[Taxacom] base alignment
Hovenkamp, P. (Peter)
Hovenkamp at nhn.leidenuniv.nl
Tue Aug 29 09:15:00 CDT 2006
John Grehan wrote:
> I can't be bothered. Maybe you are right and there is no one else say
> like I do. I don't really care. The real issue is whether there is
> cladistic evidence for the human-orangutan relationship than the
> human-chimpanzee relationship. Everyone is free to analyze this
> with whatever terminology and algorithm they prefer.
> But for
> > everybody I know "phenetic" means classifying on the basis of
> > similarity of taxa, not selecting compatible characters.
> I agree with this definition. And according to that definition
> analysis of molecular characters appears to be an analysis of
> established through overall similarity of base substitutions and gaps.
> Others who are computationally advanced might also find my positions
> cladistic theory to be algorithmically naive. Perhaps so. In the end
> is the empirical data that will have to be addressed, and for the
> orangutan question this has hardly begun. So far I have not had any
> responses to the Mona Lisa paper saying that the analysis of evidence
> garbage or that my observations about questions in molecular analysis
> are demonstrably wrong.
Maybe people just can't be bothered. Possibly they don't really care how
Schtroumpfs schtroumpf their characters or smurf their schtroumpfs (this
being the vocabulary I'm happy with as it is).
Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden branch
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
More information about the Taxacom