On 2/25/15, 1:14 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 2:45:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/24/15, 11:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 1:10:25 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/15, 9:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:20:26 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/15, 8:41 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 6:25:43 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/15, 11:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you got your "agenda" bee out of your bonnet, you might
>>>>>>>>> see your way towards contributing more meaty science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe if you actually answered questions this thread would be going a
>>>>>>>> bit better.
>>>
>>> Unmarked snip by Harshman noted.
>>
>> Would you like me to mark every snip?
>
> No. But I think that readers deserve to know that you do
> make unmarked snips from time to time.
Why, unless they cause some kind of problem?
> <snip flamebait by Harshman>
The word "flamebait" seems to be a label you attach to anything you
don't want to talk about.
In this case that was "If so, I'd be glad to do it", which hardly seems
objectionable in any way, and "[Here: I just snipped some crap]", which
seems like something you could easily have ignored.
>>>>>>> There is no real attempt to show that current evolutionary theory can
>>>>>>> account for a 5 million year advance from acoelic flatworm level to
>>>>>>> Chengjiang level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where would you get "5 million" from?
>>>
>>> You don't think modern evolutionary theory could not account for
>>> such a big jump, do you?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
> It's not a question of what you know, but what you think. In
> my experience, almost every anti-ID zealot takes, as an article of
> faith, "OF COURSE it could account for it."
What I think is "I don't know".
> By the way, you've shown yourself to be an anti-ID zealot, but
> you don't (yet) meet my standards for being considered an
> anti-ID fanatic. [fanatic implies zealot, but not the reverse]
You probably can't imagine (because you are really bad at getting into
other people's heads) how little regard I have for your labels. It would
be good if you would just stop making silly pronouncements like that.
If you want me to see things, why not just reply to me rather than to
somebody else?
> Would you prefer that I repost, in direct reply to you,
> huge chunks of every post on the same thread that I want you to see,
> instead of just giving you the url and a short answer?
Yes. I see you have slanted your statement so as to get me to reject
that suggestion. I doubt "huge" will often be necessary. But for one
thing, I hate going to Google Groups.
However, having looked at your reply, I would appreciate it if you
didn't post any of that to me. I see nothing I would care to read or
respond to. I would prefer if you actually talked about the supposed
subject of this thread.
>>>>>> Even the problematic fossil record
>>>>>> would seem to preclude anything so short. Kimberella, at least, seems
>>>>>> far past the acoel flatworm stage (if in fact acoel flatworms even have
>>>>>> a primitive morphology),
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but if it is a stem bilaterian, then a relatively un-derived
>>>>> creature somewhat like an acoel flatworm (I'm NOT saying "one of them,"
>>>>> only something on the same level of complexity) might have given rise
>>>>> later to crown group Bilateria.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not clear on the connection between your if and your then. What does
>>>> Kimberella have to do with something rather like an acoel flatworm?
>>>
>>> Descended from such a primitive animal, obviously.
>>
>>> Its little-modified ancestor could have eventually branched
>>> out in other directions.
>>
>> It could indeed, but how does this do anything to help you with the
>> subject at hand if we have no fossils of such things?
>
> It points to a possibility that could bear investigation, at least
> to the point of determining whether Kimberella is really at least
> a stem mollusc. If it is only a stem bilaterian, the following
> is of no use to us:
Sorry, what possibility could bear investigation? How would it help us
determine what Kimberella is?
>> Kimberella is what
>> you have to work with, not any hypothetical ancestors or cousins.
>
> And we could always be on a sharp lookout for such things.
You contend that we are not already on such a lookout, even without your
advice?
>>>> What
>>>> does an acoel flatworm have to do with the duration of the Cambrian
>>>> explosion?
>>>
>>> Answered earlier: `(I'm NOT saying "one of them,"
>>> only something on the same level of complexity).'
>>
>> OK, I'll modify: what does something on the same level of complexity
>> have to do with the duration of the Cambrian explosion, given that
>> there's no evidence on this hypothetical thingy, most particularly on
>> its age?
>
> You are too hung up on what we know, rather than what is true.
> RNorman made a very wise statement about our lack of current
> knowledge about what is true, but I want to probe the limits of
> our knowledge and pinpoint which discoveries might bear
> the most fruit.
All we can know about what is true is what we know, and I don't see any
benefit to your current talk about acoel flatworms or something similar.
You could try to explain that benefit if you wanted. And if you want to
bring up a wise statement, tell me what that statement was rather than
just telling me it exists.
When it comes to soft-bodied Cambrian and Precambrian fossils, we don't
have all that much control over what discoveries we make, so imagining
what might bear the most fruit is fruitless.
>>>>>> and the gradual increase in diversity of both
>>>>>> the ichnofossils and small shellies through the latest Precambrian,
>>>>>> Cambrian 1, and Cambrian 2 would suggest something more like 20 or 30
>>>>>> million years, at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. That's what I opt for, as I said earlier.
>>>
>>> <snip torrent of flamebait by Harshman>
>>
>> OK, now here I'll just have to put it back in.
>
> You only put the least aggressive part back in.
You're complaining about that?
>> So the whole 5 million year thing is irrelevant.
>
> False.
>
>> Why did you bring it up, then?
>
> See what I wrote to S.O.P. this morning, and get back to me if
> you aren't clear on some detail or another. If that happens,
> it would be enormously helpful if you were to reply directly
> to that post of mine and pinpoint exactly what part is unclear to you.
I can't find anything in that reply but invective about various evil
people and their malicious lies. I bet it would have been easier and
shorter to answer my question directly than what you did above.
>>>>>> But relevant to your claims, are you aware of this paper?:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee, M. S. Y., et al. 2013. Rates of phenotypic and genomic evolution
>>>>>> during the Cambrian explosion. Current Biology 23:1889-1895.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00916-0
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this the one which hypothesizes that evolution took place 5 times
>>>>> as fast back then as it does now?
>>>>
>>>> A poor summary, but I do believe you're thinking of the right paper.
>>>> Have you read it?
>>>
>>> No, but the abstract does not encourage me to read it. It looks
>>> like another study in diversity rather than disparity, inasmuch
>>> as it confines itself to arthropods. Am I correct?
>>
>> You are correct about some things, incorrect about others. It does
>> confine itself to arthropods. But why would that imply that it's about
>> diversity rather than disparity?
>
> There is a precedent: an order (family?) of trilobites touted by
> Prothero as evidence that the Cambrian explosion is nothing out
> of the ordinary. Pure diversity, minimal *existing* disparity,
> no discussion of disparity whatsoever.
Why should what Prothero said be relevant to Lee et al.?
> And it is an apologist for Prothero's review who recommended
> Lee et. al. to me -- yourself.
So, guilt by association? Do you ever stop and reread anything you write?
>> Is there no disparity within arthropods.
>
> Of course there is, but you let out not a peep about what
> the article does about it until I goaded you into it.
> See below.
You know what would help you understand what the article is about?
Reading it.
>> This paper used arthropods precisely because they have a comparatively
>> good record, lots of quantifiable disparity, and lots of identifiable
>> homologies to make that disparity quantifiable. Why would that be
>> irrelevant?
>
> If you had told me all this in the first place, I would have given
> at least a lingering look at the article a high priority. Which I am
> doing now. Expect preliminary comments no later than some time tomorrow.
Why would you imagine I had brought the article up at all unless it
addressed something you were interested in?
>>> For sure, it doesn't address such enormous differences as
>>> those dividing brachiopods from arthropods, or even from bivalves.
>>
>> True, it doesn't. Why should that be a requirement for a relevant paper?
>
> We only get a dent in the Cambrian explosion. We can't assume the huge
> changes in body plans making for ca.20 phyla were progressing at the same
> rate.
We are, however, limited in what we can do. Yes, it would be nice to
consider everything, but it isn't possible either.
> And we are still in the dark about why such huge changes stopped taking
> place. Except for the slow advance of the internal skeletons of
> vertebrates, I can think of no really major changes within phyla
> after the Lower Cambrian. Can you?
"Major" is in the eye of the beholder. I would say that there was
definitely quite a bit of major change within phyla after the Lower
Cambrian. I imagine you would too if you thought about it. Dropping back
to your favored yardstick, how many new classes of animals appeared
after that?
>> So you won't read Erwin & Valentine, you won't read Lee et al. What will
>> you read?
>
> Three pieces of flamebait in the same sentence. Is this a harbinger
> of a permanent fixture of your behavior?
It isn't flamebait. It's flame. I am very frustrated in your attitude
toward actual scientific literature, and I was venting. My disdain for
your behavior may in fact come out from time to time. I'm not especially
proud of that, but I'm not really ashamed of it either.
Let me note that very little of this post had much to do with the
Cambrian explosion. It's my hope that the percentage will increase in
the future.