Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Where Science and Faith Converge
3 views
Skip to first unread message
pnyikos
May 23, 2012, 11:31:32 PM5/23/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > From that website:
>
> > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
> > What's the url for that?
>
> Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> said mammalian skeleton,
There is now. There wasn't one when I clicked on it. Apparently they
keep changing the page, shuffling things around.
>
> > > Also from that website:
>
> > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> > I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.
>
> Excuse me? The article's author is the one with the skeleton problem
> not me.
It is you. Now that the link is back, I can quote from the article:
"A skeleton may be 1) internal or external; "
Look up "exoskeleton" and get back to me, OK?
> > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > It may not have been relevant.
>
> Not relevant?
Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
> Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> which contain genera, which contain species.
Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
superfamilies before you get to families.
I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
all those good old taxa.
You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
systematist is on their side.
>
> Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> No we don't.
>
> Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> No we don't.
>
> Need I go on?
You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
old.
How old were you when you learned these things?
> > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> genera and species as not relevant.
I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
Jay Gould. The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
another chapter.
And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.
You haven't read it, have you? These people are reporting on
something respected scientists have done:
"A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in
Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of
Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure
of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the
Cambrian Explosion.1"
and here is why they are talking mostly about phyla [they mention
vertebrates, which are a subphylum]:
"the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a
mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From
this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified.
Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the
Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered
from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the
possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during
a period of less than 15 million years."
Pretty amazing, isn't it? Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
to have respect for this kind of research.
> > I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way.
>
> What fact aren't you sure of?
That all phyla made their appearance in the Cambrian explosion.
You agreed that this was a fact. I don't.
But that wasn't the main thrust of the article, as you can see.
> > To be precise, one ought to
> > confine oneself to phyla for which we have fossils.
>
> Which the article doesn't do at all.
Nor did you.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
> On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > From that website:
>
> > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
> > What's the url for that?
>
> Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> said mammalian skeleton,
There is now. There wasn't one when I clicked on it. Apparently they
keep changing the page, shuffling things around.
>
> > > Also from that website:
>
> > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> > I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.
>
> Excuse me? The article's author is the one with the skeleton problem
> not me.
It is you. Now that the link is back, I can quote from the article:
"A skeleton may be 1) internal or external; "
Look up "exoskeleton" and get back to me, OK?
> > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > It may not have been relevant.
>
> Not relevant?
Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
> Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> which contain genera, which contain species.
Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
superfamilies before you get to families.
I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
all those good old taxa.
You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
systematist is on their side.
>
> Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> No we don't.
>
> Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> No we don't.
>
> Need I go on?
You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
old.
How old were you when you learned these things?
> > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> genera and species as not relevant.
I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
Jay Gould. The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
another chapter.
And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.
You haven't read it, have you? These people are reporting on
something respected scientists have done:
"A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in
Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of
Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure
of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the
Cambrian Explosion.1"
and here is why they are talking mostly about phyla [they mention
vertebrates, which are a subphylum]:
"the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a
mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From
this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified.
Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the
Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered
from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the
possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during
a period of less than 15 million years."
Pretty amazing, isn't it? Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
to have respect for this kind of research.
> > I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way.
>
> What fact aren't you sure of?
That all phyla made their appearance in the Cambrian explosion.
You agreed that this was a fact. I don't.
But that wasn't the main thrust of the article, as you can see.
> > To be precise, one ought to
> > confine oneself to phyla for which we have fossils.
>
> Which the article doesn't do at all.
Nor did you.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Devils Advocaat
May 24, 2012, 2:21:36 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > From that website:
>
> > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
>
> > > What's the url for that?
>
> > Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> > said mammalian skeleton,
>
> There is now. There wasn't one when I clicked on it. Apparently they
> keep changing the page, shuffling things around.
>
Fair enough.
> On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > From that website:
>
> > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
>
> > > What's the url for that?
>
> > Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> > said mammalian skeleton,
>
> There is now. There wasn't one when I clicked on it. Apparently they
> keep changing the page, shuffling things around.
>
Devils Advocaat
May 24, 2012, 2:42:20 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > From that website:
>
> > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
>
> > > What's the url for that?
>
> > Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> > said mammalian skeleton,
>
> There is now. There wasn't one when I clicked on it. Apparently they
> keep changing the page, shuffling things around.
>
Fair enough.
> On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > From that website:
>
> > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
>
> > > What's the url for that?
>
> > Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> > said mammalian skeleton,
>
> There is now. There wasn't one when I clicked on it. Apparently they
> keep changing the page, shuffling things around.
>
>
> > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> > > I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.
>
> > Excuse me? The article's author is the one with the skeleton problem
> > not me.
>
> It is you. Now that the link is back, I can quote from the article:
>
> "A skeleton may be 1) internal or external; "
>
> Look up "exoskeleton" and get back to me, OK?
I'm well aware of the article's content.
> > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> > > I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.
>
> > Excuse me? The article's author is the one with the skeleton problem
> > not me.
>
> It is you. Now that the link is back, I can quote from the article:
>
> "A skeleton may be 1) internal or external; "
>
> Look up "exoskeleton" and get back to me, OK?
The article fails to point out that all fossil skeletons from that
time were invertebrate skeletons.
That omission plus the photo in the introductory item would mislead
people into thinking that mammals arose in the Cambrian Era.
>
> > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > Not relevant?
>
> Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
Why not?
> > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > Not relevant?
>
> Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
>
> > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> superfamilies before you get to families.
Of which I am well aware.
> > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> superfamilies before you get to families.
But that doesn't excuse the author from only emphasising that all
phyla emerged at that time, for the simple reason less informed
readers of that article would be misled.
>
> I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
> cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> all those good old taxa.
And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
> cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> all those good old taxa.
different system.
>
> You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
> systematist is on their side.
>
>
> > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > No we don't.
>
> > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > No we don't.
>
> > Need I go on?
>
> You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
> old.
You're missing my point, again.
> You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
> systematist is on their side.
>
>
> > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > No we don't.
>
> > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > No we don't.
>
> > Need I go on?
>
> You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
> old.
>
> How old were you when you learned these things?
The age at which one learns a thing is not what matters, it is whether
> How old were you when you learned these things?
one learns a thing or not.
And you claiming to have learnt all about these things when you were
eight isn't something you can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
in a newsgroup.
>
> > > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> > And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> > genera and species as not relevant.
>
> I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
> had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
> Jay Gould. The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
> evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
> another chapter.
>
> And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.
Yet there's no continuation link to another "chapter" to support your
> > > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> > And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> > genera and species as not relevant.
>
> I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
> had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
> Jay Gould. The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
> evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
> another chapter.
>
> And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.
assumption.
>
> You haven't read it, have you?
I have read it, otherwise I wouldn't comment on it.
> You haven't read it, have you?
> These people are reporting on
> something respected scientists have done:
>
> "A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in
> Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of
> Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure
> of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the
> Cambrian Explosion.1"
>
> and here is why they are talking mostly about phyla [they mention
> vertebrates, which are a subphylum]:
>
> "the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a
> mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From
> this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified.
> Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the
> Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered
> from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the
> possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during
> a period of less than 15 million years."
even there.
>
> Pretty amazing, isn't it? Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
> to have respect for this kind of research.
>
> > > I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way.
>
> > What fact aren't you sure of?
>
> That all phyla made their appearance in the Cambrian explosion.
>
> You agreed that this was a fact. I don't.
>
> But that wasn't the main thrust of the article, as you can see.
But can you?
> Pretty amazing, isn't it? Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
> to have respect for this kind of research.
>
> > > I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way.
>
> > What fact aren't you sure of?
>
> That all phyla made their appearance in the Cambrian explosion.
>
> You agreed that this was a fact. I don't.
>
> But that wasn't the main thrust of the article, as you can see.
>
> > > To be precise, one ought to
> > > confine oneself to phyla for which we have fossils.
>
> > Which the article doesn't do at all.
>
> Nor did you.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > To be precise, one ought to
> > > confine oneself to phyla for which we have fossils.
>
> > Which the article doesn't do at all.
>
> Nor did you.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
BroilJAB
May 24, 2012, 4:27:17 AM5/24/12
to
If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be
for
you. No need to thank me.
http://www.reasons.org/
for
you. No need to thank me.
http://www.reasons.org/
pnyikos
May 24, 2012, 2:47:00 PM5/24/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > > From that website:
>
> > > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> > I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> > books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> > what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
> On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > > From that website:
>
> > > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> > I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> > books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> > what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
> > > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> > > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
> The article fails to point out that all fossil skeletons from that
> time were invertebrate skeletons.
