The field needs some very serious mathematicians to shake it out.
Right, because no serious mathematicians currently work in the field or contributed to its development in the past. Mike Steel, who has spent the last 30 years exploring the math behind phylogenetic inference (www.math.canterbury.ac.nz/~m.steel/Non_UC/publications.html), presumably doesn't count. Nor does Jerzy Neyman, who was the first to apply maximum likelihood to phylogenetic analysis of nucleotide sequences back in 1971.
I don't care to be exposed to this kind of virulent, poisonous, speech when I'm looking at standard textbooks that miscalculate
NP Hard complexities.
And once again, all we get is a context-free self-aggrandizing insinuation that you understand the topic much better than the people writing the textbooks. What textbook are you talking about? Where is the error, and what is the correct result you arrived at? More relevantly, how exactly does this one error demonstrate that the entire field is in desperate need of fixing?
But since you think that "put up or shut up" is "virulent, poisonous speech", I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.