Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 12-14-2002, 04:50 AM

This was posted over on creationtalk:

Quote:

"Your assumption that similarities between chimp and human DNA necessitates a common ancestry is based upon your faith in naturalism, not on analysis of ancient DNA evidence. We would need quite a few samples of DNA millions of years old to accurately trace phylogeny, and as you know no such DNA exists.

And even if it did, as pointed out on another thread, "genetic distance" is an inherently flawed way of measuring the closeness of relationships. For example, cladists arrange chimps and gorillas closer to each other than humans because of their greater morphological similarity (i.e., hindlimbs much longer than forelimbs), yet DNA analysis has shown there is less genetic distance between chimps and humans than there is between chimps and gorillas (C. G. Sibley and J. E. Alquist (1987. "DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny." Journal of Molecular Evolution, 26:99-121).
"

I'd be interested to know how accurate it is. is it true that gorillas and chimps are claimed to be more related on morphology contrary to genetic evidence? Thanks! It seems the very title of the article refutes the cretinists claim!

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

Gurdur · 12-14-2002, 05:34 AM

Quote:

"Your assumption that similarities between chimp and human DNA necessitates a common ancestry is based upon your faith in naturalism, not on analysis of ancient DNA evidence.

This is incorrect. It's based on deduction - straight logic - and could be done even without naturalism.

Quote:

We would need quite a few samples of DNA millions of years old to accurately trace phylogeny, ...

Nonsense. The speaker here is demanding cast-iron proof, not "tracing", and is attempting to evade the deduction possible from the present-day evidence.

You could point out that the speaker's argument would invalidate all paternity tests.

Quote:

And even if it did, as pointed out on another thread, "genetic distance" is an inherently flawed way of measuring the closeness of relationships. For example, cladists arrange chimps and gorillas closer to each other than humans because of their greater morphological similarity (i.e., hindlimbs much longer than forelimbs), yet DNA analysis has shown there is less genetic distance between chimps and humans than there is between chimps and gorillas (C. G. Sibley and J. E. Alquist (1987. "DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny." Journal of Molecular Evolution, 26:99-121).
"

This is where two sepearte issues get conflated and confused.
One is straight genetics, then all the genetics added up in total.
The other issue is seperate morphological factors, which are chosen prior to further analysis, then added up to another theoretical total to give a clade and cladistic relations.

When you add up all the genetic material in total, then chimps come out a wee bit closer to humans; when you look at how strongly certain genes are expressed, resulting in morphology, then chimps look a bit more lioke gorillas - do you see why this is two different things ?
One is genes, the other is expression of genes - another kettle of fish.

Quote:

I'd be interested to know how accurate it is. is it true that gorillas and chimps are claimed to be more related on morphology contrary to genetic evidence?

Depends which aspect of morphology you're looking at.
IIRC, Jared Diamond has a fair bit to say on this (The Third Chimpanzee).

Get a real biologist to fill you more in on this one - I'm not a biologist. There are a couple here.

Quote:

Thanks! It seems the very title of the article refutes the cretinists claim

It does, but surely you should be able to see the
fallacy of logic in his argument before calling him a cretinist. Being politic is often not a bad idea.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]

tgamble · 12-14-2002, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:
It does, but surely you should be able to see the
fallacy of logic in his argument before calling him a cretinist.

I've seen his other arguments. He's quoted Denton, Johnson, Wells etc. and ignored refutations of their arguments and simply used them again. Exact same quotes.

pz · 12-14-2002, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:
This is where two sepearte issues get conflated and confused.
One is straight genetics, then all the genetics added up in total.
The other issue is seperate morphological factors, which are chosen prior to further analysis, then added up to another theoretical total to give a clade and cladistic relations.

When you add up all the genetic material in total, then chimps come out a wee bit closer to humans; when you look at how strongly certain genes are expressed, resulting in morphology, then chimps look a bit more lioke gorillas - do you see why this is two different things ?
One is genes, the other is expression of genes - another kettle of fish.

Hold on there -- there is very little information on relative patterns of gene expression between Pan, Gorilla, and Homo. You can't make that claim.

The old-fashioned method of just looking at gross morphology to define clades is subjective, and the reason Homo got singled out as more different is easily explained: Homo was doing the classifying! More recent efforts to analyze morphology with a bit more objectivity have tended to find that chimpanzees are more like people than chimpanzees are like gorillas.

See:
Groves CP (1986) Systematics of the great apes. In Swindler DR, Erwin J eds., Comparative primate biology, Alan R. Liss, New York.

One recent suggestion is that a clade called the Gorillinae should be recognized as containing Pan, Gorilla, and Homo, as well as the known fossil hominids. Pan and Homo are grouped together as a subclade called either Panini or Homini.

I should admit that I haven't followed this very closely for sometime (mammals just aren't my bag), and that any mammalian/primate taxonomists should speak up and let us know what the current state of the art might be.

lpetrich · 12-14-2002, 07:44 AM

Think cladistics. It is shared derived features that indicate relationships, not shared ancestral ones -- and the chimp-gorilla outward similarities are likely shared ancestral rather than shared derived.

RufusAtticus · 12-14-2002, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Your assumption that similarities between chimp and human DNA necessitates a common ancestry is based upon your faith in naturalism, not on analysis of ancient DNA evidence.

Of course it's not based on anciend DNA evidence, since if we want to see how similar living chimp and living human DNA are all we need is DNA from living individuals.

Quote:

We would need quite a few samples of DNA millions of years old to accurately trace phylogeny, and as you know no such DNA exists.

Nope. Similarity is easily calculated using modern samples, and statistical tests are used to calculate the most parsimonious relationship between samples. Historical, situations are infered from the data, much like police detectives are able to infer what happened at a crime scene, even though they were not there to see it nor have a video tape of it.

Quote:

And even if it did, as pointed out on another thread, "genetic distance" is an inherently flawed way of measuring the closeness of relationships.

So similarity in heritable material is an inherently flawed way of measuring closeness. Tell that to all the police detectives that use it to identify bodies and catch criminals. Tell that to the food inspectors who use it to trace food poisoning back to its source. Tell that to the mother who want's to find the father of her child.

Quote:

For example, cladists arrange chimps and gorillas closer to each other than humans because of their greater morphological similarity (i.e., hindlimbs much longer than forelimbs), yet DNA analysis has shown there is less genetic distance between chimps and humans than there is between chimps and gorillas.

Yeap the overwhelming DNA evidence among other things has lead taxonomisists to reclassify Pan, Gorilliae, and Pongo inside the family <a href="http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini" target="_blank">Hominidae</a>. It amazing how a little thing like data can resolve such questions.

~~RvFvS~~

Itzpapalotl · 12-14-2002, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
is it true that gorillas and chimps are claimed to be more related on morphology contrary to genetic evidence?

In short - no. The most complete review of the available data on soft tissue anatomy concludes chimpanzees are more similar to humans than gorillas.

"We use cladistic methods to analyze 197 soft-tissue characters for the extant hominoids and then compare the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses with the group�s consensus molecular phylogeny, which is widely considered to be accurate. We show that the soft-tissue characters yield robust phylogenetic hypotheses that are compatible with the molecular phylogeny. Given the strength of the evidence for molecular phylogeny, these results indicate that, unlike craniodental hard-tissue characters, soft tissues are reliable for reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among higher primate species and
genera. Thus, in higher primates at least, some types of morphological data are more useful than others for phylogeny reconstruction."

"When rooted on Hylobates, the cladogram suggested that Pongo is the sister taxon of a clade comprising Homo and the African apes
and that Gorilla is the sister taxon of a (Homo and Pan) clade."

