[edsheppa]

then it doesn't matter to me how you would choose to represent the findings

Is it so hard to just answer the question? Would you or wouldn't you expect to see a correlation between the trees? Why or why not?

if the information is real then any analysis is meaningful and could lead to discovery

Again, you're begging the question. If the big tree emerged by pasting together the small ones, would it be meaningful to you? Would you think it called for an explanation?

I really don't want to get into a philosophical debate about the meaning of real. I suggest we stick to simpler territory.

Bottom line to me is that 99.98% of the Darwin tree (which is vertically by time) will remain hypothesis.

Bottom line to me is that if the small trees correlated (which I do expect) and if pasted together they made a big tree (which I think they will) then it is meaningful and requires an explanation. Absent other knowledge I'd propose as the simplest explanation that living species are related in a tree-like fashion by common descent. Further, again absent other knowledge, I'd say that living species are a random sampling of all (living and extinct) species and would feel justified in supposing that all (living and extinct) species are so related.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post, for sharing your views and for the discussion! I am however making good, positive progress with Nebullis and do not have the time to pursue two investigative projects simultaneously. Maybe later we can resume our discussion, but for now I need to put it on a back burner.

[Alamo-Girl]

With reference to your questions:

Would you or wouldn't you expect to see a correlation between the trees? Why or why not?

No, I would not assume there would be a correlation before looking at the underlying information.

If the big tree emerged by pasting together the small ones, would it be meaningful to you?

Again, it would be meaningful to me only if I had confidence in the underlying information.

Would you think it called for an explanation?

No, not if the tree were built largely from a hypothesis. At best it could direct future research to confirm whether or not the hypothesis holds true.