[Taxacom] Lemurs was Bubble Science

[John Grehan]

Jason and I are in agreement regarding the most widely accepted scenario.
Jason suggests that novel evidence that calls into question the most widely
accepted view and that sticking the label of phenetic is not the way to go.
I agree, and that is not 'the way' we have gone other than to mention this
as one of the methodological problems in molecular analysis. In reality,
the way we went was to show that both he fossil and living record of
morphogenetic evidence does support the orangutan relationship.

Jason suggests that what is really needed are new fossil that are
incompatible with chimps as ancestors. I would suggest that the solution is
not that straightforward. There are already fossils incompatible with
chimps as ancestors - e.g. australopiths with orangutan apomorphies. And
isolated 'australopith' teeth that look more like orangutan teeth. If these
don't change anything then I doubt anything new will either.  Evidence is
in the eye of the beholder. And anyway, any problematic fossil can be
explained away as it is not molecular evidence.

Jason and I agree that Yoder gave a one sided account. But in addition I
suggest that this account misrepresents that state of the science. Jason
may consider Yoder's decision to be justified. And perhaps it is, but I
don't agree with the choice - naturally.

John Grehan


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 7:07 PM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

> "The average idea is not the consensus. As to primate origins there is no
> consensus." My bad, I meant that there is a general agreement regarding the
> ancestry of humans. Of course, a consensus doesn´t necessarily mean it is
> the truth, but the most widely accepted scenario becomes the  then again
> most of todays knowledge is tomorrows  But what you need isaccepted
> paradigm. That is, until novel evidence calls into question the consensus.
> Sticking the label of phenetic and calling molecular phylogenetics
> "phenetics" is not how you do it. What you really need is new fossils that
> are incompatible with chimps are ancestors.
>
> "...that side of the coin misrepresents the state of the science and the
> nature of the evidence." Which is to mention all possible points of view
> regarding topics which are the actual focus of the paper? Again, lemurs are
> not people.
>
> Going to sleep.
>
> Best
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive 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
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>