismissing your claims as motivated by unreasoning desperation to buttress a belief system against cognitive dissonance?
Throughout this entire discussion, you have attempted to ascribe confidence in rationality by merely ascribing a label to a person, mad or sane, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that such evaluation runs in the opposite direction - we judge a person’s mental status based on how they align with reality.
You are wrong and by this point tedious by repetition, but continue to object simply because it is convenient to your argument.
Sorry, forgot you don’t know how to read a tree. And yes, Alce was a typo for Alca. Now, if you could read a tree you would be able to recognize that the divergence in question was at 11ma.
OK, I’ll explain. Note that two branches reach the present day (or close enough in geological time): Alca torda and Pinguinus impennis. Those are the ones we care about. There are other extinct species in both genera. But what you need to do is trace the lineages of those two species back to the spot at which they join, which is also the spot at which several extinct species of Alca join too. And that’s at 11 million years. Clear?
Speechless.
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, actually. Your evolved brain isn’t as good at memory as you imagine.
I’m tempted to ascribe this to you all, actually. It seems to fit pretty well.
Again, I’m not labeling people, or basing anything on labels, I’m pointing to causes. Nobody continues to look for snakes, when a delirious person keeps claiming they are there. Psychiatrists can look for evidence of claims, initially, but with the idea in mind that the claims may stem from an irrational cause. Once they see an irrational cause, such as a phobia, they stop looking for evidence. Really. They do.
You are the one dismissing my claims, though, can you point me to one psychiatrist who does not look for irrational causes for claims? Who solely and only looks for evidence that the claims are true? And never stops doing that?
Ooo, my memory blew a fuse, I thought I had that down. But it’s been over 50 years. I still have my silver key I got from my Latin teacher, though!
ETA: I just remembered my teacher’s name! It was Mrs. Ingram. She would speak of her Irish grandmother being about to come through, at times when she got upset with us…