Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.

Post Reply New Topic

I can see that I explained poorly.

Yes, the similarities are stronger in more closely related species. However, it is harder to determine accurate phylogenies for closely related species than it is between more distant groups, because the differences that are a result of evolutionary divergence are still small enough that they might be obscured by random changes, leading to a lower level of confidence in the results we infer. Thus, when we make a family tree for all vertebrates, we have greater confidence in it than we do when sorting out relationships in a single genus.

The prediction I made on behalf of baraminology was that phylogenetic analysis would be more reliable within a kind (where species are related) than between different kinds (where species are completely unrelated). This seems to me like a reasonable prediction. Evolutionary biology predicts that phylogenetics should work both within a genus and with a more diverse grouping. In certain circumstances reliability is impaired by known statistical artifacts, but as I noted before the differences are usually minor. For instance, cladograms of 10 different species produced by looking at several genes might consistently group species 1-4 together, and also group 5-6 together, and 7-9 in another grouping, and 10 pretty much on its own. But within species 1-4, several possible arrangements could emerge. The overall "big picture" of the cladogram is consistent across many different genes despite some inconsistencies in the smaller details.

Hopefully that was all clear as mud. I'll dig out some cladograms I produced a while ago for flightless birds and post them to see if they make more sense to you than my rambling does.

Well, to make it as clear as possible with the cladogram production software, would you use as many species within each order/family/holobaramin so as to attempt to have better resolution since this method seems like it is flawed on the closer it gets to closely related monobaramin?

I'll use several different species; enough that we will be able to see relationships forming within a baramin and relationships between different baramins (if they do turn out to exist).

What is the difference between a monobaramin and a holobaramin again?

A holobaramin is a collection of all monobaramin which share a common ancestor. A monobaramin is basically a species-level example of a holobaramin such that reproduction between members produces viable and fertile offspring.

*snort*

You may wish to have that checked.

Actually, LKL is just addicted to crack. That's what he was snorting.

*Bump*

Yo, how's it going here? No crack allowed though, wear your pants on your waist - not your knees.

Amusing.

Meanwhile, in a different thread... There has been some discussion that, in music, that the standard tuning A=440 causes stress while other tuning frequencies are more "natural," specifically A=432 and A=444, which, according some article, is the optimum standard tuning frequency.

Since we're talking about experiments here, I've decided to undertake some minor composition projects to determine whether holding to various tuning standards makes music more or less pleasing. I figured Orwell might have some interest in this, since he's more of a scientific mind than I am.

If that has something to do with biology and phylogenetics, perhaps.

it's a sub-vocal laugh.

Sure..... just hide your addiction. Look, we all know you need help. Don't make us have to engage in an intervention.

It's coming, Keet, just a bit slower than I anticipated... school and life getting in the way as usual.

Generally higher frequencies sound a bit more "energetic." Standard tuning pitch for A above middle C has gradually moved upwards, from about A=425 in Mozart's time to A=435-438 in the early 20th (I think) to mostly A=440 now, although many groups are pushing it up to A=442 to get a little more edge.

The best experiment that could be done here would be to have something played on an electric keyboard that can be easily adjusted to different pitch standards, and compare people's reactions to it. Make sure to do it double-blind if you want legitimate results, though, or else find some neurologist to help you measure brain activity while people listen. Actually, if you did a halfway-decent study on that, you could probably get it published in a fairly respectable journal.

Crack is a crystalline substance that you can't snort just like crystal meth.

He was most likely snorting adderol.

It COULD have something to do with biology, but I don't think that's really our focus. If psychology has anything to do with science (not everyone agrees psychology is a legit science), I'd say my experiment is more related to that than biology. The problem is how do you take something that, by nature, is subjective, and make an empirical study of it? I know HOW to do it, but I'm not sure I want to really do that much work.

My idea of music and musical pitch relationships is their effects are both subjective and learned responses. Frequency intervals/ratios that are close together imply a sense of claustrophobia, tension, and anxiety. Frequency intervals/ratios that have harmonic relationships (resembling the harmonic series, 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x...) have relaxing, calming effects. It's not an "exact" science. Consonant intervals can convey a sense of evil and distress, too, but generally we are conditioned to hear consonances as happy sounds and dissonances as ugly sounds.

The article completely ignores things such as learned responses and traditional ideas of how music "works." It connects a tuning standard of A440 to military research, a conspiracy theory, and mass hysteria. I'm not an expert in connections between music and psychology, military application of sound, music therapy, and that sort of thing. I just write it and play it. As much as I enjoy even New Age piano instrumentals (part of the reason I even got into this business), and as little as I doubt that music has "healing powers," I don't really buy into a lot of New Age religion/philosophy, esoteric "healing," psychic phenomena, etc., so I really have my doubts that music can be heard as harmful based on a tuning standard! But, as I've already said, it's all very subjective. I can't measure the impact of music on brain chemistry, for example. But I CAN manipulate a listener's "psychic" or emotional responses to a composition. By varying the tuning frequency, we should expect subjective responses to change, according to the article. I doubt it will work. But this has nothing to do with my own biases.

Orwell shares my interest in music, even if we don't really agree on a lot of things. So I figure he might be interested in participating or at least observing the thread.

Anyway... I think THIS thread is really fascinating. I'm disappointed that there seem to be no signs of completion of the study. But perhaps it just takes a lot of time and I just need to remain patient.

EDIT: JUST saw your post, Orwell, about 5 minutes after I posted. Actually, for someone like me from a performance perspective (wind instrument), it does me more good to tune about 442 because I can always "voice down" for better intonation. Because I'm so out-of-practice, I've resorted to using thinner, more traditional-cut reeds. So I was playing some Dixieland and finally got a recording. I was appalled at how flat the pitch actually was because, to my ears, it was just fine when I played it. But looser embouchure, increased air pressure on the reed, and wider "spread" sound and deliberate re-voicing take their toll on pitch. If I can't get back on my thicker reeds soon, I'll never be able to show my face in public again.

The problem with the experiment is with psychoacoustics. I have NO idea how to do a double-blind study with this kind of thing. You might do better doing a double-blind study on acupuncture. It's highly unlikely that I can get a neurologist on board since, after all, I'm donating my own time and effort to this project with no funding... Anecdotal data is still data, though, and it could serve as a springboard for better-defined research into the area. The article I read was clearly biased, and I've already mentioned I give little credence to New Age "medicine" and conspiracy theories.

That sounds like something that comes out of a snake... snake-derived alcohol, or something like that. Unless it's a really complex molecule, it's likely to be liquid at room temperature and therefore difficult to snort. I suppose a nasal spray might work, though...