Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A bible for cladists like Harshman?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
pnyikos
Apr 30, 2013, 2:54:45 PM4/30/13
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
classifications.
"Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
did not include all of its descendants. [The old Reptilia excluded
mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
Harshman, from the discussion,
Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
and analysis
It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%20in%20paleobiology.pdf
On Apr 26, 9:57 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/13 6:42 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 8:58 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/26/13 5:44 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >>> "Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse reaction of
> >>> paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that cladists occasionally
> >>> have made provocative statements which naturally released negative
> >>> reactions"
>
> >>> Occasionally, my foot! Cracraft seems blissfully unaware of how
> >>> provocative his relentless repetition of the pejorative "unnatural" to
> >>> describe paraphyletic taxa is. [He even uses the word "nonexistent"
> >>> enclosed in scare quotes.]
[snip]
> >> I'm amazed at your ability to beat on Joel Cracraft from 30+ years ago.
>
> > Why aren't you amazed at the ability of atheists and others to beat on
> > the Bible from 20 centuries or more ago?
>
> Joel will be happy to know that you're equating his paper with the
> bible. But I suppose it's that the bible is still actually a current
> issue, while Joel's 1981 paper isn't by any stretch.
Come off it, Harshman! In most of the posts where we debate the topic
of paraphyletic taxa, you might as well be channeling Joel with your
use of pejorative labels like the ones I quote above, and much else.
In fact, if he was the one who originated the use of pejoratives like
them, then he is to cladophilia as Moses is to Judaism. And one could
make a two-book "bible" of cladophilia with some writings of Hennig
being the analogue of Genesis and all but the last section of Joel's
paper being the analogue of Exodus.
I suspect the reason you stress that his paper is 30+ years old is
that the last section, where he finally gets off his anti-paraphyly
hobbyhorse, is an acute embarrassment to neo-Darwinists. For instance:
"The conclusion that evolution by natural
selection produced hypsodont teeth, or that
change in tooth structure through time is
consistent with population genetics, is axiomatic
(Cracraft 1981). Explanations of this kind, which
are common in the paleontological literature, are
structured so that they can account for any
observation. As such they have limited scientific
value, for how are we to say we are wrong in any
specific instance?" [pp. 466-467]
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
classifications.
"Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
did not include all of its descendants. [The old Reptilia excluded
mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
Harshman, from the discussion,
Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
and analysis
It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%20in%20paleobiology.pdf
On Apr 26, 9:57 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/13 6:42 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 8:58 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/26/13 5:44 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >>> "Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse reaction of
> >>> paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that cladists occasionally
> >>> have made provocative statements which naturally released negative
> >>> reactions"
>
> >>> Occasionally, my foot! Cracraft seems blissfully unaware of how
> >>> provocative his relentless repetition of the pejorative "unnatural" to
> >>> describe paraphyletic taxa is. [He even uses the word "nonexistent"
> >>> enclosed in scare quotes.]
[snip]
> >> I'm amazed at your ability to beat on Joel Cracraft from 30+ years ago.
>
> > Why aren't you amazed at the ability of atheists and others to beat on
> > the Bible from 20 centuries or more ago?
>
> Joel will be happy to know that you're equating his paper with the
> bible. But I suppose it's that the bible is still actually a current
> issue, while Joel's 1981 paper isn't by any stretch.
Come off it, Harshman! In most of the posts where we debate the topic
of paraphyletic taxa, you might as well be channeling Joel with your
use of pejorative labels like the ones I quote above, and much else.
In fact, if he was the one who originated the use of pejoratives like
them, then he is to cladophilia as Moses is to Judaism. And one could
make a two-book "bible" of cladophilia with some writings of Hennig
being the analogue of Genesis and all but the last section of Joel's
paper being the analogue of Exodus.
I suspect the reason you stress that his paper is 30+ years old is
that the last section, where he finally gets off his anti-paraphyly
hobbyhorse, is an acute embarrassment to neo-Darwinists. For instance:
"The conclusion that evolution by natural
selection produced hypsodont teeth, or that
change in tooth structure through time is
consistent with population genetics, is axiomatic
(Cracraft 1981). Explanations of this kind, which
are common in the paleontological literature, are
structured so that they can account for any
observation. As such they have limited scientific
value, for how are we to say we are wrong in any
specific instance?" [pp. 466-467]
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Ray Martinez
Apr 30, 2013, 3:10:51 PM4/30/13
to
On Apr 30, 11:54�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.
