[Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

[John Grehan]

This is the usual practice - one asserts that one relationship is true and the other is false, and the false is 'explained" by the theory as due to primitive retention, convergent selection etc. Additional evidence won't necessarily falsify or support anything. One might one day find a structurally bipedal 'orangutan' in African, but will that make anyone view the molecular chimpanzee theory as falsified. Not necessarily. They might just erect an ad hoc 'explanation" to protect the molecules. But if they ever find a structurally bipedal 'chimpanzee' I would certainly find myself in a quandary.

John Grehan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Zander [mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:47 AM
To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

Depending on congruence is the wrong way to do science. Suppose we have morphology (polarbear)(brownbear1,brownbear2)) but molecular (brownbear1(polarbear,brownbear2)). They are incongruent as you can amass data until the cattle come to roost and they will still be incongruent.

A scientific theory would be that polarbear derived from brownbear2. This conciliates both cladograms through a diachronic (through time) theory. The results remain incongruent, but we have an evolutionary explanation that can be falsified or supported by additional evidence.

 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
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: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:43 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

I agree in terms of a recipe for deciding. In specific cases one may at least make an argument for one or the other. In the case of hominid origins the congruence of morphogenetics for living and fossil taxa is, for me, quite compelling. For others it is not. But without fossil and living congruence in relationships there is no scientific way to link molecular and fossil (outside those preserving DNA) taxa.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:39 PM
To: Kim van der Linde; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

now, that is a very good question! In cases of data conflict where there is no 
obvious way to jump, shouldn't we invoke the old ''incertae sedis"? As Dan 
Bickel once said, 'ah, ''incertae sedis", my favourite group'! Seriously, if 
there is data conflict like that, then we simply cannot know the answer at 
present ... we cannot "resolve" it ...

Stephen




________________________________
From: Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 27 April, 2011 1:26:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

John,

I am not yet sure where your problem is, and so I have a question. How 
do you suggest that we resolve the issue of morphological versus 
molecular data when the data is inconsistent with each other? I have a 
similar issue in Drosophila and in the parrot family.

Kim

On 4/26/2011 8:33 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> Sergio,
>
> Perhaps you (and also Kim van der Linde) would care to identify what you 
>thought was robust about it and I could then give a précis of the 
>problems/limitations as Jeff and I saw them that will be presented in our 
>(hopefully) to be published response.
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergio Vargas [mailto:sevragorgia at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:09 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; John Grehan
> Subject: New molecular propaganda on primate systematics
>
>    Hi,
>
> just read the reply to the orangutan paper, looks robust... I would like to see 
>your reply! could you please let us know when it gets published.
>
> sergio
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
>your search terms here
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here