Constraining prior probabilities of phylogenetic trees Article

First Online: 06 March 2011 Received: 02 July 2010 Accepted: 01 February 2011 DOI :
10.1007/s10539-011-9253-7

Cite this article as: Autzen, B. Biol Philos (2011) 26: 567. doi:10.1007/s10539-011-9253-7 Abstract Although Bayesian methods are widely used in phylogenetic systematics today, the foundations of this methodology are still debated among both biologists and philosophers. The Bayesian approach to phylogenetic inference requires the assignment of prior probabilities to phylogenetic trees. As in other applications of Bayesian epistemology, the question of whether there is an objective way to assign these prior probabilities is a contested issue. This paper discusses the strategy of constraining the prior probabilities of phylogenetic trees by means of the Principal Principle. In particular, I discuss a proposal due to Velasco (Biol Philos 23:455–473, 2008 ) of assigning prior probabilities to tree topologies based on the Yule process. By invoking the Principal Principle I argue that prior probabilities of tree topologies should rather be assigned a weighted mixture of probability distributions based on Pinelis’ (P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 270:1425–1431, 2003 ) multi-rate branching process including both the Yule distribution and the uniform distribution. However, I argue that this solves the problem of the priors of phylogenetic trees only in a weak form.

Keywords Bayesian epistemology Multi-rate branching process Phylogenetic trees Phylogenetics Principal Principle Prior probabilities Yule process

References Aldous DJ (1996) Probability distributions on cladograms. In: Aldous DJ, Permantle R (eds) Random discrete structures. Springer, New York, pp 1–18

Aldous DJ (2001) Stochastic models and descriptive statistics for phylogenetic trees. Statist Sci 16:23–34

CrossRef Alfaro ME, Holder MT (2006) The posterior and the prior in bayesian phylogenetics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:19–42

CrossRef Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life. Simon and Schuster, New York

Earman J (1992) Bayes or bust? A critical examination of bayesian confirmation theory. MIT Press, Cambridge

Edwards WH, Lindman H, Savage LJ (1963) Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychol Rev 70:193–242

CrossRef Eldredge N, Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf TJM (ed) Models in paleobiology. Freeman Cooper, San Francisco, pp 82–115

Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer, Sunderland

Gillies D (2000) Philosophical theories of probability. Routledge, London

Guyer C, Slowinski J (1993) Adaptive radiation and the topology of large phylogenies. Evolution 47:253–263

CrossRef Heard SB (1992) Patterns in tree balance among cladistic, phenetic, and randomly generated phylogenetic trees. Evolution 46:1818–1826

CrossRef Howson C, Urbach P (2006) Scientific reasoning: the bayesian approach, 3rd edn. Open Court, Chicago

Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B (2004) Frequentist properties of bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst Biol 53:904–913

CrossRef Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MR BAYES: bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754–755

CrossRef Jaynes ET (1983) In: Rosenkrantz R (ed) Papers on probability, statistics, and statistical physics. Reidel, Dordrecht

Keynes JM (1921) A treatise on probability. MacMillan, New York

Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54:421–431

Lewis D (1980) A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In: Jeffrey R (ed) Studies in inductive logic and probability vol II. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 263–293

Maddison W, Slatkin M (1991) Null models for the number of evolutionary steps in a character on a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 45:1184–1197

CrossRef McMullin E (1985) Galilean idealization. Stud Hist Philos Sci 16:247–273

CrossRef Mellor DH (2005) Probability: a philosophical introduction. Routledge, London

Pinelis I (2003) Evolutionary models of phylogenetic trees. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 270:1425–1431

CrossRef Rannala B, Yang Z (1996) Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. J Mol Evol 43:304–311

CrossRef Simmons MP, Pickett KM, Miya M (2004) How meaningful are bayesian support values? Mol Biol Evol 21:188–199

CrossRef Steel M, McKenzie A (2001) Properties of phylogenetic trees generated by Yuletype speciation models. Math Biosci 170:91–112

CrossRef Sterelny K (2007) Dawkins vs. Gould: survival of the fittest. Icon Books, Thriplow

Suppes P (1966) A bayesian approach to the paradoxes of confirmation. In: Hintikka J, Suppes P (eds) Aspects of inductive logic. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 198–207

CrossRef Velasco JD (2008) The prior probabilities of phylogenetic trees. Biol Philos 23:455–473

CrossRef Weisberg M (2006) Robustness analysis. Philos Sci 73:730–742

CrossRef Williamson J (2007) Motivating objective bayesianism: from empirical constraints to objective probabilities. In: Harper WL, Wheeler GR (eds) Probability and inference: essays in honor of Henry E. Kyburg Jr. College Publications, London, pp 155–183

Wimsatt WC (1981) Robustness, reliability, and overdetermination. In: Brewer M, Collins B (eds) Scientific enquiry and the social sciences. Jossey-Boss, San Francisco, pp 124–163

Yang Z (2006) Computational molecular evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

CrossRef Yule GU (1924) A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. JC Willis, FRS. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 213:21–87

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations 1. Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics and Political Science London UK