[Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

Wed Apr 27 10:03:30 CDT 2011

I would agree that 'molecules' (i.e. molecules of any sort) and morphogenetics cannot be in conflict since they are both aspects of the same process of evolution and inheritance. For me it comes down to a question of what similarities are indications of relationship, and similarity by itself is not automatically a measure of relationship. My present inclination is to give greater credence to shared derived similarities. I can do that in a straightforward sort of way with morphogenetics, but not with DNA sequences. Perhaps the sequence approach is giving the correct answer and I am wrong. Perhaps, but it cannot simply be assumed. I think some on this list have suggested the link lies in developmental genetics, and on this I would concur.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Jensen
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:44 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

This reminds me of a response to the question of conflict between 
religion and science: there can be no conflict because both are seeking 
the same "truth".  As a parallel thought, morphology and molecules 
cannot be in conflict because both are seeking the same answer.

Of course, *truth* is relative - it's a function of your confidence in 
the methods you choose to investigate a problem; thus, there is no 
ultimate truth because individuals do not have to agree that any method 
or any data set  (no matter how large) can guarantee truth.  The only 
solution is to define a protocol that *all* agree will provide the best 
approximation of reality and then use that to investigate the problem at 
hand.

Sounds like a real challenge to me.  Given human history, right up to 
today, it doesn't seem likely that we will have universal agreement on 
the ultimate protocol (which, of course, doesn't exist as of today).

We strive to produce our best understanding of natural phenomena and 
hope that different approaches will converge on the same conclusion.  
When we apply different methods, we hope that their commonalities 
reflect signals that have meaning, as opposed to being serendipitously 
congruent results.  And, we have methods for assessing the probability 
that this can happen, as Richard Z. has demonstrated numerous times here.

So, we keep working on our favorite problems and searching for the most 
defensible explanations, as we see them.

Dick J

On 4/27/2011 7:42 AM, John Grehan wrote:
> 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
>>

-- 
Richard J. Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674

_______________________________________________

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