[Taxacom] orangtuans and human origins

[Jim Croft]

I am at a loss as to why anyone would want to justify excluding *any*
evidence other than on the grounds that the data is a demonstrable
artifact or otherwise demonstrably irrelevant or inapplicable.  That
somebody else did a similar exclusion in other circumstances is hardly
justification.  It might make you feel better about your decision but
it is not justification. (Sort of like buying stuff - that other
people have bought something only demonstrates that it is popular, not
that it is necessarily the 'best buy'.)

No matter how elegant and plausible the story you are setting out to
prove becomes, if the molecules tell a different story, you still have
a problem that requires explanation and you won't be able to claim
'truth'...

As dispassionate soulless scientists we should not care what the
answer is.  But we should care very much about how we get it.  Let the
evidence, all evidence, speak.

(and in this case I *really* do not care what the answer is - unless
of course it turns out we really did just appear on Day 6 with none of
this messy evolution business, in which case some of us have a
significant existential crisis to deal with!).

jim

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:50 AM, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> wrote:
> As some of you know, I and my colleague Jeff Schwartz are preparing a
> paper on the biogeography and morphological cladistics of humans, great
> apes, and their fossil relatives that presents support for the monophyly
> of hominids and orangutans to the exclusion of African apes. This has
> now gone through two reviews and the last review resulted in the
> suggestion that we present an explicit rationale for our taking the
> route of reliance on morphology over genetic analyses by clearly setting
> out the starting assumptions on which our analyses rest and address the
> choices we took to "ignore the 'mainstream' molecular-based work" in
> favor of the analyses we present.
>
>
>
> One aspect that I might include is reference to other taxa where well
> supported morphological relationships are not congruent with DNA
> molecular analysis. I would be surprised if the human-orangutan
> relationship is not the sole example. If anyone knows of other published
> cases I would be pleased to receive citations.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
> John Grehan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>



-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499

"Words, as is well known, are the great foes of reality."
- Joseph Conrad, author (1857-1924)