[Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge
John Grehan
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Wed Sep 23 17:36:16 CDT 2009
Jason,
I'll do my best to restate with greater clarity my question concerning incorporation of the fossil evidence. This is a question that pertains not to the human-great ape problem, but any other group where molecular evidence supports the monophyly of living taxa A + B, and morphology supports the monophyly of living taxa A + C as well as fossil taxon D (i.e. the monophyly of A + C + D). If the monophyly of A + C is considered falsified by the molecular evidence then there is a problem regarding the fossil relationship that can be assessed only through morphology. If there is less morphological evidence for (A + B + D) than (A + C + D)then there would seem to be a phylogenetic disconnect.
The orangutan problem is just a particular example that attracts attention due to the nature of the implications for us. I would be interested to know if any similar examples are known by list members where morphology supports the monophyly of two living taxa along with a fossil taxon that is incongruent with molecular evidence supporting a different arrangement for the living taxa.
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: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:48 PM
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge
Still haven´t read the papers you sent so I will limit myself to saying that ´total evidence´rarely (never say never) swamps a "real" signal. However, if one dataset has conflicting information (homoplasy) suboptimal trees, which are not that much longer than your optimal ones, may emerge. This is not necessarily bad (unless ones cherished node disappears, as has happened to me). In addition nobody (that I know of) equates a 3rd codon change from A to G with a wing vein appearing or disappearing. Still, there are plenty of morphological characters s.l. which are equally as minute, such as continuous characters. As for fossil evidence, I still don´t understand your opinion as there is no reason why it can´t be incorporated into your analyses, as has been repeatedly explained by others in TAXACOM.
Jason
P.D. I apologise for accidentally sending my last post twice with different headings. Technical error and vanity are to blame.
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:15:50 -0400
> From: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge
>
> 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.ph
> > p>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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/pho
> > to-
> > > > > > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list