I’m mildly curious about what your point is, but I’m more interested in other things.
And im mildly curious that you cant guess. Diversification during a population’s dispersal into empty ecological niches is said to be faster than if there were rival species already occupying those niches.
So… there were no barriers to phenotype changes to help exploit the empty niches.
By the time the rodents showed up they were now facing entrenched marsupial rivals.
-
Why are we even talking about this?
-
I believe that rodents make up 25% of the mammalian fauna of Australia.
I’m seeing the post numbers near the right margin with a web browser (Opera) on a regular computer.
1 Like
Oh, they’re on the slider. Who knew?
1 Like
We are talking about it because:
-
You raised the issue of rodents as if it was relevant to my topic.
-
Then i showed you that it wasnt relevant to my topic.
-
And now you dont want to discuss it.
I will gladly drop discussing the thread. Let me know when you find a better article to discuss. Anything better would be well worth seeing …
-
I didn’t raise the issue. I only mentioned them because you said that bats were the only placentals native to Australia before humans.
-
I agree they aren’t relevant to the topic. Nor are bats.
-
I don’t want to discuss it because it’s irrelevant.
-
I don’t want to stop discussing the thread. I want an on-topic discussion. I want answers to the various points I have raised, which you have said you will do now that you have found them.
1 Like
My responses are in brackets under each of your four responses. But I
have reversed the order:
Your last response, which I am now placing at the top of my own response:
(1) “I don’t want to stop discussing the thread. I want an on-topic
discussion. I want answers to the various points I have raised, which
you have said you will do now that you have found them.”
[I changed my mind when you asked me why we were even discussing rodents in Australia. If you want me to continue the topic, you will have to prove your sincerity by admitting that you raised the topic of the rodents, and then you even asked me a question regarding my thoughts on the rodents. If you can’t admit that the rodent topic was started by you, then I don’t think we can have a fruitful discussion.]
This seems pathological. You’re holding your on-topic response hostage until I admit I was the first to mention rodents? Yes, I was. I mentioned them to point out that one of your claims (the bit about bats) was wrong. Perhaps I shouldn’t have done that, because it seems to have kept you focused on irrelevancies. Can we stop focusing on irrelevancies? Can we start discussing the main points? Please?
2 Likes
@John_Harshman (cc: @swamidass )
You respond to my asking you to agree that you were “the first to
mention rodents” by writing: “Yes, I was. I mentioned them to point
out that one of your claims . . . was wrong. Perhaps I shouldn’t have
done that…”
This was followed by the rather kind words: "Can we start
discussing the main points? Please?"
But you weren’t wrong to mention the rodents. I had never heard about
them migrating to Australia less than 5 million years ago. What
upset me was that you then made it sound like I was the one that
brought them up. But that’s all done and past-tense, yes? It looks
like maybe we can start discussing some points. But I think the whole
Australia article might be irrelevant.
I opened up this thread by saying how impressed I was with the
findings it discussed. And you, didn’t seem very moved by my
discussion. So, rather than belabor the point, let’s find one we are
both impressed with.
My central thesis is that having a set of creatures that are clearly
represent different body types, food strategies, and the like - - but
which can also be easily shown to share multiple genetic markers from
a common ancestor that had geographical access to where the off-shoots
currently live - - will go a long way to counter the usual Creationism
mantras: “show me a dog that evolves into a cat”… or an insect
that becomes a whale.
In your professional experience, what was one of the most persuasive
articles you remember seeing?
That’s because you have not explained how it differs in any way from the many other phylogenetic papers that have been published, or why a creationist would find it any more compelling than any of the others. That’s what I’m interested in. Here’s what you say below:
Now, actually, the paper shows only one genetic marker in the group you’re pointing to, so that part isn’t even true. I’m not sure what “geographic access” means here or why you would consider it important. Further, there are many groups, some of which I have mentioned to you, for which all the same is true, often with greater confidence. Afrotheria, which I keep throwing out to you, is a superior case in point. So why this one?
Persuasive to a creationist? I know of none. Creationists can’t be persuaded by scientific articles. I haven’t even been able to persuade Bill Cole that all crocodiles have a common ancestor, and that’s a much simpler problem than any we’re considering here. Nobody has been able to persuade any creationist that all primates have a common ancestor, and that’s a much simpler problem than any we’re considering here. So why do you think this particular article would be compelling to a creationist?
