[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 12/4/02 1:45:46 PM EST, TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu writes:
<< Ahh, what is "reasonable" to you, may not be reasonable to Joe Schmo. This
is why we have analyses - to compare and test different scenarios. >>
Then Joe Schmo should reexamine the evidence.
There are too many philosophical problems with cladistics for that
methodology alone to ever provide me with convincing evidence to prefer one
phylogeny over another. Rather, cladistics is just another piece of evidence
to be considered in developing a phylogeny, along with biogeography,
stratigraphy, and functional anatomy. E.g., if morphological cladistic
analysis contends that avian flight developed from the ground up, this
disagrees with physics and functional anatomy, and perhaps we should rethink
the cladistics, not necessarily the physics or the functional anatomy.