“Sealioning”, as defined by Wikipedia, explicitly includes “feigning ignorance of the subject matter”, so when, after having had the relationship between nested hierarchies and evolution explained to them on numerous past occasions, they make the bald (and thus hypocritical) assertion that the statement that “descent is one mechanism by which nested hierarchies are produced” is a “bald assertion”, all that is necessary to do is to point and laugh.
Likewise, when they make they carefully omit the reasoning:
… to claim that the statement “No, it’s not” is likewise a “bald assertion”.
This is what makes engaging with sealions so pointless. It is far better to observe them from a distance.
Point and laugh until Bill shows his math, point and laugh until the heat-death of the universe, point and laugh simpliciter – I’m not seeing the difference.
Bill should be well aware, because I’ve pointed it out to him many times, that Common Descent is a prediction of evolution. The nested hierarchy we observe is evidence that supports that prediction.
I tend to agree it is pointless to argue with anyone who persists in misrepresenting the basis of the argument.
Somehow Meerkat was more fun. What ever happened to them, did they get nasty and suspended? I remember humiliating them on their pretenses of a grasp of quantum physics, and it was around just after that, that I last heard of them. They were good times, though.
Hi Dan
The prediction is not based on a tested model but on an inference made by Darwin which we know was before the genetic data we have today was available.
Do you think that the data today supports this prediction given we cannot reconcile the genetic differences with population genetic models?
Unsafe or not, something very similar to Darwin’s ‘method of arguing’ occupies a prominent role in many contemporary accounts of scientific method, where it is usually called ‘inference to the best explanation’ (IBE). The phrase ‘inference to the best explanation’ was introduced by Harman (1965), but the idea is old; C. S. Peirce’s notion of ‘abduction’ is an obvious precursor, as is the Cartesian ‘method of hypothesis’ which Newton and his followers repudiated.
So, in other words… There was a model[1]… whence a prediction about experimental data was rendered[2]… before the data was gathered[3]… and recognized as matching the prediction[4].
And in your opinion this is a failure of scientific methodology.
You have actually zero clue what you are saying, do you? You are literally asking “Given that we cannot reconcile the data today with the prediction, do you think that the data today supports the prediction?” It’s not even begging the question, it’s a kind of… “assuming I’m right, do you think I’m wrong?” kind of gibberish.
Why on earth should anybody be just “given” that? You have presented no argument to support that there is any sort of problem, let alone made an attempt to mathematically quantify this alleged discrepancy or what would pass for a resolution. It’s not “given”, thank you very much. Not until you do the maths needed to justify anybody “giving” this to you.
Hey, by the way, given that the Earth is, as a matter of fact, flat, do you think that the data today supports its globular shape?
selection pressures as drivers of large scale trait alterations and diversifications in populations ↩︎
that the current diversity of life forms traces back to far fewer variants in the distant past, possibly even a single one ↩︎
information about what specific traits and trait variants are present within the substance that is known to carry heritable traits between generations ↩︎
forming a hierarchical tree, exactly like what family trees look like, and matching almost perfectly with the trees constructed from other analyses, such as those of the traits themselves, like morphology, or biochemical minutia ↩︎
No it is simply a problem with the single origin of life claim. In order to support this you need to eventually show reproductive connection between all animals on earth. A population genetics model is the current tool to show how changes become fixed in a population. You need this to show how the differences occurred.
Do you think it is intuitive to people that a blue whale is genetically related to a blade of grass?
I agree models are tested against predictions however the predictions have a confidence factor usually a minimum of 95% confidence against the null hypothesis. .
If you are saying the genetic data fits Into a nested hierarchy you need a criteria to determine at what point the test fails.
Some of the genetic results show inconsistency in the nested hierarchy.
Deer who are closely related mammals have very different chromosome counts. Genes in Zebra Fish exist in humans and are void in mice and chickens. Phylogenetic trees are not always consistent among different genes/proteins.
The problem with the nested hierarchy claim as a prediction is there is no criteria in which the claim fails other than if the data looks completely random. If your criteria includes methodological naturalism this claim is easier but in certain cases like deer chromosomes the data looks much closer to random than a nested pattern among all vertebrates.
Remember when you were asking for numbers to quantify the success of a non-quantitative prediction? How far shy of always is this “not always” you speak of? Beyond 5%? Beyond 1%? By what comparison algorithm, specifically, and ignoring which of its weaknesses? Come on, let’s see some statistics here! How often is it that even a completely naive sequence comparison yields inconsistent hierarchies? Do they ever group deer as more closely related to zebra fish by some protein than either are to mice? Or are we, by any chance, talking about minutia, like clarifying whether some breed is a third or fourth grade cousin of another?
Does this asinine not-always criterion apply more generally, to other predictions of scientific theories? Cycles of planets around the sun are less than perfectly consistent between one year and the next, let alone their consistency with numerical predictions. Perchance we ought to re-think gravitational theories, too, wouldn’t you agree? Let’s hear your creationist alternative to those, I say.
The nested hierarchies aren’t the claim. Common ancestry is. And yes, there are conceivable ways by which experimental data can fail to match predictions of that hypothesis, including predictions about the hierarchical structure of genes. Your lack of imagination and inability to perform basic logical operations does little to eliminate them.
Not true. There many examples where the prediction is confirmed by basic observation and description (ie: “The reaction happened”). I’m all for statistics where they are appropriate, but that’s not the only way to do business.
Wrong. You need to determine if some other criteria is better.
AND exceptions are expected for reasons such as horizontal gene transfer and deletions. To my understanding, these exceptions occur more-or-less at random, which is to be expected for mutations and HGT. Intelligent Design offers no predictions or expectations for these exceptions. Did The Designer create unique genes for Zebra fish and humans, or is it the chickens that are more special? The Designer appears to be acting in a more-or-less random manner - JUST LIKE EVOLUTION.
BINGO! This is exactly where some clever scientist might step in with a new theory that explains some of that randomness. They might seek the assistance of a statistician to compare models (it’s a good job too!). All you need is an alternative model and the appropriate data and you get something like this:
The failing here is not due to evolutionary theory - the failure is on Intelligent Design not providing alternatives to be tested.
ID has failed, Bill, it’s as simple as that. It was never more than a sham. For all the hype about how it is a “competing theory” to evolution, it took YEARS before anyone in ID ever got around to publishing anything that might be considered as an alternative hypothesis (Ewert 2016).
There could be , should be, many more papers like Ewert’s, making use of phylogenic data to test ID hypotheses. The reason for this lack seems obvious: ID “researchers” have never had the intention of putting their ideas to a real test (Winston gets an “A” for effort.).
Hi Dan
The alternative model I am suggesting is separate points of origin vs a single point of origin. This better explains the data that does not follow the reproductive patterns.
Failed in what way? .Do you really think the idea of design in nature and natural theology is going away?
I like Ewert’s work also and it supports the idea of multiple points of origin.
