Creationism and cladism, with Mike Noreen
Peter Nyikos
I am ending a vacation of several months from talk.origins to resume
a theme I was already talking about back then: the theme of how
creationists and cladists make bedfellows in a way--strange bedfellows,
but bedfellows just the same as far as the language of cladism is
concerned.
I disagree with both creationism and cladism, so it's kind of nice
to be able to lump these two seemingly disparate philosophies together.
It will be interesting to see whether the creationists will
be able to exploit the hegemony that cladistics seems to be
establishing within biology: it is my contention that cladistic
language, at least the way a purist like Mike Noreen uses it,
makes it almost impossible to intelligibly argue for the
reality of macroevolution.
Mike Noreen is as dedicated a cladist as they come, although he does
not seem to be very clear on the various doctrines of cladism. For
one thing, he's painted himself into a corner on the thread,
"Mammalia as a crown group" in sci.bio.systematics and sci.bio.paleontology
thru not observing the most elementary distinctions. I attribute this
to his unswerving loyalty to Tom DiBenedetto, another cladist who
painted himself into the same corner a while back. Tom got out
while the getting was not so bad; Mike has tied himself into knots
trying to cover for him, and the knot-tying has continued unabated
to this day.
On October 25, 1996, in sci.bio.systematics, on the thread,
"cladistics and the creationists (Was: cladistics)",
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) wrote:
> Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
[Noreen:]
> : >As I understand it you're saying that it is impossible for a cladist
> : >to say that, say, primates contain the direct ancestors of humans, or
> : >that the mammals contain the direct ancestors of primates - which is
> : >strictly speaking true, since humans ARE primates, which in turn ARE
> : >mammals.
This is the sort of statement, I submit, which makes cladists
and creationists strange bedfellows. But as I recounted next,
Noreen gave me an even better one:
[Nyikos:]
> : Right, and you even let me paraphrase some other things you
> : said along these lines as saying, "There are no missing links,
> : because there are no links to miss." I think the creationists
> : over in talk.origins would love to represent you as saying that,
> They'd choke on that laughter for sure.
Brave words, and the only thing that can make them come true,
IMO, is for the "howler monkeys" to keep creationists so busy fending
off personal accusations that they cannot concentrate on
arguing with you. You have demonstated less reasoning ability
than I have seen from many (though perhaps not most) creationists,
and a greater propensity to tie yourself in knots than most
people I've encountered on Usenet so far.
> If they know what's good for them they'll fear clades much more than
> taxons.
Taxons, in and of themselves, are like the sound of one hand
clapping. The other hand is provided by the forthright claim
that a taxon IS paraphyletic--meaning, in part, that it gave
rise to descendants
that are not included in the taxon itself because their
characters deviate too much from those in the taxon.
A clear, unmistakable challenge to creationists that is
not provided by clades, in and of themselves.
> A taxon doesn't imply evolution - that's why you can go on
> grouping on things other than relationship.
I don't take that route. I wait till the phylogeny is firmly
in hand and THEN I group on phylogeny in a way that ALSO
brings out certain aspects of the phylogeny better than
your classifications do.
> A clade IS based on evolution,
Article Unavailable
Peter Nyikos
Picking up essentially where I left off in my second post to
this thread, I tackle the issue of how Mike Noreen,
dedicated cladist, takes all the sting out of "humans are
descended from apes".
Despite this, he says some pretty disparaging things about creationists
here, but I think his words will ultimately boomerang on him.
[Noreen, an anti-creationist, believe it or not, wrote:]
> : >[...] saying 'humans are descended from apes' for a long
> : >time messed up the real evolutionary implications of humanoids being
> : >the sister group of the great apes, you mean?
[Nyikos:]
> : "apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
> : are far too sophisticated to make that mistake; they deny that
[Noreen, showing his anti-creationist colors now, responded:]
> One cannot have the word 'sophisticated' in the same sentence as
> 'creationist' without also having a negation and still have a true
> sentence.
I think Henry Morris is a lot more sophisticated than you are.
He's probably anticipated a lot of your own arguments for
evolution by the following:
In verse 11 occurs the first mention of both "seed" and
kind." ... Each type of organism has its own unique structure
of the DNA and can only specify the reproduction of that same
kind. There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!* A
great deal of "horizontal" variation is easily possible, but
no "vertical" changes.
It is significant that the phrase "after its kind" occurs
ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. Whatever precisely
is meant by the term "kind" (Hebrew *min*), it does indicate
the limitations of variation. Each organism was to reproduce
after its own kind, not after some other kind. Exactly what
this corresponds to in terms of the modern Linnaean classification
system is a matter to be decided by future research. It will
probably be found eventually that the *min* often is identical
with the species, sometimes with the genus, and possibly once in
a while with the "family". Practically never is variation
possible outside the biologic family. In any case, the evolutionary
dogma that all living things are interrelated by common ancestry
and descent is refuted by these Biblical statements, as well
as all established scientific observations to date.
Henry M. Morris, _The Genesis Record, Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 63-64
Morrris may be ignorant about a lot of things that you know about,
but as far as sophistication of his polemics, I think he
has you beat by a country mile, as the saying goes.
