Turning around

Tue Feb 21 11:38:49 CST 2006

So come up with an alternative explanation that explains the situation,
John. I have already done so on Taxacom and nary a response to be had, even
from you. 

Reprise: I cited L. Caporale's theory that silenced genes and gene clusters
have adaptive advantage over the slower process or re-evolution, and also
cited many instances of clear violation of Dollo's Law agaist re-evolution
of complex traits. The orangutan-homo similarities can be explained thusly
and in a most modern fashion without contradicting past methods. All that
needs to be done is prove it through genomic analysis :)

______________________
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: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:23 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Turning around

Unfortunately it hasn't turned around at all when it comes to human and
great ape relationships. The absolute belief in DNA sequence similarities as
the last word on our nearest living relative continues to reign supreme
while contradictory morphological evidence is either denigrated out of hand
or ignored (the most common response) and popular science media shudder at
the thought of questioning the deification of DNA based hominoid evolution.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On 
> Behalf Of buchen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:14 PM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Turning around
> 
> I keep my fingers crossed that we are waking up!
> 
> Cornelia Büchen-Osmond
> ICTVdB Management
> Columbia University
> 
> 47 Glenmore Drive
> Durham, NC 27707, USA
> Phone: 1 (919) 493 0547
> Email: cb2009 at columbia.edu
> ICTVdB web sites
> home:   http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/
> NCBI:   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/
> Europe: http://www.ictvdb.rothamsted.ac.uk/
> China:   http://ictvdb.mirror.ac.cn/
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On 
> Behalf Of Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 11:56 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: [TAXACOM] Turning around
> 
> It's turning around.
> 
> The original idea of molecular taxonomy (I believe) was to infer 
> nested events of genetic isolation (following the Biological Species 
> Concept) from accumulations of evolutionary neutral molecular 
> mutations. The limitations of this simplistic idea are many and have 
> become obvious, and, I hope, embarrassing. Evolutionary development, 
> proteomics/phenomics, and a resurgence of taxonomists interested in 
> process-based evolution are presently attacking the default definition 
> "systematics is phylogenetics and its applications in classification."
> 
> ______________________
> 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: buchen [mailto:cb2009 at COLUMBIA.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:51 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] TDWG/GBIF GUID-1 Workshop Report
> 
> I wish I could believe that there are still sane people out there, 
> looking at the biology of an organism rather than the genetic makeup.  
> I think it is more important to register the gene expression, the 
> structure and function rather than to compare mindlessly sequences 
> against each other and build phylogenetic tress based on only a single 
> gene and not the whole organism.