Guy Hoelzer wrote:-

> > Cladistic parsimony(or maximum parsimony) is a method of phylogenetic
> > inference in the construction of cladograms. Cladograms are branching
> > tree like structures used to represent lines of descent based on one or
> > more evolutionary change(s). Cladistic parsimony is used to support the
> > hypothesis(es) that require the fewest evolutionary changes. It should
> > be noted that for some types tree, it will consistantly produce the
> > wrong results regardless of how much data is collected(This is called
> > long-branch attraction).

JE:-
The view that parsimony is maximised within cladograms
represents an expression of basic scientific method.
Parsimony is maximised within scientific methodology
in general where it represents an epistemological
maximand: always maximise simplicity and not complexity.
This is why multi-levels of selection that entirely
dominate gene centric evolutionary theory represent a misuse
when a single level view stands non refuted (which it does).

Note that not one multi level theory exists that can
be tested to refutation because all of them allow the
tested unit of selection to "ad hoc" switch between levels
when that level approaches refutation. Such "iron man"
propositions can only be tested to non verification which is
never definitive. I appears most Neo Darwinians do not know
(or even care) about the enormous epistemological difference
between a point of refutation and a point of non verification
so they consistently confuse refutable theory with non
refutable models of that theory.

> GH:-
> This is true of long-branch attraction (LBA), but it doesn't really
> distinguish it from other sorts of methodological biases.  Here
> is a little
> more about it.  Branch length indicates the amount of independent
> evolution
> that has caused the taxa at the ends of those branches to diverge from the
> rest of the taxa included in the analysis.  When the extent of divergence
> has become too large, the data for the taxa on the end of the branch
> effectively becomes randomized relative to the data for the other taxa, so
> it becomes less clear how the long-branch taxon fits into the hierarchical
> pattern revealed for the rest of the taxa.

JE:-
If it "becomes less clear how the long-branch taxon fits into the
hierarchical
pattern revealed for the rest of the taxa" because "the data for
the taxa on
the
end of the branch effectively becomes randomized" why it not perfectly clear
that ANY randomised data cannot validly constitute "evolution", even
a randomised gene frequency change in a deme?  Neo Darwinistic
reasoning continues to insist that gene frequency changes via random
processes such a random sampling error (termed genetic drift) can
validly constitute "evolution" in their own right. Since you agree
with this irrefutable "iron man" Neo Darwinian dictate
of what evolution is within nature please explain to sbe
readers why you have not contradicted yourself.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/20/04 4:29:07 PM