I've repeated a few of my own lines here for the sake of continuity:
> : "apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
> : are far too sophisticated to make that mistake; they deny that
> : men are descended from creatures that have the same grade
> : of intelligence, etc. as the great apes. And they
> : call these "alleged" ancestors "apes".
> They'd have to do that, wouldn't they. Humans are created in the image
> of god. Not even microevolution sensu creationists is allowed for us.
> Hence Homo erectus et al are nothing but stupid, dead, apes.
Not necessarily. Henry Morris could easily say all species of Homo
are human beings. He might even include some species of Australopithecus
since he allows for evolution WITHIN families.
Of course, he is too sophisticated to do that outright: all he'd
have to say is that these MAY be human beings, and you'd be
up the creek without a paddle, as the saying goes.
> : [...]
[...]
> : >: What makes "humans are primates" acceptable to so many is that
> : >: it does not make the claim that humans are descended from
> : >: lower primates. Cladistics is a step backwards from getting
> : >: the public to accept evolution, IMO, by allowing creationists
> : >: to subtract off the evolutionary component from "birds are
> : >: dinosaurs".
Article Unavailable
Peter Nyikos
For the posts where the earlier passages appeared, see the
References: line of the first post to this thread.
I continue to show how harmless most of what cladists say
is to the cause of creationism. In fact, I think the
only way they can really challenge creationism is to use what
is, to them, obsolete and even repugnant language.
On October 25, 1996, in sci.bio.systematics, on the thread,
"cladistics and the creationists (Was: cladistics)",
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) wrote:
> Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
[deletia of things dealt with in first post to this thread]
[Nyikos:]
> : >: Name me one person who has been convinced
> : >: that birds are descended from dinosaurs by the childish wordplay,
> : >: "birds ARE dinosaurs". AFAIK everyone who has been convinced by
> : >: it would have been just as surely convinced had you told them
> : >: that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...
[Noreen:]
> : >The concept is as meaningless as if I'd said that maniraptorans were
> : >descended from dinosaurs, or that Tyrannosaurus rex was descended from
> : >dinosaurs - other than in a paraphyletic framework where the true
> : >lineage of birds has been obscured.
[Nyikos:]
> : You were doing fine until the "where the true..." part. Our
> : framework DOES make it meaningful, and from that point on
> : the only thing missing is the statement, "birds are
> : descended from dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."
> Yeah... Paraphyly is great. It hides the fact that birds ARE dinosaurs
> so one can claim that they are DESCENDED FROM dinosaurs.
"birds ARE dinosaurs" is a statement that is neither true nor
false until one defines one's terms. The way YOU and your
fellow cladists use it, it means nothing more or less than
that birds are descended from dinosaurs--except that your
brand of Newspeak does not allow you to give the same
meaning to "dinosaurs" as a great many people do.
The closest I can come to saying what *I* mean by
"birds are descended from dinosaurs" while
BOTH (1) using statements intelligible to most people
and (2) adhering to cladistically sanctioned word usage
is to say something like this:
Birds are descended from animals without wings or
feathers, which have long been grouped with the
dinosaurs.
> That they'd
> be descended from dinosaurs even when remaining dinosaurs,
Could mean simply, "birds are descended from birds while
remaining birds", since you have already said "birds ARE
dinosaurs".
> and that
> birds being dinosaurs is equally incompatible with Genesis as birds
> being descended from dinosaurs is conveniently ignored here.
Incorrect. Since "dinosaur" no longer means, "a certain kind
of animal which lacks hair and feathers" it then becomes
completely harmless to the Genesis account to say "birds are
dinosaurs". Only by saying something different, like what
I say above, can you start challenging the Genesis account,
and then, you'd still have to explain your claim that "birds
are dinosaurs" by adding something like,
Hence we cladists say "birds are dinosaurs",
because, the way we use words, anything that is
descended from a group of animal that we call by a certain
name, is also given the same name, and is considered
to be a member of the same group.
> : What Noreen.meaningful statement do you cladists have to
> : put in its place? "Birds are dinosaurs" can be handled
> : by a shrug of the shoulder and "OK, so what?"
>
> Yeah, try that on a creationist the next time you're on talks.origin.
Well, not every creationist has the savvy to handle it that way;
I only said it CAN be handled that way.
> You can put some icing on the cake by saying that birds are modified
> dinosaurs.
*I* can, but YOU would have trouble getting your point across
because your savvy opponent could retort, "Please give
your evidence that birds are modified birds."
After all, he would only have to study the kinds of debating
tricks you use against me, and this retort would be just
giving you a dose of your own medicine.
> And humans modified fish. It is all strictly true, as you
> no doubt admit.
I don't like to use the word "modified" in this way. It creates
the impression that I don't think there are any intermediate
reptiles, mammals, primates, monkeys, etc. between humans and fish.
TO BE CONCLUDED
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Matthew Priestley
> [Nyikos:]
> > : "apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
> > : are far too sophisticated to make that mistake; they deny that
> > : of intelligence, etc. as the great apes. And they
> > : call these "alleged" ancestors "apes".
Noreen appears to have been alluding to the huge majority of
creationists, not that small 'enlightened' fragment among whom you are
numbered.