Soft-tissue characters in higher primate phylogenetics. Sally Gibbs, Mark Collard, and Bernard Wood. 11130�11132 PNAS September 26, 2000 vol. 97 no. 20

pz · 12-14-2002, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Itzpapalotl:


In short - no. The most complete review of the available data on soft tissue anatomy concludes chimpanzees are more similar to humans than gorillas.
[..]
Soft-tissue characters in higher primate phylogenetics. Sally Gibbs, Mark Collard, and Bernard Wood. 11130�11132 PNAS September 26, 2000 vol. 97 no. 20

Thanks -- I looked the article up out of curiousity about what characters they used, and it was interesting. You know that the creationists are thinking superficially, that the level of analysis that they're doing is "Oooh, they are hairy and have big teeth, so they belong together". The article is going much deeper, and comparing divisions, insertions, and origins of muscles, branching patterns of arteries and nerves, etc.

Here's the long, long list of all the things they compared, and their criteria:

1. Piriformis fused with gluteus medius: (0) yes, (1) variable.
2. Origin of gluteus minimus is continuous: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
3. Gluteus medius origination from fascia lata: (0) no, (1) yes.
4. Gluteus medius is bipinnate: (0) no, (1) yes.
5. Tensor fascia latae fused proximally with gluteus maximus: (0) yes, (1) variable.
6. Tensor fascia latae fused laterally with gluteus medius and minimus: (0) yes, (1) no.
7. Gluteus maximus fused with biceps femoris: (0) at origin, (1) no fusion, (2) more distally.
8. Gluteus maximus insertion into hypotrochanteric fossa: (0) no, (1) yes.
9. Superior gemellus absent: (0) variable, (1) yes, (2) no.
10. Quadratus femoris split at insertion: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
11. Obturator externus fused at insertion with obturator internus: (0) yes, (1) variable.
12. Gracilis origin extends to whole pubic body: (0) yes, (1) no.
13. Single origin of adductor brevis: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
14. Adductor brevis origination from superior pubic ramus: (0) no, (1) yes.
15. Adductor brevis inserted between pectineus and upper part of adductor magnus: (0) yes, (1) no.
16. Adductor magnus insertion into inferior border of quadratus femoris insertion: (0) yes, (1) no.
17. Adductor minimus absent: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
18. Rectus femoris has two heads: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
19. Vastus medialis origination from intermuscular septa: (0) no, (1) yes.
20. Vastus medialis insertion onto medial patellar surface: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
21. Vastus lateralis origination from iliofemoral ligament: (0) no, (1) yes.
22. Articularis genus present: (0) yes, (1) variable.
23. Origin of short head of biceps femoris: (0) posterolateral femur and lateral intermuscular septum, (1) posterolateral femur only.
24. Insertion of long head of biceps femoris into iliotibial tract: (0) no, (1) yes.
25. Insertion of short head of biceps femoris onto lateral intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
26. Common origin of semitendinosus and semimembranosus in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
27. Semimembranosus insertion into popliteal fascia and posterior wall of knee capsule via oblique popliteal ligaments: (0) no, (1) yes.
28. Tibialis anterior origination from crural fascia: (0) no, (1) yes.
29. Extensor digitorum origination from crural fascia: (0) no, (1) yes.
30. Peroneus tertius present: (0) yes (30-50%), (1) yes (5%) or no, (2) yes (95%).
31. Peroneus longus origination from lateral tibial condyle: (0) yes, (1) no.
32. Peroneus brevis insertion onto first and second phalanges of digit V: (0) no, (1) variable.
33. Tibial origin of soleus present: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
34. Plantaris absent: (0) yes, (1) majority, (2) 50%, (3) 5-10%.
35. Extensor digitorum brevis tendon to digit V present in some specimens: (0) yes, (1) no, (2) variable.
36. Slip from abductor hallucis into base of MI: (0) yes, (1) no.
37. Both heads of flexor hallucis brevis fused with abductor hallucis: (0) yes, (1) no.
38. Lateral head of flexor hallucis brevis fused with adductor hallucis: (0) no, (1) yes.
39. Two heads of adductor hallucis fused: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
40. Oblique head of adductor hallucis origination from sheath of peroneus longus: (0) no, (1) yes.
41. Insertion of abductor hallucis onto medial cuneiform in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
42. Medial and lateral heads of flexor hallucis brevis separated by septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
43. Flexor hallucis brevis insertion into MI: (0) yes, (1) no.
