stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 69
NickMatzke_UDNovember 23, 2015 at 9:15 pm
Wow Barry, that’s like 5 replies from you, and none of them even respond to the points I made. In your replies:
1. You made a mistake in your opening post, by confusing the terms “direct ancestry” and “common ancestry” in your discussion of my quote.
2. No discussion of how comparing the trees from 2 or more different datasets constitutes a test of common ancestry, rather an assumption of it.
3. No discussion of how null distributions can be constructed from the data, and the parsimony scores from those compared to the observed parsimony score on the original data (or CI, or other support statistics).
4. No discussion of the probabilistic methods that have advanced beyond cladistics in terms of allowing the inference of direct ancestors, and in allowing formal probabilistic tests of common ancestry with the standard tools of statistical model choice (used in dozens or hundreds of different fields), including things like the Likelihood Ratio Test.
5. No discussion of the previously published, well-known peer-reviewed literature on any of these topics.
You exhibited no knowledge of any of these in your previous posts. Yet you blab about the topic anyway. And you refuse to admit your mistakes when they are pointed out, instead attempting to distract by bringing up other issues. If you want to know why scientists don’t take ID seriously: your behavior is an example of why. |
barry does not science good.
|
