Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Recent Posts

91
My daughter swears by hers.
92
Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: Bremer
Last post by VoxRat -
From this, I deduce that we should be cautious about the meaning of high values but we can take low values to be significant.
I.e. "Heads: pterobirds win; tails: the scientific consensus loses"
93
Destruction of evidence:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/339286-material-useful-to-russia-probe-destroyed-in-us-compounds-report
That's bad reporting. Standard diplomatic protocol for leaving in rushed circumstances is to destroy everything.
94
Science / Re: Science in Turkey gets stuffed
Last post by Testy Calibrate -
At least through its push back.
95
fortunately, they've had to soften it a bit to get it passed.  combined with the delayed implementation, there may be opportunities to reverse this giant leap backwards before it hurts too many people
What exactly are the "softenings"?

mitch mcconnell's jowls
I was thinking they added a waiting period before selling children into slavery to extract money for medical expenses not covered under the new plans.
96
Science / Re: Science in Turkey gets stuffed
Last post by VoxRat -
Seems like we're living through the global triumph of stupid.
98
Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: Bremer
Last post by Faid -
From this, I deduce that we should be cautious about the meaning of high values but we can take low values to be significant. But again, unfortunately I'm just talking out of my ass, proposing imaginary selective effects with not even an argument, let alone support.

Sigh.

Fixed your post. You're really doubling down now, huh?
Go ahead, "socrates". Explain to us HOW you "deduce" that "SOME" high values "COULD" be "due to symplesiomorphies", but not others.

Should be simple enough. :popcorn:
Worth repeating.
99
Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: Bremer
Last post by socrates1 -
Quote
Support indices are not calculated in the same way (obviously) as the cladistic analysis calculations.
The high support indices in the early nodes show that some actual dinosaurs are similar to some other actual dinosaurs. We know that support indices do not show that actual dinosaurs are similar to paraves because of the 65 support value.

The problem is that nobody here is very familiar with these support index calculations. Even the authors of the studies are not that familiar as I have found when emailing them questions.
As far as I can see, there is nothing published on the precise questions we are dealing with here.

One thing that seems clear is the following:
Cladistic analysis is based on synapomorphies
Support indices are based on characters. In other words symplesiomorphies are included.

From this, I deduce that a high support value could be due to symplesiomorphies. I deduce this, but unfortunately nobody has published anything on this specific point.

I deduce that this applies to high values but not low values because with a low value not even the symplesiomorphies can save it. I deduce this, but unfortunately nobody has published anything on this specific point.

Please note that I am not saying that every high value must be due to symplesiomorphies. Just that some COULD be due to symplesiomorphies. That is what I deduce, but unfortunately nobody has published anything on this specific point.
From this, I deduce that we should be cautious about the meaning of high values but we can take low values to be significant. But again, unfortunately nobody has published anything on this specific point.
100
Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: Bremer
Last post by Faid -
Go ahead, "socrates". Explain to us HOW you "deduce" that "SOME" high values "COULD" be "due to symplesiomorphies", but not others.

Should be simple enough. :popcorn: