[Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

[Richard Zander]

I think the desperation to get exact results is response to such
self-serving nonsense as Ernest Rutherford's comment:
"The only true science is physics, all else is stamp collecting."

Brock has nicely shown the difference (and similarities) between hard
sciences and systematics, see my collection of papers on such stuff at:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/EvSy/2.htm 




*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
*****************************

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of J. Kirk
Fitzhugh
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:58 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

I'd be fascinated to actually see a valid deduction of morphology from a
moleculoid tree, or vice versa. It's not that difficult to follow the
rules of deduction, so why not show us? I continue not to understand why
the most basic mechanics of testing that have been established for all
fields of science aren't being applied here.

Incongruence/congruence is a shame. It's meaningless. You're comparing
two disparate hypotheses that have no relevance to each other. The only
relevance those hypotheses have is to the characters used to infer the
respective hypotheses. The nature of the evidence to which you refer is
only evidence prompting particular hypotheses, not valid test evidence.
Kirk

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.