Equation 3 · One Tree: The Statistics of Common Descent
What does this equation mean?
Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.
under one model than the other - not a correlation coefficient, not a subjective sense of resemblance, but a single number with a precise probabilistic meaning that can in principle come out favouring either model. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.
Read it piece by piece
Symbol D
under one model than the other - not a correlation coefficient, not a subjective sense of resemblance, but a single number with a precise probabilistic meaning that can in principle come out favouring either model.
How to interpret it
Read this expression with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.
What the article says around this equation
and K , the Bayes factor, states exactly how many times more probable the observed data D are under one model than the other - not a correlation coefficient, not a subjective sense of resemblance, but a single number with a precise probabilistic meaning that can in principle come out favouring either model. For the proteins Theobald examined, it was not close. Universal common ancestry came out favoured over the closest competing multiple-ancestry hypothesis by odds reported on the order of ten to the power of two thousand eight hundred and sixty to one, and over the specific alternative that humans arose independently of the rest of life by something on the order of ten to the power of six…
Read the full surrounding passage
and K , the Bayes factor, states exactly how many times more probable the observed data D are under one model than the other - not a correlation coefficient, not a subjective sense of resemblance, but a single number with a precise probabilistic meaning that can in principle come out favouring either model. For the proteins Theobald examined, it was not close. Universal common ancestry came out favoured over the closest competing multiple-ancestry hypothesis by odds reported on the order of ten to the power of two thousand eight hundred and sixty to one, and over the specific alternative that humans arose independently of the rest of life by something on the order of ten to the power of six thousand to one - numbers large enough that Theobald himself, discussing the paper around its publication, called it beside the point to state them as ordinary betting odds. The result held, notably, even when the alternative models were allowed to include horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events rather than only a strictly bifurcating rival tree [ 5 ] .
Sources cited in the surrounding passage
These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.