44. Origin of transverse head of adductor hallucis: (0) MIV, second, third and fourth metatarsophalangeal joints and ligaments, (1) third, fourth (fifth) metatarsophalangeal joints and ligaments, (2) MIV, (3) neither.
45. Opponens hallucis present: (0) variable, (1) yes.
46. Abductor os metatarsi digiti minimi present: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
47. Fourth dorsal interosseous has two heads: (0) yes, (1) no.
48. Origin of first dorsal interosseous: (0) medial side MII, (1) lateral side MI, medial side MII, (2) medial cuneiform, medial side MII.
49. Flexor digitorum brevis origination from plantar aponeurosis: (0) no, (1) yes.
50. Flexor digitorum brevis fused with abductor hallucis in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
51. Abductor pollicis brevis divides into slips: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
52. Occasional reinforcement of abductor pollicis brevis by slips from flexor pollicis brevis: (0) yes, (1) no.
53. Abductor pollicis brevis insertion into MI: (0) yes, (1) no.
54. Site of origin of radial head of flexor pollicis brevis: (0) flexor retinaculum and MI, (1) flexor retinaculum, MI and trapezium, (2) flexor retinaculum and trapezium.
55. Opponens pollicis sends slips forward to radial side of base of proximal and middle phalanges: (0) yes, (1) no.
56. Palmaris brevis: (0) absent, (1) variable, (2) present.
57. Site of origin of pronator teres: (0) medial humeral epicondyle, (1) medial humeral epicondyle; medial intermuscular septum
58. Humeral head of pronator teres fused with flexor carpi radialis: (0) no, (1) yes.
59. Humeroulnar head of flexor digitorum superficialis takes origin from intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
60. Flexor carpi radialis insertion into intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
61. Flexor carpi radialis fused with flexor digitorum superficialis: (0) no, (1) yes.
62. Flexor carpi radialis insertion into palmar surface of base of MIII: (0) variable, (1) yes.
63. Palmaris longus: (0) variable, (1) present.
64. Flexor carpi ulnaris origination from intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
65. Flexor carpi ulnaris gives origin to some fibers for flexor digitorum superficialis: (0) no, (1) yes.
66. Orientation of pronator quadratus: (0) strongly oblique, (1) moderately oblique, (2) weakly oblique.
67. Extension of origin of flexor digitorum profundus: (0) none, (1) medial coronoid process, (2) medial humeral condyle, (3) both.
68. Flexor pollicis longus origination from anterior radius and interosseous membrane: (0) no, (1) yes.
69. Flexor pollicis longus takes origin from palmar fascia: (0) no, (1) yes.
70. Flexor pollicis longus gives origin to tendon to digit II: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
71. Extensor carpi radialis brevis origination from radial collateral ligament: (0) no, (1) yes.
72. Origin of extensor carpi radialis brevis from intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
73. Insertion of extensor carpi radialis brevis to MII: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
74. Accessory tendon of extensor carpi radialis longus to MI: (0) no, (1) variable (4-12%), (3) variable (50%).
75. Fusion of brachioradialis with brachialis: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
76. Extensor digitorum origination from intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
77. Origin of extensor digitorum from radius and/or ulna in some specimens: (0) ulna, (1) radius and ulna, (2) neither.
78. Origin of extensor digitorum from antebrachial fascia: (0) no, (1) yes.
79. Slips from extensor digitorum tendon for digit IV: (0) to digit V, (1) to digit II, digit V, (2) to digit III.
80. Coracobrachialis origination from intermuscular septum in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes
81. Coracobrachialis fused with brachialis: (0) no, (1) yes.
82. Multiple components of coracobrachialis present in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
83. Extension of insertion of coracobrachialis: (0) none, (1) anteriorly, (2) anteriorly and distally, (3) distally.
84. Brachialis origination from intermuscular septa: (0) no, (1) yes.
85. Lateral head of triceps brachii origination from lateral intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes
86. Insertion of extensor digitorum extends into middle or distal phalanges in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
87. Insertion of extensor digitorum into interphalangeal joints: (0) no, (1) yes.
88. Ulnar origin for extensor digiti minimi in some specimens: (0) yes, (1) no.
89. Extensor digiti minimi absent from some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
90. Extension of extensor carpi ulnaris to first phalanx of digit V in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes
91. Supinator origination from ligaments of elbow: (0) no, (1) yes.