Your information is out of date.
> time were invertebrate skeletons.
In other Cambrian rocks, paleontologists have found
fossils of more advanced chordates, such as
*Myllokunmingia* (see Figure 34.1). About the same
size as *Haikouella*, *Myllokunmingia* had ear
capsules and eye capsules, parts of the skull that
surround these organs. Based on these and other
characters, paleontologists have identified
*Myllokunmingia* as a true craniate.
Campbell *et al*, _Biology_, Eighth Edition,
Pearson/Benjamin Cummings, 2008, p. 708
Figure 34.1 is a fossil that looks very much like a fish fossil, much
more "fishlike" in general shape than either the lamprey or the
hagfish.
> That omission plus the photo in the introductory item would mislead
> people into thinking that mammals arose in the Cambrian Era.
have submitted the following on the page with the fossil picture:
Please put a picture of a Cambrian fossil on this page.
Atheists on Usenet are having a field day "discrediting"
you, Dr. Fazale Rana, because of the picture of the
skeleton of a mammal that accompanies this article.
> > > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > > Not relevant?
>
> > Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
>
> Why not?
any paleontologist worth his salt. Granted, the last two sentences
also dilute it, but those are there so that the article would be
accepted by this apologetical organization.
> > > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> > Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> > superfamilies before you get to families.
>
> Of which I am well aware.
that you didn't learn it from me just now?
> But that doesn't excuse the author from only emphasising that all
> phyla emerged at that time, for the simple reason less informed
> readers of that article would be misled.
> > I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
> > cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> > alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> > all those good old taxa.
>
> And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> different system.
following very comprehensive website.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/
I tried working my way down to "eutheria" [placentals] starting with
"craniata" and everything went swimmingly until I got lost in a bunch
of blind alleys just when I hit mammalia:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/synapsida/basal_mammalia/mammalia.html
See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
>
>
> > You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
> > systematist is on their side.
>
> > > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > No we don't.
>
> > > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > No we don't.
>
> > > Need I go on?
>
> > You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
> > old.
>
> You're missing my point, again.
sides of every argument, while everyone else gets to flame the bejesus
out of them without giving them the benefit of the doubt on anything.
Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they can't
be right about a lot of things.
> > How old were you when you learned these things?
>
> The age at which one learns a thing is not what matters, it is whether
> one learns a thing or not.
>
> And you claiming to have learnt all about these things when you were
> eight isn't something you can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> in a newsgroup.
magazine, "The Pageant of Life" and "The Age of Mammals," which came
out in 1953 as part of the series _The World We Live In_, when I was
seven years old. It took me a while to absorb enough of these two
articles, but within a year I was hooked on paleontology.
Had I not become a set-theoretic topologist, I would have loved to
become a vertebrate paleontologist.
> > > > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > > > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > > > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > > > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> > > And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> > > genera and species as not relevant.
>
> > I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
> > had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
> > Jay Gould. The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
> > evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
> > another chapter.
>
> > And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.
>
> Yet there's no continuation link to another "chapter" to support your
> assumption.
"the other chapter" may already have appeared elsewhrere in the
voluminous site, but again, it would have had little to do with the
main theme of the article, which is the following research:
> > These people are reporting on
> > something respected scientists have done:
>
> > "A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in
> > Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of
> > Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure
> > of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the
> > Cambrian Explosion.1"
>
> > and here is why they are talking mostly about phyla [they mention
> > vertebrates, which are a subphylum]:
>
> > "the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a
> > mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From
> > this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified.
> > Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the
> > Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered
> > from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the
> > possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during
> > a period of less than 15 million years."
>
> Amazing how you see in that quote the word "vertebrates" when it isn't
> even there.
[And, amazingly enough, you can't even see the word "phyla" in the
part I quoted.] :-)
> > Pretty amazing, isn't it? Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
> > to have respect for this kind of research.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Caranx latus
May 24, 2012, 3:22:44 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 2:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
> > > cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> > > alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> > > all those good old taxa.
>
> > And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> > different system.
>
> The new ones are too numerous to be practical. Take a look at the
> following very comprehensive website.
