[Taxacom] molecular update

Fri Sep 4 20:24:48 CDT 2009

It's not a lack of understanding of the concept, just a lack of clarity on your part (or at least a lack of perceived clarity in your text on my part). So I will accept your 100% unreliable in all cases. In other words, the fossil record is not independently informative about phylogeny.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 8:56 PM
> To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> [John Grehan said] But the molecular primate folk are saying that the
> orangutan evidence is 100% wrong
> 
> [my reply] I still don't think you understand the concept of "evidence"!
> The molecular primate folk might be saying that the morphological evidence
> gives the wrong answer in the particular case of human-orangutan
> relationships, but you can't go from that to saying that morphological
> evidence gives the wrong answer 100% of the time (i.e., to ALL other
> cases)! You are confusing "(100%) wrong in a specific case" with "100%
> unreliable (in all cases)"!
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: Friday, 4 September 2009 10:33 p.m.
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> But the molecular primate folk are saying that the orangutan evidence is
> 100% wrong.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:32 PM
> To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> >there is no evidence at all because morphology gives the 'wrong' answer
> No, no, no! That is not how evidence works - have you ever been on a jury
> (or in the dock!) Evidence that is 99% reliable can still give you the
> wrong answer (that is why it isn't 100% reliable!), but it is still 99%
> reliable evidence, not "no evidence at all" ...
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: Friday, 4 September 2009 2:21 p.m.
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> You have the argument correct. Your theorized response makes the point -
> that with the molecular theory there is no phylogenetic integration of the
> fossil and living taxa for human origins. And its not a matter of just 'no
> reliable evidence', there is no evidence at all because morphology gives
> the 'wrong' answer.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:04 PM
> To: John Grehan; Taxacom
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> John,
> 
> If I understand you correctly, your argument is this:
> 
> (1) Morphology supports a relationaship between living humans and
> orangutans (probably in some people's cases more than others! :)
> 
> (2) Molecular data contradict the human-orangutan relationship
> 
> (3) The only evidence for relationships between living humans and fossil
> ancestors is morphological
> 
> Therefore, if (2) wins over (1), then there is no reliable evidence for
> relationships between living humans and fossil ancestors
> 
> Well, what are the possible responses? I think a "molecular person" could
> just stand firm and say that the evidence for establishing relationships
> involving fossil taxa is just not as good as for establishing
> relationships between extant taxa, so what? That was kind of obvious
> anyway, because fossils have fewer informative MORPHOLOGICAL characters
> than extant taxa ...
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: Friday, 4 September 2009 1:45 p.m.
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> Here's something to think about that molecular systematists are going to
> have to figure out if they argue that the orangutan evidence is wrong
> because it conflicts with morphology. The morphological relationship with
> orangutans applies not only to humans, but also fossil hominids
> (australopiths). If this evidence is invalidated by the molecular theory
> then evolutionary theory is left with out any phylogenetic connection
> between the fossil and living representatives of the human lineage. If the
> orangutan similarities of humans and hominids is false then there is no
> empirical basis for accepting the reality of human similarities in fossil
> hominids either. So far the molecular theorists have sidestepped this
> problem. What a mess.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jason Mate
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:28 PM
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> 
> > Maybe it will
> > encourage one of the molecular supporters on this list to attempt to
> > publish the knockout.
> 
> If we were boxing I´d give it a go, alas it is by argumentation that we
> must feud and so I have to wait for more substantial emails to come. Maybe
> if you supplied the papers in question....
> 
> Jason
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Drag n' drop-Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live(tm) Photos.
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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