92. Abductor pollicis longus origination from intermuscular septum: (0) no, (1) yes.
93. Extensor pollicis brevis origination from ulna and interosseous membrane: (0) no, (1) yes.
94. Extensor pollicis brevis insertion onto base of proximal phalanx of digit I: (0) no, (1) yes.
95. Extensor indicis origination from interosseous membrane: (0) yes, (1) no.
96. Most common pattern of insertion of extensor indicis: (0) digits II, III, IV, (1) digits II and III, (2) digit II.
97. Ranked position of average total body hair density per cm2: (0) 3, (1) 8 or 9, (2) 12 or 13.
98. Sternal glands: (0) present, (1) absent.
99. Ratio of nipple position to horizontal height index of nipple position: (0) 2.625, (1) 1.654 and 1.783, (2) 1.011 and 1.070.
100. Axillary organ: (0) absent, (1) present.
101. Number of bellies of omohyoid: (0) three, (1) one, (2) two or three, (3) one, two, or three.
102. Anterior bellies of digastric in contact in midline: (0) yes, (1) no.
103. Cricothyroid insertion onto external surface of posterior thyroid lamina: (0) yes, (1) no.
104. Apex of tongue: (0) rounded, (1) square.
105. Apical lingual gland: (0) absent, (1) variable, (2) present.
106. Filiform papillae on posterior third of tongue: (0) present, (1) absent.
107. Conical filiform predominate over cylindrical filiform: (0) yes, (1) no.
108. Sublingual fold triangular: (0) yes, (1) no.
109. Deltoid origination from infraspinous fascia: (0) no, (1) yes.
110. Insertion of teres minor: (0) greater tubercle, (1) greater tubercle and shaft below, (2) greater tubercle, shaft below, and humeral head, (3) greater tubercle and humeral head only.
111. Origin of teres minor: (0) lateral border, (1) lateral border and intermuscular septum, (2) lateral border and intermuscular septum, separated from teres major by long head of triceps.
112. Latissimus dorsi origination from inferior scapular angle: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
113. Extent of costal origin of latissimus dorsi: (0) five ribs, (1) four or five ribs, (2) six ribs, (3) three ribs.
114. Extent of origin of teres major from lateral scapular border: (0) 30%, (1) 50%, (2) more than 50%.
115. Insertion of subscapularis: (0) lesser humeral tubercle, (1) lesser humeral tubercle and shaft below, (2) lesser humeral tubercle, shaft below and capsule of shoulder joint, (3) lesser humeral tubercle and capsule of shoulder joint.
116. Accessory bundles of subscapularis: (0) absent, (1) variable
117. Extent of costal origin of subclavius: (0) first, second, and third ribs, (1) first and second ribs, (2) first rib.
118. Extent of costal origin of serratus anterior: (0) 1-9, 10, and 11, (1) 1-9, 10, 11, and last rib, (2) 1-9 (10).
119. Pectoralis major insertion into tendon of short head of biceps brachii: (0) yes, (1) no.
120. Extent of costal origin of pectoralis major: (0) none, (1) cranial and caudal, (2) caudal, (3) cranial.
121. Cranial extent of costal origin of pectoralis major: (0) absent, (1) second rib, (2) first rib.
122. Caudal extent of costal origin of pectoralis major: (0) absent, (1) seventh rib, (2) eighth rib.
123. Extent of clavicular origin of pectoralis major: (0) two-thirds, (1) half, (2) medial third.
124. Incidence of absence of clavicular head of pectoralis major: (0) no, (1) yes (30%), (2) yes (80%).
125. Divisions of pectoralis major: (0) two parts, (1) variable.
126. Origin of psoas major extends to S1: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
127. Origin of psoas minor from T12: (0) variable, (1) yes.
128. Origin of psoas minor from L2: (0) variable (30%), (1) variable (50%), (2) variable (75%), (3) no.
129. Bulbospongiosus origination from ischial ramus: (0) yes, (1) no.
130. Bulbospongiosus origination from perineal body: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
131. Coccygeus insertion into anococcygeal raphe: (0) yes, (1) no.
132. Coccygeus insertion into sacrum: (0) no, (1) yes.
133. Penile spines: (0) present, (1) absent.
134. Ventral groove in glans penis: (0) present, (1) absent.
135. Scrotal position: (0) prepenial, parapenial, or postpenial, (1) postpenial or parapenial/postpenial, (2) postpenial.
136. Dependency of scrotum: (0) variable, (1) dependant, (2) nondependent.
137. Relative testes size (ratio of observed/predicted body testes size): (0) 0.31-0.33, (1) 0.14, (2) 0.50, (3) 1.53.
138. Urethral papilla: (0) present, (1) absent.
139. Transverse rugae of vagina: (0) less developed, (1) more developed.
140. Number of taeniae coli: (0) three, (1) four, (2) variable.
141. Origin of subscapular artery: (0) common trunk, (1) axillary artery.
142. Origin of lateral thoracic artery: (0) thoracoacromial artery, (1) axillary artery.
143. Pectoral branch of thoracoacromial artery: (0) absent, (1) variable, (2) present.
144. Supreme thoracic artery: (0) absent, (1) present.
145. Thyroidea ima arises from left common carotid in some specimens: (0) yes, (1) no.
