[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Cladism is not an inkblot



I don't understand why everyone has been fighting back and forth for years on the list about the value of cladistics, or more accurately, the value of parsimony in cladistics, when the idea that parsimony (with as many characters you wish) is superior to any other method available today, is a falsifiable hypothesis, is it not? Why get into all these endless he-said she-saids about it? Doesn't make any sense. You may never be able to falsify many particular stories of mutation and selection, but surely with independent molecular data, the idea of the applicability of parsimony itself is available to a much higher standard. How much closer to the results of molecular biology than the best of traditional methods will the most parsimonious cladograms take you? A percentage, anyone? Because I see no real obstacle to obtaining one.