falsifying evolution

[kww4 at CORNELL.EDU]

For anyone interested...

A very interesting take on "random" data and its leffect /lack of effect in 
analyses is presented by Wenzel & Siddall 1999, Noise. Cladistics. 15(1). 
I think this is also available online at http://www.idealibrary.com 

k.





On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Richard Zander wrote:

> A couple messages have mentioned random patterns. My understanding is that
> random number tables are massaged so that there are no obvious patterns even
> if - just through randomness - a pattern like "22222222222222222222222222"
> might turn up when generating a table.
> 
> I generated five random data sets mimicking 800-bp molecular data sets with
> 5 taxa each. All produced single, fully resolved trees. In most, there was
> at least one branch with Bremer support of 4, and in one, there was one
> branch with Bremer support of 10.
> The CI of all trees was around .4, similar to that of real data sets.
> Clearly, real molecular data in published trees usually do support
> morphological data sufficiently to have drowned out a "random pattern" that
> is quite distinct, but tests are needed to evaluate molecular data that do
> not.
> 
> I have a MSDOS utility that will generate (psuedo-)random data sets. Anyone
> who wants a copy, let me know.
> 
> R. Zander
> 
> 
> Richard H. Zander, Curator of Botany
> Buffalo Museum of Science
> 1020 Humboldt Pkwy
> Buffalo, NY 14211 USA
> email: rzander at sciencebuff.org
> voice: 716-895-5200 x 351
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Grehan <jrg13 at PSU.EDU>
> To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 1999 10:40 PM
> Subject: falsifying evolution
> 
> 
> > Wolfgang W?ster wrote
> >
> > >We do not (normally) get "total incongruence of characters". Certainly
> > >there is incongruence. However, if you do a good morphological
> > >phylogenetic analysis with a large number of characters for a certain
> > >group, and then another one using, say, some DNA sequence, you will see
> > >a fair amount of congruence between the results. Perfect? No (unless you
> > >are very lucky), but a very long way INDEED from a random pattern, which
> > >you might expect from separately created "kinds".
> >
> > I agree its a long way from a random pattern. I was looking at
> incongruence
> > as total
> > for those groups of characters that are incongrunet. In many cases there
> is a
> > predominent grouping of characters, but there appear to be many cases
> where
> > the situation never seems to get any better. However, I do not understand
> > why a random pattern of characters would be necessarily be expected from
> > separately created kinds if they were created according to a heirarchical
> > design plan. I'm not saying that they were, just that if this were the
> view then
> > grouping characters would not be a problem for creationists.
> >
> > John Grehan
>