146. Most common form of branches from aortic arch: (0) E, (1) B, (2) C [see Keith (ref. 1) for key].
147. Perforating branch of peroneal artery anastomoses with anterior lateral malleolar artery: (0) yes, (1) no.
148. Origin of peroneal artery: (0) posterior tibial artery, (1) popliteal artery, (2) anterior tibial artery.
149. Digital branches of deep plantar arch to adjacent sides of II and III: (0) present, (1) variable, (2) absent
150. Size of lateral plantar artery: (0) absent, (1) smaller than medial plantar, (2) equal to medial plantar, (3) larger than medial plantar.
151. Inferior medial and inferior lateral genicular branches of popliteal artery: (0) present, (1) absent.
152. Origin of medial femoral circumflex artery: (0) external iliac, (1) variable, (2) profunda femoris, (3) femoral artery.
153. Number of perforating branches of profunda femoris: (0) two, (1) none, (2) three.
154. Muscular branches of profunda femoris for hamstrings: (0) no, (1) yes.
155. Muscular branches of profunda femoris for quadriceps: (0) no, (1) yes
156. Perforating veins in cubital fossa: (0) present, (1) variable, (2) absent.
157. Basilic vein: (0) absent, (1) variable, (2) present.
158. Cephalic vein "short" in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes (20-25%), (2) yes (80-100%).
159. Origin of palmar metacarpal arteries: (0) deep palmar arch, (1) radial artery, (2) absent.
160. Origin of radialis indicus: (0) deep palmar arch, (1) first palmar metacarpal artery, (2) radial artery
161. Superficial palmar arch: (0) variable, (1) absent, (2) present.
162. Origin of posterior interosseous artery: (0) brachial artery, (1) common interosseous.
163. Anterior and posterior ulnar recurrent arteries originate from a common trunk: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
164. Palmar carpal branch of ulnar artery: (0) present, (1) absent.
165. Dorsalis indicis and dorsal metacarpal branches of ulnar artery: (0) absent, (1) present.
166. Termination of superficial palmar artery: (0) thenar muscles, (1) superficial palmar arch.
167. Superficial palmar artery passes over thenar muscles in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
168. Origin of radial recurrent artery: (0) radial artery, (1) variable, (2) brachial artery.
169. Dorsalis pollicis: (0) present, (1) absent.
170. Point at which radial artery enters palm: (0) dorsum of second interosseous space, (1) dorsum of first interosseous space.
171. Origin of superior ulnar collateral artery: (0) profunda brachii, (1) brachial artery.
172. Profunda brachii originates from brachial artery in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
173. Latissimus dorsi innervated in common with teres major: (0) yes, (1) variable, (2) no.
174. Origin of subscapular nerves: (0) C5�C7, (1) C5�C8, (2) C5�C8 and T1, (3) C5 and C6.
175. Number of lumbricals supplied by median nerve: (0) two, (1) two or three, (2) one or two.
176. Number of digits supplied by median nerve: (0) two and a half, (1) three and a half.
177. Digits supplied by radial nerve: (0) one and a half, (1) two and a half.
178. Radial nerve innervates brachioradialis: (0) no, (1) yes.
179. Gangliform enlargement at junction of radial and posterior interosseous nerves: (0) absent, (1) present.
180. Axillary nerve innervates subscapularis: (0) no, (1) yes.
181. Origin of axillary nerve: (0) C5�C8, (1) C5�C8 and T1, (2) C5�C7.
182. Number of lumbricals innervated by ulnar nerve: (0) two, (1) one, (2) three.
183. Ulnar nerve innervates flexor pollicis brevis in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes (~50%), (2) yes (100%).
184. Ulnar nerve supplies hypothenar muscles: (0) no, (1) yes
185. Intercostobrachial nerve includes elements from T3 in some specimens: (0) no, (1) yes.
186. Psoas minor innervated by femoral nerve: (0) no, (1) yes
187. Origin of lateral cutaneous femoral nerve from L1 and L3: (0) no, (1) variable, (2) yes.
188. Femoral nerve origination from L1 and L4: (0) L4, (1) variable, (2) L1.
189. Genitofemoral nerve origination from L2: (0) yes, (1) no.
190. Genitofemoral nerve pierces psoas major: (0) yes, (1) variable.
191. Obturator nerve origination from L1: (0) no, (1) yes.
192. Muscular branches of obturator nerve: (0) adductors, obturator externus, gracilis, (1) adductors, obturator externus, gracilis, pectineus.
193. Muscular branches of medial plantar nerve: (0) two medial lumbricals, (1) two medial lumbricals; adductor hallucis, (2) one medial lumbrical.
194. Digital branches of lateral plantar nerve: (0) one and a half, (1) two and a half.
195. Muscular branches of tibial nerve: (0) none of these, (1) flexor digitorum longus, (2) flexor digitorum longus, tibialis posterior and flexor hallucis longus.
196. Superficial peroneal nerve supplies medial side of digit II: (0) yes, (1) no.
197. Flexores femoris nerve: (0) present, (1) variable, (2) absent.

