Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: we stand with daap-umop-bup

Topic: Bremer (Read 1445 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Faid
Re: Bremer
Reply #250
Like a moth to a flame. It's amazing.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Bremer
Reply #251
A few people have pretended that I am arguing against cladistics in general. I am arguing against this particular cladistic analysis because it is not supported by the support indices.
You may now continue your insults.

People still pretend that they do not know the difference between cladistic analysis calculations and support index calculations. Even though I spelled it out. This shows once again that people do not actually read what I post.
That's a form of symmetry, you don't read what they post, they don't read what you post.
Are we there yet?

Re: Bremer
Reply #252
A few people have pretended that I am arguing against cladistics in general. I am arguing against this particular cladistic analysis because it is not supported by the support indices.
You may now continue your insults.

People still pretend that they do not know the difference between cladistic analysis calculations and support index calculations. Even though I spelled it out. This shows once again that people do not actually read what I post.
I remember that time when after many days of complaints that you don't answer questions, you quoted yourself to show us you did sometimes. Everybody but you saw that you plainly didn't. Could it be that this spelling it out is the same thing?
  • Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 12:54:58 PM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Bremer
Reply #253
A few people have pretended that I am arguing against cladistics in general. I am arguing against this particular cladistic analysis because it is not supported by the support indices.
You may now continue your insults.

People still pretend that they do not know the difference between cladistic analysis calculations and support index calculations. Even though I spelled it out. This shows once again that people do not actually read what I post.
I remember that time when after many days of complaints that you don't answer questions, you quoted yourself to show us you did sometimes. Everybody but you saw that you plainly didn't. Could it be that this spelling it out is the same thing?
Anyway, you keep starting your "discussions" in the middle. Start at the beginning. Establish some credibility first. We need more than "I have studied this for a year".

Re: Bremer
Reply #254
Quote
I see how that statement can be misinterpreted. I am saying that it shows that some actual dinosaurs are similar to some other actual dinosaurs. We know that it does not show that actual dinosaurs are similar to paraves because of the 65 support value.

This is why I have said that the support indices do not support the dinosaur to bird theory.

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.


As usual, Socrates is either lying or ignorant about support indices, symplesiomorphies, pretty much every word he writes.
http://entocourses.tamu.edu/ento606/Suggested%20Readings/Soltis_Soltis_2003.pdf
Quote
The proportion of trees/replicates in which a clade is recovered is presented as a percentage and referred to variably as the bootstrap value, bootstrap percentage (BP) or, less commonly, bootstrap p-value.





So, with the Xu et al. dataset, 97% of the trees recovered from the standard cladistic analyses (i.e., using shared derived characters, i.e., synapomorphies) had the Coelurosauria node (which includes Paraves).

Re: Bremer
Reply #255


Character set for pictured cladogram (I trust the abbreviations are self-defining)
Code: [Select]
animal         character
           H    MET   RC    P
turtle     0     0     0    0
Horse      1     0     0    0
Wolf       1     1     0    0
Leopard    1     1     1    0
Cat        1     1     1    1


For the next four sets, I literally did a random generator in JMP.  Here's the 1st four sets.

A
Code: [Select]
animal         character
           P    H    P   MET
turtle     0    0    0    0
Horse      0    1    0    0
Wolf       0    1    0    1
Leopard    0    1    0    1
Cat        1    1    1    1

B
Code: [Select]
animal        character
           H    H    H   MET
turtle     0    0    0    0
Horse      1    1    1    0
Wolf       1    1    1    1
Leopard    1    1    1    1
Cat        1    1    1    1

C
Code: [Select]
animal        character
          RC   MET  RC    H
turtle     0    0    0    0
Horse      0    0    0    1
Wolf       0    1    0    1
Leopard    1    1    1    1
Cat        1    1    1    1

D
Code: [Select]
animal        character
          RC   MET   P    P
turtle     0    0    0    0
Horse      0    0    0    0
Wolf       0    1    0    0
Leopard    1    1    0    0
Cat        1    1    1    1



Here's how those four sets would be analyzed, just like any other cladistic analysis, by using only synapomorphies.




And these would be the bootstrap values for our little dataset with a handful of random iterations.



  • Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 06:11:53 PM by Dean W