Molecular biology = micromorphology

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

Well, the ideal mechanism is clear:  when a lineage splits, mutations once
shared by all individuals now are different for each split. The problem is
in the word "necessarily." This presupposes that science now continues to
deal with that which is necessary. A couple centuries ago, science began a
transition from logic-based inference to probabilistic thinking and
pragmatism.

______________________
Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group, Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
Voice: 314-577-5180;  Fax: 314-577-0828
Websites
Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Res Botanica:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/index.htm
Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110 USA


-----Original Message-----
From: John Grehan [mailto:jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:25 AM
To: Richard Zander; TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: RE: [TAXACOM] Molecular biology = micromorphology


I suppose the theoretical justification is out there somewhere, but if
non coding mutations are random why should they necessarily reflect
phylogenetic sequence? So far all I have got in the way of defense is
that molecular trees can track morphological trees which might suggest
that sequences can track phylogeny, but not that they necessarily do.

If there are random changes in all descendant lineages it would seem to
mean that all sequences are derived - that there are no 'ancestral'
sequences that can be identified as such in the outgroup.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:34 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: [TAXACOM] Molecular biology = micromorphology
>
> My understanding is that some molecular data is equivalent to
morphology
> in
> being subject to evolutionary pressures, but other data (non-coding
DNA)
> are
> not traits of the organism but are supposedly randomly generated
mutations
> that are segregated on speciation. The speciation has to do with the
> coding
> mutations not the non-coding mutations. The latter track events of
genetic
> isolation.
>
> ______________________
> Richard H. Zander
> Bryology Group, Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
> Voice: 314-577-5180;  Fax: 314-577-0828
> Websites
> Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Res Botanica:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/index.htm
> Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> 4344 Shaw Blvd.
> St. Louis, MO 63110 USA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Leech [mailto:releech at TELUSPLANET.NET]
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:47 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] New Squamate classification
>
>
> The real irony is that molecular biology is still morphology,
> micromorphology.
> Anything we do that sets up characters or characteristics
> for distinguishing one thing from another is morphology.
> Robin Leech