[Taxacom] Robust argument
michael.heads at yahoo.com
michael.heads at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 27 21:36:20 CDT 2009
Dear Bob and colleagues,
What is the genome? For example, the geographic distribution of most taxa is inherited, i.e. is genetic, but is not coded for by 'genes' in the strict sense.
Michael Ivie and his Afrocentric friends are worried that an orang-Homo sister relationship would mean that Africa is not the centre of origin for Homo and so the theory is racist. But just because a taxon has its sister group in Asia does not mean that Asia is the centre of origin. Panbiogeography is against any sort of centrism. Michael feels that panbiogeography is ridiculous and teaches his students this, which is fair enough, but the last book on the subject (Panbiogeography by Craw et al., 1999) was published by Oxford University Press in New York, which is about as main-stream as you can get. As a good coleopterist, Michael might be interested in a recent, very positive article on Croizat in Le Coleopteriste (12: 1-5. 2008) by Pierre Jolivet.
I don't know about Afrocentrics, but Africans themselves are more sophisticated than this when it comes to issues of centres of origin/taxonomy etc. In southern Africa I suggested to my best PhD student (an African) that we chould rename the dozens of plants and animals with the species epithets 'caffer' and 'caffra', as 'kaffir' is a very offensive word down there for a black person. Using the word is a crime in South Africa and it gets a bit embarrassing in lectures and on field trips. But my student suggested that the principle of priority was much more important and a change would just be confusing. As they say in Ghana - 'you're too sensitive'.
Wellington, New Zealand.
My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au> wrote:
From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
Subject: [Taxacom] Robust argument
To: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 12:33 PM
With considerable fear and trepidation, this TAXACOMer sticks his head above the battlements and meekly raises a couple of small points of informal logic.
We're agreed that we'd like to reconstruct evolutionary history, as best we can. The following argument seems to have been put forward:
(1) Because the genome is passed on from generation to generation, it contains information we need to infer evolutionary history.
(2) It is possible to infer evolutionary history using information in the genome.
(3) Morphology also contains information of use for inferring evolutionary history.
(4) It is possible to infer evolutionary history using information from morphology.
(5) Literally speaking, morphology is not inherited, so morphological information is second-hand data derived from a heritable source: the genome.
(6) No other kind of information can be used to infer evolutionary history, because no other information is inherited.
(4) has been the basis for evolutionary inference for a long time, (2) for a shorter time. Many people believe that (2) is better than (4) because of (5), and because there is more (1) information than (3) information.
The logic here needs defending. Why should (5) make (4) any less reliable than (2)? (I think this is one of Richard Zander's points.) How do you compare the reliability or resolution of (2) vs (4), given that we have no time machine and no other information (see (6)) that can independently be used to infer past events? How do you know that there is more independent information from (1) of use for historical inference than from (3)?
I think these 3 questions go to methodological assumptions. Should these assumptions be taken as givens, equally reliable from group to group? It worries me that posters have written THEORETICALLY in caps without spelling out their thinking.
I also point to (6), which is nonsense, and comes from thinking about organisms divorced from their geographical location and their ecological associations (think of parasitism, insect/host plant interactions, etc). (6) should not be confused with (7), which might read "It is possible to infer evolutionary history from biogeography and ecological associations." That history might be blurrier than (2) and (4) histories, but how do total evidence enthusiasts justify their insistence on using (1) and (3) evidence to the exclusion of (6) evidence? (Or is it just that *some* evolutionary historians can't be bothered studying all the phenomenally complicated, ungeneralisable facts of what used to be called natural history?)
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom