My intuition here is that SDS is not sufficient. For example, there could be many trees that would give a particular value of SDS, but those trees might be very different depending on where the branching occurs (and which leaves observed).
Here’s an idea: look up some papers on phylogenetic analysis and do what they do. Low effort and no need to validate new methods.
The lazy statistician’s best friend. Also handy for intractable problems. 
hah! have you looked at those papers? not exactly clear to me what they are doing
if you know let me know
yes sds won’t distinguish random trees as well as the autocorrelation done by phylogenetic software, but it isn’t horrible
think about it this way:
if a gene is scattered randomly throughout the tree, then it won’t be in parent nodes, making all the deltas larger
otoh if gene is following linneage, then in a patg down the tree it will only be in one delta
at any rate, i understand it is extra effort on you if i am reinventing the wheel, you have to verify what i did, and then also verify whether it matches the literature
that’s a lot to ask! so i won’t
i will still post the alternative theory comparison, just because i already put effort into it, and you can at least see where i am coming from
but i will look into the phylogenetic software and learn how to use it, so we know we are dealing with the real deal instead of Eric’s crazy phylogenetic analysis 
AT.moderators … nevermind, the problem is resolved 
PS: please delete this message after consideration. thanks!
PPS: Now I see that Eric said it first! If Eric is OK with the title, then I withdraw my complaint.
that was my renaming
self deprecating humor
but i will change it
OK, and I will edit my message to mods so I dont bother them.
I’m a big fan of SDH, but in this case I didn’t get the joke. 
No one appreciates my slightly humorous spin off thread titles either. It’s a tough crowd. 
You’re appreciated, though!
That’s looking down the wrong end of the telescope, again, as in every time. Evolution has never stopped occurring, it is an intrinsic, inseparable property of life reproduction to the point of synonomy.
You are asserting that there [IS!] no evidence that ‘a character evolves slowly enough to have the same state in closely related taxa as opposed to varying randomly’, despite this for example.
Given that the fact of evolution and that the correlation of genes with the same expression in closely related taxa is axiomatic, where’s the fallacy?
Just Google ‘slowly evolving genes’ and expose any fallacy.
I’m glad you’re not in denial of the fact of evolution and that you are putting your cart before that horse. Evolution is the context of slowly evolving genes and their expression in slowly changing proteins. They don’t have to prove evolution; it’s proven. There is nothing to prove.
I appreciate your clarification on this matter. Good to know everything is settled on the question of evolution.
It’s been settled since 1859. It just took 200 years of Enlightenment thinking. Since then all we’ve added is the units of inheritance. And ever finer siftings by ever finer mesh.
Those enlightenment guys are brilliant. We need some sort of word that conveys how they provide the light of truth for all the rest of us. Any ideas?
Reminds me of that lightbulb image, like when a lightbulb turns on above someone’s head. Maybe we can call them lightbulbians. What do you think?
Very Jonathan Swift!
I think what I like most of all about enlightenment thinkers is how unpretentious they are, like the more modern variant of Dawkins’ Brights. If you have the truth, there is no need to use pretentious names calling attention to that fact. Just let the truth speak for itself, and everyone will be enlightened.
Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwUTVUwB7A
This is what true enlightenment looks like, taking serious issues seriously.
It’s even been made into a license plate.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
