Fun with bird phylogeny
John Harshman
interesting recent discoveries in bird phylogeny, i.e. this bit of the
tree of Hackett et al. 2008:
/---- passerines
/---+
| * \---- parrots
/---+
| * \------- falcons
--+
* \----------- seriemas
All three of the branches marked with * have been confirmed by shared
retroposon insertions.
See Suh, A. et al. 2011. Mesozoic retroposons reveal parrots as the
closest living relatives of passerines. Nature Communications 2:443.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1448.html
And Hackett, S. J., et al. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals
their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763-1768.
http://www.biology.ufl.edu/earlybird/pubs.html#Deep_Avian_Phylogenetics
Yay, nested hierarchy!
quantum.dotproduct
> There
..
..
<snip>
I don't think you get it.
John Harshman, has started a thread.
That is like (Jean Luke playing poker in *All good things*)
I *don't* care "what", he has to say. Everyone be quiet.
quantum.dotproduct
John is only about 1 of 3 people I respect, here @ T.O.
Greg Guarino
Greg Guarino
Schenck
What was different in the Shu 2011 study that made them feel the need
to name the groups, whereas your 2008 study didn't use
'eufalconiformes' or 'Psittacopasserae '? They're both phylogenomic
studies and both find good support for the groupings. They seem to be
saying that the groups 'deserve' names because they have some
exclusively shared retroposons, but if the tree is saying they're a
well supported group, then they're a well supported group, so why
bring up the number of retroposons, and why is it so different from
your teams 2008 study?
Or is Shu 2011 just saying, 'since this is a confirmation of Hackett
2008, its time to give the groups a name'?
John Harshman
> On 24/08/2011 18:44, John Harshman wrote:
>> There
>
> ..
> ..
> <snip>
>
> I don't think you get it.
You're having punctuation problems. You need a semicolon right in the
middle of that sentence.
>
> John Harshman, has started a thread.
>
> That is like (Jean Luke playing poker in *All good things*)
>
> I *don't* care "what", he has to say. Everyone be quiet.
Stop drinking or stop posting. One or the other.
John Harshman
I don't know why they named the groups. You have to ask them. We didn't
name any groups because we thought a whole paper on classification would
be the appropriate place. Just no room in a short paper on another
subject. But in fact the support in Hackett et al. wasn't strong enough
that we would have been comfortable assigning names to the
parrot-passerine or parrot-passerine-falcon clades. Increased
confirmation in Suh et al. does indeed give more reason to name the
groups. I would have preferred a more formal definition, but whatever.
Spelling flames: it's Suh, not Shu, and Eufalconimorphae, not
Eufalconiformes.
quantum.dotproduct
> quantum.dotproduct wrote:
>> On 24/08/2011 18:44, John Harshman wrote:
>>> There
>>
>> ..
>> ..
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't think you get it.
>
> You're having punctuation problems. You need a semicolon right in the
> middle of that sentence.
Yes, Dad.
Did I mention, "he always insults me"?
>> John Harshman, has started a thread.
>>
>> That is like (Jean Luke playing poker in *All good things*)
>>
>> I *don't* care "what", he has to say. Everyone be quiet.
>
> Stop drinking or stop posting. One or the other.
K.
I'll sit here & listen.
While it's you.
Shhh, everyone.
Schenck
> Spelling flames: it's Suh, not Shu,
Whoops.
>and Eufalconimorphae, not
> Eufalconiformes.
I think with the naming conventions in phylo-cladistic-systematics
that's not a spelling error, but a capital offense! Whoops again.
John Harshman
> On 24/08/2011 19:28, John Harshman wrote:
>> quantum.dotproduct wrote:
>>> On 24/08/2011 18:44, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> There
>>>
>>> ..
>>> ..
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I don't think you get it.
>>
>> You're having punctuation problems. You need a semicolon right in the
>> middle of that sentence.
>
> Yes, Dad.
>
> Did I mention, "he always insults me"?
Respect is earned. Is it an insult if it's true?
>>> John Harshman, has started a thread.
>>>
>>> That is like (Jean Luke playing poker in *All good things*)
>>>
>>> I *don't* care "what", he has to say. Everyone be quiet.
>>
>> Stop drinking or stop posting. One or the other.
>
> K.
>
> I'll sit here & listen.
>
> While it's you.
>
>
> Shhh, everyone.
One or the other. You choose.
quantum.dotproduct
> On Aug 24, 2:45 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Schenck wrote:
..
> > > > I don't think you get it.
>
> >> You're having punctuation problems. You need a semicolon right in the
> >> middle of that sentence.
> >Yes, Dad.
> >Did I mention, "he always insults me"?
..
..
>> Spelling flames: it's Suh, not Shu,
>
> Whoops.
>> and Eufalconimorphae, not
>> Eufalconiformes.
>
> I think with the naming conventions in phylo-cladistic-systematics
> that's not a spelling error, but a capital offense! Whoops again.
>
>
Well, I'm having fun Dad,
How bout you?
pnyikos
On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "quantum.dotproduct"
<quantum.dotprod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/08/2011 19:28, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > quantum.dotproduct wrote:
> >> On 24/08/2011 18:44, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> There
>
> >> ..
> >> ..
> >> <snip>
Why snip John's nice little post? Here is how it began:
_____________ begin excerpt
There has just been independent confirmation of three of the most
interesting recent discoveries in bird phylogeny, i.e. this bit of the
tree of Hackett et al. 2008:
/---- passerines
/---+
| * \---- parrots
/---+
| * \------- falcons
--+
* \----------- seriemas
============ end of excerpt
from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4112e7d4a4888fc5
> >> I don't think you get it.
To whom are you talking?
> > You're having punctuation problems. You need a semicolon right in the
> > middle of that sentence.
>
> Yes, Dad.
:-)
> Did I mention, "he always insults me"?
You did, in another post. I get my share of insults too, though not
as often as you apparently do. And, like you also said about
yourself, he's one of the people (somewhat more than 3 in my case) in
talk.origins whom I respect.
But I found out something else that you may not have noticed: John is
rather thin-skinned himself. He even took it very personally when I
said, "you're rather slow on the uptake below, John" after he had
failed to get a rather simple point twice in a row.
And I hope he respects me in spite of that and other "harsh" words I
have for him from time to time.
"el cid" was another person I respected in the same way, but he was
less thin-skinned. Knowing that he had a fatal case of pancreatic
cancer, he had developed more of a perspective on things than Harshman
seems to have, and probably even more than I have.
And, if he was who I now think he was, it was quite a change from his
old self. And I find the degree of improvement very encouraging.
> >> John Harshman, has started a thread.
>
> >> That is like (Jean Luke playing poker in *All good things*)
But not like Cool Hand Luke playing poker in the eponymous film?
> >> I *don't* care "what", he has to say.
I *do* care. I'm a paleontology buff from way back--since the age of
eleven, to be exact, but I already got bit by the bug at the age of
7. I find his tree quite interesting, although I'm not clear on
whether the sereima is supposed to be a sister taxon or just some
outlier used to root the tree.
The sereima and the secretary bird are a fascinating case of parallel
evolution. I can't recall whether the latter is somewhere inside that
clade, or outside it.
> Everyone be quiet.
>
> > Stop drinking or stop posting. One or the other.
>
> K.
>
> I'll sit here & listen.
>
> While it's you.
>
> Shhh, everyone.
I'll try to restrain myself. Thanks for the chuckles.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
[snip annoying repartee with spinny and even more annoying recounting of
your life story. and while we're on the subject, could you please stop
adding irrelevant newsgroups?]
>I find his tree quite interesting, although I'm not clear on
> whether the sereima is supposed to be a sister taxon or just some
> outlier used to root the tree.
It is indeed the sister taxon of the others. Follow the links if you
want to know more stuff. Both papers absolutely freeeee!
> The sereima and the secretary bird are a fascinating case of parallel
> evolution. I can't recall whether the latter is somewhere inside that
> clade, or outside it.
Outside. It's an acciptriform, not closely related to falconiforms
(which are now just falcons, period).
quantum.dotproduct
> pnyikos wrote:
>> I've added sci.bio.paleontology.
..
> [snip annoying repartee with spinny and even more annoying recounting of
> your life story. and while we're on the subject, could you please stop
> adding irrelevant newsgroups?]
You are funny.
Are we having *FUN* or what Dad?
>> I find his tree quite interesting, although I'm not clear on
>> whether the sereima is supposed to be a sister taxon or just some
>> outlier used to root the tree.
>
> It is indeed the sister taxon of the others. Follow the links if you
> want to know more stuff. Both papers absolutely freeeee!
You spelt "freeeee" wrong.
Yes, yes, I know
(spelt1 [spelt] Show IPA
verb a simple past tense and past participle of spell1 .)
Boy, you weren't kidding when you said this thread would be *FUN*.
Yeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Or how did you say?
"Yay".
>> The sereima and the secretary bird are a fascinating case of parallel
>> evolution. I can't recall whether the latter is somewhere inside that
>> clade, or outside it.
Make your mind up John.
> Outside.
Gees. Thanks!
William Morse
metabolic rate for for passerine birds than for non-passerine birds. Do
you know if this is still thought to be the case, and if so, is there
any research that would indicate that the rates follow the cladistics?
I.e, do parrots have higher metabolic rates than seriemas?
Bill
pnyikos
"Le talk.origins, c'est life." :-)
> and while we're on the subject, could you please stop
> adding irrelevant newsgroups?]
Sorry, I added a relevant one this time; one even more close to
extinction than sci.bio.paleontology.
At least adding s.b.p. is not as bad as Wretch Fossil starting a new
thread there. By the way, I've been catching him in one
misrepresentation of sources after another. That's something I've
seen very little of so far--usually it is just people berating him for
his wild ideas about what he's seeing in meteorites.
> >I find his tree quite interesting, although I'm not clear on
> > whether the sereima is supposed to be a sister taxon or just some
> > outlier used to root the tree.
>
> It is indeed the sister taxon of the others. Follow the links if you
> want to know more stuff. Both papers absolutely freeeee!
That's good news.
> > The sereima
Drat, there I go misspelling "seriema" a second time. And I of all
people should know better. Columbia's highly rated Riverbanks Zoo had
one for many years. It had a piercing cry, but I enjoyed looking at
it so much that I didn't much mind.
Never had a secretary bird there, though...
> > and the secretary bird are a fascinating case of parallel
> > evolution. I can't recall whether the latter is somewhere inside that
> > clade, or outside it.
>
> Outside. It's an acciptriform, not closely related to falconiforms
> (which are now just falcons, period).
I learn something new all the time: "hawks" is a polyphyletic taxon!
Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
<quantum.dotprod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/08/2011 21:38, John Harshman wrote:> pnyikos wrote:
> >> I've added sci.bio.paleontology.
>
> ..
> ..
>
> > [snip annoying repartee with spinny and even more annoying recounting of
> > your life story. and while we're on the subject, could you please stop
> > adding irrelevant newsgroups?]
>
> You are funny.
>
> Are we having *FUN* or what Dad?
I hate to admit it, but I'm finding your posts fun, even though I'd
find them very irritating if I were the target.
However, I suggest you do this kind of post sparingly. It can get
tedious pretty quickly.
> >> I find his tree quite interesting, although I'm not clear on
> >> whether the sereima is supposed to be a sister taxon or just some
> >> outlier used to root the tree.
>
> > It is indeed the sister taxon of the others. Follow the links if you
> > want to know more stuff. Both papers absolutely freeeee!
>
> You spelt "freeeee" wrong.
>
> Yes, yes, I know
>
> (spelt1 [spelt] Show IPA
> verb a simple past tense and past participle of spell1 .)
I like spelt2 better. We buy both wheat and spelt in bulk, and my
wife grinds them up and uses the flour soon (often almost immediately)
to make homemade bread.
Heavenly! the whole wheat flour you buy in grocery stores is usually
very old, and the bread you make with it just can't compare with the
fresh stuff. And the packaged whole wheat bread you get in stores is
usually even worse. We only buy it when we're on the road and can't
bake the good stuff.
And now, I'd better quit before Harshman gets on my case for really
telling my life story (not just my talk.origins story).
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
It seems to me that if this were true it would have been noticed
previously. So as far as I know, it's only passerines that have the
higher rate. (And if I recall too, a slightly higher body temperature.)
John Harshman
>>> I find his tree quite interesting, although I'm not clear on
>>> whether the sereima is supposed to be a sister taxon or just some
>>> outlier used to root the tree.
>> It is indeed the sister taxon of the others. Follow the links if you
>> want to know more stuff. Both papers absolutely freeeee!
>
> That's good news.
>
>>> and the secretary bird are a fascinating case of parallel
>>> evolution. I can't recall whether the latter is somewhere inside that
>>> clade, or outside it.
>> Outside. It's an acciptriform, not closely related to falconiforms
>> (which are now just falcons, period).
>
> I learn something new all the time: "hawks" is a polyphyletic taxon!
>
> Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
> kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
Not to some Yanks. Me, for example. Falcons have always been falcons,
never hawks.
Roger Shrubber
> On Aug 24, 5:42 pm, "quantum.dotproduct"
> <quantum.dotprod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/08/2011 21:38, John Harshman wrote:> pnyikos wrote:
This is possibly counterproductive but I can't resist.
You were doing well in your other exchanges with Harshman.
You were sticking with ideas and avoiding interpersonal
embellishments. For some inexplicable reason, you used
this thread to toss in some irrelevancies about who is
thin skinned or otherwise defective from your unique
perspective.
Stop it! It doesn't add value. It does corrupt any
value you might otherwise contribute. The above verb
is presented with due consideration.
And you can even take things up a further notch if you
want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
flaws in evolutionary theory. Mathematically, it's child's
play but it represents a "community service" you could
perform that would earn you some respect in this group.
That would then yield some street credentials to your
voice, in contrast to what you get by invoking irrelevant
interpersonal jousting.
Of course I could be wrong, I merely design, arrange
and sell shrubberies.
quantum.dotproduct
> pnyikos wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 5:42 pm, "quantum.dotproduct"
>> <quantum.dotprod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 24/08/2011 21:38, John Harshman wrote:> pnyikos wrote:
>
> This is possibly counterproductive but I can't resist.
> You were doing well in your other exchanges with Harshman.
> You were sticking with ideas and avoiding interpersonal
> embellishments. For some inexplicable reason, you used
> this thread to toss in some irrelevancies about who is
> thin skinned or otherwise defective from your unique
> perspective.
>
> Stop it!
Yes, Mum.
Are you and Daddy gonna make up?
prawnster
> There has just been independent confirmation of three of the most
> interesting recent discoveries in bird phylogeny, i.e. this bit of the
> tree of Hackett et al. 2008:
>
> /---- passerines
> /---+
> | * \---- parrots
> /---+
> | * \------- falcons
> --+
> * \----------- seriemas
>
> All three of the branches marked with * have been confirmed by shared
> retroposon insertions.
>
Oh, wow. You mean animals that look alike have similar DNA? No way!
I'm sure this will make the front page of every newspaper. Not.
John Harshman
> On Aug 24, 9:44 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> There has just been independent confirmation of three of the most
>> interesting recent discoveries in bird phylogeny, i.e. this bit of the
>> tree of Hackett et al. 2008:
>>
>> /---- passerines
>> /---+
>> | * \---- parrots
>> /---+
>> | * \------- falcons
>> --+
>> * \----------- seriemas
>>
>> All three of the branches marked with * have been confirmed by shared
>> retroposon insertions.
>>
>
> Oh, wow. You mean animals that look alike have similar DNA?
No, I mean nothing of the sort.
> No way!
> I'm sure this will make the front page of every newspaper. Not.
Pride in one's ignorance isn't very attractive, but it's unfortunately
typical of creationists.
Arkalen
> quantum.dotproduct wrote:
>> On 24/08/2011 18:44, John Harshman wrote:
>>> There
>>
>> ..
>> ..
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't think you get it.
>
> You're having punctuation problems. You need a semicolon right in the
> middle of that sentence.
>>
>> John Harshman, has started a thread.
>>
>> That is like (Jean Luke playing poker in *All good things*)
>>
>> I *don't* care "what", he has to say. Everyone be quiet.
>
> Stop drinking or stop posting. One or the other.
Hopefully one will cause the other and we'll have both.
Vincent Maycock
"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:ebf7103f-9758-43b8...@c8g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
It's not so much that they're similar (although I doubt you can explain why
some animals are more similar to each other than other
animals, or why some animals are more similar to each other than they have
to be to survive). It's that they share the results
of a genomic process called retroposon insertions, which raises the question
why God would create these things (that look like
they're the result of a physical process in the genome), and why some birds
share the same insertions but others don't.
pnyikos
> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
> flaws in evolutionary theory.
I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
> Mathematically, it's child's
> play but it represents a "community service" you could
> perform that would earn you some respect in this group.
I doubt that it would do that, but my search for truth and desire to
communicate it is reward enough in itself, if you are right about me
being able to really contribute something.
> That would then yield some street credentials to your
> voice,
Be realistic. I am on the "wrong" side of the abiogenesis debate, the
Intelligent Design debate, and the "Michael Behe is full of shit"
debate. I do expect people to give me a hand while I am debating on
the right side of the creationism vs. evolution debate on that thread,
just as I regularly get help when straightening out Ray Martinez about
evolution, but that's all I expect.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
jillery
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
>> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
>> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
>> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
>> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
>> flaws in evolutionary theory.
>
>I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
>in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
>out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
>contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
Can you think of any poster to T.O. with the well-known habit of
making vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads?
Roger Shrubber
> On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
>> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
>> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
>> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
>> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
>> flaws in evolutionary theory.
>
> I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
> in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
> out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
> contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
Hell no. I have my blood pressure to consider.
>> Mathematically, it's child's
>> play but it represents a "community service" you could
>> perform that would earn you some respect in this group.
> I doubt that it would do that, but my search for truth and desire to
> communicate it is reward enough in itself, if you are right about me
> being able to really contribute something.
How very noble, especially when it doesn't involve the cost of
having to do the work of grinding through the steaming pile
of crap that reflects the bulk of Kleinman posts that I did
read. But the subject is mathematical objections to evolution
with Kleinman claiming his asserted engineering background is
somehow on point. Really, you ought to have a look if you
do care about truth.
>> That would then yield some street credentials to your
>> voice,
>
> Be realistic. I am on the "wrong" side of the abiogenesis debate, the
> Intelligent Design debate, and the "Michael Behe is full of shit"
> debate. I do expect people to give me a hand while I am debating on
> the right side of the creationism vs. evolution debate on that thread,
> just as I regularly get help when straightening out Ray Martinez about
> evolution, but that's all I expect.
Debating with Ray has minimal value for anyone. Obsession with Ray
(not claiming you are guilty here) is more of a demerit than a boon.
You are on the wrong side of abio, Behe, and ID from my perspective
of the facts but you might consider the value of having some clear
breaks with that consistency. Realistically, a smack down on Kleinman
would do you no harm (provided it was sincere) and could only help.
Your incremental advantage is a positive one. The magnitude will
vary per reader. If you value truth as you say, it looks like all
win for you.
pnyikos
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
I purposely deleted some remarks by Shrubber, which I utilized in the
following post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b48e3d446d57bab8
> >> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
> >> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
> >> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
> >> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
> >> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
> >> flaws in evolutionary theory.
>
> >I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
> >in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
> >out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
> >contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
>
> Can you think of any poster to T.O. with the well-known habit of
> making vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads?
You are doing it right here. You are vaguely alluding to the thread
(not particularly long, but longer than this one) in which the
following appeared:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:38:22 -0400
Local: Mon, Sep 5 2011 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: Like Darwin Harshman points to the similarities on either
side of
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Sep 1, 5:16 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote innews:apagano-e9es57tk20egr...@4ax.com:
>> > This is amusing. How on earth would Harshman know whether I quote
>> > from Gish or not? Harshman is too lazy to read Behe which is
>> > available in most libraries. Bluff called?
>> Here it is again:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f57c2845fbbeefe7?
>> You then denied having plagiarised Gish:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9114d1bf4d9d23d7?hl=en
>> I posted what I suspect any reasonable person would say is proof that you
>> did just that:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f22064037ccc8878?hl=en
>> You didn't "quote" from Gish, you plagiarised Gish. You then denied having
>> done so. You then ignored the proof. Baby Jeebus is in floods of tears.
>Do you actually care? Take a look at the following post, and the
>whole thread from which it comes, to see how people on your side
>handle criticism of other people on your side:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/42c223e0cb1c232d
>Peter Nyikos
And here's where you offer an example of what I consider to be a
vaguely-qualified reference. It can't be that much harder for you to
specify which post(s) you refer to when you write "to see how people
on your side handle criticism". Maybe even offer a short description
of your thinking, just so you actually make your point clear and
meaningful.
Just a suggestion.
================ end of post archived at
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c76ff907c68bae50
The last url I provided in the above-included post brought you right
to this thread, and what you wrote at the end is practically refuted
by the ease with which you came here.
And in case you don't shee why it is practically refuted, wait a few
minutes and you will see my reply to the post I've included above.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
> >> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
> >> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
> >> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
> >> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
> >> flaws in evolutionary theory.
>
> > I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
> > in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
> > out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
> > contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
How about just ONE for a start?
> Hell no. I have my blood pressure to consider.
Why? I would think that the replies of Hershey and others have pretty
much taken the wind out of his sails. It seemed to me from what you
wrote above and below that you just wanted the word of a mathematician
to "Dr. Dr. Kleinman" so that he will no longer be able to sneer at
the credentials of the people arguing with him.
> >> Mathematically, it's child's
> >> play
If it is, then the wind has already been taken out of his sails, I'm
sure.
>>> but it represents a "community service" you could
> >> perform that would earn you some respect in this group.
> > I doubt that it would do that, but my search for truth and desire to
> > communicate it is reward enough in itself, if you are right about me
> > being able to really contribute something.
>
> How very noble, especially when it doesn't involve the cost of
> having to do the work of grinding through the steaming pile
> of crap that reflects the bulk of Kleinman posts that I did
> read.
So you want to put me through the same grinding work?
How noble of you. :-)
> But the subject is mathematical objections to evolution
> with Kleinman claiming his asserted engineering background is
> somehow on point. Really, you ought to have a look if you
> do care about truth.
Why does this sound like the words of countless possessive people
saying to their SO's "If you love me, you will..."?
> >> That would then yield some street credentials to your
> >> voice,
>
> > Be realistic. I am on the "wrong" side of the abiogenesis debate, the
> > Intelligent Design debate, and the "Michael Behe is full of shit"
> > debate. I do expect people to give me a hand while I am debating on
> > the right side of the creationism vs. evolution debate on that thread,
> > just as I regularly get help when straightening out Ray Martinez about
> > evolution, but that's all I expect.
>
> Debating with Ray has minimal value for anyone. Obsession with Ray
> (not claiming you are guilty here) is more of a demerit than a boon.
> You are on the wrong side of abio, Behe, and ID from my perspective
> of the facts but you might consider the value of having some clear
> breaks with that consistency.
I would never do that unless I saw a rational reason to do so -- some
reason which has to do with the content of the things discussed and
nothing to do with trying to be popular. And so far, I have seen
none.
By the way, have YOU ever considered having some clear breaks with
YOUR consistency about these matters?
>Realistically, a smack down on Kleinman
> would do you no harm (provided it was sincere) and could only help.
> Your incremental advantage is a positive one.
I'd have to weigh that against the arduous task of wading through a
gargantuan thread.
> The magnitude will
> vary per reader. If you value truth as you say, it looks like all
> win for you.
No, it does not, because from what you say about Kleinman, he has no
truth to offer me, and so all I have is truth to offer him--if that.
Isn't it only my credentials that you want to utilize there?
jillery
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Sep 5, 2:25�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Aug 25, 8:23�am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I purposely deleted some remarks by Shrubber, which I utilized in the
>following post:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b48e3d446d57bab8
>
>> >> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
>> >> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
>> >> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
>> >> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
>> >> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
>> >> flaws in evolutionary theory.
>>
>> >I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
>> >in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. �Why don't you pick
>> >out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
>> >contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
>>
>> Can you think of any poster to T.O. with the well-known habit of
>> making vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads?
>
>You are doing it right here. You are vaguely alluding to the thread
>(not particularly long, but longer than this one) in which the
>following appeared:
Wrong again. I am not referring to any particular thread. Or any
particular post. To be specific, I was in fact referring to part of
your posting style as practiced it in T.O. So how is that it's ok for
you to refer to vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads,
but you can't handle it when someone turns your own style back on you?
<snip irrelevant paste>
William Morse
What is the "wrong" side of the abiogenesis debate? Since perplexed
stopped following this newsgroup,I have seen little informed discussion
of the topic.
I assume you as a rational observer agree that the only reasonable
Intelligent Design position is the Multiple Designer theory :-)
Klaus Hellnick
> pnyikos wrote:
>> Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
>> kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
>
> Not to some Yanks. Me, for example. Falcons have always been falcons,
> never hawks.
>
Indeed. I may have trouble distinguishing eagles and hawks, but falcons
have distinctive heads and wings.
pnyikos
> On 8/24/2011 11:44 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > pnyikos wrote:
> >> Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
> >> kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
In fact, the expression "duck hawk" for the peregrine falcon is so
widespread, I actually saw a book for youngsters which claimed that
ducks are able to fly at over 180 mph.
Then there is the osprey, prosaically called the "fish hawk".
> > Not to some Yanks. Me, for example. Falcons have always been falcons,
> > never hawks.
>
> Indeed. I may have trouble distinguishing eagles and hawks, but falcons
> have distinctive heads and wings.
I'll have to take a closer look some time.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
There are actually two "wrong" sides as far as talk.origins is
concerned One is the side that denies it altogether, and then there
is my side: the side that hypothesizes that it is incredibly difficult
and happens less than once in a galaxy on the average.
Very few people here seem to care about the distinction, or even the
distinction between my side and creationism. Richard Alan Forrest was
an outspoken example, and he of all people should have known better
than to accuse me of being a creationist.
> Since perplexed
> stopped following this newsgroup,I have seen little informed discussion
> of the topic.
It looks like you missed the discussions between me and the late "el
cid" back in December and January, before death took him away from
us. He was the only person with the biochemical background that I
think is necessary for altering my views on the subject.
> I assume you as a rational observer �agree that the only reasonable
> Intelligent Design position is the Multiple Designer theory :-)
I am unaware of what that particular theory is, unless it is my own
position that a technological species either fashioned organisms from
scratch or altered some that existed on their planet, and sent them
our way over 3.5 billion (milliard to most of the world) years ago.
It isn't realistic to think the whole enterprise was the work of one
"mad scientist"; is that what the word "Multiple" refers to?
Lest there be any misunderstanding: I think that technological species
arose by evolution from a less-than-once-per-galaxy abigogenesis event
on their planet.
John Harshman
> On Sep 7, 7:56 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 8/24/2011 11:44 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>> Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
>>>> kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
>
> In fact, the expression "duck hawk" for the peregrine falcon is so
> widespread, I actually saw a book for youngsters which claimed that
> ducks are able to fly at over 180 mph.
This is indeed an existing term. And kestrels are also sometimes called
sparrow hawks. But I wanted to know that this usage is not universal
among Americans. I don't know how common it is, but I never encounter it
in my circles. Peregrines are peregrines, kestrels are kestrels. Both
other usages might be considered archaic.
> Then there is the osprey, prosaically called the "fish hawk".
Ospreys really are hawks (in the sense of belonging to Accipitriformes),
not falcons (Falconiformes).
pnyikos
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:11:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 5, 2:25 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I purposely deleted some remarks by Shrubber, which I utilized in the
> >following post:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b48e3d446d57bab8
>
> >> >> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
> >> >> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
> >> >> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
> >> >> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
> >> >> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
> >> >> flaws in evolutionary theory.
>
> >> >I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
> >> >in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
> >> >out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
> >> >contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
>
> >> Can you think of any poster to T.O. with the well-known habit
Can you name anyone at all besides you who thinks I have this habit?
> >> of
> >> making vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads?
>
> >You are doing it right here. �You are vaguely alluding to the thread
> >(not particularly long, but longer than this one) in which the
> >following appeared:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c76ff907c68bae50
>
> Wrong again. �I am not referring to any particular thread. Or any
> particular post. �To be specific, I was in fact referring to part of
> your posting style as practiced it in T.O.
And groundlessly, IMO. If you disagree, post some documentation.
The rest of what you write is "garbage out" to go with the foregoing
"garbage in". [What makes it garbage is the utter lack of hints as to
what ANY specific examples might be, besides the non-example I thought
you were vaguely alluding to.]
>�So how is that it's ok for
> you to refer to vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads,
> but you can't handle it when someone turns your own style back on you?
I have never referred to 950+ post threads as vaguely as Shrubber has
here. In fact, I had to GUESS what thread he was referring to, and
I'm glad I got at least that much right.
And I've handled Shrubber's needle-in-a-haystack recommendation just
fine, thank you. He still hasn't replied to my rejoinder to his
"blood pressure" hoohah, and I'm ready for what I suspect will be his
take on it.
Peter Nyikos
Burkhard
members of the genus Buteo, but I understand that in the colonies, you
call your vultures buzzard? (and in some places, also hawks if
considered a pest, such as the above mentioned duck hawk?)
John Harshman
As far as I know, the term "buzzard" is reserved for vultures (New World
vultures; we don't have any of your vultures, which are really eagles.)
Never used for Buteos or falcons. And this is why we need Latin names.
_Falco peregrinus_ is _Falco peregrinus_, wherever you are.
pnyikos
> Burkhard wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 4:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sep 7, 7:56 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/24/2011 11:44 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
> >>>>>> kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
> >>> In fact, the expression "duck hawk" for the peregrine falcon is so
> >>> widespread, I actually saw a book for youngsters which claimed that
> >>> ducks are able to fly at over 180 mph.
>
> >> This is indeed an existing term. And kestrels are also sometimes called
> >> sparrow hawks. But I wanted to know that this usage is not universal
> >> among Americans. I don't know how common it is, but I never encounter it
> >> in my circles. Peregrines are peregrines, kestrels are kestrels. Both
> >> other usages might be considered archaic.
>
> >>> Then there is the osprey, prosaically called the "fish hawk".
>
> >> Ospreys really are hawks (in the sense of belonging to Accipitriformes),
> >> not falcons (Falconiformes).
>
> >>>>> Not to some Yanks. Me, for example. Falcons have always been falcons,
> >>>>> never hawks.
> >>>> Indeed. I may have trouble distinguishing eagles and hawks, but falcons
> >>>> have distinctive heads and wings.
>
> > I find the "buzzard" issue even more confusing. For me these are
> > members of the genus Buteo, but I understand that in the colonies, you
> > call your vultures buzzard? (and in some places, also hawks if
> > considered a pest, such as the above mentioned duck hawk?)
hawk, except in error.
> As far as I know, the term "buzzard" is reserved for vultures (New World
> vultures; we don't have any of your vultures, which are really eagles.)
What definition are you using for "eagles"?
> Never used for Buteos or falcons. And this is why we need Latin names.
> _Falco peregrinus_ is _Falco peregrinus_, wherever you are.
that out the hard way 15 years ago on sci.bio.paleontology by having
my knuckles rapped by an actual, professional palaeontologist for
misspelling *Archaeopteryx*.
No hard feelings, of course -- I really do miss having him there these
days.
[By the way, trying to post to sci.bio.palaeontology gets me the
following message: Google Groups does not currently support posting to
the following usenet groups: "sci.bio.palaeontology".]
Peter Nyikos
jillery
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Sep 6, 9:40 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:11:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>>
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Sep 5, 2:25 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I purposely deleted some remarks by Shrubber, which I utilized in the
>> >following post:
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b48e3d446d57bab8
>>
>> >> >> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
>> >> >> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
>> >> >> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
>> >> >> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
>> >> >> failings in Kleinman's assertions about mathematical
>> >> >> flaws in evolutionary theory.
>>
>> >> >I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
>> >> >in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
>> >> >out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
>> >> >contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
>>
>> >> Can you think of any poster to T.O. with the well-known habit
>
>Can you name anyone at all besides you who thinks I have this habit?
>> >> of
>> >> making vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads?
>>
>> >You are doing it right here. You are vaguely alluding to the thread
>> >(not particularly long, but longer than this one) in which the
>> >following appeared:
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c76ff907c68bae50
>>
>> Wrong again. I am not referring to any particular thread. Or any
>> particular post. To be specific, I was in fact referring to part of
>> your posting style as practiced it in T.O.
>
>And groundlessly, IMO. If you disagree, post some documentation.
>The rest of what you write is "garbage out" to go with the foregoing
>"garbage in". [What makes it garbage is the utter lack of hints as to
>what ANY specific examples might be, besides the non-example I thought
>you were vaguely alluding to.]
>> So how is that it's ok for
>> you to refer to vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads,
>> but you can't handle it when someone turns your own style back on you?
>
>I have never referred to 950+ post threads as vaguely as Shrubber has
>here. In fact, I had to GUESS what thread he was referring to, and
>I'm glad I got at least that much right.
do it. A weak defense at best.
> And I've handled Shrubber's needle-in-a-haystack recommendation just
>fine, thank you. He still hasn't replied to my rejoinder to his
>"blood pressure" hoohah, and I'm ready for what I suspect will be his
>take on it.
John Harshman
> On Sep 7, 1:36 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 4:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 7, 7:56 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/24/2011 11:44 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
>>>>>>>> kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
>
> As are harriers.
>>>>> In fact, the expression "duck hawk" for the peregrine falcon is so
>>>>> widespread, I actually saw a book for youngsters which claimed that
>>>>> ducks are able to fly at over 180 mph.
>>>> This is indeed an existing term. And kestrels are also sometimes called
>>>> sparrow hawks. But I wanted to know that this usage is not universal
>>>> among Americans. I don't know how common it is, but I never encounter it
>>>> in my circles. Peregrines are peregrines, kestrels are kestrels. Both
>>>> other usages might be considered archaic.
>>>>> Then there is the osprey, prosaically called the "fish hawk".
>>>> Ospreys really are hawks (in the sense of belonging to Accipitriformes),
>>>> not falcons (Falconiformes).
>>>>>>> Not to some Yanks. Me, for example. Falcons have always been falcons,
>>>>>>> never hawks.
>>>>>> Indeed. I may have trouble distinguishing eagles and hawks, but falcons
>>>>>> have distinctive heads and wings.
>>> I find the "buzzard" issue even more confusing. For me these are
>>> members of the genus Buteo, but I understand that in the colonies, you
>>> call your vultures buzzard? (and in some places, also hawks if
>>> considered a pest, such as the above mentioned duck hawk?)
>
> I never heard of any kind (Old or New World) of vulture being called a
> hawk, except in error.
>> As far as I know, the term "buzzard" is reserved for vultures (New World
>> vultures; we don't have any of your vultures, which are really eagles.)
>
> Reserved in the USA, that is.
> What definition are you using for "eagles"?
eagle.
>> Never used for Buteos or falcons. And this is why we need Latin names.
>> _Falco peregrinus_ is _Falco peregrinus_, wherever you are.
>
> Yes, and "Archie" is *Archaeopteryx*, not *Archeopteryx*. I found
> that out the hard way 15 years ago on sci.bio.paleontology by having
> my knuckles rapped by an actual, professional palaeontologist for
> misspelling *Archaeopteryx*.
is Palaeognathae.
> No hard feelings, of course -- I really do miss having him there these
> days.
> [By the way, trying to post to sci.bio.palaeontology gets me the
> following message: Google Groups does not currently support posting to
> the following usenet groups: "sci.bio.palaeontology".]
pnyikos
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:52:52 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
> >On Sep 6, 9:40 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:11:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 5, 2:25 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I purposely deleted some remarks by Shrubber, which I utilized in the
> >> >following post:
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b48e3d446d57bab8
reposted those remarks where they applied to his own behavior.
However, I also included some meaty discussion of on-topic themes, as
anyone utilizing the above url will see.
> >> >> >> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
> >> >> >> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
>
> >> >> >I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
> >> >> >in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
> >> >> >out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
> >> >> >contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
>
> >> >> Can you think of any poster to T.O. with the well-known habit
>
> >Can you name anyone at all besides you who thinks I have this habit?
>
> Would it matter? Do you really want to push this point?
people ("well-known").
> >> >> of
> >> >> making vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads?
>
> >> >You are doing it right here. You are vaguely alluding to the thread
> >> >(not particularly long, but longer than this one) in which the
> >> >following appeared:
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c76ff907c68bae50
>
> >> Wrong again. I am not referring to any particular thread. Or any
> >> particular post. To be specific, I was in fact referring to part of
> >> your posting style as practiced it in T.O.
>
> >And groundlessly, IMO. If you disagree, post some documentation.
>
> Documentation of what?
evident. And I do NOT know of any posts like that, where I make vague
references to "long-winded" threads that I want people to look at.
I do make references to threads where certain behavior has taken
place; if people wish to confirm what I write about those threads I
will gladly get more specific.
For instance, there is a SHORT thread where I had a deep discussion
with Inez on directed panspermy. When i first told people about this
quite SHORT thread, I thought the words "panspermy" and "Inez" would
be adequate for interested people to look up the thread using Google
Advanced Search.
When I realized this might not be adequate for some, I posted a very
detailed account of what went on in that thread, complete with oodles
of urls for various themes on that thread, in direct reply to a post
of yours:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a41b3d916f74668
It looks from our subsequent back-and-forth as though I overdid
that. I am still looking for a happy medium.
> I know what I was referring to, and so do you.
I'm not going to argue with that subjective opinion; but I do not
share it.
Continued in my next reply.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:52:52 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
> >"garbage in". [What makes it garbage is the utter lack of hints as to
> >what ANY specific examples might be, besides the non-example I thought
> >you were vaguely alluding to.]
>
> Examples of what?
> Your garbage out is self-documenting.
[and maybe the more restrictive *sensu* nyikos] crack.
Now that you've revealed that you, unlike I, do NOT consider
insincerity to be a necessary ingredient of "trolling," it is plain
that you do more of trolling-sensu-jillery than I do.
Moreover, you even seem proud of the trolling-sensu-jillery that you
do, and from now on I will consider it a compliment when you call me a
troll, or accuse me of trolling.
Note to other readers: trolling-sensu-jillery includes the many
schoolmarmish tongue-lashings [s]he gives me for supposed deficiencies
in my posting behavior.
> >> So how is that it's ok for
> >> you to refer to vaguely-qualified references to long-winded threads,
> >> but you can't handle it when someone turns your own style back on you?
>
> >I have never referred to 950+ post threads as vaguely as Shrubber has
> >here. In fact, I had to GUESS what thread he was referring to, and
> >I'm glad I got at least that much right.
>
> So you agree on what you do.
sense of the word.
> You're just quibbling over how badly you
> do it. A weak defense at best.
> > And I've handled Shrubber's needle-in-a-haystack recommendation just
> >fine, thank you. He still hasn't replied to my rejoinder to his
> >"blood pressure" hoohah, and I'm ready for what I suspect will be his
> >take on it.
>
> Good for you.
replies I did to him in the past week.
Peter Nyikos
jillery
Stll waiting for some meaningful dialog.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 1:36 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Burkhard wrote:
> >>> On Sep 7, 4:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 7, 7:56 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/24/2011 11:44 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Note to British Commonwealth readers: falcons, accipiters, buteos and
> >>>>>>>> kestrels are all "hawks" to us Yanks.
>
> > As are harriers.
>
> True except, usually, for falcons.
as hawks, but what makes you think the majority of us Yanks don't?
[FTR, I don't usually refer to falcons as hawks either, but that's
because I've been in the British Commonwealth many times, and because
I like to be precise without being pedantic.]
> >>>>> In fact, the expression "duck hawk" for the peregrine falcon is so
> >>>>> widespread, I actually saw a book for youngsters which claimed that
> >>>>> ducks are able to fly at over 180 mph.
those speeds. Apparently the author [or maybe a proofreader] didn't
understand the significance of the word "hawk" after "duck".
It's a dumb mistake, if that's what it was. "By their second names
shall ye know them": a crab spider is a spider, a spider crab is a
crab.
[snip to get to Burkhard:]
> >>> members of the genus Buteo, but I understand that in the colonies, you
> >>> call your vultures buzzard? (and in some places, also hawks if
> >>> considered a pest, such as the above mentioned duck hawk?)
>
> > I never heard of any kind (Old or New World) of vulture being called a
> > hawk, except in error.
>
> Nor has anyone suggested anything of the sort.
also hawks if considered a pest"? I interpreted what followed "pest"
as just giving an example of what qualifies as a pest in the eyes of a
great many people, and is perhaps called a "hawk" for that reason.
> >> As far as I know, the term "buzzard" is reserved for vultures (New World
> >> vultures; we don't have any of your vultures, which are really eagles.)
>
> > Reserved in the USA, that is.
>
> I believe that should have been obvious from context.
>
> > What definition are you using for "eagles"?
>
> The most restrictive clade that includes everything commonly called an
> eagle.
eh? Articles on it sometimes dwell on features it shares with (Old
World) vultures on the one hand and "eagles" (in the vernacular) on
the other.
Do you happen to know which eagles can be used to "crown" vultures
into the clade?
> >> Never used for Buteos or falcons. And this is why we need Latin names.
> >> _Falco peregrinus_ is _Falco peregrinus_, wherever you are.
>
> > Yes, and "Archie" is *Archaeopteryx*, not *Archeopteryx*. I found
> > that out the hard way 15 years ago on sci.bio.paleontology by having
> > my knuckles rapped by an actual, professional palaeontologist for
> > misspelling *Archaeopteryx*.
>
> You think that's tough. The Latin name for paleognaths (U.S. spelling)
> is Palaeognathae.
>
> > No hard feelings, of course -- I really do miss having him there these
> > days.
>
> Who? Tom Holtz?
did, however, find an exchange where he repeatedly refrained from
correcting the spelling "Archeopteryx". Here is one post from that
exchange:
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <t...@umail.umd.edu>
Date: 1997/04/28
Subject: Re: Archeopteryx problem
schl...@naxos.desy.de (Siegmar Schleif) wrote:
> So I agree, that at least this three specimens show feathers.
> I must apologize : Archeopteryx is NOT a fraud !
Siegmar,
I must publically congratulate you. Sometimes it seems
that there are too few people around who are a) willing to have their
minds changed by the presentation of new evidence and b) willing to
publically acknowledge that they had their minds changed by the
presentation of new evidence.
Bravo!
Message-ID: <5k2agm$2p6$1...@hecate.umd.edu>#1/1
the last three symbols before @ are 6$1
> > [By the way, trying to post to sci.bio.palaeontology gets me the
> > following message: Google Groups does not currently support posting to
> > the following usenet groups: "sci.bio.palaeontology".]
>
> Yet another reason to abandon Google Groups.
"sci.bio.palaeontology" in Giganews [as opposed to
sci.bio.paleontology, which Google Groups handles nicely]?
Peter Nyikos
Burkhard
that certain hawks, when they are considered pests, are called
"buzzards".
(I would have used quotation marks around "hawk" to express what you
inferred) My empirical data is admittedly limited, but during
some of my infrequent visits to the US, some people I met seemed to
use "buzzard" as a generic term for "flying vermin" - typically
followed by suggesting violence against them.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And you can even take things up a further notch if you
> >> want to have significant impact. Look up the extended
> >> series of exchanges with Kleinman. And not with an eye
> >> to take pot shots at Hershey but to address rather obvious
>
> > I don't relish the idea of wading through a thread over 950 posts long
> > in GG in search of which ones might be relevant. Why don't you pick
> > out a few (half a dozen or fewer) posts that you think I could
> > contribute some rebuttals to, and post their urls here?
into lots of little ones in Google. I wonder whether Roger had this
in mind when he made the suggestion. I have my suspicions, seeing as
how he got rather aggressive when I made the above suggestion:
> Hell no. I have my blood pressure to consider.
statement, and Shrubber has disappeared from this thread. I wonder
whether he ever had anything in mind as to what my contribution might
be.
> >> Mathematically, it's child's
> >> play but it represents a "community service" you could
> >> perform that would earn you some respect in this group.
>
> > I doubt that it would do that, but my search for truth and desire to
> > communicate it is reward enough in itself, if you are right about me
> > being able to really contribute something.
enter the fray--in a sub-thread where the exchange looked like as good
a place as any to get involved with mathematically. It only had two
posts on it, one by Kleinman and one by Harshman; now I've made it
four.
> How very noble, especially when it doesn't involve the cost of
> having to do the work of grinding through the steaming pile
> of crap that reflects the bulk of Kleinman posts that I did
> read. But the subject is mathematical objections to evolution
> with Kleinman claiming his asserted engineering background is
> somehow on point. Really, you ought to have a look if you
> do care about truth.
> >> That would then yield some street credentials to your
> >> voice,
>
> > Be realistic. I am on the "wrong" side of the abiogenesis debate, the
> > Intelligent Design debate, and the "Michael Behe is full of shit"
> > debate. I do expect people to give me a hand while I am debating on
> > the right side of the creationism vs. evolution debate on that thread,
> > just as I regularly get help when straightening out Ray Martinez about
> > evolution, but that's all I expect.
> and could only help.
> Your incremental advantage is a positive one. The magnitude will
> vary per reader. If you value truth as you say, it looks like all
> win for you.
me some good. That's all the good I expect in this direction, though.
John Harshman
> Well, it might have been what I said, but not what I meant. I meant
> that certain hawks, when they are considered pests, are called
> "buzzards".
> (I would have used quotation marks around "hawk" to express what you
> inferred) My empirical data is admittedly limited, but during
> some of my infrequent visits to the US, some people I met seemed to
> use "buzzard" as a generic term for "flying vermin" - typically
> followed by suggesting violence against them.
is a vulture. UK buzzards are hawks. US buzzards are not, and nobody
calls vultures hawks.
Mitchell Coffey
spelling for "buzzard." I am /that/ ignorant! Well, I know better now -
but this gives me an excuse for quoting this:
The bustard's an exquisite fowl
With minimal reason to growl:
He escapes what would be
Illegitimacy
By grace of a fortunate vowel.
Mitchell
Roger Shrubber
> On Sep 6, 7:45 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos wrote:
> > > On Aug 25, 8:23 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hell no. I have my blood pressure to consider.
> In an earlier reply to this post, I made a reasonable reply to this
> statement, and Shrubber has disappeared from this thread. I wonder
> whether he ever had anything in mind as to what my contribution might
> be.
forth but there's no point in continuing a meta-meta-meta discussion.
Claim whatever form of victory that entitles you to. Whether I had
a valid rhetorical point sits far far below the significance of what
actually happens and so I won't respond further.
pnyikos
correct.
As to the ubiquitousness of the word "hawk": the common term for a
crane fly in a summer camp I attended near Big Sur, California
(Pfeiffer State Park) was "mosquito hawk".
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
anything to do with anything, just like your comment.