Re: GIGANTOPITHECUS

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: Ears under pressure. Was Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Previous message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: The straw man."
• Maybe in reply to: BuddhaPKP: "GIGANTOPITHECUS"
• Next in thread: Angelique Skiman: "Re: GIGANTOPITHECUS"

Agneta.Guillemot@historia.umu.se (Ludvig Mortberg) wrote:
Did I say that molecular
>systematics has priority over other methods in systematics? Well it
>has. Why? Because it's very sophisticated technically. A

Well, this is a hard question. I think the important thing is that molecular systematics gives you
a number that is unquestionably free from any biased human opinion. Some people do argue that
rates of neutral mutation aren't constant etc. but there's still going to be more genetic change
between distantly related species.

Also, the 5-8 million year ago split is compatible with the fossil data, isn't it?

James Borrett.

• Next message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: Ears under pressure. Was Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Previous message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: The straw man."
• Maybe in reply to: BuddhaPKP: "GIGANTOPITHECUS"
• Next in thread: Angelique Skiman: "Re: GIGANTOPITHECUS"