[Taxacom] Antw:Re: Evolution of human-ape relationships remainsopenforinvestigation

Thu Aug 11 08:13:27 CDT 2011

Yes, that is correct - or at least that it is not cladistic analysis.
Transformation 'series' in the sense of restricting the data set to
putatively shared derived features - putatively since it requires some
king of analysis to corroborate the best supported arrangements of taxa
within the ingroup, and those not supporting that arrangement being
homoplasious and attributed to origin other than from a unique common
ancestor.

I often see (in the study of hominid relationships at least) the
assertion that homoplasy is a problem for analysis. I do not since
homoplasy can only be identified after a particular relationship is
selected. 

As a subset, I am not very comfortable with multistate characters as I
do not know with any confidence how clustering algorithms treat the
transitions. For a multi state character with states 1, 2, 3, 4 where
the outgroup is 4 - whether the program groups 1 with 2, and then (1+2)
with 3, and how the presence of intermediate states may affect the
grouping of taxa where the same intermediate character state codes are
present in more than one taxon. I have heard, but not seen any
publication on this that I recall, that the presence of intermediate
states in multiple ingroup taxa can affect the analysis. I would be
interested in any comment on that as I am not an algorithm theorist.

John Grehan

________________________________

From: P.H. HOVENKAMP [mailto:phovenkamp at casema.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:19 AM
To: John Grehan
Subject: Antw:Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
remainsopenforinvestigation

John,

It was my distinct impression that you do not accept that cladistic
analysis is possible without first assessing the direction of the
transformation series. Maybe I'm right, maybe not. 

By the way, I seem to have problems getting my messages to the taxacom
list - are we off-list now?

Best,

Peter Hovenkamp 

Op 09/08/11, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> schreef: 

And the methods that I refuse to accept are?

________________________________

From: P.H. HOVENKAMP [mailto:phovenkamp at casema.nl]
<phovenkamp at casema.nl]> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 3:56 PM
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
remainsopenforinvestigation

This discussion is becoming interesting -- if only from a historical
point of view.

I remember that Don Colless engaged in a discussion of exactly the same
topics in the late sixties - and was answered by Ghiselin, who, other
than Brundin, did have an answer available. There's no mention of wodka,
though. 
The topic was then picked up by Lundberg and others, among whom Peter
Stevens, the oft-cited Watrous and Wheeler (QD, not WC) and Steve
Farris. Yes, and Dick Jensen too contributed his bit. But most of this
was played out in the 70ties and early 80ies, and as a result, cladists
settled for the methods that John Grehan now refuses to accept. The
papers can easily be retrieved through WOS and still make good reading. 
May I suggest that we all read these papers and come back to the
discussion when we have digested them properly?

Peter Hovenkamp

Op 09/08/11, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> schreef: 

Don knows full well the answer if he has read the orangutan paper. The
point of his asking the question is not the answer, but that he already
disputes that answer (with respect to the question in general) as
demonstrated by his reference to his inability to agree over the answer
with Brundin. If Don would present what he sees as problematic I might
be happy to address it. 
John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au]
<Don.Colless at csiro.au]>
<Don.Colless at csiro.au]> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:49 AM
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
remainsopenforinvestigation

John: How do you "demonstrate"  that a character state is "derived"?

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: John Grehan [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: 08 August 2011 20:27
To: Colless, Donald (CES, Black Mountain)
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships
remainsopenforinvestigation

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]
<Don.Colless at csiro.au]>
<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]
<Don.Colless at csiro.au]>
<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]
<taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]>
<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