[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: How was that about Jaime and proof?
> > > David, you need to show one case, and one case only, of a juvenile
> > > that does not look like an adult of the same genus or larger clade - and
> > > doesn't resemble some other adult taxa that it is totally unrelated to. If
> > > you
> > > can, and if you do, then we can fight like rats in a cage about the
> > > details
> > > and evidence. Until then you have no evidence and your arguments are based
> > > on
> > > rhetoric and examples from other unrelated clades. Stick to pterosaurs.
> > >
> > How the heck should this be possible? Unless you have a complete
> > growth series, how could you identify a juvenile as belonging to a
> > certain adult if it looks not like an adult of the same clade?
> Exactly my point.
> You're all trying to pull a rabbit out a hat.
No, it is not your point (are you deliberately misunderstanding me?).
Just tell me how it would be possible to demonstrate that a juvenile
belongs to a parent if they are to look completely different.
> What you're promoting is similar to: baby crows become adult hawks. Or baby
> seagulls become adult plovers.
Fledglings usually *do not* look like parents.
> Just include all pterosaurs and let PAUP find the relationships.
It can't if you plug in units (specimen or species) *that differ in
more than just phylogeny*.
In every tree you create with PAUP it is *assumed* that what you get
is a phylogenetic relation. If you plugin, say, me, my daughter, a
(unrelated) friend of mine and his daughter, I'm sure (although this
is a thought experiment) the two children will cluster together and
will probably be basal to me and my friend (depending on what you
chose as outgroup). (If you don't believe it, please try - I would, if
I had access to PAUP.)
Priv.-Doz. Dr. Martin BÃker
Institut fÃr Werkstoffe
Langer Kamp 8