[Taxacom] quote of the week

[John Grehan]

I guess it is radical, but then it's the molecularists who have pushed
the distinction (and superiority) of molecules.

I can observe or define an ear homology as something that exists in
nature. When alignment is involved, as it is so often, homologies are
created that do not exist in nature - they are the product of one or
more alignment programs. So the sequences are empirical, but the cross
species homologies of sequences are not when they are the product of
alignment.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:27 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] quote of the week
> 
> John,
> 
> Are you suggesting that molecular sequences do not constitute
biological
> evidence? This seems a radical point of view.
> 
> And, why is an observation of the morphology of an ear more empirical
> than determining the sequence of a gene?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dick J
> 
> Richard Jensen, Professor
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> Tel: 574-284-4674
> 
> 
> 
> John Grehan wrote:
> > As you all know, the chimpanzee theory of human origin is all the
rage
> > because of their greater molecular similarity to humans than the
other
> > great apes, and that this theory of origin is contradicted by the
> > biological evidence. For all the (usually blind) faith that is put
in
> > the molecular theory, here is a footnote published in Scientific
> > American, March 2008 (p. 21).
> >
> >
> >
> > "One thing everyone agrees on is that reading our history in our
genes
> > is fraught with pitfalls. Getting lots of data has become easy, but
> > working out which sequences to use, whom to sample, and how to
identify
> > the genetic legacies of natural selection, migration and publication
> > bottleneck is extremely touch. Even relatively simple analyses
involve
> > assumptions and educated guesswork and can take thousands of hours
of
> > computer time."
> >
> >
> >
> > So you can chose a method fraught with pitfalls and educated
guesswork,
> > or  the biological evidence where the characters are empirical,
there is
> > no guesswork, and less in the way of computational assumptions
> > (certainly no need to resort to a priori theoretical models of what
the
> > phylogeny should be in the first place).
> >
> >
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. John R. Grehan
> >
> > Director of Science and Collections
> >
> > Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway
> >
> > Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
> >
> > email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> >
> > Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
> >
> >
> >
> > Panbiogeography
> >
> > http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php
> >
> > Ghost moth research
> >
> >
http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php
> >
> > Human evolution and the great apes
> >
> > http://www.sciencebuff.org/human_origin_and_the_great_apes.php
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom mailing list
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >