The article states in part "... various biological species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > It just happens to be the best explanation > of the observations, so far.
> I would have used 'assumed' here,
> Jan
No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I think known is correct. \/\/\/\/ A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > I have changed the word "believed" to "known." > Well, if it's on the internet it must be true.
No.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > of the observations, so far.
> > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > Jan
> No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > think known is correct. > \/\/\/\/ > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
Try:
"A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities that have a common ancestor."
Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 4, 1:31 pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > Jan
> > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > think known is correct. > > \/\/\/\/ > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> Try:
> "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > entities that have a common ancestor."
> When in doubt remove words.
Which makes it tautological. If there isn't a common ancestor there can't be a tree, (that is, one tree)
Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
> > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > of the observations, so far.
> > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > Jan
> No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > think known is correct. > \/\/\/\/ > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
The existence of a common ancestor is the null hypothesis that lies at the basis of the tree construction. You don't have to know that it is true, and you don't have to know what it is, and you don't have to believe in it.
Building the tree is a test of that hypothesis. If it turns out to be impossible it is falsified. If the construction succeeds it still is a hypothesis. (and now one with empirical support for it)
So I think 'assume' is appropriate, and the best choice.
> Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 1:31 pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > > Jan
> > > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > > think known is correct. > > > \/\/\/\/ > > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> > Try:
> > "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > entities that have a common ancestor."
> > When in doubt remove words.
> Which makes it tautological. > If there isn't a common ancestor > there can't be a tree, > (that is, one tree)
> Jan
How is it a tautology? "a 'tree' showing" means "a 'diagram' or 'representation' illustrating".
"common ancestor" does not have the same meaning as "diagram".
> Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 1:31 pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > > Jan
> > > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > > think known is correct. > > > \/\/\/\/ > > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> > Try:
> > "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > entities that have a common ancestor."
> > When in doubt remove words.
> Which makes it tautological. > If there isn't a common ancestor > there can't be a tree, > (that is, one tree)
> Jan
The existence of common ancestors is the given here, if you accept evolution you accept common ancestors. If you don't accept evolution why do you care about evolutionary relationships?
I like Kent's version anyway, 'known' was a tiny bit redundant.
> Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
> > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > Jan
> > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > think known is correct. > > \/\/\/\/ > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> The existence of a common ancestor is the null hypothesis > that lies at the basis of the tree construction. > You don't have to know that it is true, > and you don't have to know what it is, > and you don't have to believe in it.
> Building the tree is a test of that hypothesis. > If it turns out to be impossible it is falsified. > If the construction succeeds it still is a hypothesis. > (and now one with empirical support for it)
> So I think 'assume' is appropriate, > and the best choice.
> Jan
No, the existence of common ancestors is a given, in this context. The tree is a description of the relationships through common ancestry. 'Assume' is a word to use when you don't think about something; because instead of thinking, you assume. They are kind of like antonyms.
Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 2:49 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 1:31 pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > > > Jan
> > > > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > > > think known is correct. > > > > \/\/\/\/ > > > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> > > Try:
> > > "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > entities that have a common ancestor."
> > > When in doubt remove words.
> > Which makes it tautological. > > If there isn't a common ancestor > > there can't be a tree, > > (that is, one tree)
> > Jan
> How is it a tautology?
If the existence of a tree is given one common ancestor is implied.
Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 4, 11:49 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > > > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote: > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
> > > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > > Jan
> > > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > > think known is correct. > > > \/\/\/\/ > > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> > The existence of a common ancestor is the null hypothesis > > that lies at the basis of the tree construction. > > You don't have to know that it is true, > > and you don't have to know what it is, > > and you don't have to believe in it.
> > Building the tree is a test of that hypothesis. > > If it turns out to be impossible it is falsified. > > If the construction succeeds it still is a hypothesis. > > (and now one with empirical support for it)
> > So I think 'assume' is appropriate, > > and the best choice.
> > Jan
> No, the existence of common ancestors is a given, in this context.
That's the tautology option.
> The > tree is a description of the relationships through common ancestry. > 'Assume' is a word to use when you don't think about something; > because instead of thinking, you assume. They are kind of like > antonyms.
The assumption is necessary, for there is no way of knowing a priori that all life forms will fit on one tree. That they do has empirical content. The tautology option destroys that,
Jan
BTW,it has been change again and now reads: 'modeled as having a common ancestor.' Less ojectionable, but clumsy.
> > > > > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > > > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > > > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > > > > think known is correct. > > > > > \/\/\/\/ > > > > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > > > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > > > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > > > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > > > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > > > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> > > > Try:
> > > > "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > > entities that have a common ancestor."
> > > > When in doubt remove words.
> > > Which makes it tautological. > > > If there isn't a common ancestor > > > there can't be a tree, > > > (that is, one tree)
> > > Jan
> > How is it a tautology?
.
> If the existence of a tree is given > one common ancestor is implied.
Kent's statement does not say that phylogenetic trees are a true reflection of reality much less that there is only one tree onto which all known and unknown life forms fit.
In english "A red car" can refer to many cars, so "A phylogenetic tree" could refer to many possible trees.
> Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 1:31 pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 1:02 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > > > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > > > > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> > > > You can't 'know' that, and you shouldn't 'believe' it. > > > > It just happens to be the best explanation > > > > of the observations, so far.
> > > > I would have used 'assumed' here,
> > > > Jan
> > > No assume is worse than believe. In the context of the paragraph I > > > think known is correct. > > > \/\/\/\/ > > > A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > > entities that are known to have a common ancestor. In a phylogenetic > > > tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common > > > ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees > > > correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. > > > Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units > > > (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed.
> > Try:
> > "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the > > evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other > > entities that have a common ancestor."
> > When in doubt remove words.
> Which makes it tautological. > If there isn't a common ancestor > there can't be a tree, > (that is, one tree)
> Jan
When in doubt remove words.
"A phylogenetic or evolutionary tree shows the evolutionary relationships among various biological species. In a phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees correspond to time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units (HTUs) as they cannot be directly observed. "
> The article states in part "... various biological species or > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
Why does it say "or other entities" anyway? I suggest:
"A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree *indicating* the evolutionary relationships among various biological species based on their shared genetic sequences. The root of the tree being the common ancestor."
> > The article states in part "... various biological species or > > other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor."
> > I have changed the word "believed" to "known."
> Why does it say "or other entities" anyway? I suggest:
> "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree *indicating* the > evolutionary relationships among various biological species based on > their shared genetic sequences. The root of the tree being the common > ancestor."
Too many trees (can't see the forest):
"A phylogenetic or evolutionary tree indicates the evolutionary relationships among various biological species based on their shared genetic sequences. The root of the tree being the common ancestor."
Kent wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:12 am, Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote: >> Desertphile wrote: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree >>> The article states in part "... various biological species or >>> other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor." >>> I have changed the word "believed" to "known." >> Why does it say "or other entities" anyway? I suggest:
>> "A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree *indicating* the >> evolutionary relationships among various biological species based on >> their shared genetic sequences. The root of the tree being the common >> ancestor."
> Too many trees (can't see the forest):
> "A phylogenetic or evolutionary tree indicates the evolutionary > relationships among various biological species based on their shared > genetic sequences. The root of the tree being the common ancestor."
|
