Taxonomy as a Rigorous Science

[Jodie]

And you've completely failed to demonstrate that this is a problem (meanwhile Dinwar has successfully demonstrated that it isn't a problem).

Other research is based on this branch of science. If certain elements aren't correct then subsequent research won't be correct because it is based on inaccurate conclusions. Having a larger sample is important for identifying a human species rather than basing it on one or two skulls if correlative statistics are used incorrectly to establish cause and effect.

If you're going to tell a paleontologist that his entire field of study is Doing It Wrong with regard to identifying species, you might want to at least look up what the word means first.

I'm just gonna drop this here.

I don't think the methods are wrong when dealing with current existing species. I do think it's wrong to use these methods the further back you go in time as less evidence is available. I've already stated numerous times that the genetics for morphologically for similar traits can be different, if you don't have the DNA to examine you make assumptions based on appearance.

You say that. You've yet to demonstrate it.


You say that. You've yet to demonstrate it.


You say that. You've yet to demonstrate it.

I think I have, but if you don't want to accept that then that would be your choice.

Your argument is that we cannot use morphology to determine if something is a different species or not, and that we must have genetics for that. The paper shows a case where morphology and genetics were both used, and they agreed with one another. Which means that yes, you can use morphology alone and get the same result you would using genetics. That paper is direct evidence that you are wrong.

No it isn't, the paper demonstrates where it does in this case, this isn't true in every case. If it isn't true in every case then you are using correlative statistics to establish something as a cause and effect without the DNA evidence to back up the assumption.

The idea that you honestly did not understand the relevance of that paper to your argument--when Dinwar specifically spelled it out for you--stretches the limits of credibility.

He used an example where it works in one species to justify using this method for every species , therefore one shouldn't need DNA in every situation to back up an assumption based on morphology alone. That isn't true and I call that bias.

You're speculating about things you have no understanding of, as if you did understand them. You're saying that experts are doing it wrong, when you don't have the slightest clue how the science works. You're declaring an entire field of study invalid, when you don't even know the absolute most basic concepts involved.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculation and questioning science.

It's insulting as hell is what's wrong with it.

Only if someone chooses to personalize it.


Is there anything you do know about paleontology?

You say that. You've yet to demonstrate it. And no, your personal anecdote doesn't count for several reasons (like the fact that it is merely an anecdote).

Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced, research continues, nothing I've stated about Neanderthals is anecdotal. There are about 400 fossil remains for an estimated population of 70,000. No one has found any genetic deformities within the 400 remains but you don't have a large enough sample of fossils from the estimated population to know how often that might occur or other factors taken into consideration for how they might have dealt with this situation.

Yeah, that's real specific, there. Try not to break the server with that highly-detailed breakdown of the details.

What do you want me to say? It's a large ape jaw, I can't guess since we do not have an example of Gigantopithecus DNA to understand why it's large.

 

[Dinwar]

Without the DNA to back up the morphology you would attribute membership within a group just based on appearance.

I don't have time to respond to all the nonsense in these posts. However, I do want to point something out: You are now formally ignoring data. I have presented a paper that clearly demonstrates via rigorous experimentation that morphology produces the same trees as genetic data. There is no significant difference in terms of validity. You've denied that without presenting any evidence to counter it, refute it, or even address it.

Secondly, you are attempting to portray the careful and rigorous analysis of morphological features as scientists simply looking at things and going "Eh, that's about right". Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, I invite you to examine any monograph--the analysis of morphology is extremely detailed and thorough. If anything, we err on the side of being overly thorough; we have to be reminded every fifty years or so that not all morphological traits are adaptations. Still, this isn't much of a problem--cladistics doesn't find one tree and then walk away. Rather, we find a tree, analyze which characters are the most useful, try to figure out WHY those characters are the most useful, and use that to influence how we build the tree down the road. Ironically enough, our understanding of which traits are important undergoes a sort of evolution.

Of course I'm speculating, what is wrong with that?

At this point, you're actually doing much worse. You are ignoring data, you are authoritatively telling someone how their job is done when you demonstrably have no clue, you've already figured out what your answer is and are adjusting your arguments so that your answer always seems, to you at least, to be the "right" answer, you've started equivocating, etc.

Speculation is fine--once you have sufficient background information, and provided you never confuse speculation with data. The purpose of speculation is to train your brain to think critically about the data. For example, in grad school some students had a proposal to remove the Moon. This started a good-natured debate about what would happen were we to do so. Fueled a lot of speculation, including how we'd do it (which was where my objections originated), what the impacts would be, tidal locking, etc. Great fun if you're a geologist. The thing is, none of us ever pretended that this was anything serious, and we damn sure wouldn't have gone to an astronomer with it. It was speculation (and FAR more rigorous than yours in this thread, by the way--some of the citation lists went on for pages!), so it wasn't serious.

