[Taxacom] Schwartz and Grehan (2009) cited on Dinosaur Mailing List

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Tue Sep 13 08:49:30 CDT 2011


It's a bit meaningless to say that "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence". What is the extraordinary claim here? Is it any
less extraordinary to assert that base sequences provide the answer than
anything else?

As for the chromosomal rearrangement patterns, what sources are your
referring to and what evidence specifically?

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kim van der
Linde
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:41 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Schwartz and Grehan (2009) cited on Dinosaur
Mailing List

Well, I always liked the chromosomal rearrangement patterns the best as 
evidence for human-chimp, especially chromosome two that is most similar

to the chimpanzee chromosomes. Really, parallelisms are so common that 
you need far more than some morphological similarities to be able to 
reject the results of many thousands of base-pairs, in-dels, chromosome 
inversions etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Kim

On 9/12/2011 11:26 PM, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> Dear All,
>         I was catching up on postings at the DML (Dinosaur Mailing
List),
> and one last week caught my eye.  It cites the paper by Schwartz and
> Grehan (2009) challenging the exclusivity of a supposed chimp-hominid
> clade.  Although the poster has reservations about the paper's
> conclusions, he does make some interesting observations (as does Greg
> Paul, whose posting he is responding to).  However, one thing that he
> fails to point out is that Schwartz and Grehan, 2009, do not produce
> even a single molecular character to support their proposed
> orangutan-hominid clade, which in my mind is it biggest shortcoming.
>         Therefore, if Schwartz and Grehan cannot produce any molecular
> evidence to support an orangutan-hominid clade, and the molecularists
> cannot produce convincing morphological evidence for a chimp-hominid
> clade, then I still feel that hominids most like did not exclusively
> clade with either of them, but that they are sister group to a
> chimp-gorilla clade.
>         It seems that symplesiomorphies are relatively easy to find
among
> greats apes, but finding true synapomorphies (molecular or
> morphological) for its subclades is no easy matter.  I have little
hope
> of relevant fossil finds shedding much light on the debate anytime
soon,
> but whole genomes (especially certain LINES contained therein) will
soon
> make considerable progress in resolving this debate.  Anyway, for the
> DML postings (for what they are worth), see the weblink below.
>            -----------Ken Kinman
>
> http://dml.cmnh.org/2011Sep/msg00030.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going 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
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going 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




More information about the Taxacom mailing list