: :  But can cladistic technique be tested other than by the fossil record : : or by the molecular clock?  So why is cladistic data any more testable : : than molecular data? : : The molecular clock is not a test. Why not?  I cited the example of bat monophyly.  DNA sequencing using many different loci all came up with the same conclusion

Replying to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it () : : No response, I presume, on how Hennig came up with his rules. : : Actually it is totally uninteresting how Hennig came up with his : ideas. : : But aren't you the least bit curious about their validity, or have you simply : accepted them as gospel? Oh, I think I know what they are; I think I understand the theory behind them. You asked _how he came up with them_, and that is uninteresting. : : acceptance by Hennig's disciples.  Mayr and Ashlock have a more : enlightened : : view of these rules and they are not very flattering. : : Only you are unable to tell us what Mayr and Ashlocks enlightened view : is. : : Still no response as to whether they have been vigorously tested? Answering a question with a question. Is this the level we're to do this at? : : :  But can cladistic technique be tested other than by the fossil record : : : or by the molecular clock?  So why is cladistic data any more testable : : : than molecular data? : : : : The molecular clock is not a test. : : Why not?  I cited the example of bat monophyly.  DNA sequencing using many : different loci all came up with the same conclusion

: The cladistics rules are statements about evolution.   This is not true. Cladistic rules are about the analysis of data. :  The assertion that a species always become extinct when it gives rise to two : and only two daughter species is certainly testable. This is not a rule of cladistics. It was an idea which was advanced by Hennig, but abandoned by cladists a long time ago. It was never meant as a statement about evolution, but rather a statement about how to interpret data and assign ranks. : Let me quote Lazell. J. 1994 Iguanians and the Cladistic Party Line   : Herpetological  Review 25(1):9-10 : For Hennig (1950), relationship was absolutely and unequivocally nothing : more than the inverse of relative lineage age: time, and time alone, : distances relationship.  Thus, if one can construct a dendrogram of the : temporal sequence of lineage branching events, that would

Replying to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Lirpa1) : Really.  I would be interested in how Darwin came up with his theory of : natural selection.  I guess you wouldn't. Not really, no. If I was I'd read a biography. : Answering a question with a question. Is this the level we're to do : this at? : : So why don't you just tell us whether Hennig's rules have in fact be rigorously : tested instead of asking me a question? You can't necessarily test assumptions. Those parts which are testable have been tested ie against known phylogenies of bacteriophages, but assumptions, like that a straight line can be drawn between two points, are sometimes untestable. Now, would you in turn tell me how Mayr and Ashlock 'shredded' the assumptions behind cladistics? : : : :  But can cladistic technique be tested other than by the fossil record : : : : or by the molecular clock?  So why is cladistic data any more testable : : : : than molecular data? : : : The molecular clock is not a test. : : Why not?  I cited the example of bat monophyly.  DNA sequencing using : many : : different loci all came up with the same conclusion