[Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remainsopenforinvestigation

[John Grehan]

Please explain what you see as the problem first.

John Grehan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au] 
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 12:56 AM
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
remainsopenforinvestigation

John: Please answer the question.

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
[jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: 07 August 2011 00:06
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains
openforinvestigation

 Hey, if it could not be done with Brundin, then perhaps it cannot be
done at all and systematics is just a delusion. It seems that for the
most part, systematists (including molecular) aspire to something called
cladistics. All we did was follow what we understand as necessary
protocols to show that the preponderance of mrophogenetic evidence
supports the orangutan relationship, and that so far this evidence is
'better' than the critics have come up with. Of course that is just our
opinion, but our 'legal brief' is there for anyone to argue for or
against. At least the theory has now transitioned from the level of
being totally ignored to being attacked. Progress of sorts perhaps.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au]
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 2:27 AM
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains
openforinvestigation

I do wish John would show us how to "demonstrate" that a character state
is "derived" and its sharing therefore a synapomorphy. I once tried this
on Lars Brundin, but all we could finally agree on was that the vodka
botle was empty.

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
[jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: 05 August 2011 21:35
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains open
forinvestigation

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:54 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships remains open
forinvestigation

Interesting:
>       The last sentence in the abstract refers to "the fact that 
> identification of shared similarity does not translate into 
> demonstration of synapomorphy."
>       Ironically, that has actually been my biggest criticism of the 
> theory that orangutans and hominids form an exclusive clade---that the

> identification of shared similarities between orangutans and hominids 
> does not translate into a demonstration of synapomorphies (but that 
> they are actually most likely symplesiomorphies).

If one reads the paper one will see that similarity alone is does not
translate into a demonstration of synapomorphy, whereas  shared derived
similarities (which is what we use) does. That is the difference. Quite
simple really.


>      So I certainly agree with the subject line that the "Evolution of

> human-ape relationships remains open", although a third theory (that 
> chimps and gorillas form an exclusive clade) is sadly not getting the 
> attention that it probably deserves.

We do, if one reads the 2009 paper.

> Meanwhile, those championing exclusive chimp-hominid or orangutan- 
> hominid clades are probably BOTH labelling symplesiomorphies as 
> synapomorphies.  So I don't sympathesize with either side of that 
> debate, and that both are probably throwing rocks from glass houses.

               -------Ken Kinman

One is entitled to take any view one prefers, but in this case the above
opinion is noting more than an opinion, and one that has no empirical
grounding.

John Grehan

--------------------------------------------------------

Last sentence in the abstract reads:
       In brief, DOM fails both to test theories of relatedness and to
take into account the fact that identification of shared similarity does
not translate into demonstration of synapomorphy.




_______________________________________________

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