parsimony/biology

[Kirk Fitzhugh]

At 04:31 PM 2/26/01 +0100, you wrote:
>"(3) ... the picture-of-evolution "phylogeny" (or pattern) depends on the
>methodology which in turn depends on our assumed picture-of-evolution
>"evolutionary mechanisms" (or process)."

The difficulty here is that "phylogeny" is not a "pattern." One does not go
out and observe a cladogram. All that are observed are individuals, i.e.,
individual organisms. The patterns one can perceive are the properties
shared among some individuals. A "phylogeny," or a cladogram, is a
statement of a series of causal *events*, not a statement of the existence
of a "thing."

Pierre Deleporte then says,

>"There are surely problems of testability of the latter (we have no time
>machine), but no circularity is involved as Zdenik formulation taken
>literally would suggest."

How does one test that hypothesis that a plan crashed as a result of engine
failure? All historical explanations deal with testing in the same way. The
past no longer exists, so what must be sought is evidence in the present of
the events that occurred in the past. This is standard historical analysis,
but for some reason has rarely been properly applied in this historical
science we call phylogenetics.

Quite fascinating.

Kirk