[Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge

[J. Kirk Fitzhugh]

Since what we observe are effects we're attempting to explain, those 
effects have no ability to convey their own 'unreliable' explanations as 
answers to one's questions. The problem lies with one knowing what 
questions they're actually asking, knowing whether or not one set of 
questions is relevant to answering another set of questions, and then 
proceeding accordingly. To accuse effects as the culprit for 'wrong' 
answers is just bad reasoning.

Kirk

Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> if we accept, on the basis of molecular results, that morphological evidence is unreliable
>>     
> NOT ENTIRELY UNRELIABLE IN EVERY CASE! Morpho- evidence is likely reasonably reliable in most cases. A few cases where morpho- evidence (allegedly) gives the wrong answer doesn't mean it is totally unreliable in every case ...
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Barry Roth [barry_roth at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 24 September 2009 11:30 a.m.
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge
>
> It's not up to me to answer on behalf of John, but I take his question as a serious methodological one:  if we accept, on the basis of molecular results, that morphological evidence is unreliable, how can we turn around and, in a case where molecular data are unavailable, accept the available morphological evidence as trustworthy?
>
> I suppose this could be justified as "you work with what you've got," and that is of course a familiar situation for paleontologists.  But if a whole modality of data is dismissed as unreliable, then you shouldn't be able to cherry-pick the situations where you accept and trust it.  At least not if consistency -- rather than special pleading -- is considered a virtue in phylogenetic analysis.
>
> Barry Roth
>
> --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>
> We have already been over this ground, John:
> There is less reliable evidence for establishing relationships of fossil taxa (cf. extant taxa), both because no molecular evidence is available, and also because less morphological evidence is available anyway! Tell us something we don't know! It doesn't make it completely unreliable ...
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>   

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~