[Nyikos, on Henry Morris:]
> In verse 11 occurs the first mention of both "seed" and
> kind." ... Each type of organism has its own unique structure
> of the DNA and can only specify the reproduction of that same
> kind. There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
> within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
> individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
> nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!* A
> great deal of "horizontal" variation is easily possible, but
> no "vertical" changes.
It is greatly satisfying to find an admission of evolution, even if
artificial restrictions are placed upon it. Depending on how generous
Morris is with this concession, a very strong case for speciation can be
developed.
If, for example, climatic shifts were to render an environment colder,
would Morris grant that the animals living in it could become more
efficient at storing heat? Or if, for example, a body of water became
gradually polluted, would Morris agree that the submerged plantlife might
become more tolerant to toxins?
Should the answer be yes, I would ask one further question: if the
circulatory system and the immune system, why not the reproductive system?
And of course, a sufficiently altered reproductive method would mean
sterility among those who have not adapted to the new way. One would have,
in fact, a new species. There is little logical objection to this,
provided that Morris does indeed concur with the two above examples.
I refer you to the useful talk.origins FAQ. In this document several
cases of laboratory-observed speciation are noted. Please do not dismiss
them.
> Not necessarily. Henry Morris could easily say all species of Homo
> are human beings. He might even include some species of Australopithecus
> since he allows for evolution WITHIN families.
Due to the stark physiological differences between ourselves and
Australopithecus or between Australopithecus and Homo Neanderthalensis,
such a claim would be dubious. If interbreeding had been possible, it is
unlikely that the strains of "man" would have diverged so insistently,
eventually leading to the extinction of most branches.
> Where is it? It's a missing link according to all your cladograms,
> and you cannot put any fossil creature in its place without choking on
> your prohibition of paraphyly.
Permit me to boggle for a moment, but it seems unthinkable to me that
anyone could dismiss the long and achingly old legacy of prohominid
remains. Perhaps a dozen varieties of proto-human have been identified,
some more similar to men, some notably more simian. While there may be
more links missing, there is no conspicuous missing link. At times I
wonder how many links are necessary to provide evidence. Perhaps once we
have enough to do a 'morph'..?
-matthew Priestley
prie...@uiuc.edu
Don Cates
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[followup set to t.o. only]
[snip Peter's self-serving characterization of his involvement with Mike
Noreen and Tom DiBenedetto on s.b.e., s.b.s, and s.b.p.]
[also snip context-free selected quotes from those newsgroups and
Peter's replies to same]
If there *is* anyone interested in Peter's claims, I suggest that they
check DejaNews for posts from the pricipals involved in the appropriate
newsgroups. Then make up your own mind.
I'm out of here!
The best thing about mistakes is the joy they bring others.
Peter Nyikos
It's nice to know that the only support so far for "howler monkey"
Mike Noreen is this pathetic attempt at misdirection by
Bandar-log member Don Cates.
Future posts of the same general caliber will not receive follow-ups
from me. I'm looking for substantive discussion.
ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>[followup set to t.o. only]
I've restored alt.catastrophism, and have made a brief reply
to sci.bio.systematics, where Cates saw fit to post his bilge
rather than simply telling people to look in talk.origins.
>[snip Peter's self-serving characterization of his involvement with Mike
>Noreen and Tom DiBenedetto on s.b.e., s.b.s, and s.b.p.]
Mike et.al. are welcome to challenge it; so far, they have not.
Mike in particular is up to his ears in the sbs-sbp thread,
"Mammalia as a crown group."
>[also snip context-free selected quotes from those newsgroups and
>Peter's replies to same]
Context-free selected quotes, my eye! If there *is* anyone who
is interested in this mean-spirited claim of Don Cates, I suggest
he check Deja News for the post of Mike Noreen to which all
three posts of yesterday are follow-ups.
The message-id is in the References: line of the first post,
hence of this one. Unlike Tom DiBenedetto, I make easily
available the message-id's of the posts to which I am responding.
Anyone who does not believe this latest dig at Tom DiBenedetto
is welcome to do a thread search in Deja News of any thread
to which Tom, who is a s.b.e. regular, posts regularly. Be
prepared to spend a LOT of time trying to figure out whether
any given set of posts has been followed up to by Tom or not.
>If there *is* anyone interested in Peter's claims,
I suggest that they be evaluated on their own merits. Cladists
in general, and Mike Noreen in particular, are free to try and
show how cladistic language does NOT play into the hands of
creationists--if they can.
> I suggest that they
>check DejaNews for posts from the pricipals involved in the appropriate
>newsgroups. Then make up your own mind.
Good advice. Too bad you show no sign of having followed it yourself.
Your unsupported "context-free selected quotes" and the following
parting shot strongly suggest that you did not.
>I'm out of here!
There are two other posts to this thread that you haven't touched at all.
Peter Nyikos
I'm not sure of the appropriateness of this thread to s.b.s. any
more, but since we discuss speciation I thought I'd leave it in.
"Matthew Priestley" <prie...@uiuc.edu> writes:
>> [Nyikos:]
>> > : "apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
>> > : are far too sophisticated to make that mistake; they deny that
>> > : men are descended from creatures that have the same grade
>> > : of intelligence, etc. as the great apes. And they
>> > : call these "alleged" ancestors "apes".
