Excuse me? I’m not questioning Dr. Holloway’s veracity, just the title of his thesis, when it was published, and links to the claim that ‘computable processes cannot create information’ as I can’t find any.
if you want a copy, feel free to request one
you seem a trustworthy soul 
Thinking about the provability of providence, though, Eric, there is information infused into providential sequences, but can it be scientifically proven?
no you must take my secrets to the grave
otherwise no dice
Resolute unbelievers just deny that they are anything other than bizarre coincidences and extreme statistical outliers.
in my thesis i deal with mathematical proof, not statistical outliers
Ah.
Crossed in the post. Agreed. Not a problem. You have my word.
1 Like
As a resolute rationalist believer I’m not aware of any bizarre coincidences and extreme statistical outliers apart from those that are entirely natural and normal in every sense. Can you show any that aren’t?
your every conscious decision is a statistical anomaly from the physical plane
Riiiiight. By how many standard deviations?
all of them
1 Like
Careful Eric, you can’t know that to be true without first understanding those specialties.
2 Likes
We could do worse! 
That is not unusual. It can take some time for new Post-Hole-Diggers to get dissertation related manuscript accepted. An embargo prevents other from sniping their work.
2 Likes
yes, i am still working on getting one of my publications accepted
once that’s done, then i may also want to publish the dissertation itself
after all that, then i am willing to lift the embargo
two of my papers are published, and those you can see despite the embargo
i don’t know for sure, but it is also not surprising if i turn out to be right, given my experience inacademic specialties that i do know well
also telling is the inability of specialists on this forum to direct me to any such fundamental assumption analysis
Ohhhhhh, I think I do. I saw the ambiguity and doubled down on it to be honest. But I’m not going to admit to that am I?
I, like others, am greatly encouraged that you are tackling these issues head on. My understanding of phylogenetics is at the armchair expert level, so my main piece of advice is to read papers on the topic and do your best to follow their methods. Search for papers that use traits for creating their trees, I’m sure there are some out there.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00196.x
1 Like
As far as I know there are no specialists in phylogenetics on this forum.
ETA: If you actually want feedback, try John Harshman at Peaceful Science.
at least @T_aquaticus has put forward nested clades as one of the best evidences for evolution, and I’d expect people who make that claim be able to show the nested clades is a feature unique to evolution, otherwise it cannot be good evidence for evolution
i personally refrain from proposing arguments i cannot explain
at any rate, i think the nested clade argument should be retracted by you all until you can show it is actually good evidence for evolution