[Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge

Wed Sep 23 14:15:50 CDT 2009

I would agree with Steve that molecular evidence (as currently practiced) is morphology, although it is usually presented as 'genetic' rather than morphological. But whether it is sufficient to treat each molecular resemblance as equal to each morphological resemblance has yet to be demonstrated and there are also arguments over whether molecular similarity is a necessary predictor of phylogeny, or that molecular similarity is cladistically informative the same way as in morphology. Even if one treats molecular similarity as morphology, and that a 'total evidence' approach swamps out any morphological incongruity, one is still left with the inability to integrate fossil taxa with the living where the morphological evidence is giving the 'wrong' answer.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Manning [mailto:sdmanning at asub.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 3:07 PM
> To: John Grehan; Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge
> 
> Problem is, molecular evidence is morphology,
> just at a different level of organization.  So if
> you take a purely phenetic approach, I guess you
> could tally up the number of molecular
> similarities and differences known between groups
> and the number of macro-morphological
> similarities and differences known for each
> group.  The higher total number of similarities
> would win, unless and until new info. changes the
> percentages to "tip the balance" one way or the
> other between molecular and macro-morphology (or
> something intermediate in size).
> 
> Actually I think common sense sometimes (usually)
> works.  If we see two blond, blue eyed people
> with strong resemblances in class, we might ask
> if they are sisters or brothers.  We all know
> that this is NOT always or even usually the case,
> though the probability of close relationship is
> higher than in a random sample of the
> population.  Convergence happens!  So
> macro-morphological similarity does not always,
> or even usually, work in tracing genealogies.  It
> is (at least to me) an open question whether
> molecular similarity works better but I tend to
> think so, since selection may not be as strong,
> usually, at the molecular level (except in a
> molecular equivalent of adaptive radiation, if
> such exists).  Since macro-morphological traits
> usually represent end-points of interactions of
> multiple genes, I would tend to lean toward
> waiting for the results of lots of research on
> the exact route from certain genes, especially
> those differing between closely related groups,
> and their morphological results.  Without this,
> and maybe even with it, it seems an empty
> exercise to just draw an artificial line between
> morphology and molecular levels.
> 
> For those tired of the discussion, I am at least
> as interested in the phylogeny of Pavetta, Ixora,
> and Psychotria (Rubiaceae) as in that of Pongo,
> Pan, and Homo.  Anyone want to start a lengthy
> thread or threads on this topic?  Or on the specific groups you are
> working on?
> 
> A problem with offering the delete button as a
> solution is that puts the burden on the receiver
> rather than the transmitter.  Every delete takes
> time that could be used by the multitudes doing
> something else (at least for those of us that aren't good at multi-
> tasking!)
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve
> 
> At 01:09 PM 9/23/2009, John Grehan wrote:
> >I can well understand that some on this list are
> >tired of the subject, and I am certainly guilty
> >of being single minded about this particular
> >topic. But of course the delete button is there
> >as it is for any topic on this list.
> >
> >However, it is apparent to me that there is also
> >a great deal of outrage and anger over the very
> >idea that the molecular evidence can be called
> >into question by morphology, and that molecular
> >evidence is deficient with regard to integrating
> >the fossil record within a single coherent
> >systematic and phylogenetic framework.
> >
> >I have found the widespread emotive response
> >quite fascinating and it continues to intrigue
> >me as much as the problem at hand which is how
> >to phylogenetically integrate the fossil record
> >for human origins if the morphology is no good
> >as an independent predictor of phylogeny - which
> >is pretty much what the molecular supporters are
> >saying for the hominoid evidence.
> >
> >John Grehan (the bad ape)
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Barry Roth
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:31 PM
> > > To: Taxacom
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > >
> > > Speaking as one who has "no dog in the fight" over human/other Great
> Ape
> > > relationships, I found John's question serious and interesting --
> > > certainly not something to call up the vituperative responses it has
> > > received.  I would like to know the answer, and a response in the form
> of
> > > a pointer to some publication that addresses the issue would be quite
> > > satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Not knowing the answer will not keep me up at night, but it's a
> reasonable
> > > query, and certainly within the scope of this list.