> Noreen appears to have been alluding to the huge majority of
>creationists, not that small 'enlightened' fragment among whom you are
>numbered.
You are a fool if you assert I am a creationist. I have
been convinced of the reality of evolution since I was 11 years
old, and each new year brings more reasons for this conviction.
>[Nyikos, on Henry Morris:]
>> In verse 11 occurs the first mention of both "seed" and
>> kind." ... Each type of organism has its own unique structure
>> of the DNA and can only specify the reproduction of that same
>> kind. There is a tremendous amount of variational potential
>> within each kind, facilitating the generation of distinct
>> individuals and even of many varieties within the kind, but
>> nevertheless precluding the evolution of new *kinds!* A
>> great deal of "horizontal" variation is easily possible, but
>> no "vertical" changes.
> It is greatly satisfying to find an admission of evolution, even if
>artificial restrictions are placed upon it. Depending on how generous
>Morris is with this concession, a very strong case for speciation can be
>developed.
Morris isn't opposing speciation at all. He does oppose
macroevolution that bursts the bounds of the taxon "family"
> If, for example, climatic shifts were to render an environment colder,
>would Morris grant that the animals living in it could become more
>efficient at storing heat? Or if, for example, a body of water became
>gradually polluted, would Morris agree that the submerged plantlife might
>become more tolerant to toxins?
The foregoing quote seems to say that he does.
> Should the answer be yes, I would ask one further question: if the
>circulatory system and the immune system, why not the reproductive system?
>And of course, a sufficiently altered reproductive method would mean
>sterility among those who have not adapted to the new way.
Non sequitur. The ones who did not adapt might go on forming
their own species while the ones who did, formed a new one.
One would have,
>in fact, a new species. There is little logical objection to this,
>provided that Morris does indeed concur with the two above examples.
> I refer you to the useful talk.origins FAQ. In this document several
>cases of laboratory-observed speciation are noted. Please do not dismiss
>them.
I don't, but I question the relevance of all except the ones
to do with plant life. I do believe Morris would regard a
successful *in vitro* joining of two gametes, followed by
growth to maturity [even if the resulting offspring is sterile]
as evidence that the parents are still "of the same kind".
Morris, after all, was well acquainted with how mules come
to be. You'll have to ask the creationists whether they
regard horses and donkeys to be the same "kind" or not;
the answer could clear up a lot of confusion.
>> Not necessarily. Henry Morris could easily say all species of Homo
>> are human beings. He might even include some species of Australopithecus
>> since he allows for evolution WITHIN families.
>Due to the stark physiological differences between ourselves and
>Australopithecus or between Australopithecus and Homo Neanderthalensis,
>such a claim would be dubious.
Why? microcephalics are born occasionally among humans, attain
adulthood, even reproduce. AFAIK no creationist has denied that
they are full-fledged humans.
If interbreeding had been possible, it is
>unlikely that the strains of "man" would have diverged so insistently,
>eventually leading to the extinction of most branches.
Article Unavailable
Theodore A. Holden
"Matthew Priestley" <prie...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Permit me to boggle for a moment, but it seems unthinkable to me that
>anyone could dismiss the long and achingly old legacy of prohominid
>remains. Perhaps a dozen varieties of proto-human have been identified,
>some more similar to men, some notably more simian. While there may be
>more links missing, there is no conspicuous missing link. At times I
>wonder how many links are necessary to provide evidence. Perhaps once we
>have enough to do a 'morph'..?
The problem, as I understand it, is there ARE enough to do morphs in
the majority of fossils; basically, you get a continuous morph of one species
into itself with zero changes over a long period of time, which is what
Gould and his brethren call "stasis", or the most major fact of the fossil
record. THAT is why the lack of meaningful intermediate fossils
(showing any similar morph involving <change>) is so conspicuous,
and why pointing out the odd items for which there is no continuous record
and claiming they are all intermediate in some sort of an intermediate fossil
FAQ/FGU is basically inane and dishonest.
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
David T. Wolff
In article <55o2ss$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I am ending a vacation of several months from talk.origins to resume
Damn!
*plonk*
David Wolff (dwo...@brooktrout.com)
Peter Nyikos
In the wake of Don Cates's continued misdirection and
derogatory unsupported insinuations, I thought
it wise to repost here my post two steps back in the
thread from my three-part reply to Mike. I'm even willing to repost
Mike Noreen's reply to that, one step back in the thread,
if anyone expresses a desire to see it here, but it would
be less confusing if Mike did the honors himself.
Don Cates said "sheesh" to my having split my followup to
Mike's reply into three posts. I take this as an attempt
to goad me into posting 400+ line posts, hoping most people
then won't take the trouble to read any of them.
======================================= begin included post
Newsgroups: sci.bio.systematics
Subject: cladistics and the creationists (Was: cladistics)
Message-ID: <54ovkj$i...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
References: <52u53s$5...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <530nfh$4...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <533kkq$7...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <53e37s$7...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <53k7r0$j...@nntp1.u.was <548vj6$d...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <54jfr5$f...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> <32783b37...@news.kth.se>
This is my second follow-up to a post by Noreen, the first
having been to the old Subject: line.
