[dan1123]

Sorry, all phylogenetic data shows that humans and chimps are closer to each other than either is to a gorilla.

I'm sorry, but phylogenetic tree proposals for mammals are not exactly sound.

[allmendream]

Wow, an article from 1998. And do you suppose that work on mammalian phylogenetic trees has ceased over the past ten years? No, genomic data means that we have just gotten started.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&dispmax=20&term=phylogeny%20AND%20English%20%5BLA%5D%20%20%20%20

72,743 articles on phylogeny. Many thousands from the past ten years. Obviously you know less than you claim about the science of phylogeny and its current state of being if your authoritative source is ten years old and doesn’t claim what you are trying to say it claims.

[allmendream]

The conclusion of the paper you sourced from 10 years ago was that molecular (DNA) data would supersede morphological data and thus “shake the phylogenetic tree”. Far from this indicating that mammalian phylogeny was “in trouble” it was moving from a less definitive standard (body shape) to a more definitive standard (DNA sequence comparisons).

Here is the conclusion to the paper you sourced...

The current turmoil in molecular phylogeny promises
spectacular new vistas on the adaptive radiation of the major
mammalian taxa. The currently recognized 18 eutherian
orders will not all survive as natural groupings, and major
taxonomic revisions will be needed. The prospects are good
that molecular data will establish the main outline of mammalian
relationships within the next few years. This will be
just the beginning of an even greater challenge – to reconstruct
the morphological diversification of the mammals,
which for the major eutherian lineages began as early as 90–
115 Mya, during the Cretaceous continental breakup6,45. To
what extent DNA sequences will help to understand why and
how mammalian morphology evolved as it did, remains a
matter of conjecture for the time being.