More serious speculation includes things like spinning "What if?" scenarios. What if morphology doesn't work? A valid question--and the importance of such speculation is twofold. First, to make you question your foundational assumptions, as all good researchers must. Second, it points your mind towards where to look for the answers. There's a methodology in science called Strong Inference. I love it. It allows us to quickly and decisively decide between working hypotheses. It's favored, in my experience, by stratigraphers, but a paleontologist like me can still use it. What it consists of is, in brief (please read the whole paper for more detail), establishing mutually exclusive working hypotheses that cover the entire possible range of options and then devising a test which will demonstrate one right and the rest wrong. Granted, one test may be too few, but that's addressed in the paper; I'm merely giving the broad strokes here.

Our dispute is exactly that, Jodie: two mutually exclusive working hypotheses. The test is to compare morphologicaly generated cladograms to genetic cladograms. If you're right, there should be little to no overlap. If I'm right, there should be extensive overlap (some deviation is bound to occur, just as some random similarities are). The experiment has been done. The overlap was more extensive than I would have expected. Thus, we can dismiss your hypothesis at this point, at least until you provide equally rigorous data. And I mean DATA, not speculation--you're gonna have to get your hands dirty, or at least read through the available literature, for this one.

Also, as an aside, reading over some information one night hardly makes you an expert. Ask Akri--I do more thorough literature reviews because I'm drunk and it's fun. I remember spending two days reading up on fairy shrimp and Anomalocaris evolution because I saw a fairy shrimp and it looked like an Anomalocaris. (To be clear, even there it was far more than "They kinda look similar"--they shared specific traits I had always considered unique to Anomalocaris, and my research was focused on why that would be. Gross morphology is similar [except size; that's several orders of magnitude off], but the identification is in the details.)

 

[Jodie]

I think you are reading more into my posts than what I intend, and because I'm not an expert, I probably don't express what I'm trying to say correctly. "Wrong" might be to strong a word, and in your case the way I'm reading you is that your methods and systems are statistically sound therefore reliable and beyond question.

This guy says it better than I do. I've been reading his blog for a couple of years now.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/research/neandertal-genetics-morphology-2012.html

Just scanned your last post, you choose to take offense. I am not ignoring data, what you posted was a good example of when the two systems worked together. My point was that they don't always, and that there isn't always DNA evidence available for comparison. Making an assumption by using inference isn't always going to work because pertinent data is missing. If you have no way to test that against actual DNA evidence then it's just an assumption. On hind sight, I think you just don't want to acknowledge the limitations.

 

[Dinwar]

Just scanned your last post, you choose to take offense.

That's a natural consequence of someone who has no idea what they're talking about telling me my entire field of science is screwed up.

Let's be clear here: You are acting in an offensive manner. As I said before, if I did this to you your reaction would be AT LEAST what mine has been. It's not outside the question for someone in the medical field to sue someone who acts as you do towards that field.

So yes, I'm offended. Deeply, and for valid reasons. You knew that was going to happen going in, and if you didn't it's simply yet another demonstration of the shallowness of your thinking. I'm still talking to you, however, so let's leave off that subject.

what you posted was a good example of when the two systems worked together.

True. However, the implication you're evading with all your capacity is that the two were also tested against one another, and morphology did not fail that test.

My point was that they don't always,

Mere speculation. Until you demonstrate this--and I mean until you show the cladograms, as I have--there's nothing substantiating your speculation and we can dismiss it without further consideration.

Let's be clear here: at this point, my side has evidence and your side has speculation.

. Making an assumption by using inference isn't always going to work because pertinent data is missing.

The highlighted part is a lie. I've demonstrated experimentally that morphology DOES capture the genetic data. You've failed to counter that. I look forward to you actually doing so; but understand that when speculation and experimental data contradict one another, scientists don't throw out the data in favor of the speculation.

If you have no way to test that against actual DNA evidence

WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THE GODS DO YOU THINK I REFERENCED THAT PAPER?!?!?! That paper SPECIFICALLY demonstrates EXACTLY such a test. It SPECIFICALLY demonstrates that morphology is a valid dataset. This is nothing more than you putting your fingers in your ears and singing "LALALA I can't hear you!!!"

On hind sight, I think you just don't want to acknowledge the limitations.

On the contrary: I fully acknowledge the limitations of morphological datasets. In fact, I'm the one who's pointed out valid criticisms thereof--and provided references substantiating them. What you fail to understand is that those limits have been tested and are not what you speculate them to be.

