So, picking up on main vein of this thread, and going back to post #121.
Still in section 2 of 7 of the
material, with this section referring to Patterns.
Where to start, where to start?
How about with idea that "observable" is not mentioned anywhere in this quote I got from the material. Such that "branching pattern of evolutionary relationships" isn't something I believe is observed, but instead is model for understanding. Or as put later is reconstructed and made to represent a family tree (model).
Another point, somewhat minor, though is line with critical thinking is the statement above with words "split" and "paths diverge." To me, that is tautology. And it is actually in relation to what I take to be a key point, but is ultimately under explaining the point. Yeah, I would expect things that split, to also diverge.
The language regarding "by studying characteristics and evidence" is really only telling me at this point that a model is made, but not something that is explained.
I will give credit to phylogeny being defined (as: evolutionary relationships among organisms). Some of these jargon type terms don't get defined, and this one did. I like that. I will also say 'family tree' works better for me, but if someone from this point on needs to use phylogeny to make whatever point they need to make, I think I'll be fine. Btw, nowhere in phylogeny definition does the word "observe" appear.
Finally (on this first part), the "produces a pattern of relationships" is something I find most intriguing, given how I understand Intelligent Design. I'm not the ID'er in the room saying something over yonder in the sky is making that design. Instead I am the one saying it is us. We are the intelligent designers, and this "producing a pattern of relationships" is not something I understand as 'readily observable.' But I reserve this as my "final" point, even while it was first thing I read into the above paragraph, because science is usually pretty good about putting that front and center. I will just note that my version of ID is not what Creationists (that I'm familiar with) are talking about, and is not something I've thought through extensively, even while I do more or less believe it. I really think it works that way (ID). But I'll just say that this is not something I'll get into much in this thread. If you who are reading this disagree with all things ID, I will just ask you to make it abundantly clear to yourself that I am not old school Creationist. Failure to acknowledge that in subsequent posts may lead me to ignore straw man type claims.
Pretty much everything after "we can zoom" is gobblety-gook to me right now. Sorry if that causes anyone offense. Maybe someday I'll change my mind on that. And to hopefully be a bit more clear / less offensive, I do think for sake of discussion that the 3 domains are something of importance. I can't say I agree with this, or have observed this, yadda yadda yadda, but for sake of understanding the material, I'll focus on these 3 as 'fairly significant.'
Also just want to draw attention to my understanding that phylogenetic is hypothesis / illustration of an idea, that all reproductive forms are related.
Is it fair to say that the hypothesis that is phylogeny (on whole) is taxonomy? And that while it has direct implications on TOE, it is not (as hypothesis) necessarily accepted as part of core theory?
I acknowledge that phylogeny is supported by many lines of evidence, and that it is not flawless, but also just wish to say my acknowledgement doesn't equal agreement. Again, so far "observation" is not being presented in material, and if I did agree, I'm not sure what I would be agreeing to other than people like to classify and name things and here are the names we've come up with so far.
Will get into Phylogenies section next post.
