Ancient DNA from elephant bird eggshells

[John Harshman]

A new paper in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution reminds me of one of
the more interesting recent results (preceding this paper, which
confirms it), that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and
elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317300192?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email

[Ray Martinez]

Yep, the implication being that no objective falsification criteria exists.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Bet you didn't follow the link.

[Ray Martinez]

Behind the $39.95 paywall? No I didn't.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Did you read even the abstract? On what basis are you claiming "no
objective falsification criteria"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:02:55 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

The same as always; it disagrees with his beliefs.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ray Martinez]

Of course I read the abstract, it's the only free thing, and it's short.

"that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?" (J.H.).

Intuition says kiwis and elephant birds cannot be sister taxa; hence what I said about falsification. And for you to admit evolution can be odd also supports what I said about falsification.

Perhaps you could take a minute and explain to the uninitiated how morphological evolution accomplished the feat without one or more macro-mutations?

Ray

[RSNorman]

Small kiwis may be around 1 kg mass while elephant birds perhaps 500
kg, a factor of 500. The paper indicates that while the kiwis are,
indeed, the "closest" ratites to elephant birds, the separation
occured some 50+ million years ago.

If the birds reproduced annually that would be 50 million generations.
If you start with a kiwi-size bird 50 million years ago and have it
increase by a factor of 0.000012% each generation, that would do the
job. It really is not terribly hard for evolution to change the size
of an organism a hundred fold or more over millions of years.

[John Harshman]

Don't see how. What do objective falsification criteria have to do with
your intuition? Or mine, for that matter? All this says is that
intuition is a poor guide to truth.

> Perhaps you could take a minute and explain to the uninitiated how
> morphological evolution accomplished the feat without one or more
> macro-mutations?

Sure. Gradually. Populations contain allelic variation that affects the
sizes of individuals, as perhaps you may have observed within the human
population. Selection acting on this variation can, over time, change
the mean sizes of individuals within the population.

[Ray Martinez]

If a large object evolving from a small object or small object evolving from a large object doesn't depict falsification, then what does?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

When a small object and very large object are shown closely related then the molecular and morphological cannot possibly have any correspondence? If the two specimens are sister taxa THEN some line of evolutionary evidence has suffered genuine falsification.

> > Perhaps you could take a minute and explain to the uninitiated how
> > morphological evolution accomplished the feat without one or more
> > macro-mutations?
>
> Sure. Gradually. Populations contain allelic variation that affects the
> sizes of individuals, as perhaps you may have observed within the human
> population. Selection acting on this variation can, over time, change
> the mean sizes of individuals within the population.

But we aren't talking about variation within species; rather, evolution occurring inter-species between kiwis and elephant birds. Freaking ridiculous! You expressed a similar sentiment when you wrote "Ain't evolution odd?"

Using this particular slice of alleged sister taxa, based on molecular phylogeny, the morphological pathways cannot possibly agree or align harmoniously. Something has to give.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 3:04:58 PM UTC-8, RSNorman wrote:

50 million years between the two and "sister taxa" is an accurate statement?

Ray

[John Harshman]

That makes no sense. First, they aren't all that closely related;
they're separated by many millions of years. Second, can't size vary
even within populations?

>>> Perhaps you could take a minute and explain to the uninitiated how
>>> morphological evolution accomplished the feat without one or more
>>> macro-mutations?
>>
>> Sure. Gradually. Populations contain allelic variation that affects the
>> sizes of individuals, as perhaps you may have observed within the human
>> population. Selection acting on this variation can, over time, change
>> the mean sizes of individuals within the population.
>
> But we aren't talking about variation within species; rather,
> evolution occurring inter-species between kiwis and elephant birds.
> Freaking ridiculous! You expressed a similar sentiment when you wrote
> "Ain't evolution odd?"

No, not similar at all. Do you understand that variation between species
arises due to variation within species? Separated populations diverge
because of that variation.

> Using this particular slice of alleged sister taxa, based on
> molecular phylogeny, the morphological pathways cannot possibly agree
> or align harmoniously. Something has to give.

You use a lot of words I know, but they don't add up to a coherent
point. I think it's because you have not the slightest idea what you're
talking about. Morphological pathways...align harmoniously? What?