Further, you simply don't understand how science works. You demonstrably believe that speculation trumps data, and that's wrong. Your idea has been tested. It was found to be in error. We can dismiss it. If you have any actual data to contribute to this discussion please present it; otherwise, you're simply going to reveal yourself to be unwilling to follow the data, preferring instead your a priori beliefs.

 

[Akri]

Other research is based on this branch of science. If certain elements aren't correct then subsequent research won't be correct because it is based on inaccurate conclusions. Having a larger sample is important for identifying a human species rather than basing it on one or two skulls if correlative statistics are used incorrectly to establish cause and effect.

The hilited part is the part I'm taking issue with. I fully understand that if there is a problem, then it needs to be fixed. You have not demonstrated that such a problem exists. "Demonstrate" does not mean "speculate". It does not mean "play what-if games". It means show actual, real examples where something went wrong, that could only be fixed by doing things the way you say they should be done.

I don't think the methods are wrong when dealing with current existing species. I do think it's wrong to use these methods the further back you go in time as less evidence is available.

You think lots of things. So far none of them have been supported by evidence.

I've already stated numerous times that the genetics for morphologically for similar traits can be different

Paleontologists are aware of this.

if you don't have the DNA to examine you make assumptions based on appearance.

Prove that morphology cannot be used to accurately identify species.

I think I have, but if you don't want to accept that then that would be your choice.

No, you haven't. You've played "what-if" games. You have not demonstrated anything.

No it isn't, the paper demonstrates where it does in this case, this isn't true in every case. If it isn't true in every case then you are using correlative statistics to establish something as a cause and effect without the DNA evidence to back up the assumption.

You've yet to show a case where morphology hasn't been able to accurately identify species. So far all of the evidence presented disagrees with you.

He used an example where it works in one species to justify using this method for every species , therefore one shouldn't need DNA in every situation to back up an assumption based on morphology alone. That isn't true and I call that bias.

His position has been supported by data. Yours has not. You might want to reconsider which of you is acting based on bias.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculation and questioning science.

There is with the way you're doing it. Your "speculations" are based on ignoring data.

Only if someone chooses to personalize it.

No, it's insulting by it's very nature. You are accusing every paleontologist in the world of incompetence. The fact that you're accusing them in an indirect way does not make it any less of an insult.

Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced, research continues, nothing I've stated about Neanderthals is anecdotal.

Learn to follow a conversation. I did not call your statements about Neadnerthals anecdotal.

What do you want me to say? It's a large ape jaw, I can't guess since we do not have an example of Gigantopithecus DNA to understand why it's large.

Jodie, you have no clue what you're talking about. Just admit that you're talking out of your rear.

 

[Akri]

Speculation is fine--once you have sufficient background information, and provided you never confuse speculation with data. The purpose of speculation is to train your brain to think critically about the data. For example, in grad school some students had a proposal to remove the Moon. This started a good-natured debate about what would happen were we to do so. Fueled a lot of speculation, including how we'd do it (which was where my objections originated), what the impacts would be, tidal locking, etc. Great fun if you're a geologist. The thing is, none of us ever pretended that this was anything serious, and we damn sure wouldn't have gone to an astronomer with it. It was speculation (and FAR more rigorous than yours in this thread, by the way--some of the citation lists went on for pages!), so it wasn't serious.

A good example of speculations-done-right is xkcd's What-If? The questions he looks at tend to be pants-on-head ridiculous (could a high-speed train go through a loop-de-loop like a rollercoaster?) but he actually uses data to draw his conclusions. It's fun, and you can actually learn quite a bit from it.

Also, as an aside, reading over some information one night hardly makes you an expert. Ask Akri--I do more thorough literature reviews because I'm drunk and it's fun. I remember spending two days reading up on fairy shrimp and Anomalocaris evolution because I saw a fairy shrimp and it looked like an Anomalocaris. (To be clear, even there it was far more than "They kinda look similar"--they shared specific traits I had always considered unique to Anomalocaris, and my research was focused on why that would be. Gross morphology is similar [except size; that's several orders of magnitude off], but the identification is in the details.)

How long did you spend researching dholes after I made an offhand comment about them?

 

[kellyb]

Jodie, have you ever looked at the original research supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis and compared it to the research supporting the alternative? (That's what the book you quoted from is about, isn't it?)

I read a good bit of it last night.

So, no.

You just picked a few quotes out of a book, about a subject (OoA) you know nothing about, written by an obscure author who has no formal education in the field he was writing about, to kind of support a vague suspicion you have about a larger subject (paleontology) you don't know anything about?

This MO is really quite a bit like people who reject the germ theory of disease based on suspicions about "scientism."

 

[Dinwar]

You've yet to show a case where morphology hasn't been able to accurately identify species.

Something I want to point out: Jodie, you've mentioned no such examples. I, on the other hand, have mentioned two: ammonites and ceratopsians. What this means is that I'm arguing your side better than you.

Think about that: I think you're a crackpot (I don't intend this to be a personal attack). And I'm doing better at demonstrating your concepts than you are.

How long did you spend researching dholes after I made an offhand comment about them?

Oh, just a week or two.... To be fair, it DID gel with a longterm research project of mine.

He used an example where it works in one species to justify using this method for every species , therefore one shouldn't need DNA in every situation to back up an assumption based on morphology alone.

This is a mischaracterization of my stance. Allow me to clarify.

The experimental data demonstrates that morphological datasets produce identical cladograms (where they can be compared) as those created by genetic data. Therefore we can conclude that the dataset provides the same information, and therefore when we only have morphology we can be confident that our cladograms are as valid as those created with genetic data.

I would never argue that we should ignore data. Obviously morphological datasets have limitations--just as EVERY dataset, including genetic datasets, do. Using multiple sets of data we can cover more information and get better results. I've only been arguing that the data demonstrates that if we accept that genetics-based cladograms are valid, since there are no significant differences between genetically and morphologically generated cladograms, we must also accept that morphologically based cladograms are valid. The results are the same, therefore to say one is valid and the other isn't is nonsensical.

What do you want me to say? It's a large ape jaw, I can't guess since we do not have an example of Gigantopithecus DNA to understand why it's large.

The whole point of this discussion is that you think genetic data is vital to reconstructing evolutionary histories. When asked to demonstrate how, however, you state yourself to be incapable of doing it--and the implication of this statement is that you consider this an unfair request. YOU CANNOT DO WHAT YOU DEMAND PALEONTOLOGISTS DO. This is a critical failure on your part--what this means is that you cannot demonstrate the utility of your methodology.

In contrast, paleontologists CAN determine the traits that changed from one species to another. That baleen paper illustrates that.

So your opposition is arguing your point better than you and is providing the data you say your methods are necessary to provide. What, exactly, do your methods have to offer again?

 

[Vortigern99]

This thread has been outstandingly instructive regarding the methodologies of palenontology and cladistics, and in the presentation of a solidly evidential line of rebuttals to unfounded, if imaginative, speculation.

Thanks for a terrific lesson in science and critical thinking, folks.

 

[Jodie]

So, no.

You just picked a few quotes out of a book, about a subject (OoA) you know nothing about, written by an obscure author who has no formal education in the field he was writing about, to kind of support a vague suspicion you have about a larger subject (paleontology) you don't know anything about?

This MO is really quite a bit like people who reject the germ theory of disease based on suspicions about "scientism."

I don't disagree with the OOA theory, the genetics support that theory as well as paleontology/archaeology, there were several things in the book that I didn't agree with and I thought were kind out there, however, he had a point about the way statistics are used.

 

[kellyb]

I don't disagree with the OOA theory, the genetics support that theory as well as paleontology/archaeology, there were several things in the book that I didn't agree with and I thought were kind out there, however, he had a point about the way statistics are used.

He gave absolutely no examples of where and how the statistics were flawed in anything you quoted.

All he did was say (in essence) "Statistics can be deceptive", which is common knowledge.

 

[Dinwar]

All he did was say (in essence) "Statistics can be deceptive", which is common knowledge.

I'd like to mention that statistics based on genetics aren't exempt from this caveat. Remember, no one looks at the full genome to do their analyses; what we look at is a subset that, ideally, contains the relevant information. Again, this is no different from morphological studies focusing on the most important traits. What this means is that regardless of the type of analysis we do, we're missing data. Then there are other factors, such as the propensity to ignore the null hypothesis and stuff like that.

 

[Jodie]

That's a natural consequence of someone who has no idea what they're talking about telling me my entire field of science is screwed up.

I didn't tell you that.

Let's be clear here: You are acting in an offensive manner. As I said before, if I did this to you your reaction would be AT LEAST what mine has been. It's not outside the question for someone in the medical field to sue someone who acts as you do towards that field.

I have said nothing that should be offensive to you.

So yes, I'm offended. Deeply, and for valid reasons. You knew that was going to happen going in, and if you didn't it's simply yet another demonstration of the shallowness of your thinking. I'm still talking to you, however, so let's leave off that subject.

I've been very interested in what you have had to say but you have ignored my point and continue to insist that your methods are sound proof when in fact they can't be in every situation. You either didn't read what I linked or dismissed what I said out of hand. You've alluded to your own personal theories that I have asked twice about because I'm genuinely interested, yet you just ignored my request. I can't think of any other reason you would react this way, it makes no sense to me.

True. However, the implication you're evading with all your capacity is that the two were also tested against one another, and morphology did not fail that test.

Mere speculation. Until you demonstrate this--and I mean until you show the cladograms, as I have--there's nothing substantiating your speculation and we can dismiss it without further consideration.

Let's be clear here: at this point, my side has evidence and your side has speculation.

I've asked you to show me the progenitor species for Giganto, and I got nothing. I've linked what I can find regarding Neanderthals, you asked me to identify a genetic mutation for a jaw on a species that has no DNA evidence....I see manipulation to avoid the discussion points so that you can steer the conversation towards a stance where you are being victimized in some way. I don't understand your reaction.

The highlighted part is a lie. I've demonstrated experimentally that morphology DOES capture the genetic data. You've failed to counter that. I look forward to you actually doing so; but understand that when speculation and experimental data contradict one another, scientists don't throw out the data in favor of the speculation.

You failed to read the links I provided, or you either dismissed what I linked out of hand without directly addressing my discussion points. We are not on trial, I'm not judging you, I'm asking legitimate questions, and for whatever reason you are getting angry.

WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THE GODS DO YOU THINK I REFERENCED THAT PAPER?!?!?! That paper SPECIFICALLY demonstrates EXACTLY such a test. It SPECIFICALLY demonstrates that morphology is a valid dataset. This is nothing more than you putting your fingers in your ears and singing "LALALA I can't hear you!!!"

YOU have turned this into an all or nothing proposition. I know it works when you have living species to demonstrate confidence, I said that, repeatedly. Yet again, I will make my point, not so when you lack DNA evidence or have a smaller sample set from ancient hominids. IN that case the methods are only as good as the data that you have available for consideration.

On the contrary: I fully acknowledge the limitations of morphological datasets. In fact, I'm the one who's pointed out valid criticisms thereof--and provided references substantiating them. What you fail to understand is that those limits have been tested and are not what you speculate them to be.

Further, you simply don't understand how science works. You demonstrably believe that speculation trumps data, and that's wrong. Your idea has been tested. It was found to be in error. We can dismiss it. If you have any actual data to contribute to this discussion please present it; otherwise, you're simply going to reveal yourself to be unwilling to follow the data, preferring instead your a priori beliefs.

When your field can't even agree whether Homo Erectus was our direct ancestor, or what fossils belong in the classification, then there are some serious issues with using inferential methods for ancient hominids.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-erectus

 

[shadron]

That is great, shadron. I like the file folder tree like application he uses.

Well, unfortunately, he remarked in a later video about many requests for a handle on the software he used. It seems he cut and pasted outrageously to make the video;he wishes he could have such a tool, but the closest databases, paleobiology and tolweb (tree of life), both have their problems and are mired in politics and lack of funding.

Found it. It's also germaine to the OP.

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

 

[Akri]

I didn't tell you that.

You didn't use those words, but there's no other sane way to interpret your statements.

I have said nothing that should be offensive to you.

Have you considered that maybe you're just not very good at identifying offensive speech?

I've been very interested in what you have had to say but you have ignored my point and continue to insist that your methods are sound proof when in fact they can't be in every situation.

The bolded part is a straight-up lie. He has stated repeatedly that there are limitations to the methods paleontologists use. In fact, he listed a few issues in his OP.

I'm asking legitimate questions

No, you're not. That's kinda the point.

I know it works when you have living species to demonstrate confidence, I said that, repeatedly. Yet again, I will make my point, not so when you lack DNA evidence or have a smaller sample set from ancient hominids.

You have not demonstrated that it only works when there are living specimens. But feel free to explain how a method could be valid when applied to a species that has living specimens, and then stop working when applied to an extinct species.

When your field can't even agree whether Homo Erectus was our direct ancestor, or what fossils belong in the classification, then there are some serious issues with using inferential methods for ancient hominids.

So your complaint has gone from "they make classifications with too little evidence" to "when they don't have enough evidence they don't make classifications"?

 

[Dinwar]

I didn't tell you that.

Not in those words. However, how else can what you say be taken? You came into the other thread and basically said that paleontologists couldn't tell one species from another--which means, considering the importance of that to paleontology, that we are all incompetent. That's an insult. There's no other interpretation.

You compound that by arguing the subject without studying it. That's you saying that paleontology is so easy that no actual research is necessary to understand it. Again, this is deeply insulting--some of us have spent our lifetimes trying to wrap our heads around these topics. And yet you expect to become an expert by reading a bit on the topic one night.

