Over 20 pages later, we still seem fixated on the statistical study of a computer model. I offered a detailed rebuttal to the abstract, but my points were ignored, and the conclusions of the authors were just reasserted.
So, i will repeat myself, and show that this 'study' is NOT 'proof of evolution!', as some seem to believe. I will also include additional points, for the True Believers to ignore.
My earlier ignored rebuttal:
Here's the
LINK..
"
We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species."
This is a statistical study, not a laboratory experiment. But I'll look at the claims, and offer my analysis.
The summary in the abstract is the conclusion of the writers, in this computer model. Is it compelled by the evidence? That's for the reader to judge.
From the abstract:
While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism.
1. The prejudicial bias is clearly stated in the opening paragraph. Common Descent is assumed as 'settled science!'
2. 'Statistical methods', have received criticism, for the very reason mentioned, and this statistical analysis is no different. "..
take sequence similarity as evidence for common ancestry while ignoring other potential biological causes of similarity.."
3. 'Sequence similarity' (looks like!) , is a subjective, argument of plausibility. Because of similarity of design, materials, and construction, a conclusion of 'common descent!', is asserted. This is no different than drawing a phylogenetic tree and declaring it as evidence.
So right off, the premise is based on an assumption of common descent. The deck is stacked to deliver the desired results, which is what you get in a computer model.
The conclusion and belief in common descent is asserted often, but the 'evidence' is vague, and only alluded to. Most people seem to be dazzled by their conclusions and forceful assertions, not any empirical evidence.
The most compelling among these objections was that the results of the tests are a trivial consequence of significant similarity among the sequences.
This criticism of another statistical analysis applies equally to this one. How is 'similarity!' of construction or design an indication of common ancestry?
All that is being done here, is taking the building blocks of life.. ALL LIFE.. amino acids, etc, and declaring this lowest common denominator as 'proof of evolution!' This was the earliest argument from Darwin.. similarity of appearance (looks like!) morphology, and arbitrary taxonomic classifications make it seem plausible.
But this is not evidence. It is speculation. It is a belief, repeated as a plausibility until it is accepted as 'settled science'.
..the community remains without a thoroughly convincing statistical method to demonstrate universal CA, whether among all domains of life or for more specific sets of species.
And i see nothing in this study to refute this observation of statistical analysis. Assumptions are made, between chimp and humans, the same as the previous computer models.
The data from the earlier, criticized study appears to be based on:
..
used as evidence the highly unlikely topological agreement among the most-parsimonious trees for five separate proteins sampled from the same taxa..
So there were 5 seperate proteins, analyzed for similarity, then plugged into a computer model to calculate the odds of this happening, if you assume common descent.
This computer model is based on another study of primates.. animals assumed to be descended from a common ancestor.
A recent publication (Perelman et al. 2011) contains a molecular phylogeny of primates created using 54 nuclear genes and 191 taxa including 186 primate taxa from an alignment of 34,941 base pairs that the authors reduced from a larger alignment after discarding sites with great alignment uncertainty. Sequence data included roughly equal amounts of coding and noncoding sites, mostly from autosomal regions of the genomes, but with a few thousand sites from both X and Y chromosomes. No taxon was sampled for all 54 genes (humans are the most sampled with 53 genes) and many taxa have long stretches of missing data.
Everything is based on the ASSUMPTION of common descent. The cherry picked samples, the molecular structures, assumed to be related, then coming up with the 'odds', that this is what happened.
..it becomes reasonable to ask the specific question of how strongly molecular sequence data support the inference that the human species shares CA with other primates.
..reasonable, indeed. It is even more reasonable to ask how any statistical or visual 'similarity!' can infer common descent..
That is the crux of this study. It is a computer model, using sampled proteins from chimps and humans, and comparing their structure. Descendancy is assumed, and a calculation is contrived to arrive at a number..
The significance of this number can only be described as 'a
trivial consequence of similarity'.
Hopefully, the grant money was good, and the conclusions seem to impress those who already believe strongly in common descent, but i see no evidence of ancestry, other than the age old argument of similarity. Putting a statistical number, from a human programmed computer model, is not a compelling scientific study, to support common descent.
