[Taxacom] DNA homologies

[John Grehan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of pierre deleporte

> - make an exception to this rule when the characters support the group
> (Homo, Pongo) (e.g.: ischial callosities and enamel thickness)

Are you referring to the fact that I work on the assumption that such
features are derived for humans and orangutans even though outside Old
World monkeys and apes ischial callosities are also absent in the other
primates as well as all other mammals, and that thick enamel occurs in
two monkeys and some other mammals?

> - don't consider the fact that this approach will give different
results
> according to the arbitrary depth of the phylogenetic analysis.

I presume you mean that at some level the same character states will
turn up in other taxa?

> - charge all molecular analyses of being algorithm-biased, all
molecular
> data sets of being "phenetic", never even attempt to make use of
molecular
> data, and avoid answering people suggesting you should try at least
once
> in
> your life in order to make up your mind

It's the molecular folks who are showing the molecular data to be
phenetic by explaining that the alignment process involves an
optimization for the overall number of substitutions and gaps (i.e. each
character cannot be evaluated individually because the homology is not
observable).

> >It is evident that we are not going to find agreement on some issues
and
> >this kind of disagreement is normal to science.
> 
> Of course not, it's never evident that scientists can't come to an
> agreement, to the contrary they are expected to try hard and achieve
this
> through open rational debate implementing basic rules of logics
> hence my invitation to check for logical inconsistencies,
arbitrariness
> and
> bias, all matters of rational debate when we want to compare
scientific
> approaches... scientifically

Assuming you are being logical and scientific.

> Logics don't take frustration as a valid argument

One person's logic might be another person's illogic. It all depends on
the assumptions used.

> All your attempts to turn the rational debate in terms of personal
opinion
> are scientifically invalid rhetoric, and refusing logics (like
refusing to
> use relevant evidence, cf. Fitzhugh) is flatly anti-scientific

Perhaps, perhaps not. I acknowledge your opinion.

John Grehan