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

[John Grehan]

> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman

>        However, this does not excuse using such sloppy science as an
> argument against the kind of consistent molecular evidence that Grehan
> continues to rail against.  

Ken - are you saying my analysis of hominid origins is 'sloppy science'.
If so, how so.

That my acceptance  (among that of other
> researchers) of molecular methods might be too UNCRITICAL is not a
major
> problem in my opinion, and rather it is Grehan's uncritical acceptance
> of morphology alone that is leading him to problems.  

Actually this is not my position. My general position is that
contradictory morphological and molecular evidence does not
automatically mean that the former is necessarily wrong just because the
latter is represented by 'lots' of DNA base similarities. 

Of course my specific position is that I am inclined to view the
orangutan relationship as more correct than the chimpanzee, but of
course I cannot prove it. It's just my opinion - an opinion published in
reputable scientific journals. Whether any other opinion about faith in
molecular similarity is really stronger remains to be seen.

John Grehan