In article <6a33ft$54t at net.bio.net>, Sean Eddy <eddy at wol.wustl.edu> wrote:
> In article <6a30e6$ro7 at net.bio.net> "Guy A. Hoelzer"
<hoelzer at med.unr.edu> writes:
> >This seems to me to be an overly optimistic view of the value of maximum
> >likelihood approaches. In general, maximum likelihood is vulnerable to
> >errors in the chosen model of evolution and in the parameter estimates
> >that are used.
> Agreed. But on the other hand: a phylogenetic inference method that is
> /not/ sensitive to the chosen model of evolution would be...?
That is my point exactly. I have been increasingly concerned that ML has
been portrayed as somehow immune to some the the "universal" problems in
phylogeny estimation. Given its mathematical complexity, I believe that
many practitioners of phylogenetics are judging ML based on the summary
statements of the experts, so a more balanced portrayal is essential.
Guy Hoelzer e-mail: hoelzer at med.unr.edu
Department of Biology phone: 702-784-4860
University of Nevada Reno fax: 702-784-1302
Reno, NV 89557