Whoa

 

OK, now I´m impressed. So I asked ChatGPT a *very* esoteric question. Or so I imagined! Here is the answer. Later, it also gave me sources (they seem academic and legit). Whoa!

>>>>

Why are paleoanthropologists resistant to computer-assisted phylogenetics? Why are there so few cladograms published in this particular field of study?

Paleoanthropologists tend to be resistant to computer-assisted phylogenetics for several reasons, and as a result, few cladograms are published in this field compared to other branches of evolutionary biology. Here are some key reasons for this resistance:

1. Fragmentary Fossil Record – The hominin fossil record is notoriously incomplete, with many specimens consisting of only partial skulls, teeth, or postcranial bones. Phylogenetic algorithms often require large datasets with well-defined traits, and the patchiness of hominin fossils makes this difficult.

2. Morphological Plasticity & Convergence – Many hominin traits are influenced by environmental and functional factors rather than strict evolutionary relationships. This leads to homoplasy (convergent evolution), where similar traits appear independently, making it difficult for cladistic methods to produce reliable trees.

3. Small Sample Size – Compared to other fields like vertebrate paleontology, paleoanthropology has a relatively small number of specimens. The fewer characters and taxa available for analysis, the less reliable cladistic reconstructions become.

4. Subjectivity in Character Selection – Unlike molecular data, where genetic sequences provide an objective basis for analysis, morphological character coding in paleoanthropology is often subjective. Researchers may disagree on which traits are phylogenetically informative versus those that result from individual variation or environmental adaptation.

5. Philosophical Differences – Some paleoanthropologists favor a more descriptive, scenario-based approach over strict cladistic methodology. Many argue that the human evolutionary tree is better understood as a "bushy" network with gene flow between populations rather than a strict branching hierarchy.

6. Lack of Consensus on Taxonomy – There are ongoing debates about how to classify hominin species. Some researchers prefer to use broader categories (e.g., lumping species together), while others advocate for finer distinctions (splitting species apart). Since phylogenetic methods often require predefined taxa, the lack of agreement complicates their use.

7. Preference for Narrative-Based Evolutionary Models – Many paleoanthropologists favor hypothesis-driven models that emphasize adaptive scenarios, paleoecological context, and population dynamics, rather than purely cladistic relationships.

As a result of these challenges, relatively few cladograms are published in paleoanthropology compared to fields like vertebrate paleontology or molecular phylogenetics. However, some researchers are pushing for increased use of quantitative methods, and there has been a gradual shift toward integrating cladistic approaches alongside traditional comparative methods.

>>>>