...@r-project.org [r-sig-phylo-boun...@r-project.org]
on behalf of Tom Schoenemann [t...@indiana.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:21 PM
To: Tom Schoenemann
Cc: r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] PGLS vs lm
OK, so I haven't gotten any responses that convince me that PGLS
PM
To: Tom Schoenemann
Cc: r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] PGLS vs lm
OK, so I haven't gotten any responses that convince me that PGLS isn't
biologically suspect. At the risk of thinking out loud to myself here, I wonder
if my finding might have to do with the method
...@indiana.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:21 PM
To: Tom Schoenemann
Cc: r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] PGLS vs lm
OK, so I haven't gotten any responses that convince me that PGLS isn't
biologically suspect. At the risk of thinking out loud to myself here, I
wonder
Dear Santiago,
I agree that evolving traits might have all sorts of complicated relationships,
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't rule out simple relationships first. And
besides, the most basic question one can ask - really the first question to ask
- is whether there is any association at
Hi all,
I'm still unsure of how I should interpret results given that using PGLS to
predict group size from brain size gives different significance levels and
lambda estimates than when I do the reverse (i.e., predict brain size from
group size). Biologically, I don't think this makes any
Thanks Liam,
A couple of questions:
How does one do a hypothesis test on a regression, controlling for phylogeny,
if not using PGLS as I am doing? I realize one could use independent
contrasts, though I was led to believe that is equivalent to a PGLS with lambda
= 1.
I take it from what
Hi all,
I would like to react a bit on this issue.
Probably one problem is that the distinction correlation vs.
regression is not the same for independent data and for phylogenetic data.
Consider the case of independent observations first. Suppose we are
interested in the relationship y = b
-phylo] PGLS vs lm
Hi all,
I would like to react a bit on this issue.
Probably one problem is that the distinction correlation vs.
regression is not the same for independent data and for phylogenetic data.
Consider the case of independent observations first. Suppose we are
interested
-phylo-boun...@r-project.org [r-sig-phylo-boun...@r-project.org]
on behalf of Tom Schoenemann [t...@indiana.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:19 AM
To: Emmanuel Paradis
Cc: r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] PGLS vs lm
Thanks Emmanuel,
OK, so this makes sense in terms
Thanks Liam,
OK, I'm starting to understand this better. But I'm not sure what now to do.
Given that the mathematics are such that a PGLS gives significance in one
direction, but not in another, what is the most convincing way to show that the
two variables really ARE associated (at some level
Tom Schoenemann asked me:
With respect to your crankiness, is this the paper by Hansen that you are
referring to?:
Bartoszek, K., Pienaar, J., Mostad, P., Andersson, S., Hansen, T. F.
(2012). A phylogenetic comparative method for studying multivariate
adaptation. Journal of
Hi Tom,
In an OLS regression, the residuals from both regressions (varA ~ varB
and varB ~ varA) are different but their distributions are (more or
less) symmetric. So, because the residuals are independent (ie, their
covariance is null), the residual standard error will be the same (or
very
Paradis
Cc: r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] PGLS vs lm
Thanks Emmanuel,
OK, so this makes sense in terms of the math involved. However, from a
practical, interpretive perspective, shouldn't I assume this to mean that we
actually cannot say (from this data) whether VarA
Hi all,
I ran a PGLS with two variables, call them VarA and VarB, using a phylogenetic
tree and corPagel. When I try to predict VarA from VarB, I get a significant
coefficient for VarB. However, if I invert this and try to predict VarB from
VarA, I do NOT get a significant coefficient for
14 matches
Mail list logo
