It’s hard to tell, when you won’t give any reasons. You are definitely missing that none of your quotes are relevant to the group you’re talking about, which is supported by one retroposon insertion.
What are your reasons for supposing that articles are useful? Who would this article convince? Would other articles not have convinced that person? Why? No need to flounce.
2 posts were split to a new topic: Evolution, Persuasion, and the SkyDeck
That’s not fair. He is not making excuses. @Michael_Callen is open minded and trying to make sense of things. I’m glad he has supported PS, even though we do not see eye to eye on evolution.
His words, not mine. I would like to help him learn, but I have to figure out how.
Good point. I missed that, so sorry.
You point to a single genetic marker on that beautiful exhibit … but I think you missed the point of the dots… I am tremendously limited by my android, but I will try to interpret those markers for you, since I can’t re-send the image without leaving the building (my employer blocks all To and From non-company androids):
First: These markers are cumulative, or in other words, the 10 markers hovering over South America are PRESUMED to those held by the original population living in South America; they are common to all the subsequent branches. This is how they established a pattern of descent [It is also how CSI technicians determine which DNA samples of vitcims and “perps”, by starting with the common factors, and then singling differences out.]
The Didelphimorphia branch has 5 markers unique to its lineage, with one more distinct marker associated with the branch that leads to sub-branch Didelphis & Metachirus.
2 markers are shared between the root stock and all the other subsequent branches, with 3 unique markers for the Paucituberculata branch. 13 more markers are shared between the root stock and the Microbiotheria branch, and the rest of the branches associated with Australia (in black).
4 more markers are shared between the root stock and the Australian branches, with 1 additional marker shared between the 3 related branches I was interested in. 3 more markers are common to all the sub-branching Dasyuromorphia (Carnivore), and 4 unique markers are common to the cousin branch of Peramelmorphia (omnivorous Bandycoot type phenotypes); no markers unique to the cousin branch of Notoryctemorphia (the vegetarian moles).
3 more markers are shared between the root stock and all the Diprotodontia [2 Baby Teeth?], which has multiple sub-branches of “Kangaroo” style hoppers!
No, he knows perfectly well what the dots mean. Only one of the dots supports the group you’re interested in. Markers (retroposon insertions) that happened on earlier branches have nothing to say about that group, though they have something to say about more inclusive groups. Consider the possibility that evolutionary biologists don’t need your explanations of evolutionary biology, but that you need theirs.
I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out, especially on your phone, but as John says, I do in fact know how to interpret characters on a phylogenetic tree, what with me having a Master’s degree in Evolutionary Biology and all.
The issue is that you want to use the paper to specifically evidence the radiation of the Notoryctemorphia, Dasyuromorphia, and Peramelemorphia (NDP). In particular, you want to establish that these 3 clades shared a mutual common ancestor that no other clades share (i.e. that these 3 clades are most closely related to each other). In that regard, only synapomorphies of that NDP clade are relevant - in this case, the single retroposon.
You write “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.”
Actually, that makes for a splendid idea. I wonder if anyone has ever
done research on how much an article can influence Pro-Evolution and
Pro-Creation audiences!!! There might be only small differences …
but even a small percentage difference with T score of 5% says there’s
something going on.
But John, as for challenging me on hostility, you just got through
telling me all articles are useless, and yet you invoke Dr. Joshua’s
name . . . the man who hopes to make a difference with both
Creationists and Evolutionists by the articles he writes. You are
basically saying Joshua is wasting his time producing his papers.
Compare that to my sin: I don’t want to talk about something that you
have already confessed you will find to be a great waste of time.
Where’s the “up” side for me? How’s this supposed to be something I
would want to do?
Like I said to one of the moderators, you don’t seem to have your
heart in this project.
Not precisely. All phylogenetic analyses. And that’s based on my considerable experience in exposing creationists to phylogenetic analyses. What is your opinion based on?
While that isn’t what I said, I think that is likely also true. But I don’t have much experience with the effect of that sort of paper.
It’s a pity you won’t discuss the subject. But I don’t think you should blame me for that.
