first you’ve got to figure out what i am actually arguing
There is nothing to figure out. There is no arcane knowledge that you have. I used to do Oracle tree walking for a living. You are the one who needs to figure out what you are actually arguing and how to argue Socratically with peers: getting a Ph.D. in computational phylogenetics would be a start, you have no throw weight here at all. I would be embarrassed to keep coming up against professional scientists with sophomore schoolboy errors every time I open my mouth, like Danny DeVito’s Martini in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
if you can name these specific errors you would make yourself helpful for a change
That’s being done constantly by the experts in the field that you are not in by a country mile, let alone by a Ph.D. Please find one at their level, in their field, who agrees with you. Cite one. Just one. The first specific non-technical error that you commit is the denial of the fact of evolution. No amount of Quixotically tilting with a rubber lance at the windmill of the phylogenetic signal can overturn the fact of evolution from 4gya.
I was trying to be kinder about it. Eric is working through a thought experiment, and that’s OK. I don’t think it’s fair to ask him to disprove evolution.
Don’t get ahead of yourself - it’s not clear you understand what you are doing either. 
I appreciate that you are trying a statistical approach, but I don’t think you grok the concepts yet.
That’s what he’s dismally trying to do.
can you name one study attempting to do what i am doing here? i cannot
the specialists are too micro optimized to step back and question their fundamental assumptions here
thats the big problem, and no amount of further micro optimization will solve the problem
@EastwoodDC is right, i am not trying to disprove evolution here
What does that word salad mean? Apart from the fact that all of the professionals are wrong and that you, a rank amateur, are right.
you have to distinguish between my main argument and the specific techniques
techniquewise you may be right, the assumptions and stats may be completely off base
however, the general argument i am making is very simple amd clear, and can be stated in a single sentence, which i have done many times
you get it, you’ve told me in your own words
it is questionable whether other readers understand…
What, ‘phylogenetic signal does not tell us whether evolution occurred’? I understand that fallacy perfectly.
1 Like
excellent, so you see i am not disproving evolution here
No you can’t, so why keep trying with your fallacy? Phylogenetic signal is an effect of evolution, nothing else. You are not critiquing it as a peer computational phylogeneticist, you don’t even have a Ph.D. in computing.
in fact i do
1 Like
My apologies Dr. Holloway. From which university? What was the thesis?
I ask, because the response from the experts here and you yourself - ‘techniquewise you may be right, the assumptions and stats may be completely off base’ - don’t square with that.
baylor and thesis is computable processes cannot create information
i personally don’t think my approach is off base, but i am suspending judgment in light of people with more expertise to weigh in once i have clarified everytging adequately
Baylor, right. What year? And the title? Links to such a claim?
You are wise to ask for verification, @Klax. He is so obviously lying to us.
i am also president of the USA and UK
2 Likes
Ha! We need a better option in the US! 
1 Like