[Taxacom] FW: LOL (was Re: New lizard species)

[Jason Mate]

Although I disagree with (but respect) most of Richard´s comments I must say that strict adherence to monophyly is a potential headache: beautifully logical but a practical mess. Stem groups do serve a purpose, if nothing more than a convenient bric-a-brac box, in particular in paleontology. And in the case of recent speciation where extinction hasn´t cleared the bush so to speak. 

Best


Jason

> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:17:34 -0400
> From: kim at kimvdlinde.com
> To: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] LOL (was Re:  New lizard species)
> 
> LOL
> 
> On 6/9/2010 2:41 PM, Richard Zander wrote:
> > When do we get information about macroevolution, i.e. descent with
> > modification of taxa?
> 
> Richard, where have you been lately?
> 
> > "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.
> 
> I love Loki. Sorry that he makes you knees weak......
> 
> > Cognitive dissonance based on a choice between (a)
> > wealth and power and (b) being called an old-fashioned traditionalist,
> > ensures the obvious choice.
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Whow, no genera, families etc? If that is what it need to have strict 
> monophyly, so be it.
> 
> > (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.
> 
> Richard, stop reading those baraminology papers. They have poisoned your 
> soul... Never heard of Ancient DNA yet or dinosaur amino acid sequences? 
> We have now genetic information of ancestors, isn't that great!
> 
> > 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.
> 
> They made it already, and it is called baraminology. Speciation rates go 
> of the chart with them, otherwise the ark would have sunk with the many 
> species.
> 
> > " 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.
> 
> Ancient DNA? Dinosaur amino-acid sequences?
> 
> Kim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
 		 	   		  
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969