[Taxacom] Propaganda (was: Molecules vs. Morphology)

[John Grehan]

> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
 
> John,
>       One of these days, all these people who have tried to
> scientifically reason with you might actually make a break-through.

Now, now Ken, you are almost being patronizing. I won't return the
compliment.

> Except for you, almost everyone agrees that an argument based solely
on
> morphology, and just opportunistically lashing out at anything
molecular
> to the contrary, is most likely an exercise in futility.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

> Your accusations of "propoganda" aren't really taken seriously.

Everyone is free to decide for or against my opinions.

> Unless whole genome analysis clearly shows that you are correct (which
I
> obviously doubt), you are sorely in need of a molecular specialist to
> back you up.  

This gets to an interesting phenomenon in science. A prediction about
reality is rejected unless it is supported by a particular kind of
evidence. A bumble bee cannot fly unless a physicist can demonstrate
that it can.

Arguing from a morphological perspective alone, without
> molecular confirmation, is getting you nowhere.

The morphological perspective provides a coherent explanation of why we
look more like orangutans in specialized features, and why hominids look
more like orangutans as well. Perhaps that is getting nowhere as far as
you or others are concerned. But me, I'm quite happy with the results so
far. And being happy is what it is all about.

John Grehan