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
[deletia of things mostly dealt with in first follow-up]
>Well, you apparently want me to specify my position; very well:
>It is my opinion that anyone who proposes classification which does
>not correspond to our best inferred guesses about the relationship of
>species or groups have seriously misunderstood what classification is
>for. Be that Romer, Colbert, Linnaeus or Carroll (with his curious
>logical somersault, where he in the same passage says that
>paraphyletic groups are constructs of systematics AND patterns of
>evolution).
Sure. Bummer that you can't figure out why, as you might say,
were our roles reversed.
Clue: Continents are patterns of geography. Maps depicting the continents
are constructs.
>As I understand it you're saying that it is impossible for a cladist
>to say that, say, primates contain the direct ancestors of humans, or
>that the mammals contain the direct ancestors of primates - which is
>strictly speaking true, since humans ARE primates, which in turn ARE
>mammals.
Right, and you even let me paraphrase some other things you
said along these lines as saying, "There are no missing links,
because there are no links to miss." I think the creationists
over in talk.origins would love to represent you as saying that,
but I'll deny them the pleasure for the nonce.
Of course, if one of them happens to be reading this, they
just might have that pleasure soon anyway, but them's the breaks.
Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>primates is a meaningless statement -
Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
it, I can almost guarantee it.
Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Propliopithecus,...Sayonara to you all!
All that effort going into figuring out whether you primates
are ancestral to Homo--all meaningless. ;-) ;-) ;-)
>: >: For over a century it was agreed among paleontologists that
>: >: Aves is descended from Reptilia--they were only haggling over
>: >: the details of which diapsid reptiles birds are descended from--
>: >: and yet they cheerfully put Aves into a separate class, relying
>: >: on OTHER things besides the classification to get the message
>: >: of descent from reptiles across.
>:
>: >Didn't do much good, did it.
>:
>: It did lots of good. Name me one person who has been convinced
>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs by the childish wordplay,
>: "birds ARE dinosaurs". AFAIK everyone who has been convinced by
>: it would have been just as surely convinced had you told them
>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...
>The concept is as meaningless as if I'd said that maniraptorans were
>descended from dinosaurs, or that Tyrannosaurus rex was descended from
>dinosaurs - other than in a paraphyletic framework where the true
>lineage of birds has been obscured.
You were doing fine until the "where the true..." part. Our
framework DOES make it meaningful, and from that point on
the only thing missing is the statement, "birds are
descended from dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."
What Noreen.meaningful statement do you cladists have to
put in its place? "Birds are dinosaurs" can be handled
by a shrug of the shoulder and "OK, so what?"
>: Only during the last 20 years has the
>: >realization that birds are dinosaurs started to get more widespread
>:
>: ...because it all began with Bakker and others saying that
>: birds are descended from dinosaurs, and giving the evidence.
>: Saying "birds are dinosaurs" only confused the issues in the
>: minds of the public IMO, by obscuring the evolutionary
>: component of the message.
>Pretty much like saying 'humans are descended from apes' for a long
>time messed up the real evolutionary implications of humanoids being
>the sister group of the great apes, you mean?
"apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
are far too sophisticated to make that mistake; they deny that
men are descended from creatures that have the same grade
of intelligence, etc. as the great apes. And they
call these "alleged" ancestors "apes".
[...]
>BTW - humans aren't apes. Apes aren't humans. Pan, Gorilla and Homo
>(and presumably Australopithecus and other more or less valid genera)
>are in the family Hominidae, which presumably makes us all hominids.
Ah, so Hominidae has been extended, eh? So now maybe it
is NOT ripe for demotion to a subfamily. For once, you
cladists have done us a good turn.
>: What makes "humans are primates" acceptable to so many is that
>: it does not make the claim that humans are descended from
>: lower primates. Cladistics is a step backwards from getting
>: the public to accept evolution, IMO, by allowing creationists
>: to subtract off the evolutionary component from "birds are
>: dinosaurs".
>No, it gives a more correct view of evolution than the simplistic and
>plain wrong 'humans are descended from apes'. You've indicated that
>your unwillingness to accept that, say, "humans are mammals" rather
>than "humans are descended from mammals" is that it would make it hard
>to fight creationists. I assure you that they would choke just as hard
>on the underlying assumption of "humans are mammals"
Mammals have hair, give milk, etc. A creationist has no
trouble with that, since no other creature besides a mammal
has hair and gives milk. You could even just take one
trait or the other.
- since that
>assumption is that all mammals are descended from a common ancestor
>through evolution.
Only if you DEFINE Mammalia as a crown group, and give "crown
group" a strictly phylogenetic meaning.
Ah, but your fellow cladist Tom DiBeneddetto has said in no uncertain terms
that that is wrong. Bummer, isn't it?
To be concluded on the parent thread.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
================================== end of included post
Don Cates
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[snip stuff irrelivent to the topic]
[snip 'patterns/constucts' - 'exclusive/not']
>>As I understand it you're saying that it is impossible for a cladist
>>to say that, say, primates contain the direct ancestors of humans, or
>>that the mammals contain the direct ancestors of primates - which is
>>strictly speaking true, since humans ARE primates, which in turn ARE
>>mammals.
