Re: Limits of cladistics?

[KiernanCR@aol.com]

>>Right now, I think cladistics is the best way to determine phylogenetic
relationships because it takes into account
evolutionary changes and states without as much human bias as a simple
morphological analysis.<<

As part of the scientific enterprise, cladistics is surely as subject to 
"human bias" (however that may be defined) as any other analytic methodology. 
As long as human beings are responsible for the identification, weighing, 
selection, and rejection of characters used in any given matrix, cladistics 
will be subjective, regardless of how rigorous it might be. I'm not trying to 
devalue cladistics. It's certainly one of the most powerful tools that we, as 
biologists (both the neo and paleo variety), have at our disposal, but it 
*is* a mistake to believe that it somehow allows us to step outside all the 
many "biases" of the human mind.

Caitlin R. Kiernan