[Taxacom] DNA contamination

[Richard Zander]

Good questions, Jim.

To the extent that morphological data are a sample ("all swans are white"), the results of a morphological analysis cannot fully, completely, ineluctably, irrefragably falsify the results of molecular analysis, which itself is based on sampling. But then that is my implied point, that two discrepant results can be (1) one mapped on the one with best manna and so disposed of, as is common practice, or (2) reconciled by a scientific theory. But you don't hear much about theory these days, only method. 

Yes, I opined that molecular results cannot falsify morphological results. Yeah, I made that up. But, I don't hear anyone contradicting me with a good example of a falsification, so I must be right. : ) 

Unless we are not talking about Popperian falsification but the "one hypothesis relatively more falsified than another" of phylogenetics, which is the "scientists choose the best hypothesis" method, OR the 95% credibility falsifies 5% credibility of Bayesian analyses.

R.

 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
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: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 4:36 PM
To: Richard Zander
Cc: Lynn Raw; TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA contamination

>  Molecular data support ALL trees, just some more than others.

Could not the same be said for morphological (or other) data?

> They cannot falsify morphological results.

Is that true, or did you just make that up?

jim
--