The point I would like to make is that the very existence of such diagrams
is evidence for evolution. That is, the fact that it is possible to make
such diagrams is consistent with the idea of molecular evolution, and would
be a spectacularly implausible coincidence in the absence of evolution.
<cutting>
We can very precisely quantify "how far back" by counting the number of
mutations in the DNA; less precisely that corresponds to _time_ back in
history.
So I presume, then, that some assumption has to be made as to a "mutation
versus time" ratio? Do you know how that has been determined? And a
mutation is identified in what manner? I'm just trying to understand the
process here. The tree diagrams seem to me to be based on the assumption of
what some refer to as macroevolution; ie, there is a common ancestor, so
genetic "distance" equates to the passage of time, therefore if we diagram
the genetic distance it is also a diagram of speciation over time. My
question, then, is: What if that basic assumption is not correct? What if
the genetic distancing is NOT related solely to time? What if some of it
is, but some of it reflects organisms that were NOT derived from a single
ancestor? How would that impact what we observe? I want to be careful not
to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You wrote:
We have data on thousands of species. That makes well over 100 million
triangles you can check. I encourage you to check them. Check as many as
you like.
I interpret these observations as follows: At the top level, either
h1a) The underlying physical process is ultrametric, or
h1b) it is not; the data just looks ultrametric by accident.
=======================================================================
Or h1c) We produced the structure ourselves by the assumptions that we made?
<cutting>
I've never seen a plausible alternative hypothesis. (I don't count
unscientific theories such as unfalsifiable conspiracy theories.)
=======================================================================
That's fine; I'm inclined to agree that this is the best scientific
explanation we have for what we see, I'm simply concerned about
categorically stating that no other possibility exists (which is the general
implication). I'm concerned that in an attempt to understand, we may have
IMPOSED an order on nature that is an illusion, if only in part. My problem
is that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the whole range of
genetics, mathematics, mutation mechanics, etc to truly understand the whole
picture in order to make an evaluation of the underlying assumptions and
their impact on the structure that has been created. Individuals are
unlikely to be expert in multiple fields.
While I, and others, agree that organisms will change over time and that
related species will evolve, I find it a large leap to assert that all
organisms have a common ancestor or that all life derived from nonliving
material. The justification(s) for these assertions seem to me to start
with the assumption itself, and that makes the justifications questionable
in my mind. Would a broad base set of coexisting and evolving organisms
remote in time also generate what we observe? If not, why not?
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l