I keep going back to this, but it's important for you to understand: Imagine what would happen if I did this to you. Imagine I told you that you had no idea what you were doing, and despite never studying statistics in my life I demand you accept my criticisms as rational. Then, to top it off, I demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend your data--which is what you've done with the cetacean study--and STILL demanded that you change everything you do to fit my opinions. Is there any way you'd take me seriously? Can you honestly say you'd take the time to dig up citations refuting me? Or would you simply ignore me, or throw me out if you could?

I have said nothing that should be offensive to you.

I'm a paleontologist. I'm among those you are calling incompetent. That is an insult. If you wish to call me incompetent, I have every right to demand you present specific flaws with my publications.

I've been very interested in what you have had to say but you have ignored my point and continue to insist that your methods are sound proof when in fact they can't be in every situation.

The bold part is disingenuously wrong. What I have done is REFUTED your point. Specifically, and with data that you have yet to even bother to challenge. Then I referenced the specific methodology which I followed, which allows me to declare that your point had been refuted. In response I've gotten nothing but speculation.

The highlighted part is equivocation. You go from saying that the methods are sound to saying that I therefore think they are applicable universally. These are two different concepts. The first is true--morphological data is just as good at establishing phylogenies as genetic data, given some caveats. The latter part is false and dishonestly ignores the fact that I've already presented specific situations where they don't work (well, to be fair I alluded to them). Not all traits are adaptive, nor are all controlled directly or indirectly by genetics. The morphology of my right clavicle is not genetic--it's structural (specifically, it's what happens when impact weight exceeds compressional strength of bone, then heals). There are numerous such caveats, and the decision to select specific traits for morphological analysis often involves in-depth discussions about exactly this.

Again, I've argued your side better than you. I've provided specific examples of situations you've only speculated about. You may want to think about that.

I'm asking legitimate questions

I have answered you. Specifically and with high-quality data.

If you are honestly asking questions, examine the data with the understanding that you may be wrong. If those cladograms in the baleen paper had been different, I'd have had to reconsider MY position. I feel it perfectly reasonable to demand the same willingness on your part to change your views. If you are not willing to do so, you aren't being honest, with me or with yourself. It's as simple as that.

I know it works when you have living species to demonstrate confidence, I said that, repeatedly.

You have ignored a number of things to make this statement as if it has any bearing on this discussion.

First, you ignored the fact that the baleen paper didn't just include extant species, yet the conclusions hold true.

Second, you've ignored the fact that there is NO significant difference between the morphological data and the genetic data. What that means is that in every way that's relevant (and in every way that has been brought up in this discussion, by either side), cladograms built from morphological data and those built from genetic data are indistinguishable.

Third, you've ignored the fact that I've already said we should use DNA where available.

Fourth, you've ignored how DNA analysis is done. As I said, there are actual, demonstrable areas where subjectivity can creep into those studies. You may also want to look into epigenetics--genetics isn't the be-all, end-all of biology, not even heritability, not by a long shot.

Yet again, I will make my point, not so when you lack DNA evidence or have a smaller sample set from ancient hominids.

You've yet to demonstrate that ancient hominids had similar diversity to that found in humans. You are ASSUMING that, with no evidence at all. Given that your entire argument hinges specifically on that point this is a fatal flaw in your argument--you cannot provide the single most important datum for your argument.

I do not find that assumption valid, for reasons I discussed earlier--to wit, humans are extraordinarily diverse compared to any non-domestic species in the wild. If you provide the data, we can discuss it. Until then, the fact that humans underwent a period of partial radiation means that we cannot use them as an analog for other taxa, including other hominids.

This gives you a very specific test by which you can refute me, by the way. The refutation consists of more than repeating your baseless speculation, but it's hardly impossible. I can think of three references off the top of my head that you could use.

When your field can't even agree whether Homo Erectus was our direct ancestor, or what fossils belong in the classification, then there are some serious issues with using inferential methods for ancient hominids.

I was kinda wondering when we'd get to this (well, to be honest I'm more wondering how many Creatoinist arguments you'll trot out). This Creationist argument amounts to "Since we don't know everything, we don't know anything, therefore my idea is right."And it IS a Creationist argument; no one else uses it in these discussions. The fact that experts haven't figured out exactly how a few species fit into the evolutionary history of hominids in no way invalidates taxonomy, cladistics, or phylogeny. All it means is that either there's too little data to draw firm conclusions in this area (believe it or not, paleontologists are painfully aware of the limits of our ability to draw conclusions based on bones), or that someone's ego is getting in the way (wouldn't be the first time this happened; we paleos are not a demur people), or that there's so much outside scrutiny of this area that we feel we need to be extraoridnarily careful about drawing conclusions. In this case, as I understand it all three are playing a role.

