[Taxacom] molecular update

[John Grehan]

If molecular theorists argue that morphology is unreliable without molecular corroboration or support then morphology is effectively 100% unreliable. And yes its absurd, but effectively that is what is happening. With the orangutan theory in particular, the morphology clearly supports them being the extant hominid sister group, but this is rendered an absurdity simply because it contradicts the theory of DNA base similarity. The orangutan may as well be an ant.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz] 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 9:37 PM
To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] molecular update

Well, the problem with that John, is that no molecular researcher in their right mind would claim that morphology is 100% unreliable in all cases for establishing relationships between taxa! That would entail absurdity whereby someone could find just another common house ant, or something, and claim that it could well be a new species of monkey because morphology is 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: Saturday, 5 September 2009 1:24 p.m.
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] molecular update

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

_______________________________________________

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