human origins

John Grehan jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG
Fri Jan 23 12:51:32 CST 2004


It would seem to me that the thread introduced rationale specifically based
on Darwinian theory the thread is open to response that may take a
different view on that rationale - whether or not the originator of the
Darwinian piece may wish to have that happen or not. But then, my view on
the matter may well conflict with the views of others as in this case.

John Grehan

At 11:16 AM 1/23/2004 -0600, Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG wrote:
>What I meant was, this _thread_ does not compare Darwinian theory with
>whatever alternative you promote. The forum TAXACOM may do so, of course,
>and I'd like to see such a comparison.
>______________________
>Richard H. Zander
>Bryology Group
>Missouri Botanical Garden
>PO Box 299
>St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
>richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
>Voice: 314-577-5180
>Fax: 314-577-9595
>Websites
>Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
>http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
>Res Botanica:
>http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/resbot/index.htm
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Grehan [mailto:jgrehan at tpbmail.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:58 PM
>To: Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG; TAXACOM at listserv.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] human origins
> >If you, John, have an alternative to Darwinian explanations then you
> >should present these
> >in a forum in which they contend with Darwinian theory directly, not bring
> >them up in derivative discussions.
>
>If I accepted Richard's authority on this I would agree, but since I do
>not, I won't. Anyway, much of what is said on TAXACOM is Darwinian theory.
>If its ok for Darwinians to assert their position why is it wrong for
>non-Darwinians to assert theirs?
>
> >Maybe you are right, but we are not
> >comparing directly alternative theories in this forum.
>
>I was not aware of this being TAXACOM policy. Is Richard correct?
>
>John Grehan
>
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Grehan [mailto:jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:06 PM
> >To: Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG; TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> >Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] human origins
> >
> >
> >Some (possibly naive) responses to Richard:
> >
> >At 10:57 AM 1/22/2004 -0600, Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG wrote:
> > >Well, hang on a minute there. The molecular data are commonly sufficient
>to
> > >allow statistical tests of reliability but morphological data are
>generally
> > >not. It isn't just "genetic sequence similarity" to the exclusion of
> > >morphological data.
> >
> >The trouble occurs when one lot conflicts with the other to give two
> >totally different patterns of relationship (in this case human-chimpanzee
> >vs human-orangutan).
> >
> >Something may be statistically 'reliable' while still actually being wrong
> >(i.e. all the stats in the world supporting the genetic similarity just
> >confirms the genetic similarity - whether or not this similarity
> >necessarily translates into a phylogenetic (spatiotemporal pattern of
> >differentiation) similarity would seem to be another question.
> >
> > >Naturally, the presumption is that if random generation of parallel
>traits
> > >in closely related but not sister lineages is not to be expected by
>chance
> > >alone, one can assume shared ancestry of apparent sister taxa.
> >
> >Its certainly an assumption.
> >
> > >This is notexactly true since coadaptive traits associated with habitat
> > >may also force
> > >parallelism (pointed out by Landrum, Rensch and doubtless others) and
>thus
> > >confound at least details of a cladogram.
> >
> >If one believes in natural selection as the driving force for taxogeny
> >
> >orphology and exons are liable to this problem, I believe.
> >
> >Whether or not one believes in this problem, the fact remains that
> >orangutans have all these very prominent 'human' characters (or is it the
> >other way around) including the very cognitive inclinations that underpin
> >human technological thinking.
> >
> >
> > >Statistcally impressive results from introns and junk DNA are hard to
> > >explain away.
> >
> >Perhaps no harder than explaining all those morphological synapomorphies
> >between humans and orangutans in this case.
> >
> >Cheers, John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Ronaldo [mailto:ralperin at TERRA.COM.BR]
> > >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:06 AM
> > >To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> > >Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] human origins
> > >
> > >
> > >Hello John,
> > >
> > >Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 1:23:53 PM, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"So in conclusion the paper is fairly representative of what I am reading
> > >  in general. The chimpanzee relationship is presented as a fact. It is
> > >  based on the presumption of genetic sequence similarity being the whole
> > >  truth of phylogeny, and morphological considerations are rendered
>almost
> > >  a foot note with the consequent lack of rigor in any connection being
> > >  substantiated between living humans and other apes and purported fossil
> > >  representatives. "
> > >
> > >
> > >  Fully agreed! John, here in Brazil we have the same situation with
> > >  the primates in general. Just see the huge number of papers regarding
> > >  "Phylogenetic" relationships among Neotropical Primates. I have to
> > >  ask; "Phylogenetic" or Molecular (with no explicit criteria)
> > >  relationships?
> > >
> > >
> > >  Ronaldo Alperin
> > >
> > >JG> John Grehan
> > >
> > >JG> Dr. John Grehan
> > >JG> Director of Science and Collections
> > >JG> Buffalo Museum of Science
> > >JG> 1020 Humboldt Parkway
> > >JG> Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
> > >JG> Voice 716-896-5200 x372
> > >JG> Fax 716-897-6723
> > >JG> jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> > >JG>
> >
> >http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography/Panbiogeography/Panbiogeography-Gat
> >e
> > >.htm
> > >JG> http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Best regards,
> > >  Ronaldo                            mailto:ralperin at terra.com.br
> >
> >Dr. John Grehan
> >Director of Science and Collections
> >Buffalo Museum of Science
> >1020 Humboldt Parkway
> >Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
> >Voice 716-896-5200 x372
> >Fax 716-897-6723
> >jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
> >http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography/Panbiogeography/Panbiogeography-Gat
>e
> >.htm
> >http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm

Dr. John Grehan
Director of Science and Collections
Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
Voice 716-896-5200 x372
Fax 716-897-6723
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography/Panbiogeography/Panbiogeography-Gate.htm
http://www.sciencebuff.org/HepialidaeGate.htm




More information about the Taxacom mailing list