Remember, hominid evolution is where we are most directly refuting Creationist claims. This is where we've punched people in the nose, figuratively and literally (though to be fair, we do that a lot; ours is a science where we had to be told "Do not use TNT to settle differences of opinion"). We tend to tread cautiously in such situations, as people tend to....well, not to put too fine a point on it, do what you're doing.

 

[Jodie]

Not in those words. However, how else can what you say be taken? You came into the other thread and basically said that paleontologists couldn't tell one species from another--which means, considering the importance of that to paleontology, that we are all incompetent. That's an insult. There's no other interpretation.

I didn't say that, what I said was that discussing the table issue was ridiculous when the Smithsomian said that there were only 6000 fossils to represent hominids. Considering the population, that is not a lot.

You compound that by arguing the subject without studying it. That's you saying that paleontology is so easy that no actual research is necessary to understand it. Again, this is deeply insulting--some of us have spent our lifetimes trying to wrap our heads around these topics. And yet you expect to become an expert by reading a bit on the topic one night.

You asked me to, so I thought I would so I could participate, what is wrong with that?

I keep going back to this, but it's important for you to understand: Imagine what would happen if I did this to you. Imagine I told you that you had no idea what you were doing, and despite never studying statistics in my life I demand you accept my criticisms as rational. Then, to top it off, I demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend your data--which is what you've done with the cetacean study--and STILL demanded that you change everything you do to fit my opinions. Is there any way you'd take me seriously? Can you honestly say you'd take the time to dig up citations refuting me? Or would you simply ignore me, or throw me out if you could?

The discussion was about ancient hominids, not whales. Other than them both being mammals, I don't see the relevance to humans, I'm sorry. It was a good example of how it should be done but you have more whale data to work with, so it should work, which was my point.

I'm a paleontologist. I'm among those you are calling incompetent. That is an insult. If you wish to call me incompetent, I have every right to demand you present specific flaws with my publications.

I didn't call you incompetent, you have tried to pull this discussion around to make it that way, and it isn't.

The bold part is disingenuously wrong. What I have done is REFUTED your point. Specifically, and with data that you have yet to even bother to challenge. Then I referenced the specific methodology which I followed, which allows me to declare that your point had been refuted. In response I've gotten nothing but speculation.

All you showed me was whale data, other than both being mammals, I don't undertstand the relevance to hominid fossils.

The highlighted part is equivocation. You go from saying that the methods are sound to saying that I therefore think they are applicable universally. These are two different concepts. The first is true--morphological data is just as good at establishing phylogenies as genetic data, given some caveats. The latter part is false and dishonestly ignores the fact that I've already presented specific situations where they don't work (well, to be fair I alluded to them). Not all traits are adaptive, nor are all controlled directly or indirectly by genetics. The morphology of my right clavicle is not genetic--it's structural (specifically, it's what happens when impact weight exceeds compressional strength of bone, then heals). There are numerous such caveats, and the decision to select specific traits for morphological analysis often involves in-depth discussions about exactly this.

Again, I've argued your side better than you. I've provided specific examples of situations you've only speculated about. You may want to think about that.

The only thing I recall is a discussion about a genetic defect in your family related to the lower jaw, that's it, I don't recall you even mentioning a Neanderthal. The only comment I got when I asked about the Giganto progenitor species the first time was, " I don't know, it's outside my field" . I read every word you said about paleopathology, but it still doesn't change my opinion about lack of DNA for ancient hominids.

I have answered you. Specifically and with high-quality data.

You went into indepth detail about what you do as an ecopalepathologist, all very interesting. When I tried to redirect the conversation by reiterating my question yet another way, you got angry.

If you are honestly asking questions, examine the data with the understanding that you may be wrong. If those cladograms in the baleen paper had been different, I'd have had to reconsider MY position. I feel it perfectly reasonable to demand the same willingness on your part to change your views. If you are not willing to do so, you aren't being honest, with me or with yourself. It's as simple as that.

Can you explain why some whales have teeth today and others don't considering the ocean has plankton throughout, what factors determined the direction the whale evolved in? Can you tell me where to at least look for the progenitor species for Giganto? Can you explain to me why in every other field of science the sample size is important but not so in paleontology? If they were simple questions, why weren't they addressed?

You have ignored a number of things to make this statement as if it has any bearing on this discussion.

First, you ignored the fact that the baleen paper didn't just include extant species, yet the conclusions hold true.

Third, you've ignored the fact that I've already said we should use DNA where available.

