Talk:3010: Geometriphylogenetics

Does the phrase "maximum likelihood" have any relationship to phylogenetics? Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Profoundly so. Most contemporary analyses, especially of large datasets, use either maximum-likelihood methodologies or Bayesian inference (q.v.). I will see if I can say something coherent and comprehensible about this in the explanation. 172.71.147.58 03:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If it was you who added the explanation for the title text, nicely done! Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Pointy circle" is, of course, an oxymoron. Randall is also making a joke about how older phylogenetic trees were based on anatomy, like saying that squares and triangles are close because they have exoskeletons with straight lines and joints. Now, the tree is (where possible) based on genetic similarity. Nitpicking (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hippos can't swim? Did the BBC lie to us? https://youtu.be/X20NjqMiQyo?si=8pN-xwgKJEWM08ZF 172.68.186.135 06:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Fiona the Hippo begs to differ. [1] Seebert (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why was phylogenetic analysis required to establish this relationship? Reuleaux triangles are an intermediate form, demonstrating a close relation between circles and triangles. 172.71.130.208 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, he's doing phylogenetics wrong: the pentagons (& hexagons, not shown) should also be shown as descending from the circles. Plus, the ovoids (far more than a middle step between lentiform & triangle, truly an extant branch in their own right) are not represented at all. A major oversight, to cut such corners, given the point he's circling about? ProphetZarquon (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone should add something about how circles and triangles are related through trig in a way that the rest aren't. Sorry I am new to this and don't know how to format my comment correctly.

I'm sure you could develop a 'DNA' sequence for geometric shapes. [Number of active vertices + angle, Number of curves in each side + variation from straight + orientation from centre, thickness of stroke, etc] basically the sort of data in any drawing data of said shape. Thus you could have two circles that look every similar, but one being an extreme Reulaux triangle and the other a 10,000 sided polygon with no side curvature at all! C.f. Swift and swallow! YMMV RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The result would be a taxon x character data matrix, the first step in all forms of phylogenetic analysis. On such a small matrix, you could probably perform maximum parsimony analysis by hand, as Hennig did. However, with such a small number of characters per taxon, taxon resolution would probably be low (lots of polytomies instead of fully resolved dichotomies), and bootstrap support values would be horrible. The resulting consensus tree would likely be [ahem] sharply criticized. Do not submit such a tree for peer review, and especially do not take it to a meeting of the Willi Hennig Society. You have been warned. 162.158.42.130 13:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m reminded of the incircle and circumcircle of a triangle. Triangles are the only shape where all polygons of that edge count are guaranteed to have an incircle and a circumcircle (unless, of course, it is degenerate). 172.71.24.5 13:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe in this "Theory of Polygon Evolution". I believe all abstract polygons were created in their current state by intelligent mathematicians. Mathmannix (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Heathen - The One True Creator is Euclid! 😉 RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of pedigree genetic charts as well, anyways you geomreationists are so absurdly wrong it's laughable /j 108.162.238.130 13:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)