[Taxacom] molecular update

Fri Sep 4 20:28:50 CDT 2009

The resemlance ebetween Homo and Pan not only 'could' be plesiomorphic, but apparently is since there are only about two such similarities that have so far been substantiated as uniquely shared between humans and chimps.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 9:10 PM
> To: John Grehan; geoff.witten at rmit.edu.au
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> [Geoff Whitten wrote] If there is no, or little, evidence linking Homo to
> African apes why do I have trouble picking Australopithecus from female
> Pan, and both of these from Homo habilis.  Pongo, by contrast, is
> immediately and obviously different because of those big arched orbits
> 
> [my reply] Not a cogent argument! Here is something of a counterexample:
> one might well have trouble picking a small, primitive marsupial from a
> rat. A kangaroo, by contrast, is immediately and obviously different! So,
> Pongo might have one or more striking autapomorphies which make it easily
> recognisable, and Homo more difficult to distinguish from Pan, yet Homo
> could be more closely related to Pongo. The resemblance between Homo and
> Pan could just be plesiomorphic.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> PS: This doesn't mean I support the "orangutan = Grehan theory"! :)
> 
> ________________________________________
> 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 10:58 p.m.
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> There is no selection of characters other than restricting features to
> those that are either unique within the group being analyzed (species of
> large-bodied hominoids) or sufficiently rare in the outgroup (in this case
> all lesser apes and all Old World monkeys) to be considered derived for
> the in-group. If one relies on any morphological similarity to connect
> taxa then yes, one might get a different result due to the influence of
> primitive retentions.
> 
> I don't know why Geoff has trouble picking Australopithecus from female
> Pan because he did not say why. I would have no trouble because the teeth
> are different (e.g. Australopithecus has thick enameled molars,
> posteriorly thickened palate, vertical, flattened zygoma with anteriorly
> oriented roots, not to mention the lack of a vertically raised supra-
> orbital torus across the glabella (between the eyes).
> 
> The shape of the orbits of orangutans are not like those of gibbons in
> that the orangutan orbits are vertically oval. This is a unique feature
> among living taxa, and along with a narrow inter-orbital space, is shared
> with the fossil Sivapithecus. Interestingly, some australopiths also have
> vertically oval or ovoid orbits (chimps do not), including that hobbit
> fossil.
> 
> Our studies have demonstrated that the cladistic morphological studies
> that seemed to back up the molecular data have many erroneous characters,
> especially for the chimpanzee relationship, and in one major study the
> genus Homo was not even included. For living taxa support for the
> chimpanzee relationship was limited to no more than 10 features, of which
> we could only corroborate two. In addition there has been agreement by one
> of the chimpanzee supporters on some of these errors (others no comment
> yet). But if one holds that the molecular evidence is necessarily the
> truth then none of these morphological issues matter since they are all,
> but default, independently uninformative. As independently uninformative
> (on phylogenetic relationships) morphology loses its predictive ability
> and therefore becomes phylogenetically meaningless, along with the entire
> fossil record. This is the elephant in the molecular room.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Witten [mailto:geoff.witten at rmit.edu.au]
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:53 PM
> To: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; John Grehan
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] molecular update
> 
> If there is no, or little, evidence linking Homo to African apes why do I
> have trouble picking Australopithecus from female Pan, and both of these
> from Homo habilis.  Pongo, by contrast, is immediately and obviously
> different because of those big arched orbits.  Like big gibbons.  Perhaps
> they are even more closely related to each other (pongo and Hylobates)
> than to the African Hominidae, which in my mind should include Pan,
> Gorilla and Homo.  Pongo and Homo are only close morphologically if you
> carefully select the morphological characters.
> 
> Just thought someone should toss in the fact that there is abundant
> morphological evidence to back up the molecular if you select different
> morphological criteria.
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> Geoff Witten
> Senior Lecturer in Anatomy
> Ph (03) 9925 7589
> Fax 9467 8589
> 
> 
> >>> Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz> 4/09/09 12:31 >>>
> >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 relationship 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 Íd 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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