2 messages in edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacomFWD>RE>FWD>True phyloge
FromSent OnAttachments
Warren LamboyAug 2, 1995 3:34 pm 
Leonard KrishtalkaAug 3, 1995 7:38 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:FWD>RE>FWD>True phylogeActions...
From:Warren Lamboy (warr@QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU)
Date:Aug 2, 1995 3:34:28 pm
List:edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacom

Reply to: RE>>FWD>RE>FWD>True phylogenies

Dear Leonard:

I do not agree that "nature or evolution is parsimonious" is one of the assumptions of phylogeny reconstruction. Rather, we prefer the most parsimonious tree because it requires the least amount of homoplasy. It is the simplest explanation consistent with the observed data. Occam's Razor is a statement about our explanations of reality, not about reality itself.

- Warren

-------------------------------------- Date: 29/07/1995 19:41 To: Warren Lamboy From: Leonard Krishtalka On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Warren Lamboy wrote:

No one seems to fret about the assumptions inherent in phylogeny reconstruction methods. Possibly this is because it is difficult to state exactly what they are.

Not so. The three-word statement

"Nature is parsimonious"

should cover it. In the case of phylogeny reconstruction, the statment becomes "Evolution is/was parsimonious".

"Nature is parsimonious" is the elemental, overriding assumption (hypothesis) not only behind phylogeny reconstruction but behind all of science. William of Occam stated it more eloquently hundreds of years ago, and since then all scientists have shaved with Occam's Razor (pardon the mixed metaphor, but it was too obvious to pass up). Much of science, then, is the discovery (quantitative and qualitative) of how far/often nature has strayed from pure parsimony.

Krishtalka Natural History Museum The University of Kansas

"Nature is not as simple as its observers"