@Michael_Callen, while I have you here, did you look at the study that started all this? Did you previously doubt that, say, all marsupials are related by common descent and if so did that paper convince you that they are indeed?
No, I didn’t look and I didn’t care. I only thought that George was trying to agree with you by saying that the study was interesting. But it seemed that you would have none of it, so I stopped trying.
It’s very disappointing that you don’t care. You would make a test case for the matter we were arguing about. Anyway, why would someone not care about something so interesting as phylogeny?
man… you gotta give that an article a second look… you really do.
It’s not ONE marker… cumulatively it’s DOZENS. It’s the pattern of
the markers… Look at Table 1. You have to click on it to see the
image. It has 21 species laid out on the horizontal axis, and it has
53 markers laid out on its vertical axis.
Quoted from the article:
Data from Figure 2, Phylogenetic tree of marsupials derived from
retroposon data. The tree topoogy is based ona presence/absence of
retroposon matrix (Table 1) implemented in a heuristic parsimony
analysis (Figure S3). The names of the seven marsupial orders aer
shown in red, and the icons are representive of each of the orders:
Didelphimorphia, Virginia opossum; Paucituberculata, shrew opossum;
Microbiotheria, monito del monte; Notoryctemorphia, marsupial mole;
Dasyuromorphia, Tasmanian devil; Peramelemorphia, bilby;
Diprotodontia, kangaroo. Phylogenetically informative retroposon
insertions are shown as circles. Gray lines denote South American
species distribution, and black lines Australasian marsupials. The
cohort Australidelphia is indicated as well as the new name proposed
for the four “true” Australasian orders (Euaustralidelphia).
Table 1. Presence-absence table of the marsupial markers.
By looking for the abbreviation De, we find the column
relevant to the Dasyurus geoffroii; below is the raw data
for the 53 markers.
08a = +
14a = +
14b = +
20a = –
20b = +
26a = ?
26b = ?
38a = –
38b = +
57a = +
57b = –
85a = +
89a = ?
89b = ?
90a = +
93a = +
93b = –
94a = –
95a = +
95b = –
95c = +
96a = ?
107a = +
108a = +
108b = +
122a = –
125a = +
126a = ?
129a = ?
129b = ?
129c = ?
129d = ?
135a = +
139a = –
139b = +
142a = ?
142b = ?
144a = +
144b = +
155a = +
162a = +
168a = ?
169a = +
172a = –
172b = –
172c = +
172d = +
172e = +
182a = –
182b = +
194a = –
205a = +
206a = ?
See my previous comment (#68).
Perhaps you are missing the experience of actually debating with creationists.
Again, you should stop lecturing evolutionary biologists on what evolutionary biology papers say. The specific group you were talking about, the one that so interests you, is supported by one, count it, one retroposon insertion. Other insertions, sometimes many of them, support other marsupial groups on that tree, but none of those insertions is relevant to the one group you’re talking about. What they tell you is that your favorite group belongs to a clade of Australian marsupials (which is actually the interesting result of the paper), to a clade that includes one South American marsupial, and to the clade of all marsupials. Still irrelevant to that particular group. Stop before you hurt yourself.
This is funny… I was so confused by the dialog between you, George and Evograd, that I thought you were agreeing and couldn’t see it. In fact, I still don’t understand the conversation that you are having, let alone the article. So I’m certain that I would not make a good test case for anything related to the article.
I care about phylogeny, though, very much. Just in secret…
No problem. I’m equally confused by most of what you write. I have, for example, no idea what you were saying right there.
Now what I was trying to do was figure out why George thinks the paper in question would convince a creationist of evolution. Since you (I think) are a creationist, it would be a useful experiment for you to read the paper and see if it convinces you of evolution. If you are unable to understand the paper, I could help you; just ask questions.
Naw… that isnt it.
I’ve discussing evolution with some of the wildest creation zealots for some 2 years now… and for 10 straight years when i was in college!
Thar was a comment sent to me that didnt use the quote wizard tool… and so i had no idea to what he was objecting. It wasnt until the next day that i was alerted to the post to which that comment referred !