[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


> Yes, hence they are not "uniquely derived" as they should be according
to
> your own standard ("compatibility" criterion for a priori selection of
> characters)

I would agree that in an absolute sense they are not unique because the
same condition occurs in other taxa. However, I can individually make
the case to predict they are uniquely derived because of their rarity or
the outgroup distance in which they occur. But one could also argue the
case by comparing the character distribution for an analysis of the
interrelationships of those groups. I won't bother. If others can
algorithmically refute my contention about their status then fine.

> >I presume you mean that at some level the same character states will
> >turn up in other taxa?
> 
> Yes they can, you get it

Of course. But most of the proposed derived characters can be shown not
to show up in other taxa - something that one can individually do for
each proposed character state in morphology.

> not all molecular folks, as you should know better
> (at least not the cladistic molecular folks)

Please give me a citation of a molecular paper that does not use some
kind of optimization process to balance gaps and substitutions to match
bases for sequences of different lengths. sort 


> 
> >(i.e. each character cannot be evaluated individually because the
> homology
> >is not
> >observable).
> 
> this is not true

Well those molecular systematists who use alignment say otherwise.

> 
> no, logics is first in rational debates

According to whatever form of logic you chose to accept. 

> >Perhaps, perhaps not. I acknowledge your opinion.
> 
> I'm not interested in opinions in scientific matters

But you DO express a lot of opinions!

John