[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Gaia theropod follow-up: a "new" phylogeny
< However, if you mean that cladists should limit the number of valid
features which do seem to show significant similarities and differences
between taxa, I find this a hard position to defend...
Go through Holtz's or anyone else's data matrix and decide which characters
have significance in determining evolutionary relationships and which don't
before you decide which are "noise".>
On what basis would you 'decide which characters have significance in
determining evolutionary relationships and which don't...'?
You're making the assumption that we know the clues from the red herrings
already (as well as the logic needed to assemble these clues).
If we do know the clues, then isn't there an implicit assumption that
universally applicable rules of evolution are known? After all, the
important situations can be identified and the intervening steps on the way
to those situations determined.
If this is true, then there is very little randomness in such a structured
hypothesis. You should be able to postulate an initial situation and
process leading to any given (identified) significant outcome.
Instead of just comparisons to past charts, wouldn't it be appropriate to
lay out the implicit scenario, including whether the process was adaptation
or some other mechanism?
This just seems an ambitious assertion. I'd appreciate a bit more
persuasion.