Fwd: Re: Publishing on human origins

[John Grehan]

>Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 01:48:03 -1100
>To: pierre deleporte <pierre.deleporte at univ-rennes1.fr>
>From: John Grehan <jgrehan at tpbmail.net>
>Subject: Re: Publishing on human origins
>
>At 01:27 PM 5/29/04 +0200, pierre deleporte wrote:
>>Please John, how is it possible that you go on repeating this pure piece 
>>of nonsense ??? On the list, to the face of the world ?...
>
>Well it all depends on whether it is nonsense at all.
>
>>Cladistic qualifies analysis, not characters.
>
>Saying so does not make it necessarily so. I'm still going to disagree 
>with you on this one.
>
>>The same data matrix of characters can be analysed cladistically, 
>>phenetically
>
>This is where we depart. If the characters are already polarized before 
>the analysis it would seem hardly logical to analyze them 'phenetically' 
>as the data would already be cladistic.
>
>>, maximum-likelihoodly, bayesian-chain-monte-carlo-ly, or what I know. 
>>Exactly the same data matrix.
>
>It seems to me that these tree building exercises can certainly be applied 
>to cladistic and non cladistic data.
>
>>Molecules or morphology.
>
>Two issues - one - whether DNA sequence data are cladistic or not. My view 
>is that they are not, and the imposition of an outgroup does not transform 
>the 'informative' characters into cladistic characters for all that the 
>algorithm treats them that way. Another - whether DNA sequence data 
>necessarily track phylogeny any more than morphological cladistic data.
>
>>Colleagues are explaining this to you since years now, a lot of different 
>>ways. Me and colleagues have been trying their best to give you a basic 
>>graduate student lecture on the topic.
>
>It doesn't seem that way to me mate. What I see are assertions rather than 
>anything demonstrating that 'cladistics' is defined by the analysis rather 
>than the content of characters. However, I was willing to consider I was 
>missing something - that I misunderstood something. Its still possible 
>just as I might misunderstand Darwinism in my stubbornness in not 
>accepting it like most everyone else.
>
>>But you simply don't care, John. It's unfair. And totally desheartening.
>
>My views are not at the whim of others. And neither should yours.
>
>>Your incredibly misconcieved-and-stubborn (I'm trying to remain 
>>descriptive, I don't mean any personal offense)
>
>None taken mate as I am sure you would not feel that way either if the 
>same adjectives were applied to you.
>
>>attitude on this point can only shed discredit on your other, possibly 
>>meaningful points.
>
>That's for each individual to decide according to their perspectives. No 
>worries.
>
>>Of course all morphological data should be taken into account. But of 
>>course molecules are not "non-cladistic data", because this formula is 
>>totally nonsensical, always was and will always be. Logics matter.
>
>It all depends
>
>
>>I am ready to try and explain you the point by all means, between the two 
>>of us... if only you have the will to listen and learn what you obvioulsy 
>>still don't understand the slightest way.
>
>Or maybe I do understand, and its just that we don't agree on what we each 
>understand.
>
>
>>The worst of it is that, after having written yourself several times that 
>>maybe you didn't understood the point clearly (just check your posts of 
>>the past years), you can write the above sentence today... It's simply 
>>unbelievable.
>
>I don't see any problem with being willing to consider that I don't 
>understand some point (as referenced above).
>
>>Trying my best...
>
>Don't try too hard. After all, I stuck with panbiogeography against all 
>'logic'.
>
>John Grehan
>
>
>>Best and cheers,
>>Pierre
>>
>>
>>Pierre Deleporte
>>CNRS UMR 6552 - Station Biologique de Paimpont
>>F-35380 Paimpont   FRANCE
>>Téléphone : 02 99 61 81 66
>>Télécopie : 02 99 61 81 88