Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods

No.You didn't ask me for a clarification. What you said was, and I quote: "Go ahead and explain how you didn't mean what you plainly wrote."Do you now want a clarification instead?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I stressed the consilience of the molecular data.And I gave examples of how this didn't agree with morphology when you, vaporwave, you said "DNA confirmed the pattern of shared physical features and functionalities of organisms." And then even after I had pointed out your mistake you continued to asset "There is a robust relationship between genetic information and the type of morphology that it organizes. I don't doubt that."And now that we've finally convinced you that you were mistaken, you're trying to ascribe your own mistake to us, and blame us evolutionists for you making it! Sheesh, vaporwave, are you a man or a weasel?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

One of your problems is that you almost continually lie to me about what I think. But you have others.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You know how Tangle can actually read this thread on which he is a participant? So you are unlikely to deceive him.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, what about genes which don't organize anatomy?Consider for example the gene for cytochrome c. This does nothing to control anatomical development, is not even nuclear, but mitochondrial, and does exactly the same thing in every organism, functioning as part of the electron transport chain in mitochondria. Here's a cladogram produced just by applying phylogenetics to this one gene. (Schwartz and Dayhoff, "Origins of prokaryotes, eukaryotes, mitochondria, and chloroplasts", Science, 27 Jan 1978 Vol. 199, Issue 4327, pp. 395-403.) Tthat's a pretty good fit with evolution for just one gene. And that gene is not organizing anatomy.

I suppose your petulant dishonest whining about me is intended to be tiresome. But it is also unconvincing. If that too is your intent, by all means continue.

But you're forgetting that a comparison with the null hypothesis is not a standard statistical technique used constantly in science, as statisticians and scientists would have you believe, but is in fact unscientific because something something philosophical, blah blah metaphysics.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A Google Scholar search for "cytochrome b" phylogeny gets 36,200 hits. So the reason for the thing you made up in your head is very much a question that we should be asking you and not vice versa.

You should probably lie less often.

Well, when talking to someone like you it is always amusing to point out what a sack of crap creationism is.

So, uniting evolutionary groups rather than animals with similar anatomy and habits of life. Who'da thought it ... oh, yeah, evolutionists.

No. Stop making shit up. No. Stop making shit up. And now you are flatly lying, since you know that I linked you to innumerable articles on phylogeny done with cytochrome b. Unlike the other shit you made up this cannot be ascribed to your hopeless ignorance, it is a deliberate, willful lie.And vaporware, when you have to lie to make your case, that's a sign that your case is not a good one.

I think you're over-interpreting what he meant by "lack of data".