[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: a lot of fog?
In a message dated Thu, 14 Feb 2002 3:06:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> In a message dated 2/13/02 11:27:57 AM EST, email@example.com writes:
> << Ken Kinman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Instead of watching the Olympics last night, I was working on a list
> > characters to help support my revised topology.
> This is a recipe on how *NOT* to do science. >>
> Since there is no empirical way to confirm or refute a cladogram by
> observation, cladistic analyses are not science but politics.
I don't have a problem with HP Kinman going looking for characters to support
his phylogeny, but he has to realize that the presence or absence of a
particular character or characters in one taxon will not prove his case. It is
the distribution of the characters across *all* the relevant taxa that is