>Right, and you even let me paraphrase some other things you
>said along these lines as saying, "There are no missing links,
>because there are no links to miss." I think the creationists
>over in talk.origins would love to represent you as saying that,
>but I'll deny them the pleasure for the nonce.
>Of course, if one of them happens to be reading this, they
>just might have that pleasure soon anyway, but them's the breaks.
> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
>contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
>is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
>it, I can almost guarantee it.
I can't speak for Mike, but if I understand him correctly, I would not
object to this paraphrase. And I agree, the creationists would love it.
But is that relavent to the scientific merits of the statement?
Creationists have been known to misunderstand/misrepresent the
statements of scientists in the past. I exspect them to do so in the
future. That they do so does not reflect on the quality of the science
nor should it (IMHO) cause the scientists to censor themselves in their
choice of language.
Perhaps I can offer an analogy for my understanding of Mike's statement.
I define all the descendents of one of my 10 times greatgrandfathers
(ignoring all collateral ancestors) as the Cates Clan. Given this
definition, does the statement 'The Cates Clan contains the ancestors of
Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all? AFAICS it's true
by definition and I think it is legitimate to refer to it as
"meaningless".
>Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Propliopithecus,...Sayonara to you all!
>All that effort going into figuring out whether you primates
>are ancestral to Homo--all meaningless. ;-) ;-) ;-)
Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless and concluding
that it is does not follow from Mike's statement.
Refering to my analogy, stating that Roy Cates and Adenirom Cates are
ancestors of Don Cates and family does give new information
>>: >: For over a century it was agreed among paleontologists that
>>: >: Aves is descended from Reptilia--they were only haggling over
>>: >: the details of which diapsid reptiles birds are descended from--
>>: >: and yet they cheerfully put Aves into a separate class, relying
>>: >: on OTHER things besides the classification to get the message
>>: >: of descent from reptiles across.
>>:
>>: >Didn't do much good, did it.
>>:
>>: It did lots of good. Name me one person who has been convinced
>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs by the childish wordplay,
>>: "birds ARE dinosaurs". AFAIK everyone who has been convinced by
>>: it would have been just as surely convinced had you told them
>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...
But the question is will saying "birds are descended from dinosaurs, and
here's the evidence..." convince more people than saying 'birds are
dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...'. If the answer is yes (I don't
know how one could show this) then you have a point, but I think that
the "and here is the evidence..." is most important for the
"convincing". I believe the cladist viewpoint is that "birds are
dinosaurs" and leaving birds in a separate class is not only
unwarraneted, but wrong. (Whether they are correct in this or not I will
leave for the systematists to fight over)
>>The concept is as meaningless as if I'd said that maniraptorans were
>>descended from dinosaurs, or that Tyrannosaurus rex was descended from
>>dinosaurs - other than in a paraphyletic framework where the true
>>lineage of birds has been obscured.
>You were doing fine until the "where the true..." part. Our
>framework DOES make it meaningful, and from that point on
>the only thing missing is the statement, "birds are
>descended from dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."
>What Noreen.meaningful statement do you cladists have to
>put in its place? "Birds are dinosaurs" can be handled
>by a shrug of the shoulder and "OK, so what?"
How about "Birds are dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."? If
cladistic analysis of the evidence shows that "birds are dinosaurs" is
correct and "birds are a separate family descended from the dinosaurs"
is inaccurate then they are justified in saying that the statement
"birds are descended from the dinosaurs" is meaningless. If you don't
agree with cladistic analysis then you won't agree with their
conclusions.
>>: Only during the last 20 years has the
>>: >realization that birds are dinosaurs started to get more widespread
>>:
>>: ...because it all began with Bakker and others saying that
>>: birds are descended from dinosaurs, and giving the evidence.
>>: Saying "birds are dinosaurs" only confused the issues in the
>>: minds of the public IMO, by obscuring the evolutionary
>>: component of the message.
Do you believe the cladists should censor their scientific conclusions
to suit the "minds of the public"? I don't. Though I think that even if
the cladists are correct, there is nothing wrong with using "birds are
descended from dinosaurs" in a non-scientific setting. IIRC at least one
of the cladists on s.b.e. stated that he had no quarrel with the use of
imprecise language in the popular forum.
>>Pretty much like saying 'humans are descended from apes' for a long
>>time messed up the real evolutionary implications of humanoids being
>>the sister group of the great apes, you mean?
>"apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
>are far too sophisticated to make that mistake;
Ah, but lots *more* aren't.
> they deny that
>men are descended from creatures that have the same grade
>of intelligence, etc. as the great apes. And they
>call these "alleged" ancestors "apes".
>[...]
>>BTW - humans aren't apes. Apes aren't humans. Pan, Gorilla and Homo
>>(and presumably Australopithecus and other more or less valid genera)
>>are in the family Hominidae, which presumably makes us all hominids.
>Ah, so Hominidae has been extended, eh? So now maybe it
>is NOT ripe for demotion to a subfamily. For once, you
>cladists have done us a good turn.
>>: What makes "humans are primates" acceptable to so many is that
>>: it does not make the claim that humans are descended from
>>: lower primates. Cladistics is a step backwards from getting
>>: the public to accept evolution, IMO, by allowing creationists
>>: to subtract off the evolutionary component from "birds are
>>: dinosaurs".
