tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709453933466160459.post3381245539301196944..comments2024-01-30T07:53:15.347+00:00Comments on Data Not Shown: Why Darwinius is not our ancestorKaren Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597701284348386435noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709453933466160459.post-1147311957531360122011-07-24T03:59:32.700+01:002011-07-24T03:59:32.700+01:00It is mind-boggling and a great discovery. The sea...It is mind-boggling and a great discovery. The search for the missing link is one that has been futile. What you said, not a 'missing link' because there's no such thing, many will not agree on. Until it is found, then the cold hard fact still remains that there is none.Panic Awayhttp://www.panicaway.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709453933466160459.post-60029137161922509102009-05-30T14:36:34.571+01:002009-05-30T14:36:34.571+01:00Blimey - our lively twitter event made the Times O...Blimey - our lively twitter event made the Times Online =)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06161711368434758108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709453933466160459.post-2903663699060174622009-05-28T13:56:59.536+01:002009-05-28T13:56:59.536+01:00Thanks for your comment, Brian. Yes, there are so ...Thanks for your comment, Brian. Yes, there are so many opportunities for criticism and frustration here!Karen Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597701284348386435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709453933466160459.post-38959422470912247042009-05-28T13:37:33.958+01:002009-05-28T13:37:33.958+01:00Nice post, Karen! What I found interesting about t...Nice post, Karen! What I found interesting about the tree that went with Beard's article, though, was that there were no tarsiers on it! I wonder why.<br /><br />From my reading of the paper it seems like they want adapids, as a whole, to jump branches and be part of the early haplorrhine radiation (along with omomyids and tarsiers). This still doesn't match what they are saying in public, but it is a major shift.<br /><br />While it is true that cladistics depends on the characters you pick and what you've got to work with, it still is forms (and can test) hypotheses. I just can't imagine how these authors can make such huge claims without even attempting to do an evolutionary analysis. To call something an ancestor or rearrange evolutionary trees just based upon a handful of characters is the way paleontology was done before the 1970's; there's no reason to continue such subjective methods now. I know I am repeating myself, but I am a little frustrated with folks who think I am being unreasonable in asking for a detailed evolutionary analysis.Laelapshttp://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/noreply@blogger.com