[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Untested assumptions (was Re: segnosaurs)
In a message dated 97-08-02 02:16:08 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas R.
Holtz, Jr.) writes:
<< as in all Science, the most parsimonious explanation is
prefered as it requires the fewest assumptions. >>
Nobody, as far as I know, has ever tested this particular assumption against
reality within the context of phylogenetic analysis. There is a good chance
it's wrong--that is, that the "most parsimonious" character distribution
produces an incorrect phylogeny--in a substantial number of analyses.
<<So, could we PLEASE leave our untested assumptions aside?>>