Do all deer share a common ancestor?

Ah, cool. Gpuccio was deemed credible (or possibly just influential?) enough to be offered a chance to defend his stuff, but he failed and so did you and his other resident fans. So whatever credibility was implied by him having had a platform to elaborate on his nonsense is now long gone.

4 Likes

As deeply as I value and respect the expertise and accomplishments to be counted among our merry band, I am not so certain that the Peaceful Science Forum is in the elite position to bestow credibility were we to engrave a trophy, particularly to someone otherwise nearly unknown.

1 Like

Is the problem with naturalism or with methodological naturalism? They seem to be synonymous to you, I’m not sure why. Also, may it, in fact, be the case, that naturalism (or methodological naturalism, which ever it is you mean) is “leading to” any answers? May it, in fact, be the case, that it is leading to “the wrong” answers? What indication, over and above ‘me no likey’, is there, that the answer arrived at by scientific means is either incorrect (by some for now unspecified measure of correctness) or inadequate for some purpose?

1 Like

Hence the heavy moderation and frequent banning at Uncommon Descent and the disallowing of comments at ENV. Meanwhile, @gpuccio has not been censored or deplatformed here. His account remains available but unused.

Also, you should learn the difference between not providing a platform versus censorship.

1 Like

Clearly, with this astonishing claim, it can be seen that it’s you who have a problem with logic, not Gpuccio.

Well, to my comment that Gpuccio was allowed to express his view on this site in a special, very unusual way, ie through a dedicated thread only open to the scholars frequenting this site, you first reply by saying that it was hardly unusual on this forum. As far as I can tell, it is unusual for since I participate in this forum, it has happened only for two guests, namely Gpuccio and Winston Ewert. I may be wrong. If so, I would welcome any correction on this matter.
You also added that it is certainly not an indication that the individual so ‘honored’ is worthy of any credibility. I think your statement here is illogical and that the special way Gpuccio was allowed to express his view is evidence that he was considered here as as a knowledgeable and articulate person with interesting views worth being debated by the best experts on this forum. Here are some quotes that make this point taken from the thread where Gpuccio expressed his view on this forum:

Swamidass at 17

Gpuccio, it is great to see a starting point of a response from you. We aim to key the conversation substantive and professional. It doesn’t always go that way perfectly, but that is our goal. I hope that we would all understand each other, and science, better through exchanges like this.

…….

It is an interesting hypothesis, and it deserves to be received with seriousness and rigor. Good ideas come from all over. The beauty of how science works is that we can, if we are humble to the data, come to common understanding through engaging hypotheses like this. Even failed hypotheses have value for this reason.

……

I really love that you are looking at the data yourself. You clearly have the ability to run much of these anlayses yourself. Great!

Art at 99

Thanks again, @gpuccio. I would like to commend you for broaching this subject, as it stands in contrast to the approaches used by the ID vanguard. I have long been of the opinion that the relevant metric that ID proponents should be measuring is something akin to informational work, which may be like what you describe here. I suspect that there are serious issues with the approaches one may take to estimate this property, but the concept seems to make sense to me.

“Clearly” your astonishment is both idiosyncratic, and misplaced.

“It can be seen” that your conclusion is a non sequitor and thus fallacious.

Consider yourself corrected then – most recently, this thread was created for discussion of Rope Kojonen’s book, and then restricted to exclude “anonymous/non-academic participants” when he turned up. This did not, in fact, stop Kojonen from getting eviscerated by many of the non-anonymous academic participants.

Your fallacious argument rests on two false premises:

  1. That having a moderated-thread is in some way “special”. Heck, even I got a moderated (“curated”) thread once – for a discussion that I eventually came to the conclusion was a complete waste of bandwidth and time.

  2. That being “allowed to express his view” is in some way an indication that his views are credible. Heck, even @colewd is “allowed to express his view” on this forum, and even the replies to him on this thread should give you an indication of how little credibility he has here.

These comments are simply boiler-plate ‘welcomes’, and confer no credibility. If you want to see how credible he is here, you need to read further down the thread to see how his ideas held up under scrutiny. It would seem that they were viewed with skepticism that Gpuccio was unable to dispel:

Etc, etc.

3 Likes

Back to the original subject, as Bill requested. Yes, we can, and no, it isn’t. I presented a very simple model of the former quite some time ago, and “separate points of origin” is incompatible with the phylogenetic data. Of course those are two quite separate questions, and one major problem is that Bill is unable to separate them.

2 Likes

The passages you refer to are from scholars who expressed some objections or incomprehensions toward some methodological aspects of Gpuccio’s analysis, to which IMO he responded convincingly most of the time. I invite those really interested by this debate to carefully read the whole piece and decide by themselves whether Gpuccio is interesting and credible, knowing that being credible doesn’t necessarily means being right but rather being knowledgeable and articulate on the matter being discussed.

Yes back to the original subject, I would be interested to know what is your appreciation of the paper @pnelson refers to in his piece below:

I would be happy to if you would tell me what that has to do with whether all deer share a common ancestor.

2 Likes

:rofl:

You will pardon me if I find you opinion neither humble nor persuasive.

Can you point to a single one of the “scholars” who were objecting and expressing incomprehension at Gpuccio’s “analysis” who expressed that they were ‘convinced’ by his responses. I see no indication that they were.

That you yourself are “convinced” is neither surprising nor “convincing”, given the degree to which you have drunk the ID koolaid.

I would again point out that “being knowledgeable and articulate” neither guarantees that his argument is logically sound, nor that his conclusions are credible.

1 Like

Nothing! But it has to do with the more general idea of common descent, in particular CD in the bacterial branch of the TOL.

Then it is not getting “back to the original subject”. :roll_eyes:

If that can please you, I am happy to concede the point.

In that case why do you think it’s returning to the topic? If you want to start a new thread for that, feel free. But claiming to return to the topic by introducing a new topic is exceedingly rude.

3 Likes

The topic being closely related, I sincerely thought it could be discussed in this thread. It seems that I was wrong. Sorry for that. Now, as for being « exceedingly rude », I think you are excessive in your expression.

I’m afraid I have to question either your sincerity or your judgment. Which would you prefer?

This thread has been wandering off-topic for over 700 posts – I think it is time to put it out of its, and our, misery. Particularly as, given that bacteria aren’t particularly closely related to deer, the paper in question isn’t particularly closely related to this thread’s stated topic.

I recommend you create a new thread for that. Fine for it’s own topic of discussion.

According to your standards you did not make a valid argument as it required a naked assertion.

What I asked for is a model and no one produced anything close to a model that answered what the cause was of both the chromosome and gene variation.

I did not expect a model because the current mechanisms of evolution appear to be unable to generate the gene and chromosome patterns we are observing from a single point of origin.

What we cannot move past is the assertion that “common descent is the only explanation for the pattern in the data”.

What we have failed to explore is other reproductive mechanisms like genetic recombination that might explain the data.