[Ray Martinez]

How did the large morph into the small or the small morph into the large? Whatever the answer the same cannot possibly agree with molecular phylogeny.

Ray

[John Harshman]

In what way would it disagree with molecular phylogeny, which has
nothing to say about morphological change (except of course for the
small bits that actually caused the change, which probably weren't sampled)?

How? Selection of small variations within separate populations, the way
evolution usually works.

You are trying to create a conflict here, but only you can see it. And
that's because you're hallucinating on the green screen of your ignorance.

[Ray Martinez]

Wouldn't the standard "you don't understand evolutionary theory" be a more rational and polite response?

Ray

[John Harshman]

But not as colorful. But yes, you don't understand much of anything.

[Ray Martinez]

Is Alan Kleinman guilty of the same?

> And
> that's because you're hallucinating on the green screen of your ignorance.

I suppose the above criticism wouldn't apply to Alan because after all he does accept RMNS to exist and operate, so the punch seen above would never be thrown.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You wrote:

"that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and
elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?"

Were you not acknowledging the unexpected?

Before the rise of genetics, evolution was based solely on morphology. After the rise, evolution or common descent based on the molecular. That said, the latter MUST correct the mistakes of the former, right? So the false conclusions made, by the former, as to the line of descent, based on the truth of the latter are actually counter-intuitive? Hence your quotation pasted above.

Prior to circa 1930, kiwis and elephant birds were not "sister taxa." So molecular studies of today correct the morphological studies of yesterday.

Ray

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:28:07 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

I have no idea what you might mean by this. Evolution of body size to
produce very large changes over millions of generations is something
readily possible by evolutionary processes. Whether a small object
gets large or a large object gets smaller depends on the ecological
details of the particular situation; sometimes one is advantageous,
sometimes the other.

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:00:07 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

Yes. It depends on your understanding of two terms:
50 million years
sister taxa

[Ray Martinez]

Yeah, its hard to fathom the closeness that the concept of "sisters" conveys to be consistent with 50 million years apart.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Andromeda is our "sister galaxy"
(https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2006-19) Yet it is 2.5 million light
years away from us. "Sister" simply means "closer/nearer than any other
relative", which depending on the field can still be quite far away
>
> Ray
>

[John Harshman]

I have no idea why you're trying to bring him into it. His problems are
not at all like yours.

>> And
>> that's because you're hallucinating on the green screen of your ignorance.
>
> I suppose the above criticism wouldn't apply to Alan because after
> all he does accept RMNS to exist and operate, so the punch seen above
> would never be thrown.

Suppose all you like.

[John Harshman]

No, not in the way you seem to imagine. In biology we expect the unexpected.

> Before the rise of genetics, evolution was based solely on
> morphology. After the rise, evolution or common descent based on the
> molecular. That said, the latter MUST correct the mistakes of the
> former, right? So the false conclusions made, by the former, as to
> the line of descent, based on the truth of the latter are actually
> counter-intuitive? Hence your quotation pasted above.

No, this is word salad. Nobody ever claimed that two species must be
related because they're both small, or both large.

> Prior to circa 1930, kiwis and elephant birds were not "sister taxa."
> So molecular studies of today correct the morphological studies of
> yesterday.

Prior to circa 2012, nobody had any real idea what elephant birds were.
Nothing to correct, really. I don't know what 1930 has to do with anything.

[Richard Clayton]

On 11-Jan-17 17:20, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 4:04:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 1/10/17 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:39:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/17 1:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> A new paper in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution reminds me of one of
>>>>>> the more interesting recent results (preceding this paper, which
>>>>>> confirms it), that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and
>>>>>> elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317300192?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, the implication being that no objective falsification criteria exists.
>>>>
>>>> Bet you didn't follow the link.
>>>
>>> Behind the $39.95 paywall? No I didn't.
>>
>> Did you read even the abstract? On what basis are you claiming "no
>> objective falsification criteria"?
>
> Of course I read the abstract, it's the only free thing, and it's short.
>
> "that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?" (J.H.).
>
> Intuition says kiwis and elephant birds cannot be sister taxa; hence what I said about falsification.