One poster's reasserted belief in the conclusions.. with no arguments, evidence, or rebuttals of my points:
And that's the fundamental error in your response. The authors did not assume common descent, they tested between two scenarios--common descent or separate ancestry--to see which best explains the data.
Do you understand that very simple point? They did not assume common descent, they tested for it.
My call for an address of my analysis, to the poster who requested it. I still have not heard from Poly, regarding his/her request of my analysis:
How did you find this computer model on statistics compelling evidence for common descent? Several people seemed to think it 'proved evolution!' Was my rebuttal off base? Were my points flawed?
If this study is offered here as 'evidence for common descent', then the claims, data, and conclusions can and should be examined, as objectively as possible. I've offered a rebuttal to this 'evidence', but i see no response. Was it a bluff? A proxy argument, with no intent to follow up?
I'm doing my bit, in examining the offered evidence, even though it was just a link, that most do not understand, it seems. My rebuttal stands, unaddressed and unrefuted. So is this 'link' no longer compelling scientific evidence for common descent?
Another reassertion of the conclusion, with no scrutiny of the data and methods, and no references to any of my rebuttals:
Because it specifically tested separate ancestry against common ancestry, and the results were....
"Acceptance of SA means believing a chance occurrence less likely than correctly identifying an atom from the universe 32 times in succession has occurred, which is truly overwhelming evidence against SA in favor of CA among primate families."
Yes, very much so. I pointed that out earlier and you appear to have ignored it.
So, i will list some specific points, about this 'study', since it has such significance to some of the posters, here:
1. This is a statistical computer model, attempting to lay 'odds' on universal common ancestry (UCA, or just CA).
2. They used sequenced data from another study to plug into their model. There were no experiments, no lab coats, no microscopes. These were computer nerds, manipulating data for their own purposes.
3. The 'criticisms' from peer reviewed responses from earlier studies, that they referred to, were just as appropriate for this study. Merely asserting, 'Ours was different!' 'We proved evolution!', does not change anything.
4. No peer reviews for this obscure study were quoted, just the self aggrandizing conclusions of the authors.
5. If this study was as significant as some believe, it would be heralded, along with fierce scrutiny over their methods and data.
6. My review examined the methodology, assumptions, and goals of the study, and is the closest to a peer review that has been produced.
7. The scientific community does not accept horn tooting conclusions as 'evidence!' The obscurity of this study shows the impact it has had in the actual fields of science.
8. That unscientific minded Believers cling to the conclusions of this obscure study, with NO CRITICAL EXAMINATION of the methodology, data, and conclusions, exposes them as bobbleheads, desperate to prop up their shaky belief system.
9. This is NOT a sound, scientifically based study, but a contrived, presupposed, propaganda piece, to fool the gullible. Techno babble and assertions mask the actual scientific methodology involved, but any critically thinking person can see through it. That is it's only success.. otherwise, nobody would have ever heard of this 'study'. It is not even weak evidence for CA. The statistical odds.. the number arrived at by juggling the data, is as i noted in my earlier analysis:
The significance of this number can only be described as 'a
trivial consequence of similarity'.
10. Those who believe strongly in UCA, will no doubt find confirmation for their bias. Those looking for objective evidence will be sorely disappointed.
11. The complete lack of objective, empirical data, facts, and evidence in this study (and many others), exposes the desperation of the True Believers, suspending critical thinking, scrutiny, and skepticism for a leap into the abyss of Trusting Faith.
12. The authors 'sound really smart!', and are given a pass, trusting in their Authority, or at least sincerety, instead of using sound principles of scientific methodology.
13. Assertions and Authority Worship are the major 'defenses' for this insignificant, obscure, and pointless abstract. It only impresses those predisposed to Believe.
14. The adulation given to this 'study', and others like it, show the thorough Indoctrination among progressive bobbleheads, who can only nod in unanimous approval and adoration for their High Priests of anti-science.
From the study and my rebuttal:
"..it becomes reasonable to ask the specific question of how strongly molecular sequence data support the inference that the human species shares CA with other primates."
..reasonable, indeed. It is even more reasonable to ask how any statistical or visual 'similarity!' can infer common descent..
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. ~Benjamin Disraeli