Comments on: Primate brain evolution: Integrating multiple lines of evidence http://primatology.net/2007/03/04/primate-brain-evolution-integrating-multiple-lines-of-evidence/ We ain’t monkeyin’ around here. Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:24:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: The Mind of the Chimpanzee Conference « Primatology.org http://primatology.net/2007/03/04/primate-brain-evolution-integrating-multiple-lines-of-evidence/#comment-1050 The Mind of the Chimpanzee Conference « Primatology.org Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:53:31 +0000 http://primatology.org/2007/03/04/primate-brain-evolution-integrating-multiple-lines-of-evidence/#comment-1050 [...] Links Primate brain evolution: Integrating multiple lines of evidence [...] [...] Links Primate brain evolution: Integrating multiple lines of evidence [...]

]]> By: Kambiz http://primatology.net/2007/03/04/primate-brain-evolution-integrating-multiple-lines-of-evidence/#comment-1027 Kambiz Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:49:15 +0000 http://primatology.org/2007/03/04/primate-brain-evolution-integrating-multiple-lines-of-evidence/#comment-1027 Simon, Thanks for you comment. I totally agree with what you said. Phylogenetics does provide more sound, quantifiable evidence to draw upon conclusions. The problem with the comparative and functional genomics is that the research is just not done yet. We just finished sequencing the chimpanzee and human genomes, and gorilla, gibbon, etc. genomes are being sequenced. That's one aspect of what needs to be done. Next is to compare the genomes to one another and also begin to decode the functions of the genes between primates, which is very hard in my opinion. I do appreciate the input, Kambiz Simon,

Thanks for you comment. I totally agree with what you said. Phylogenetics does provide more sound, quantifiable evidence to draw upon conclusions.

The problem with the comparative and functional genomics is that the research is just not done yet. We just finished sequencing the chimpanzee and human genomes, and gorilla, gibbon, etc. genomes are being sequenced. That’s one aspect of what needs to be done. Next is to compare the genomes to one another and also begin to decode the functions of the genes between primates, which is very hard in my opinion.

I do appreciate the input,

Kambiz

]]> By: Simon Greenhill http://primatology.net/2007/03/04/primate-brain-evolution-integrating-multiple-lines-of-evidence/#comment-1026 Simon Greenhill Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:11:14 +0000 http://primatology.org/2007/03/04/primate-brain-evolution-integrating-multiple-lines-of-evidence/#comment-1026 I think the best way to read the Gould and Lewontin critique is along the lines of "adaptation is not an answer" that is, we can't just be happy with a nice, plausible adaptationist story, but we have to go further and *test* it somehow. Fortunately, phylogenetics usually provides some way of testing adaptive hypotheses (in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's the single *best* way we have to test adaptive hypotheses, but my Ph.D is using phylogenetic methods, so I'm a bit biased!). For example, most the things you've mentioned above in the last paragraph are highly testable within a phylogenetic framework. --Simon I think the best way to read the Gould and Lewontin critique is along the lines of “adaptation is not an answer” that is, we can’t just be happy with a nice, plausible adaptationist story, but we have to go further and *test* it somehow.

Fortunately, phylogenetics usually provides some way of testing adaptive hypotheses (in fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s the single *best* way we have to test adaptive hypotheses, but my Ph.D is using phylogenetic methods, so I’m a bit biased!).

For example, most the things you’ve mentioned above in the last paragraph are highly testable within a phylogenetic framework.

–Simon

]]>