"Is there any reason, other than esprit de corps, to explain why, in many journals, it became almost impossible to publish a paper using parsimony as the only method?"
Pablo A. Goloboff, Ambrosio Torres and J. Salvador Arias. 2017. Weighted parsimony outperforms other methods of phylogenetic inference under models appropriate for morphology. Cladistics
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12205/epdf
Aqui esta el resumen.
Abstract
One of the lasting controversies in phylogenetic inference is the degree to which specific evolutionary models should influence
the choice of methods. Model-based approaches to phylogenetic inference (likelihood, Bayesian) are defended on the premise
that without explicit statistical models there is no science, and parsimony is defended on the grounds that it provides the best
rationalization of the data, while refraining from assigning specific probabilities to trees or character-state reconstructions.
Authors who favour model-based approaches often focus on the statistical properties of the methods and models themselves,
but this is of only limited use in deciding the best method for phylogenetic inference—such decision also requires considering
the conditions of evolution that prevail in nature. Another approach is to compare the performance of parsimony and model-
based methods in simulations, which traditionally have been used to defend the use of models of evolution for DNA sequences.
Some recent papers, however, have promoted the use of model-based approaches to phylogenetic inference for discrete morpho-
logical data as well. These papers simulated data under models already known to be unfavourable to parsimony, and modelled
morphological evolution as if it evolved just like DNA, with probabilities of change for all characters changing in concert along
tree branches. The present paper discusses these issues, showing that under reasonable and less restrictive models of evolution
for discrete characters, equally weighted parsimony performs as well or better than model-based methods, and that parsimony
under implied weights clearly outperforms all other methods.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2017.
Este es su espacio para difundir información sobre actividades, cursos, investigación, congresos, etc y promover el contacto entre nuestra comunidad filogenética. Todos pueden publicar. Bienvenidos!
Contenido más reciente ...
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
Si, porque estamos en el Siglo 21.
ResponderEliminarrazonamiento?
EliminarPaulo Nuin, supongo que puedo escribirte en español Avisame si prefieres inglés. Asumo que tu "respuesta" es a la pregunta retórica que Efraín transcribe. Puedo preguntarte, por favor, si has leído el abstract que Efraín también posteó? El abstract habla explícitamente de simulaciones. La moda en el Siglo 21 es validar métodos con simulaciones, y cuando haces simulaciones morfológicas más realistas no hay ventaja de ML o Bayesiano sobre parsimonia, y sí hay mucha ventaja de pesos implicados sobre ML o Bayesiano. Entonces, si estamos en el Siglo 21, como tú dices, eso debería parecerte sumamente relevante... No crees, por lo tanto, que vale la pena pegarle una mirada al paper, a ver qué dice realmente, en lugar de asumir a priori que es obsoleto e intrascendente?
EliminarMás allá de apelar a una razón temporal, podrías explicarlo ahora con argumentos? Qué tal sí se deja de especular en la ciencia?
ResponderEliminarO dejamos las categorías Linneanas en la taxonomía por haber sido propuestas hace un buen tiempo?