1 Like
This is the key point @gbrooks9. The primary evidence of these 3 marsupial groups sharing a close common ancestor before radiating that this paper in particular presents is the presence of a single shared retroposon. Why do you think would be particularly compelling to creationists, who are apparently unconvinced that humans and chimps share a common ancestor in light of the fact that humans and chimpanzees share hundreds of thousands of such retroposons?
@John_Harshman @evograd See the quote above… I’m pretty sure that George has been in agreement with you all along.
It is not clear to me what you mean.
In response to my invitation to select one of your favorite articles, potentially most persuasive Creationists, you wrote: “Persuasive to a creationist? I know of none. Creationists can’t be persuaded by scientific articles.”
Wow. So, for you there is no gradient of less or more credibility? By your logic, no matter how much I like the Australia article, it is equally as useless as any other article. If 1000 Creationists of various levels of faith read an average paper on primates, and the same 1000 Creationists read the Australia article, it would create exactly the same bell curve of “Persuasive Index” scores, right?
So, we’re done with this thread then.
There is no gradient for Creationists. And conversely, there appears to be no gradient for you. So let’s not waste any additional time. I’m fine with that. I’d like to speak with someone interested in black powder and musket re-enactments. Maybe that would be of interest?
@Evograd (cc: @John_Harshman )
Evo, you write: “The primary evidence of these 3 marsupial groups
sharing a close common ancestor before radiating that this paper in
particular presents is the presence of a single shared retroposon.”
Yet, Evo et al., the link posted by @John_Harshman himself (below):
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tracking Marsupial Evolution Using Archaic Genomic Retroposon Insertions
Maria A. Nilsson , Gennady Churakov, et al. Published: July 27, 2010
Tracking Marsupial Evolution Using Archaic Genomic Retroposon Insertions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
seems to be loaded with detail… The abstract includes these statements:
"Here, we provide evidence from newly established and virtually
homoplasy-free retroposon insertion markers for the basal
relationships among marsupial orders. Fifty-three phylogenetically
informative markers were retrieved after in silico and experimental
screening of ∼217,000 retroposon-containing loci from opossum and
kangaroo."
And at that same web page, immediately below the Abstract is the
Author Summary, we can find: “We screened the genomes of the South
American opossum and the Australian tammar wallaby for retroposons,
unambiguous phylogenetic markers that occupy more than half of the
marsupial genome.”
"From analyses of nearly 217,000 retroposon-containing loci, we
identified 53 retroposons that resolve most branches of the marsupial
evolutionary tree."
"Dromiciops is clearly only distantly related to Australian
marsupials, supporting a single Gondwanan migration of marsupials from
South America to Australia. The new phylogeny offers a novel
perspective in understanding the morphological and molecular
transitions between the South American and Australian marsupials."
Somehow the observations from both of you don’t seem to be consistent
with the written text of the article. What am I missing? But why are
we even discussing this article? Articles are useless, yes? There is
nothing anyone can write that matters, and so all articles on
Evolution are useless…
In this case, let me defer to your collective wisdom and exit the
room. My enthusiasm and optimism is probably quite uncomfortable to
experience …
@Michael_Callen wrote:
“@John_Harshman @evograd See the quote above… I’m pretty
sure that George has been in agreement with you all along.”
Michael, I really appreciate your offering a hand! I think you missed
John’s emphatic insistence that all articles are equally ineffective
in communicating information on Evolution to Creationists. I don’t
think John has his heart in the project…
1 Like
I was trying to help, but I didn’t… Sorry for any added confusion. It is a common mantra that nothing will help to convince a “creationist.” That’s why I’m here… I’m trying to learn. So clearly, if my excuses for rejecting evolution were A, B, and C, and C were clearly falsified, that would help me to learn. Just a lost cause, I guess. 
This part of the paper:
During the retroposon screening one marker was found supporting a grouping of Notoryctes, Dasyuromorphia, and Peramelemorphia (p = 0.3333 [1 0 0]).
This is also shown in the figure:
That’s my opinion. If you disagree, you might come up with reasons why I would be wrong and the paper at hand is, contrary to my belief, especially useful. You seem unusually hostile to any attempts at discussion. Why? Do you think Joshua would appreciate your hostility?