There are numerous whale fossils, not so with ancient hominids. No I didn't ignore anything, but you said DNA wasn't always necessary because the morphology always matched the genetics when I know that it doesn't in every case.

Fourth, you've ignored how DNA analysis is done. As I said, there are actual, demonstrable areas where subjectivity can creep into those studies. You may also want to look into epigenetics--genetics isn't the be-all, end-all of biology, not even heritability, not by a long shot.

Subjective how? You can't take DNA and reconstruct what the organism looked like exactly without a type specimen. However you can get a better idea of what something is related to by looking at the mtDNA in comparison with other species.

Epigenetics? Ok, so how does it factor into how you place species into categories?

You've yet to demonstrate that ancient hominids had similar diversity to that found in humans. You are ASSUMING that, with no evidence at all. Given that your entire argument hinges specifically on that point this is a fatal flaw in your argument--you cannot provide the single most important datum for your argument.

No, I assume nothing, that was my complaint about the sample size of Neanderthals. But the inverse is true when you state that statistical correlates for morphology are good enough. It really depends on how much of the fossil record you have for a species. Basic statistics dictates what sample size gives the highest confidence, what more needs to be said about that?

I do not find that assumption valid, for reasons I discussed earlier--to wit, humans are extraordinarily diverse compared to any non-domestic species in the wild. If you provide the data, we can discuss it. Until then, the fact that humans underwent a period of partial radiation means that we cannot use them as an analog for other taxa, including other hominids.

Which is why I saw no point in introducing the whale study into the conversation in the first place. What partial radiation event? How do you make any assumption about hominids then?

This gives you a very specific test by which you can refute me, by the way. The refutation consists of more than repeating your baseless speculation, but it's hardly impossible. I can think of three references off the top of my head that you could use.

Well bully for you, I wondered what was wrong with you

I was kinda wondering when we'd get to this (well, to be honest I'm more wondering how many Creatoinist arguments you'll trot out). This Creationist argument amounts to "Since we don't know everything, we don't know anything, therefore my idea is right."And it IS a Creationist argument; no one else uses it in these discussions. The fact that experts haven't figured out exactly how a few species fit into the evolutionary history of hominids in no way invalidates taxonomy, cladistics, or phylogeny. All it means is that either there's too little data to draw firm conclusions in this area (believe it or not, paleontologists are painfully aware of the limits of our ability to draw conclusions based on bones), or that someone's ego is getting in the way (wouldn't be the first time this happened; we paleos are not a demur people), or that there's so much outside scrutiny of this area that we feel we need to be extraoridnarily careful about drawing conclusions. In this case, as I understand it all three are playing a role.

Remember, hominid evolution is where we are most directly refuting Creationist claims. This is where we've punched people in the nose, figuratively and literally (though to be fair, we do that a lot; ours is a science where we had to be told "Do not use TNT to settle differences of opinion"). We tend to tread cautiously in such situations, as people tend to....well, not to put too fine a point on it, do what you're doing.

So that's what this is about, you are on some kind of anti-creationist kick? Well I'm not a creationist nor particularly religious. I never said, ""Since we don't know everything, we don't know anything, therefore my idea is right." Now you are reiterating what I actually did say, that there isn't enough data to draw any conclusions about ancient hominids. So you mean instead of discussing this you chose to pitch a fit, start a new thread about it, and then act like you were horribly insulted because I wasn't buying into everything you said? ( it's a rhetorical question) Dude, that is so messed up and goes way beyond trolling.

 

[Akri]

The discussion was about ancient hominids, not whales. Other than them both being mammals, I don't see the relevance to humans, I'm sorry.

Your complaints are about methodology being inaccurate. The paper on whales shows the methodology to be sound. It doesn't matter if it's applied to whales, hominids, rodents, or therapods. It's the same methodology. When tested against DNA evidence, it has been corroborated.

I didn't call you incompetent, you have tried to pull this discussion around to make it that way, and it isn't.

How the hell else is anyone supposed to interpret your statements?

If paleontologists aren't incompetent, then why are they using such flawed (in your opinion) methodologies? Either they're incompetent, or you're wrong about the accuracy of their methods.

Dude, that is so messed up and goes way beyond trolling.

That's been my reaction to just about every thing you've said.

 

[Jodie]

From my perspective I was discussing how this applied to hominids, maybe I wasn't clear, but I was genuinely interested until now. I'm simply disgusted at this point.

 

[Jodie]

This thread has been outstandingly instructive regarding the methodologies of palenontology and cladistics, and in the presentation of a solidly evidential line of rebuttals to unfounded, if imaginative, speculation.

Thanks for a terrific lesson in science and critical thinking, folks.

Yes it has, but I think you need to rethink the rebuttal part.