[Taxacom] was contamination

[Richard Zander]

I think the DNA-based relationship between man, chimp, gorilla, orang, gibbon is pretty solid. This says nothing about how this present-day DNA relationship got that way. Don't mix up, John, present-day relationships with ancestor-descendant relationships. For all we know, the morphology of all direct ancestors to all these taxa was that of the gibbon, or man. For those who say, oh, no, this is improbable, well sure, but how improbable? How do you measure the "oh, no"? 

Studying more gene sequences won't help. That will just make present-day DNA relationships more accurate, but will say little about descent with modification. 

 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
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-----
bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jason Mate
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 5:43 PM

Phylogenies are just best estimates, educated guesses, etc. One hypothesis may be better at explaining the available facts and become the de facto preferred hypothesis, but this applies to any data-source.
And additional data may result in a new preferred hypothesis.


Unfortunately this is lost on the molecular propagandists who widely assert that the chimpanzee relationship to humans is a scientific fact (or words to that effect, and I can give quotes if needed).

John Grehan