>
> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> Harshman, from the discussion,
> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> and analysis
>
> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
> http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...
> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.
>
> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> Harshman, from the discussion,
> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> and analysis
>
> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
you answer Cracraft's question?
Ray
pnyikos
Apr 30, 2013, 5:18:00 PM4/30/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one, having
posted on "Darwin of the Gaps" last year in reply to Randy C. after
whom I named a different attitude "Randy of the Gaps".
_____________excerpt ___________________________
Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to
come up with the natural counterpart:
Darwin of the Gaps
This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:
"Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."
The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
him.
=================end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c01ed40cd08cfe2?dmode=source
Message-ID: <54a41c25-adb7-458e-
ac4a-359...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
The last three symbols before the @ are 85f
Peter Nyikos
Thrinaxodon
Apr 30, 2013, 6:20:18 PM4/30/13
to
You stick to Lamarkism? Probably not. But, you don't accept natural
selection?
Ray Martinez
Apr 30, 2013, 10:18:57 PM4/30/13
to
[....snip....]
So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
Ray
Thrinaxodon
May 1, 2013, 5:16:10 AM5/1/13
to
Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
asshole, or you.
Ray Martinez
May 1, 2013, 7:15:06 PM5/1/13
to
Ray (species immutabilist)
Thrinaxodon
May 2, 2013, 5:43:45 AM5/2/13
to
of allele frequencies within a population. And, evolution has done
great contributions to the medical field. No, evolution has brought
significant contributions to the medical field, creationism hasn't.
--
Thrinaxodon
A cynodont in a kitchen.
pnyikos
May 2, 2013, 8:50:30 PM5/2/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
together in neo-Darwinian theory. What I know about it doesn't help to
make it possible to answer Cracraft's question.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 2, 2013, 8:55:01 PM5/2/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 1, 5:16锟絘m, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:18锟絧m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > reality of common descent. 锟絀 am with Cracraft on this one,....
things are. He's a most unreliable witness.
See my reply to him just now for a much more mundane explanation of
what I said earlier.
> Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> asshole, or you.
I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole. But at least it's better
than thinking of me as a pushover about whom anyone can make up any
wild story they please, without me trying to do anything about it.
Peter Nyikos
> On Apr 30, 10:18锟絧m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [....snip....]
>
> > So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> > while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> > The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> > Ray
>
> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> Lamarkism".
You should never trust Ray for information about what my positions on
> > [....snip....]
>
> > So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> > while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> > The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> > Ray
>
> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> Lamarkism".
things are. He's a most unreliable witness.
See my reply to him just now for a much more mundane explanation of
what I said earlier.
> Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> asshole, or you.
than thinking of me as a pushover about whom anyone can make up any
wild story they please, without me trying to do anything about it.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 2, 2013, 8:57:42 PM5/2/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
microevolution, with which I have no quarrel" (or words to that
effect)?
Peter Nyikos
J.J. O'Shea
May 5, 2013, 12:31:38 PM5/5/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:15:06 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<fd1d934c-8c49-4785...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 1, 2:16ï¿œam, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 10:18ï¿œpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> reality of common descent. ï¿œI am with Cracraft on this one,....
2 if there were, Peter wouldn't be one, as he's a creationist, and a
dishonest one at that.
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(in article
<fd1d934c-8c49-4785...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 1, 2:16ï¿œam, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 10:18ï¿œpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [....snip....]
>>
>>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
>>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
>>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
>> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
>> asshole, or you.
>
> He's your evo brother, not mine.
1 there ain't no such animal as an 'evo brother'
>>> [....snip....]
>>
>>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
>>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
>>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
>> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
>> asshole, or you.
>
> He's your evo brother, not mine.
2 if there were, Peter wouldn't be one, as he's a creationist, and a
dishonest one at that.
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
May 5, 2013, 12:33:36 PM5/5/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<d187a762-6097-446e...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):
> I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
I doubt this. You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.
(in article
<d187a762-6097-446e...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):
> I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.
Nick Keighley
May 6, 2013, 6:58:53 AM5/6/13
to
On Apr 30, 7:54�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.
I used to subscribe to New Scientist but life got too busy and unread
> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.
ones began to pile up, so I cancelled the subscription. At this point
there were these wierd crazies who rather stridently were trying to
reform the whole biological clasification system (I heard rumours of
near punch ups over museum organisation). Time passed and I started to
read New Scientist again. The lunatics has taken over the asylum.
:-)
Thrinaxodon
May 6, 2013, 7:56:55 AM5/6/13
to
On May 5, 12:33�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
> <d187a762-6097-446e-9f7d-8237d99b7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
>
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this. You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
> out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
He's an intellectual dropout, and an ass-banger.
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this. You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
> out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Burkhard
May 6, 2013, 8:49:04 AM5/6/13
to
On 6 May, 11:58, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I don't think "lunatic" is a clade.Rather a massive example of
convergent evolution
wrote:
convergent evolution
jillery
May 6, 2013, 9:45:57 AM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
Lunacy is an emergent property.
wrote:
Burkhard
May 6, 2013, 11:01:21 AM5/6/13
to
On 6 May, 14:45, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
property is theft
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 11:04:14 AM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 5, 12:31 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:15:06 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article
> <fd1d934c-8c49-4785-bebf-72144a0d4...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:15:06 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:16 am, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 30, 10:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> [....snip....]
>
> >>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> >>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> >>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> >>> Ray
>
> >> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> >> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> >> asshole, or you.
>
> > He's your evo brother, not mine.
>
> 1 there ain't no such animal as an 'evo brother'
What shameless hypocrisy! You don't allow Ray to use terms that make
> >>> [....snip....]
>
> >>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> >>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> >>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> >>> Ray
>
> >> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> >> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> >> asshole, or you.
>
> > He's your evo brother, not mine.
>
> 1 there ain't no such animal as an 'evo brother'
sense, while you ride roughshod over the real meanings of words,
substituting meanings that fly in the face of common sense. See
below.
> 2 if there were, Peter wouldn't be one, as he's a creationist, and a
> dishonest one at that.
definition of "creationist" whereby everyone who suggests that earth
life may be due to directed panspermia is a "creationist" including
that atheist Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick.
The only reason you aren't laughed out of talk.origins is that some
heavyweights, including Michael Coffey and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are allies of yours.
[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall to
you also, for instance.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 11:16:59 AM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 5, 12:33 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
> <d187a762-6097-446e-9f7d-8237d99b7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
>
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this.
I think you are being blatantly insincere. You put so much effort
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this.
into being an asshole, that you must surely realize that I am a
completely different person than you are.
Oh. Wait. Maybe being an asshole is something that has naturally
evolved in your character since early childhood, so that the following
example of verbal diarrhea from you comes to your mind with hardly any
effort at all:
> You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
> out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.
having deleted the words that help to delineate what my behavior is
*really* all about. Here are those words again:
__________________ begin repost_______
But at least it's better
than thinking of me as a pushover about whom anyone can make up any
wild story they please, without me trying to do anything about it.
And you are the prime example of someone who, while showing too little
imagination to make up wild stories about me (except in one case,
where you fell flat on your face) do hurl wild, defamatory insults at
me in the majority of replies you make to my posts.
TEST OF O'SHEA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)
> And you are the prime example of someone who,
> while showing too little imagination to make up
> wild stories about me (except in one case,
> where you fell flat on your face) do hurl wild,
> defamatory insults at me in the majority
> of replies you make to my posts.
Liar.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Peter Nyikos
jillery
May 6, 2013, 12:30:34 PM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 6 May 2013 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
and theft is loss, which means they lost their minds.
wrote:
jillery
May 6, 2013, 12:44:42 PM5/6/13
to
>and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
>to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are allies of yours.
>
>[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall to
>you also, for instance.]
Where is the tit-for-tat "equivalence" so many claim in his defense?
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 1:09:36 PM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 2:04:05 PM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 1, 1:32�pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All right, I'll bite.
>
> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
which family, ...
And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
classified as above.
In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
class Aves.
And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
all living birds.
> I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.
I am working with concepts that were completely standard until the
tremendous onslaught of aggressive cladophiles like Cracraft.
Peter Nyikos
> All right, I'll bite.
>
> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
which family, ...
And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
classified as above.
In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
class Aves.
And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
all living birds.
> I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.
I am working with concepts that were completely standard until the
tremendous onslaught of aggressive cladophiles like Cracraft.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 2:24:55 PM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Apr 30, 7:00�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 2:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 5:11 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >> I would just like to respond to this by noting that there is nothing
> >> here worth responding to.
>
> > I see jillery agrees on another thread. �Opposition to Peter Nyikos
> > makes for strange bedfellows.
>
> > But I have a question.
>
> > Is it true that nobody before Joel Cracraft had the chutzpah to label
> > paraphyletic taxa as "unnatural" and "nonexistent" in a peer reviewed,
> > NSF-grant sponsored paper?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> > If you have read what I wrote up there, you have seen me broaching
> > this issue, though not so explicitly.
>
> > Can I put you down for pleading *nolo contendere* on Joel's behalf?
>
> No. Why should anyone care who was the first to do this perfectly
> reasonable thing? Why should anyone care whether or not it was
> NSF-sponsored?
You say these things, Harshman, because you have been conditioned not
to see anything offensive in the word "unnatural" when applied to
paraphyletic taxa.
In contrast, you (or at least a large segment of our population) have
been conditioned to be offended when someone uses "unnatural" in
connection with homosexual acts--in some cases, very deeply offended.
As for me, I would say it is extremely unprofessional to use the word
"unnatural" in either way in a peer-reviewed paper partially supported
by federal grants.
And I hope that answers your second question, at least. I do try to
leave all signs of my own conditioning out of my posted Usenet
comments, for reasons that I'd rather not go into here.
> Whatever is there in this post that is at all worthy of
> any sort of response?
Hmmm... maybe you ARE proud of being one of the lunatics
(cladomaniacs, to be specific) who have taken over the asylum. :-)
But seriously, perhaps Joel Cracraft was in the same boat you are in
now: *already* conditioned by his fellow cladophile radicals into
thinking there is nothing offensive about his use of words like
"unnatural" as above.
And that would mean that the use of the word "occasionally" was
sincere but naive, rather than blatantly disingenuous, in the
following statement of his:
"Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse
reaction of paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that
cladists occasionally have made provocative statements
which naturally released negative reactions"
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
> On 4/30/13 2:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 5:11 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >> On 4/30/13 11:54 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> >>> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> >>> classifications.
>
> >>> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> >>> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> >>> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> >>> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> >>> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> >>> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> >>> Harshman, from the discussion,
> >>> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> >>> and analysis
>
> >>> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
> >>>http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...
>
> >>> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> >>> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> >>> classifications.
>
> >>> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> >>> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> >>> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> >>> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> >>> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> >>> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> >>> Harshman, from the discussion,
> >>> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> >>> and analysis
>
> >>> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
> >> here worth responding to.
>
> > I see jillery agrees on another thread. �Opposition to Peter Nyikos
> > makes for strange bedfellows.
>
> > But I have a question.
>
> > Is it true that nobody before Joel Cracraft had the chutzpah to label
> > paraphyletic taxa as "unnatural" and "nonexistent" in a peer reviewed,
> > NSF-grant sponsored paper?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> > If you have read what I wrote up there, you have seen me broaching
> > this issue, though not so explicitly.
>
> > Can I put you down for pleading *nolo contendere* on Joel's behalf?
>
> No. Why should anyone care who was the first to do this perfectly
> reasonable thing? Why should anyone care whether or not it was
> NSF-sponsored?
You say these things, Harshman, because you have been conditioned not
to see anything offensive in the word "unnatural" when applied to
paraphyletic taxa.
In contrast, you (or at least a large segment of our population) have
been conditioned to be offended when someone uses "unnatural" in
connection with homosexual acts--in some cases, very deeply offended.
As for me, I would say it is extremely unprofessional to use the word
"unnatural" in either way in a peer-reviewed paper partially supported
by federal grants.
And I hope that answers your second question, at least. I do try to
leave all signs of my own conditioning out of my posted Usenet
comments, for reasons that I'd rather not go into here.
> Whatever is there in this post that is at all worthy of
> any sort of response?
Hmmm... maybe you ARE proud of being one of the lunatics
(cladomaniacs, to be specific) who have taken over the asylum. :-)
But seriously, perhaps Joel Cracraft was in the same boat you are in
now: *already* conditioned by his fellow cladophile radicals into
thinking there is nothing offensive about his use of words like
"unnatural" as above.
And that would mean that the use of the word "occasionally" was
sincere but naive, rather than blatantly disingenuous, in the
following statement of his:
"Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse
reaction of paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that
cladists occasionally have made provocative statements
which naturally released negative reactions"
Peter Nyikos
Roger Shrubber
May 6, 2013, 3:18:10 PM5/6/13
to
pnyikos wrote:
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...
"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...
world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely
nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird
and see what it's doing � that's what counts. I learned very
early the difference between knowing the name of something
and knowing something." Richard Feynman.
Thrinaxodon
May 6, 2013, 3:24:02 PM5/6/13
to
disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks. You have done many
lies on behalf of your service. I don't care that you have
credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
this board. When, you accept constructive criticism, I'll possibly
change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
asshole. My reasons put.
Thrinaxodon
May 6, 2013, 3:25:09 PM5/6/13
to
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 4:31:00 PM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 6, 6:58�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I wouldn't put it quite so strongly, but there is a large, hard, solid
kernel of truth to your last sentence. See the replies I did to
Harshman today, especially the part about "conditioning".
Peter Nyikos
wrote:
kernel of truth to your last sentence. See the replies I did to
Harshman today, especially the part about "conditioning".
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 4:39:31 PM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
> >and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
> >to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are �allies of yours.
>
> >[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall �to
> >you also, for instance.]
>
> And here is a classic example of his understanding of "on-topic".
partly off-topic AND blatantly dishonest comment by your ardent ally,
O'Shea.
And here, you are showing your solidarity with him by trying to change
the subject.
And I do believe one of the reasons you are an ally of his is that his
replies to me are not only mostly off topic, but they are so
dishonest, they make you look only slightly dishonest in comparison.
Also, you can trust him to go along with any lies you post about me,
of which there have been many of late. As they say, there is even
honor among thieves.
By the way, you do realize you are being completely off-topic, even in
the part I deleted below, don't you, hypocrite?
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 4:57:41 PM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 6, 3:18�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> All right, I'll bite.
>
> >> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> >> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> >> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> >> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> > species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> > intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> > fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> > paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> > Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> > largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> > as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> > which family, ...
>
> � "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> All right, I'll bite.
>
> >> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> >> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> >> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> >> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> > species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> > intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> > fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> > paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> > Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> > largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> > as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> > which family, ...
>
> � �world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely
> � �nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird
> � �and see what it's doing � that's what counts. I learned very
> � �early the difference between knowing the name of something
> � �and knowing something." Richard Feynman.
That's a nice quote, Roger, but if you think that it is relevant to
what I wrote, you are far more ignorant of the uses of traditional
classification (as practiced by Romer and Colbert, inter alia) than I
am about biochemistry.
Unfortunately, a detailed explanation by me will take too long for me
to do it for the next two weeks. But if you are interested, I can do
it for you shortly after the two weeks are up.
And now I *must* get down to serious work [as mentioned to Dana
Tweedy] I've lingered on Usenet too long already.
Peter Nyikos
> > And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
> > extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
> > classified as above.
>
> > classification is concerned. �The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
> > known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> > class Aves.
>
> > And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> > Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
> > extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
>
> > But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
> > be a taboo: Archie �HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. �It is
> > class Aves.
>
> > And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> > Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
> > extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
>
> > But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
pnyikos
May 6, 2013, 5:03:38 PM5/6/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
> You have done many
> lies on behalf of your service.
By the way, might your real name be Richard Alan Forrest? He is the
only other still-practicing paleontologist who was irrational about
me. And both of you are maddeningly irrational about me.
> I don't care that you have
> credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,
unprofessional.
> I'll possibly
> change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> asshole. My reasons put.
attempt to give any.
And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.
Peter Nyikos
Mark Isaak
May 6, 2013, 7:55:15 PM5/6/13
to
>> [...] You are an intellectual dropout. When people
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>> disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks.
>
> I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
Seriously, Peter? Try reading your own posts.
>
> I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
May 6, 2013, 8:28:35 PM5/6/13
to
On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
Those good old-fashioned classifications exist in cladistics, too, do
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
they not?
And the paraphyletic taxa are produced not by fossils per se, but by new
information showing what the true relationships are.
> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...
about an entity for a full description. I myself have seen it happen.
> In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> class Aves.
genus _Quelea_?
> And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
> extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
>
> But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
> be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
> even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
> all living birds.
nodes, not leaves, is not "unnatural"; it is stupid. Even in the highly
unlikely case that some other species is descended from _A.
lithographica_, nobody could ever possibly know.
You do raise one nomenclatural problem, but it is a minor one. When
referring to a *hypothetical* common ancestor of A and B, there is no
way to give it a formal traditional name it in cladistic terms. That
problem is minor (to the point of not being a problem at all) because it
still works perfectly fine to name it "the hypothetical common ancestor
of A and B."
Thrinaxodon
May 6, 2013, 9:16:19 PM5/6/13
to
>
> By the way, might your real name be Richard Alan Forrest? �ｿｽHe is the
> only other still-practicing paleontologist who was irrational about
> me. �ｿｽAnd both of you are maddeningly irrational about me.
>
> �ｿｽ> I don't care that you have
>
> > credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> > this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,
>
> Give some, and I may listen. �ｿｽThis crap you are posting is most
> > credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> > this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,
>
> unprofessional.
>
> > I'll possibly
> > change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> > asshole. My reasons put.
>
> Bogus reasons, every one. �ｿｽAnd your next two replies don't even
>
> > I'll possibly
> > change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> > asshole. My reasons put.
>
> attempt to give any.
>
> And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
> this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.
>
> Peter Nyikos
2 examples: "something rotten is going on in t.o: virtual witch
>
> And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
> this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.
>
> Peter Nyikos
hunts", "Liars and Liars in talk.origins".
jillery
May 7, 2013, 1:38:22 AM5/7/13
to
>> Where is the tit-for-tat "equivalence" so many claim in his defense?
>
>
>No, it is an example of *staying* partly off-topic in reply to a
>partly off-topic AND blatantly dishonest comment by your ardent ally,
>O'Shea.
Wrong. J.J. replied directly to Ray about his comments. Your reply
>partly off-topic AND blatantly dishonest comment by your ardent ally,
>O'Shea.
to J.J. goes well beyond the scope of J.J.'s comments, and injects the
names of other posters who have nothing to do with this thread. Not
only are your comments off-topic to cladistics, they are off-topic to
J.J.'s post.
>And here, you are showing your solidarity with him by trying to change
>the subject.
am replying directly about the comments YOU made. This is the kind of
blatant hypocrisy for which you are so well known.
>And I do believe one of the reasons you are an ally of his is that his
>replies to me are not only mostly off topic, but they are so
>dishonest, they make you look only slightly dishonest in comparison.
wrote. It's nothing but innuendo and bald assertion.
>Also, you can trust him to go along with any lies you post about me,
>of which there have been many of late. As they say, there is even
>honor among thieves.
you, because I have made none.
>By the way, you do realize you are being completely off-topic, even in
>the part I deleted below, don't you, hypocrite?
off-topic as you say you are. The difference is YOU changed the
topic, not me. The difference is your reply goes way beyond what J.J.
wrote. That would make YOU the hypocrite. You want to have it both
ways, where you can say whatever you want about anybody you want
whenever you want, and then squeal like a stuck pig whenever anybody
calls you on it.
pnyikos
May 7, 2013, 8:47:59 AM5/7/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 6, 7:55�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/6/13 2:03 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 3:24 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...] You are an intellectual dropout. When people
> >> disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks.
>
> > I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
>
> Seriously, Peter? �Try reading your own posts.
I attack people for dishonesty, hypocrisy and insincerity, not for
> On 5/6/13 2:03 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 3:24 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...] You are an intellectual dropout. When people
> >> disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks.
>
> > I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
>
> Seriously, Peter? �Try reading your own posts.
disagreeing with me.
Are you so amoral that you do not see the distinction, or think it
makes no difference?
If not, try reading my replies to you and Coffey on this issue. I've
gone into detail about how utterly false this charge is, even naming a
couple of salient counterexamples to Thrinaxodon's (and now your )
baseless charge.
Coffey attacked me for naming one of the people involved in a series
of counterexamples, and you've viciously attacked me for naming people
who are countexamples to a closel;y related, hateful thing you wrote
about me, but if you promise not to attack me if I go into detail
again, I will do so.
Realize, though, that every time you and others attack me by refusing
to look at facts like this, you are revealing how much you hate to
confront the real truth about me.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 7, 2013, 8:57:03 AM5/7/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 6, 8:28�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> All right, I'll bite.
>
> >> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> >> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> >> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> >> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> > species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> > intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> > fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> > paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Those good old-fashioned classifications exist in cladistics, too, do
> they not?
Yes, but it looks like the things I said about that below went in one
> On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> All right, I'll bite.
>
> >> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> >> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> >> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> >> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> > species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> > intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> > fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> > paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Those good old-fashioned classifications exist in cladistics, too, do
> they not?
ear and out the other, to use a mixed metaphor.
> And the paraphyletic taxa are produced not by fossils per se, but by new
> information showing what the true relationships are.
taxon, the more likely this information goes back decades.
> > Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> > largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> > as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> > which family, ...
>
> Paleontologists do that, too, when they are left with enough information
> about an entity for a full description.
with paleontologists. Unfortunately, I have no time to explain
further. If you are interested, I'll have an explanation no more than
three weeks hence.
Until then, the little hint I gave above will have to do.
>I myself have seen it happen.
> > In contrast, �Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
> > classification is concerned. �The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
> > known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> > class Aves.
>
> And what would you suggest as an alternative? �Put Archaeopteryx in the
> genus _Quelea_?
means that it is the sole member.
> > And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> > Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants,
subfamily.
Got to run. The first exam begins in 5 minutes.
Mark Isaak
May 7, 2013, 11:34:24 AM5/7/13
to
On 5/7/13 5:47 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 6, 7:55 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 5/6/13 2:03 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On May 6, 3:24 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> [...] You are an intellectual dropout. When people
>>>> disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks.
>>
>>> I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
>>
>> Seriously, Peter? Try reading your own posts.
>
> I attack people for dishonesty, hypocrisy and insincerity, not for
> disagreeing with me.
>
> Are you so amoral . . .
> On May 6, 7:55 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 5/6/13 2:03 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On May 6, 3:24 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> [...] You are an intellectual dropout. When people
>>>> disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks.
>>
>>> I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
>>
>> Seriously, Peter? Try reading your own posts.
>
> I attack people for dishonesty, hypocrisy and insincerity, not for
> disagreeing with me.
>
I rest my case.
Mark Isaak
May 7, 2013, 11:46:51 AM5/7/13
to
On 5/7/13 5:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 6, 8:28 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> [...]
> On May 6, 8:28 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
>>> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
>>> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
>>> class Aves.
>>
>> And what would you suggest as an alternative? Put Archaeopteryx in the
>> genus _Quelea_?
>
> No, turkey. Give it its own family, order, and whatever, even if it
> means that it is the sole member.
How is that different from traditional cladistics? _Trichoplax
>>> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
>>> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
>>> class Aves.
>>
>> And what would you suggest as an alternative? Put Archaeopteryx in the
>> genus _Quelea_?
>
> No, turkey. Give it its own family, order, and whatever, even if it
> means that it is the sole member.
adhaerens_ is the sole member of its *phylum*.
pnyikos
May 7, 2013, 11:58:46 AM5/7/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 6, 9:16�pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm calling your bluff. Name one.
>
> > By the way, might your real name be Richard Alan Forrest? He is the
wrong in either of these.
Are you of the Coffey ilk, thinking that there is something morally
wrong with talking about WHAT has happened without identifying WHO was
involved? Coffey was the only one who tried seriously to allege that
what I was doing was wrong -- because it didn't baby the people who
don't give a damn what happens, and whose only concern is to figure
out which side to take.
You ducked my question about who you are. I failed to take your
advanced age into account. I now suspect that you are someone I
clashed with on Panda's Thumb. Harshman knows who I mean--I'm too
pressed for time to look up the name; I do remember the first name was
John.
And if that is who you are, it's no wonder you don't understand the
advantages of paraphyletic groups: your specialty was invertebrates.
Peter Nyikos
>
> > By the way, might your real name be Richard Alan Forrest? He is the
> > only other still-practicing paleontologist who was irrational about
> > me. And both of you are maddeningly irrational about me.
>
> > > I don't care that you have
>
> > > credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> > > this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,
>
> > Give some, and I may listen. This crap you are posting is most
> > > I don't care that you have
>
> > > credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> > > this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,
>
> > unprofessional.
>
> > > I'll possibly
> > > change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> > > asshole. My reasons put.
>
> > Bogus reasons, every one. And your next two replies don't even
>
> > > I'll possibly
> > > change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> > > asshole. My reasons put.
>
> > attempt to give any.
>
> > And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
> > this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
> 2 examples: "something rotten is going on in t.o: virtual witch
> hunts", "Liars and Liars in talk.origins".
That's neither here nor there. You fail to show that I did anything
>
> > And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
> > this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
> 2 examples: "something rotten is going on in t.o: virtual witch
> hunts", "Liars and Liars in talk.origins".
wrong in either of these.
Are you of the Coffey ilk, thinking that there is something morally
wrong with talking about WHAT has happened without identifying WHO was
involved? Coffey was the only one who tried seriously to allege that
what I was doing was wrong -- because it didn't baby the people who
don't give a damn what happens, and whose only concern is to figure
out which side to take.
You ducked my question about who you are. I failed to take your
advanced age into account. I now suspect that you are someone I
clashed with on Panda's Thumb. Harshman knows who I mean--I'm too
pressed for time to look up the name; I do remember the first name was
John.
And if that is who you are, it's no wonder you don't understand the
advantages of paraphyletic groups: your specialty was invertebrates.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 7, 2013, 4:13:00 PM5/7/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 7, 11:34�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/13 5:47 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 7:55 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/6/13 2:03 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On May 6, 3:24 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> [...] You are an intellectual dropout. When people
> >>>> disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks.
>
> >>> I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
>
> >> Seriously, Peter? �Try reading your own posts.
>
> > I attack people for dishonesty, hypocrisy and insincerity, not for
> > disagreeing with me.
>
> > Are you so amoral . . .
-__________________repost of snipped material_________that you do not
> On 5/7/13 5:47 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 7:55 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/6/13 2:03 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On May 6, 3:24 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> [...] You are an intellectual dropout. When people
> >>>> disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks.
>
> >>> I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.
>
> >> Seriously, Peter? �Try reading your own posts.
>
> > I attack people for dishonesty, hypocrisy and insincerity, not for
> > disagreeing with me.
>
> > Are you so amoral . . .
see the distinction, or think it
makes no difference?
If not, try reading my replies to you and Coffey on this issue. I've
gone into detail about how utterly false this charge is, even naming a
couple of salient counterexamples to Thrinaxodon's (and now your )
baseless charge.
Coffey attacked me for naming one of the people involved in a series
of counterexamples, and you've viciously attacked me for naming people
who are countexamples to a closel;y related, hateful thing you wrote
about me, but if you promise not to attack me if I go into detail
again, I will do so.
Realize, though, that every time you and others attack me by refusing
to look at facts like this, you are revealing how much you hate to
confront the real truth about me.
Peter Nyikos
=============== end of material snipped by Isaak
makes no difference?
If not, try reading my replies to you and Coffey on this issue. I've
gone into detail about how utterly false this charge is, even naming a
couple of salient counterexamples to Thrinaxodon's (and now your )
baseless charge.
Coffey attacked me for naming one of the people involved in a series
of counterexamples, and you've viciously attacked me for naming people
who are countexamples to a closel;y related, hateful thing you wrote
about me, but if you promise not to attack me if I go into detail
again, I will do so.
Realize, though, that every time you and others attack me by refusing
to look at facts like this, you are revealing how much you hate to
confront the real truth about me.
Peter Nyikos
> I rest my case.
With no case at all to boast of.
Peter Nyikos
0 new messages