[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


In a message dated 1/21/99 6:19:26 PM EST, m_troutman@hotmail.com writes:

<< This conflicts with the 
 intuitive approach and shows rather convincingly that phylogenetic 
 systematics is more reliable in producing phylogenies.   >>

This argument comes dangerously close to being circular. Cladistic analysis
has uncovered a different relationship from that found by the traditional
methodology, but this doesn't mean it is any more (or less) correct. It is
just different, and it certainly sheds no light on the reliability of
cladistics just because it is different. Cladistic analysis may have found the
true phylogeny >in this case<, but we have no way of knowing this, and it just
as likely (or perhaps even more likely) that cladistic analysis didn't find
the true phylogeny after all.