[Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

[mivie at montana.edu]

Upon further thought, I see that if the hypothesis was stated as:

Reexamination of the morphological evidence will show that the Turtles +
Diapsids share a unique most-recent-common ancestor.

All of your points would be valid, but that is not what the hyp states,
nor should it, because that would be a bad, untestable hypothesis, i.e.
not a real hypothesis.

> These aren't deductive consequences, thus not test evidence. New
> characters can't be deduced from a phylogenetic hypothesis, since the
> hypothesis only states vague causal conditions pertaining to the
> characters from which the hypothesis was inferred. What is in need of
> being tested are those causal claims in the hypothesis, thus we have to
> find evidence that those occurred. This has been a long-standing
> misunderstanding in cladistics for far too long, and has been maintained
> in recent years by some authors publishing papers (especially in
> /Cladistics/), where the basic rules of deduction are blatantly violated.
>
> Kirk
>
> mivie at montana.edu wrote:
>> Hypothesis: Examination of new characters will reveal potential
>> synapomorphies supporting the clade Turtles+Diapsids
>> Null Hypothesis: No such characters will be discovered.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is no 'test' of competing hypotheses here. Adding more effects to
>>> be explained by way of phylogeny simply means new hypotheses are
>>> inferred, replacing the old. No test has occurred, as no valid test
>>> implications stemming from the causal conditions stipulated by the
>>> hypothesis have been predicted.
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>>
>>> --
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
>>> Curator of Polychaetes
>>> Invertebrate Zoology Section
>>> Research & Collections Branch
>>> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
>>> 900 Exposition Blvd
>>> Los Angeles CA 90007
>>> Phone: 213-763-3233
>>> FAX: 213-746-2999
>>> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
>>> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>> mivie at montana.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>> This turtle study is an excellent example of how the
>>>> molecular-morphological issue SHOULD work.  There is an established
>>>> morphology-based system, challenged by new data from molecules,
>>>> setting
>>>> up
>>>> a test of competing hypotheses.  The test then causes new character
>>>> systems to be found and evaluated, leading to progress in the
>>>> whole-evidence understanding of the group.
>>>>
>>>> Why this is so seldom done in the great apes is a mystery.  The recent
>>>> Discovery special on Ardi was a perfect example of nonsense
>>>> pseudoscience
>>>> being presented to the  public about great ape origins.  In the
>>>> program,
>>>> they kept saying they expected a human ancestor that was chimp-like,
>>>> showing a phylogram with chimps and humans having a most recent common
>>>> ancestor. Then, when they found something non-chimp like, they just
>>>> drew
>>>> the same phylogram LONGER!  They never dealt with the idea of
>>>> refutable
>>>> hypotheses, nor that fact that the common ancestor of humans and
>>>> chimps
>>>> (at whatever level it existed) would not be expected to look like
>>>> either.
>>>> No wonder so much of the public has a misunderstanding of evolution if
>>>> we
>>>> teach them about it with such sensational and misleading stuff!
>>>>
>>>> Makes me understand more why this drivel drives John G over the edge.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Ivie
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>