The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

correlation between Acanthostega and Tulerpeton (47%). In the 3D MDS results (Figure 8), there is also a clear separation between the two clusters, but perhaps also some indications of discontinuities within each cluster. For example, Tiktaalik + Panderichthys seem to be somewhat separated from Gogonasus + Eusthenopteron , and Marsdenichthys is separated from all the other fishes. Likewise, Ichthyostega + Acanthostega + Hynerpeton are slightly separated from the Carboniferous tetrapods + Tulerpeton (which seem to form a tight ‘sub-cluster’), and Ossinodus is separated from all the other tetrapods. The 3D stress was 0.205 with minimal stress of 0.169 at two dimensions. The baraminic distance correlation results for Swartz’s (2012) matrix are summarized in Figure 9. Two clusters are evident, one comprising the Devonian tetrapods ( Ichthyostega + Ventastega + Acanthostega ) and the other comprising the Devonian fishes ( Osteolepis + Gogonasus + Eusthenopteron + Panderichthys + Tiktaalik ). Every member of Group 1 is negatively correlated with every member of Group 2, apart from Tiktaalik . Elginerpeton is not positively correlated with any other taxon, but is negatively correlated with Osteolepis and Eusthenopteron . Elpistostege is not positively or negatively correlated with any other taxon. Bootstrap values range from 36% to 100%, but are generally good with a median value of 94%. The lowest bootstrap values are seen with the negative correlations between Elginerpeton and, respectively, Eusthenopteron (36%) and Osteolepis (45%). The 3D MDS results (Figure 10) show the same clusters, with Elginerpeton probably part of the Devonian tetrapod cluster and Elpistostege standing apart from both clusters. There may also be an indication of discontinuity between the elpistostegids and the other fishes. The 3D stress was 0.1098 with minimal stress of 0.1097 at four dimensions. The baraminic distance correlation results for Sookias et al.’s (2014) matrix are summarized in Figure 11. Two clusters can be seen, one comprising the Devonian fishes (including the elpistostegids) and Garner and Asher ◀ Devonian and Carboniferous tetrapodomorphs ▶ 2018 ICC 465 Figure 7. BDC results for Ruta’s (2011) matrix with a subset of 13 taxa, as calculated by BDISTMDS (relevance cutoff 0.75). Closed squares indicate significant, positive BDC; open circles indicate significant, negative BDC. Black symbols indicate bootstrap values >90% in a sample of 100 pseudoreplicates. Grey symbols represent bootstrap values <90%. Figure 8. Three dimensional MDS applied to Ruta’s (2011) matrix with a subset of 13 taxa. Devonian tetrapods are shown in blue, elpistostegids in red, Carboniferous tetrapods in yellow and other fishes in black. Figure 9. BDC results for Swartz’s (2012) matrix with a subset of 10 taxa, as calculated by BDISTMDS (relevance cutoff 0.75). Closed squares indicate significant, positive BDC; open circles indicate significant, negative BDC. Black symbols indicate bootstrap values >90% in a sample of 100 pseudoreplicates. Grey symbols represent bootstrap values <90%. Figure 10. Three dimensional MDS applied to Swartz’s (2012) matrix with a subset of 10 taxa. Devonian tetrapods are shown in blue, elpistostegids in red and other fishes in black.