Gurdur · 12-14-2002, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:
[QB]
Hold on there -- there is very little information on relative patterns of gene expression between Pan, Gorilla, and Homo. You can't make that claim.

The old-fashioned method of just looking at gross morphology to define clades is subjective,

However, gross morphology is the result of genetic expression.
You are using genetic expression as a term to describe exact a->b relations, and I'm using it as a handy way of bringing in the connection between genetics and morphology.

Quote:

and the reason Homo got singled out as more different is easily explained: Homo was doing the classifying!

This is unsurprising, pz. Few chimps are yet interested in cladistic theory.

Quote:

I should admit that I haven't followed this very closely for sometime (mammals just aren't my bag)

which leaves tgamble without an answer as yet, if you don't like mine. Tsk.

Valentine Pontifex · 12-14-2002, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Itzpapalotl:


Soft-tissue characters in higher primate phylogenetics. Sally Gibbs, Mark Collard, and Bernard Wood. 11130�11132 PNAS September 26, 2000 vol. 97 no. 20

Which like all PNAS articles older than a half-year or so is online for free with no need for registration:

<a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/20/11130" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/20/11130</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2002, 07:44 AM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Think cladistics. It is shared derived features that indicate relationships, not shared ancestral ones -- and the chimp-gorilla outward similarities are likely shared ancestral rather than shared derived.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.