Re: Gaia theropod follow-up: a "new" phylogeny

["philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>]

< I don't know about "universally applicable rules of evolution", but you
might notice something which seems to have application for the particular
group you are working on.  Like George, you seem dead set on finding
universal laws for perfectly generalizing everything.  Evolution (like
sedimentary geology) is a little too complicated for that.>

I agree with you completely.
I was observing that when you say a 'blind' (based on principles programmed
into an algorithm) analysis can correctly hypothesize relationships, you are
assuming that the algorithm will correctly identify how evolution operated.
If the algorithm can come to a (more likely) conclusion, then implicitly it
has identified how evolution works because it has identified starting and
ending points, with the explicit assertion that they are connected.
If your algorithm cannot correctly track evolution in all cases, then there
would be little reason to believe its findings, no?
The finding of universally applicable rules was implicit in your original
statements, and that was what I was questioning.
Your discussion of tooth counts was intriguing.  You gave me context and
significance, and I'll remember your observations.  Anytime you want to do
more of that I'll be attentive and appreciative.
Thanks!