But creationists do that anyway. Why should fear of creationist idiocy
put any kind of a straight-jacket on any part of science. IMO anyone who
is not convinced by the present creationist arguments is going to change
their mind because they can now use the phrase "birds are dinosaurs" as
a quote from 'real' scientists.
>>No, it gives a more correct view of evolution than the simplistic and
>>plain wrong 'humans are descended from apes'. You've indicated that
>>your unwillingness to accept that, say, "humans are mammals" rather
>>than "humans are descended from mammals" is that it would make it hard
>>to fight creationists. I assure you that they would choke just as hard
>>on the underlying assumption of "humans are mammals"
>Mammals have hair, give milk, etc. A creationist has no
>trouble with that, since no other creature besides a mammal
>has hair and gives milk. You could even just take one
>trait or the other.
> - since that
>>assumption is that all mammals are descended from a common ancestor
>>through evolution.
>Only if you DEFINE Mammalia as a crown group, and give "crown
>group" a strictly phylogenetic meaning.
I'm sorry. I haven't been able to understand the "crown group" argument
at all. Perhaps if you explain how your statement above relates to
Mike's I might get a bit of a handle on it.
[snip a bit]
Peter Nyikos
Thank you for getting into the substantive issue, Don. If you
wish, I could even set up a separate thread in talk.origins to deal with your
non-substantive remarks. [I don't do this for everybody, you
know, but I'll do it for you.]
ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[Mike Noreen:]
>>>As I understand it you're saying that it is impossible for a cladist
>>>to say that, say, primates contain the direct ancestors of humans, or
>>>that the mammals contain the direct ancestors of primates - which is
>>>strictly speaking true, since humans ARE primates, which in turn ARE
>>>mammals.
[Peter Nyikos:]
>>Right, and you even let me paraphrase some other things you
>>said along these lines as saying, "There are no missing links,
>>because there are no links to miss." I think the creationists
>>over in talk.origins would love to represent you as saying that,
>>but I'll deny them the pleasure for the nonce.
The nonce is over, probably. I say "probably" because I'm not sure
Ted Holden counts as a creationist.
[Noreen:]
>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>>Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
>>contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
>>is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
>>it, I can almost guarantee it.
>I can't speak for Mike, but if I understand him correctly, I would not
>object to this paraphrase. And I agree, the creationists would love it.
>But is that relavent to the scientific merits of the statement?
Not to them. However, I am highly skeptical of even the
scientific merits of the statement.
>Perhaps I can offer an analogy for my understanding of Mike's statement.
>I define all the descendents of one of my 10 times greatgrandfathers
>(ignoring all collateral ancestors) as the Cates Clan. Given this
>definition, does the statement 'The Cates Clan contains the ancestors of
>Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all?
It doesn't give me additional information, no. On the other hand,
you would be hard pressed to find Mike Noreen or Tom DiBenedetto
making a statemnt like "I define dinosaurs to be all the descendants
of ____________". They might even be opposed to it on ideological
grounds, as their resistance to the whole crown group concept
indicates.
>>Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Propliopithecus,...Sayonara to you all!
>>All that effort going into figuring out whether you primates
>>are ancestral to Homo--all meaningless. ;-) ;-) ;-)
>Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
>*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless
But it *literally* contradicts the claim that our ancestors
are not to be found among the primates. Any time a person
says something literally false, I don't think he has real
cause for complaint if others take him at his word.
>>>: >: For over a century it was agreed among paleontologists that
>>>: >: Aves is descended from Reptilia--they were only haggling over
>>>: >: the details of which diapsid reptiles birds are descended from--
>>>: >: and yet they cheerfully put Aves into a separate class, relying
>>>: >: on OTHER things besides the classification to get the message
>>>: >: of descent from reptiles across.
>>>:
>>>: >Didn't do much good, did it.
>>>:
>>>: It did lots of good. Name me one person who has been convinced
>>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs by the childish wordplay,
>>>: "birds ARE dinosaurs". AFAIK everyone who has been convinced by
>>>: it would have been just as surely convinced had you told them
>>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...
>But the question is will saying "birds are descended from dinosaurs, and
>here's the evidence..." convince more people than saying 'birds are
>dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...'.
Depends on what the evidence is. One could conceivably define
"dinosaur" to mean "warm-blooded vertebrate without hair". Or one
could take hairlessness and warm-bloodedness in both what
are commonly called birds and what are commonly called dinosaurs
to be evidence that birds are dinosaurs.
On the other hand, "birds are descended from dinosaurs" requires
a mountain of additional evidence as to bone structure, etc.
to make it convincing.
>... I believe the cladist viewpoint is that "birds are
>dinosaurs" and leaving birds in a separate class is not only
>unwarraneted, but wrong. (Whether they are correct in this or not I will
>leave for the systematists to fight over)
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that
the cladist viewpoint that "birds are dinosaurs and therefore
dinosaurs should NOT be in a separate class from birds even
though birds are in a separate class from dinosaurs" is
not only unwarranted, but wrong? If so, I am in full
agreement.
>>>The concept is as meaningless as if I'd said that maniraptorans were
>>>descended from dinosaurs, or that Tyrannosaurus rex was descended from
>>>dinosaurs - other than in a paraphyletic framework where the true
>>>lineage of birds has been obscured.
