  Testing fit of data to model is fundamentally important to any science, but
publications in the field of phylogenetics rarely do this. Such analyses
discard fundamental aspects of science as prescribed by Karl Popper. Indeed,
not without cause, Popper (1978) once argued that evolutionary biology was
unscientific as its hypotheses were untestable. Here we trace developments in
assessing fit from Penny et al. (1982) to the present. We compare the general
log-likelihood ratio (the G or G2 statistic) statistic between the evolutionary
tree model and the multinomial model with that of marginalized tests applied to
an alignment (using placental mammal coding sequence data). It is seen that the
most general test does not reject the fit of data to model (p~0.5), but the
marginalized tests do. Tests on pair-wise frequency (F) matrices, strongly (p <
0.001) reject the most general phylogenetic (GTR) models commonly in use. It is
also clear (p < 0.01) that the sequences are not stationary in their nucleotide
composition. Deviations from stationarity and homogeneity seem to be unevenly
distributed amongst taxa; not necessarily those expected from examining other
regions of the genome. By marginalizing the 4t patterns of the i.i.d. model to
observed and expected parsimony counts, that is, from constant sites, to
singletons, to parsimony informative characters of a minimum possible length,
then the likelihood ratio test regains power, and it too rejects the
evolutionary model with p << 0.001. Given such behavior over relatively recent
evolutionary time, readers in general should maintain a healthy skepticism of
results, as the scale of the systematic errors in published analyses may really
be far larger than the analytical methods (e.g., bootstrap) report.