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/
>
> I tried working my way down to "eutheria" [placentals] starting with
> "craniata" and everything went swimmingly until I got lost in a bunch
> of blind alleys just when I hit mammalia:
>
>
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
Follow links: Holotheria, then Cladotheria, then Boreosphenida
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
<snip>
pnyikos
May 24, 2012, 5:47:16 PM5/24/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
reference to indicate where it led. Also the name is very far from
anything with "theria" in it.
Peter Nyikos
Devils Advocaat
May 24, 2012, 11:18:55 PM5/24/12
to
Devils Advocaat
May 24, 2012, 11:24:34 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 7:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > > > From that website:
>
> > > > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> > > I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> > > books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> > > what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
> > > > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
> > The article fails to point out that all fossil skeletons from that
> > time were invertebrate skeletons.
>
> Your information is out of date.
I stand updated, thanks.
> On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > > > From that website:
>
> > > > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> > > I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> > > books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> > > what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.
> > > > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
> > The article fails to point out that all fossil skeletons from that
> > time were invertebrate skeletons.
>
> Your information is out of date.
>
> In other Cambrian rocks, paleontologists have found
> fossils of more advanced chordates, such as
> *Myllokunmingia* (see Figure 34.1). About the same
> size as *Haikouella*, *Myllokunmingia* had ear
> capsules and eye capsules, parts of the skull that
> surround these organs. Based on these and other
> characters, paleontologists have identified
> *Myllokunmingia* as a true craniate.
> Campbell *et al*, _Biology_, Eighth Edition,
> Pearson/Benjamin Cummings, 2008, p. 708
>
> Figure 34.1 is a fossil that looks very much like a fish fossil, much
> more "fishlike" in general shape than either the lamprey or the
> hagfish.
>
> > That omission plus the photo in the introductory item would mislead
> > people into thinking that mammals arose in the Cambrian Era.
>
> Only very ignorant people. But you have a good point. Accordingly, I
> have submitted the following on the page with the fossil picture:
>
> Please put a picture of a Cambrian fossil on this page.
> Atheists on Usenet are having a field day "discrediting"
> you, Dr. Fazale Rana, because of the picture of the
> skeleton of a mammal that accompanies this article.
I too have questioned their use of that image.
> In other Cambrian rocks, paleontologists have found
> fossils of more advanced chordates, such as
> *Myllokunmingia* (see Figure 34.1). About the same
> size as *Haikouella*, *Myllokunmingia* had ear
> capsules and eye capsules, parts of the skull that
> surround these organs. Based on these and other
> characters, paleontologists have identified
> *Myllokunmingia* as a true craniate.
> Campbell *et al*, _Biology_, Eighth Edition,
> Pearson/Benjamin Cummings, 2008, p. 708
>
> Figure 34.1 is a fossil that looks very much like a fish fossil, much
> more "fishlike" in general shape than either the lamprey or the
> hagfish.
>
> > That omission plus the photo in the introductory item would mislead
> > people into thinking that mammals arose in the Cambrian Era.
>
> Only very ignorant people. But you have a good point. Accordingly, I
> have submitted the following on the page with the fossil picture:
>
> Please put a picture of a Cambrian fossil on this page.
> Atheists on Usenet are having a field day "discrediting"
> you, Dr. Fazale Rana, because of the picture of the
> skeleton of a mammal that accompanies this article.
Let's hope they listen and take appropriate action.
>
> > > > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > > > Not relevant?
>
> > > Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
>
> > Why not?
>
> It dilutes the report of some striking research which would interest
> any paleontologist worth his salt. Granted, the last two sentences
> also dilute it, but those are there so that the article would be
> accepted by this apologetical organization.
Which is unfortunately the only way to get stuff published with such
> > > > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > > > Not relevant?
>
> > > Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
>
> > Why not?
>
> It dilutes the report of some striking research which would interest
> any paleontologist worth his salt. Granted, the last two sentences
> also dilute it, but those are there so that the article would be
> accepted by this apologetical organization.
organisations.
>
> > > > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > > > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> > > Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> > > superfamilies before you get to families.
>
> > Of which I am well aware.
>
> To very loosely paraphrase something you write below: can you prove
> that you didn't learn it from me just now?
No I can't, other than saying I read of such additional categories
> > > > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > > > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> > > Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> > > superfamilies before you get to families.
