tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post616239301503666394..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Casey Luskin on ArdipithecusJimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-3772767468349149512010-06-05T19:43:23.592-04:002010-06-05T19:43:23.592-04:00Is it just me, or is there a peculiar lack of actu...Is it just me, or is there a peculiar lack of actual cladograms and actual parsimony analyses in the discussions of Ardi? I.e. reports of number of steps for the most parsimonious trees, CI and RI values, bootstrap supports, and Bremer supports, etc.<br /><br />IIRC The White et al. super-domination issue of Science advanced quite a major reinterpretation of human evolution, based on the idea that Ardi was on the human branch. And yet no quantitative cladistic analysis was presented. And ditto with both sides of the recent back-and-forth. Are all these people arguing like Mayrian evolutionary systematists using overall similarity and expert opinion about "important characters" to classify things? If they just ran a cladogram, the degree of support for various hypotheses could just be measured directly, if different parts of the body give different results well then that's the way it is until there is more data, or if it's unresolved then that's the way it is. If you have a bunch of closely-related forms with some missing data, lack of resolution shouldn't be shocking.<br /><br />Or am I missing something somewhere?NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.com