Oh Good - Bart is back

Scott and Peter Borger,For the benefit of those trying to follow along, could one of you (or both of you, doesn't matter) please summarize this issue, which is getting lost in the mutual declarations of victory, or at least a link to the message where the issue is described, and provide a link to the message with the data, or a new link to the data? Thanks!------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

The measure of anyone's success in debate is the number of others they've convinced, not their own undeniably biased self-impression.I wouldn't worry about convincing Peter Borger that's he making fundamental logical errors - that's unlikely to happen. Your task, and his, is to make it clear to those following along that the other's position is untenable. Making fundamental logic errors is anathema to this goal, and whether an opponent acknowledges the mistake or not makes no difference to those who witnessed the error. There's no point beating a dead horse, even if the opponent won't admit it's dead. There's greater advantage to simply moving forward and pointing out yet more weaknesses in the opponents position.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I agree that repetition is good. Every response is an opportunity to hone and sharpen and further clarify your position. But it might be sufficient to merely point to the dead horse rather than repeatedly club it.And a word to Peter Borger: At least some of the evidence you've offered in support of your views is still under challenge. It would be helpful not to cite such evidence in other threads as if it had already carried the day.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

In order to help discussion along, Peter defines MPGs in this message: It seems to this observer that discussion has proceeded without understanding what Peter means by MPG and so has been necessarily vague. I suggest people examine the definition and let it guide discussion. Here are the major points from that email: ------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Scott,I'm trying to make sure this thread can be followed by others. The link you're referring to is this one: There's no key for how to interpret it.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I'm guessing that the links you're referring to are those that appeared in Message 24 of the Darwin in the Genome thread. Here they are again:

• A Bayesian model for detecting past recombination events in DNA multiple alignments
  ​
• The effects of variable mutation rates across sites on the phylogenetic estimation of effective population size or mutation rate of DNA sequences

Could you summarize how these abstracts bear on the discussion?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator