None of the eukaryotes in the diagram *have* lost mitochondria. There are a lot of branches left out of this tree.

Obviously, but that's not the point. What is the name of the clade that is depicted as the sister taxon of the bogus group "prokaryotes" (a negatively-defined taxon)? I can only assume it is "eukaryotes," and the defining node for that includes the presence of mitochondria. But that is false. "Presence of mitochondria" is not a synapomorphy of "eukaryotes," so including that node as diagnostic in the phylogeny is misleading.

Drosera wrote:

Of course, the point of the figure & article was not to document, against all comers, that these systems were homologous. It was to point out a consistent and long-supported basic phylogenetic tree.

If one includes a node as a synapomorphy in a phylogenetic diagram, as Theobald has done with "vascular and nervous systems," then that is an argument that the characters in question are homologous. One then must provide the evidence supporting the node.

This, however:

I have cited evidence that the systems are in fact homologous (there are refs on that webpage to get started), so that point is accurate as well. Regarding references, I'd say that it's common knowledge, at least among biologists.

isn't evidence. It is not common knowledge among biologists that all nervous and vascular systems are homologous. And I asked you for Theobald's sources -- i.e., for the studies used to construct his phylogeny -- not something you found a few minutes ago using PubMed.

You posted Theobald's phylogeny, Drosera. It's dreadful. Yet you haven't done me or the other readers of this board the basic courtesy of explaining its rationale by providing Theobald's sources.

In any future discussions, please do not cite this phylogeny, or anything from a talk.origins FAQ, without providing the sources from the primary literature used in the FAQ.

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Paul A. Nelson ]

Paul thinks that it is grossly misleading.

Fine. I understand that people need to be held accountable for the data they use. I also understand that people need to be given the chance to defend themselves against charges of using misleading data.

The reason I am posting this warning is two-fold:

1. The issue being debated is off-topic
2. The TONE that is being used by both parties is not professional, nor civil

This is warning one. Warning two will result in a closed topic.

[ 03 March 2002: Message edited by: Moderator ]