This is a decidedly odd argument. Are you saying that intuition is a
more reliable tool for evaluating reality than the scientific method?

[the rest snipped]

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 4:29:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 11-Jan-17 17:20, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 4:04:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 1/10/17 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:39:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 1/10/17 1:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> A new paper in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution reminds me of one of
> >>>>>> the more interesting recent results (preceding this paper, which
> >>>>>> confirms it), that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and
> >>>>>> elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317300192?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yep, the implication being that no objective falsification criteria exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bet you didn't follow the link.
> >>>
> >>> Behind the $39.95 paywall? No I didn't.
> >>
> >> Did you read even the abstract? On what basis are you claiming "no
> >> objective falsification criteria"?
> >
> > Of course I read the abstract, it's the only free thing, and it's short.
> >
> > "that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?" (J.H.).
> >
> > Intuition says kiwis and elephant birds cannot be sister taxa; hence what I said about falsification.
>
> This is a decidedly odd argument. Are you saying that intuition is a
> more reliable tool for evaluating reality than the scientific method?
>

So the sister taxa at issue is counter-intuitive?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Why did you write: "Ain't evolution odd?"?

Answer: Because the claim of fact is counter-intuitive.

Ray

[Richard Clayton]

That isn't an answer to the question I asked. Your evasion is noted, but
not at all surprising.

[John Harshman]

Yes. And in biology we expect many counter-intuitive events. Intuition,
and your intuition especially, is not a good guide to reality.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:14:50 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Try answering the question.

[Ray Martinez]

Agreed.

>
> And in biology we expect many counter-intuitive events. Intuition,
> and your intuition especially, is not a good guide to reality.

So an unguided material process produced the human brain to perceive natural reality contrary to how it actually is?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The answer: a contradiction exists. Why is that? Why are intuition and the naturalistic scientific method routinely at odds?

I would say because some thing is wrong with the naturalistic scientific method.

Ray

[jillery]

Of course you would. But your answer implies you think the human mind
is infallible, that it should perfectly intuit reality. Said
implication is contradictory, since you routinely berate other minds
for their flaws.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Richard Clayton]

And there's your problem — or one of them, anyway. Human intuition is
not an infallible guide to reality. It's counter-intuitive that a heavy
rock falls just as fast as a light rock, but it's still *true.*

[Burkhard]

For the same reason that you find a lot of sick people in a hospital.
The reason we had to develop science, eventually, was the increasing
realization that unguided and undisciplined intuition is often wrong,
and also of limited explanatory value (list of unconnected observations
rather than theories)

So the scientific method was build to overcome the known limitations of
unguided observations and intuitions by turning them into a rigorous
method where merely subjective feeling ("intuit") is replaced by
objective checks.

[John Harshman]

The human brain, as all things produced by natural selection, is good
enough, not perfect. This is easily seen by the existence of optical
illusions, cases in which your unconscious intuition about visual input
is wrong. Your brain uses lots of heuristics, shortcuts that work most
of the time but fail spectacularly at others. Scientific practice is one
way to avoid falling into such traps.

[RonO]

On 1/10/2017 2:08 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> A new paper in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution reminds me of one of
> the more interesting recent results (preceding this paper, which
> confirms it), that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and
> elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317300192?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email
>
>

Just imagine what it would be like if the subject could be discussed
rationally. Why aren't any IDiots interested in the evolution of
ratites? This paper is suggesting that all the ratites got to where
ever they are by flying and a lot of them independently evolved their
flightless extant relatives. The Kiwi is in New Zealand and the
Elephant bird is in Madagascar. My guess is that their ancestors shared
some common genetic variation that allowed them to follow the
evolutionary path most of them went down. They are sister taxa, but
their ancestors flew to those islands over 50 million years ago. Not
only that, but the kiwi is thought to have evolved into a large
flighless bird and then decrease in size while retaining its large egg
size. So the prediction is that if we study enough ratites we will
discover the genetic basis for their shared evolutionary canalization.
Why did most of them except examples like the Tinamou gave up flight and
evolve similar modes of locomotion when their ancestors could fly.

Evolution is odd. Why did the designer do it that way? What is the
IDiot prediction?

Ron Okimoto