>
> > Of which I am well aware.
>
> To very loosely paraphrase something you write below: can you prove
> that you didn't learn it from me just now?
about three years ago.
>
> > But that doesn't excuse the author from only emphasising that all
> > phyla emerged at that time, for the simple reason less informed
> > readers of that article would be misled.
>
> Lame.
How did you know I need to use a walking stick? :)
> > But that doesn't excuse the author from only emphasising that all
> > phyla emerged at that time, for the simple reason less informed
> > readers of that article would be misled.
>
> Lame.
>
> > > I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
> > > cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> > > alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> > > all those good old taxa.
>
> > And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> > different system.
>
> The new ones are too numerous to be practical. Take a look at the
> following very comprehensive website.
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/
>
> I tried working my way down to "eutheria" [placentals] starting with
> "craniata" and everything went swimmingly until I got lost in a bunch
> of blind alleys just when I hit mammalia:
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/synaps...
> > > I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
> > > cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> > > alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> > > all those good old taxa.
>
> > And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> > different system.
>
> The new ones are too numerous to be practical. Take a look at the
> following very comprehensive website.
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/
>
> I tried working my way down to "eutheria" [placentals] starting with
> "craniata" and everything went swimmingly until I got lost in a bunch
> of blind alleys just when I hit mammalia:
>
>
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
>
I didn't get there before the other poster.
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
>
I see what you mean though.
Devils Advocaat
May 25, 2012, 5:21:41 AM5/25/12
to
>
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
> > > systematist is on their side.
>
> > > > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > > No we don't.
>
> > > > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > > No we don't.
>
> > > > Need I go on?
>
> > > You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
> > > old.
>
> > You're missing my point, again.
>
> Your point is apparently that creationists are obliged to give both
> sides of every argument, while everyone else gets to flame the bejesus
> out of them without giving them the benefit of the doubt on anything.
Not at all, I just dislike the apparent dishonesty that emerges in
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
> > > systematist is on their side.
>
> > > > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > > No we don't.
>
> > > > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > > No we don't.
>
> > > > Need I go on?
>
> > > You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
> > > old.
>
> > You're missing my point, again.
>
> Your point is apparently that creationists are obliged to give both
> sides of every argument, while everyone else gets to flame the bejesus
> out of them without giving them the benefit of the doubt on anything.
their articles.
>
> Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they can't
> be right about a lot of things.
Which I don't doubt, but St Augustine despaired of hearing fellow
> Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they can't
> be right about a lot of things.
Christians making fools of themselves regarding the world and what was
know about then.
>
> > > How old were you when you learned these things?
>
> > The age at which one learns a thing is not what matters, it is whether
> > one learns a thing or not.
>
> > And you claiming to have learnt all about these things when you were
> > eight isn't something you can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> > in a newsgroup.
>
> No, but I can tell you what led to it: two great articles in _Life_
> magazine, "The Pageant of Life" and "The Age of Mammals," which came
> out in 1953 as part of the series _The World We Live In_, when I was
> seven years old. It took me a while to absorb enough of these two
> articles, but within a year I was hooked on paleontology.
Fair enough.
> > > How old were you when you learned these things?
>
> > The age at which one learns a thing is not what matters, it is whether
> > one learns a thing or not.
>
> > And you claiming to have learnt all about these things when you were
> > eight isn't something you can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> > in a newsgroup.
>
> No, but I can tell you what led to it: two great articles in _Life_
> magazine, "The Pageant of Life" and "The Age of Mammals," which came
> out in 1953 as part of the series _The World We Live In_, when I was
> seven years old. It took me a while to absorb enough of these two
> articles, but within a year I was hooked on paleontology.
Caranx latus
May 25, 2012, 7:40:09 AM5/25/12
to
you start at the answer and work backwards, you can sometimes "solve"
problems much faster.
pnyikos
Jun 1, 2012, 11:03:13 PM6/1/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
and I, but it looks like we can part amicably here.
I wouldn't mind coming across you again, in fact. I'm a regular at
talk.origins and drift in and out of alt.abortion and talk.abortion
and sci.bio.paleontology regularly. Also I post to alt.agnosticism
from time to time. This past week I returned to sci.bio.evolution
after a twelve year absence [except for one post last year].
How about you?
Peter Nyikos
0 new messages