[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Richard Zander]

Okay, lot's of meat in that one, Kim. Let's do the slogans one at a
time:

" An era in which we actually can prove that some trait has evolved a
specific way instead of just some hand waiving about trait states and
the order they evolved in."
-- I'll begin by suggesting you, Kim, are discussing microevolution.
When do we get information about macroevolution, i.e. descent with
modification of taxa?

"By Odin, how long do we want to provide the christian creationists with
fodder by producing the so-manniest so-so story about how we hypothesize
how it maybe could have evolved if we are correct?"
--Odin has a narrow focus, and his eye is on you. Loki and his band of
phylogenetic cataphracts and hierophants offer a cult disguised as
rigorous science. Cognitive dissonance based on a choice between (a)
wealth and power and (b) being called an old-fashioned traditionalist,
ensures the obvious choice. 

Cult? (1) Although Hennig's gradualist evolution is piously cited as
operating in the nodes of a cladistic tree, nodes are never named (or
they would be paraphyletic). Thus, all exemplars are sequentially
grouped at nodes of a lineage and all appear at the base of the
cladogram (none are explicitly eliminated in classification). Each node
is simply the next higher rank that includes all distal connected
lineages. Each exemplar is thus an immutable taxon, fine with Christian
creationists.
(2) Only traits are mapped on molecular trees, never taxa. This is
microevolution, which is fine with Christian creationists, who only
object to macroevolution.\
(3) The (artificial) principle of strict phylogenetic monophyly
eliminates from classification any hint of one taxon generating
evolutionarily another taxon at the same rank or higher, i.e.
macroevolution. Fine with Christian creationists.

If Christian creationists were to modify Linnaean classifications into
their own system, it would be a phylogenetic system. ONLY the explicit
representation of macroevolution in classification can save systematics
now.

" group species according to their actually relatedness based on a lot
of hard data"
--Phylogenetic relatedness is sister-group relatedness. What about
ancestor-descendant relatedness. Basing a classification on only half
the story in the service of simplicity does not maximize information.
Lot of hard data? The data is only about sister-group relationships
(i.e. phylogenetically informative) of specimens (not taxa), and have
been cleansed of any ancestor-descendant relationship information
pre-analysis development of the data set, during analysis with methods
restricted to sister-group analysis, and post-analysis elimination of
autapomorphic traits. 

" the subjective interference of per-definition biased good-meaning
researchers"
--We good-meaning researchers use informal genetic algorithms and
discursive reasoning based on evolutionary not phylogenetic theory, not
subjective inference or even interference. 

" the old-fashioned ways of actually looking at characters will be just
that, old-fashioned. Better start learning proper DNA-speak"
--I and most others on Taxacom know proper DNA-speak, and probably most
of us think it's okay for what it generates: namely information on
genetic continuity of specimens. This is not the fullness of data needed
for proper evaluation of evolution necessary for a good classification.
Most taxonomists opt for a syncretic view of systematics powered by
eclectic tools. 


*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
*****************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim van der Linde [mailto:kim at kimvdlinde.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Richard Zander
Cc: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

Richard,

You never disappoint in your reactions. ;-)

Yes, a new era, didn't you get the memo from the AAAS politburo?. An era
in which we actually can proof that some trait has evolved a specific
way instead of just some hand waiving about trait states and the order
they evolved in. By Odin, how long do we want to provide the christian
creationists with fodder by producing the so-manniest so-so story about
how we hypothesize how it maybe could have evolved if we are correct?

Instead of grouping all species based on a morphological characteristic
that is based on nothing more than an on-off switch for a single gene
(like sex-combs or wing spots), we actually can avoid those kind of
pitfalls and group species according to their actually relatedness based
on a lot of hard data without the subjective interference of
per-definition biased good-meaning researchers.

Birds will be finally properly classified as reptiles with feathers, and
mammals as reptiles with hairs. Finally, we can get rid of these
historical artifacts introduced by good-meaning scientists who just
didn't have the tools to do things properly. Sure, the traditionalists
will keep protesting while their beloved taxa are dismantled. But now
that we have the tools, and especially soon when we can do a genome for
$100 in one day, the old-fashioned ways of actually looking at
characters will be just that, old-fashioned. Better start learning
proper DNA-speak....

Kim
PS LOL