falsifying evolution

[Kipling Will]

Richard Zander wrote:

> 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.

If you have more than 60 taxa a CI of .4 is quite good. CI is directly
effected by number of taxa see the following...

Sanderson, M. J. & Donoghue, M. J. (1989). Patterns of variation in
levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43, 1781-1795.

de Queiroz, A. & Wimberger, P. H. (1993). The usefulness of behaviour
for phylogeny estimation: Levels of homoplasy in behavioural and
morphological characters. Evolution 47, 46-60.


--
---------------------
Kipling Will
2144 Comstock Hall
Dept. of Entomology
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-1351
http://henry.ento.cornell.edu/CUIC/will.htm
---------------------
The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups
under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently
strike us, is in my judgement thus explained.  -Darwin