> > >
> > > Barry Roth
> > > (maybe not a Great Ape, but a Good Ape)
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 9/22/09, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Sarcasm aside, I think I am posing a serious question. If the theory
> of
> > > evolution posits continuity between the past and the present then one
> may
> > > expect that to be demonstrated by evidence. The living human-orangutan
> > > evidence also provides continuity with the fossil evidence. The
> chimpanzee
> > > theory of relationship is so certain that it is presented to the
> public
> > > and to students as a fact. So where is the evidence for continuity
> with
> > > the fossil record?
> > >
> > > If there is none then chimpanzee theorists can admit as much and we
> can go
> > > on from there (although I expect creationists would have a field day
> with
> > > any such admission).
> > >
> > > John Grehan
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Robin Leech [mailto:releech at telus.net]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:15 AM
> > > > To: John Grehan; Taxacom
> > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > > >
> > > > And if no one does come forward, then you can stand up
> > > > on your hind legs, having won, and thump on your winning
> > > > chest? Ohhhh boy!
> > > >
> > > > Historically, and almost always, very simple-seeming questions
> > > > invariably have very complicated answers.
> > > >
> > > > [Those are my 3 contributions for the day.  Thank you.]
> > > >
> > > > Robin
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> > > > To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:21 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whether anyone wants to front up with the evidence or not is up to
> them.
> > > > This is a very simple question and there are people on this list who
> are
> > > > convinced that the chimpanzee theory of relationship is correct so
> it
> > > > should
> > > > be no hardship to cite the set of uniquely shared characters for
> humans,
> > > > fossil hominids, and chimpanzees. But I'm betting that no one will
> be
> > > able
> > > > to.
> > > >
> > > > John Grehan
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Robin Leech [mailto:releech at telus.net]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:15 AM
> > > > > To: John Grehan; Taxacom
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think so, John.  This is not a symposium or conference,
> > > > > and most people will not rise to give formal, integrated evidence
> > > > > in the Taxacom Forum.
> > > > > You will get answers only from those you have been debating
> > > > > with already on Taxacom.
> > > > > Robin
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> > > > > To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:36 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well...it will prove whether or not supporters of the chimpanzee
> > > theory
> > > > > can
> > > > > integrate the systematic evidence for placing fossil hominids
> closer
> > > to
> > > > > chimpanzees (along with humans) than anything else. Since the
> > > chimpanzee
> > > > > theory supporters more or less view it as an established fact I
> don't
> > > > > think
> > > > > I am asking too much for a coherent theory of relationship that
> > > includes
> > > > > the
> > > > > fossil hominids.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Grehan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > > > > > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Robin Leech
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:05 PM
> > > > > > To: Jason Mate; Taxacom
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And all this will prove just exactly what?
> > > > > > Robin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Jason Mate" <jfmate at hotmail.com>
> > > > > > To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:45 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not rock solid, just waiting (still) for the articles. Send
> them,
> > > then
> > > > > we
> > > > > > can email till our quota is filled.
> > > > > > I am all for 3 emails per day, although I´ll stick with 2
> emails.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jason
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:48:00 -0400
> > > > > > > From: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> > > > > > > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > > > > Subject: [Taxacom] hominid challenge
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's a challenge to all list members who are rock solid on
> the
> > > > > > > chimpanzee theory of human origin, especially any who teach
> that
> > > > > > > doctrine to students.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What evidence do supporters of the chimpanzee theory present
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > inclusion of early fossil hominids (australopiths) within a
> > > > > > > human-chimpanzee clade? This is not a question about
> characters
> > > > > > > supporting the monophyly of humans and fossil hominids, but
> > > > characters
> > > > > > > that support a human-fossil hominid-chimpanzee clade. How many
> > > > > > > characters and what are they?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is also not a question about molecular evidence since
> > > molecular
> > > > > > > evidence cannot apply to most of the hominid fossil evidence.
> I
> > > look
> > > > > > > forward to seeing that definitive evidence on this list,
> > > especially
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > those who are so cavalier about dismissing the orangutan
> evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Grehan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. John R. Grehan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Director of Science
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Panbiogeography
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-
> > > > activities/john-
> > > > > gre
> > > > > > > han/evolutionary-biography
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> <http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ghost moth research
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-
> > > > activities/john-
> > > > > gre
> > > > > > > han/ghost-moths
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> <http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Human evolution and the great apes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-
> > > > activities/john-
> > > > > gre
> > > > > > > han/human-origins
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your
> photos.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photo-
> > > > > > gallery-edit.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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > 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
> 
> 