OK, here is your quote from Klassen:
You are continuing to twist the science.
Yes, and why is that?
Klassen isn’t the one who “got it wrong.” You are twisting the science, and then you want me to explain how the paper “got it wrong.”
You didn’t like the word “bizarre.” What word should I use to indicate that, in order to support your theory, you have pulled something out of thin air and attributed to a paper that says nothing of the sort? I’m trying to be polite, but you guys are not making sense.
The paper simply says nothing of the sort. You cannot infer phylogenetic structure. And, I’m sorry, but the paper isn’t the one that “got it wrong.” You’re criticizing me all along, while making, well, bizarre (there, I said it) claims. The paper states that data points beyond the random region indicate “phylogenetic information.” And what is “phylogenetic information”? It simply means you are outside that random region–there is some kind of non random signal. You guys are the ones who twisted this, and imported meaning that is not in the science, by attributing a nested hierarchy structure. For instance, you wrote this:
You guys are making things up whole cloth. Indeed, the paper is careful to guard explicitly against such unwarranted, unempirical, non scientific, claims:
So here are the scientific facts, regardless of what evolutionists say. The data, not one or two data points, but the predominant trend is that the data are closer to random than to CD. The data are not very probable on CD. We have always known there is a seemingly endless series of examples that violate CD. This paper is helpful because it provides a systematic view of this. The data, on the whole, violate CD. They do not fit CD, regardless of the evolutionary spin. As Josh Swamidass has admitted, you have to introduce additional mechanisms–namely, homoplasies. Designs appear independently, over, and over, and over, and over …
The fact that evolutionists have no problem with this is not a tribute to CD. This isn’t good news for CD. Along with homoplasies, there is ILS, gene conversion, duplication, drift, deletion, etc., etc. There is no empirical content here. CD can explain anything. Anyone not wedded to the theory can see the overfitting here. This is very obvious. It is unfalsifiable. The fact that evolutionists resist the science, and that this paper can, and has been, spun as confirming, beyond a reasonable doubt, evolution and CD, is extremely damning.
So back to your point:
So why do you think that is? Any wild guesses?