>>You were doing fine until the "where the true..." part. Our
>>framework DOES make it meaningful, and from that point on
>>the only thing missing is the statement, "birds are
>>descended from dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."
>>What Noreen.meaningful statement do you cladists have to
>>put in its place? "Birds are dinosaurs" can be handled
>>by a shrug of the shoulder and "OK, so what?"
>How about "Birds are dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."? If
>cladistic analysis of the evidence shows that "birds are dinosaurs" is
>correct and "birds are a separate family descended from the dinosaurs"
>is inaccurate
Oh, but they agree that birds are in a clade [not family--they
want to do away with ranks] separate from dinosaurs. They
simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of a group,
"dinosaurs minus birds", calling it "unreal" and asserting
that of course, they only study "real" groups.
> then they are justified in saying that the statement
>"birds are descended from the dinosaurs" is meaningless. If you don't
>agree with cladistic analysis then you won't agree with their
>conclusions.
"cladistic analysis" has nothing to do with this; cladistic
ideology has everything to do with it. Fortunately, not
all cladists are ideologues, but the ideologues seem
to have drowned out the others in sci.bio.evolution,
sci.bio.systematics, and sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>: Only during the last 20 years has the
>>>: >realization that birds are dinosaurs started to get more widespread
>>>:
>>>: ...because it all began with Bakker and others saying that
>>>: birds are descended from dinosaurs, and giving the evidence.
>>>: Saying "birds are dinosaurs" only confused the issues in the
>>>: minds of the public IMO, by obscuring the evolutionary
>>>: component of the message.
>Do you believe the cladists should censor their scientific conclusions
>to suit the "minds of the public"?
"birds are dinosaurs" is not a scientific conclusion unless one
is willing to take a stand on what the role of "are" is in the
sentence. If it ONLY means "birds are descended from animals
that were traditionally called dinosaurs before we cladists
came along" then we are simply arguing about proper word
usage, not science. But how many laymen are going to know
that this is what it means, unless someone spells it out
for them? And how many cladists are willing to spell it out
for them without people like me to hold their feet to the fire?
I don't. Though I think that even if
>the cladists are correct, there is nothing wrong with using "birds are
>descended from dinosaurs" in a non-scientific setting. IIRC at least one
>of the cladists on s.b.e. stated that he had no quarrel with the use of
>imprecise language in the popular forum.
Mighty big of him. Not. If any language deserves to be
called imprecise, it is "birds are dinosaurs" if ALL it means
is what I said above.
>>>Pretty much like saying 'humans are descended from apes' for a long
>>>time messed up the real evolutionary implications of humanoids being
>>>the sister group of the great apes, you mean?
By the way, if human beings only branched off from chimps five
million years ago, then it is MOST unlikely that humanoids are
the sister group of the great apes. Instead, the great apes
are a paraphyletic, hence "unnatural", "unreal", "meaningless"
etc. group, that, together with Homo, evolved about like this:
H Ch Go O Gi
\ / / / /
\ / / /
\ / / /
\ / / /
\ / /
\ / /
\ / /
\ /
\ /
\/
>>"apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
>>are far too sophisticated to make that mistake;
>Ah, but lots *more* aren't.
I'd like to see one example of a creationist who equated
"apes" with "the living great apes".
>> they deny that
>>men are descended from creatures that have the same grade
>>of intelligence, etc. as the great apes. And they
>>call these "alleged" ancestors "apes".
I do believe the movers and shakers, like Henry Morris, follow
this pattern and that the other creationists will fall in line
if push comes to shove.
>>[...]
>>>: What makes "humans are primates" acceptable to so many is that
>>>: it does not make the claim that humans are descended from
>>>: lower primates. Cladistics is a step backwards from getting
>>>: the public to accept evolution, IMO, by allowing creationists
>>>: to subtract off the evolutionary component from "birds are
>>>: dinosaurs".
>But creationists do that anyway.
Accept "birds are dinosaurs" without accepting "birds are
descended from dinosaurs"? That was my point--they are
comfortable with cladistic language but not with more
traditional language.
>>>No, it gives a more correct view of evolution than the simplistic and
>>>plain wrong 'humans are descended from apes'. You've indicated that
>>>your unwillingness to accept that, say, "humans are mammals" rather
^^^^
>>>than "humans are descended from mammals"
Without the highlighted "that", this would be a false statement;
I accept "humans are mammals" and agree that "humans are descended from
mammals" sounds strange without the inclusion of "other"
before "mammals".
With the highligted "that," I have no idea what
Mike Noreen was trying to say. I sure wish he would start
participating on this thread.
>>> is that it would make it hard
>>>to fight creationists. I assure you that they would choke just as hard
>>>on the underlying assumption of "humans are mammals"
>>Mammals have hair, give milk, etc. A creationist has no
>>trouble with that, since no other creature besides a mammal
>>has hair and gives milk. You could even just take one
>>trait or the other.
Mike was trying to browbeat me into admitting that "birds are
dinosaurs" has the same identical use of "are" as "humans
are mammals". As I have indicated a while back, the former
statement is either cladistic Newspeak or it depends on
some fairly recent definition of "dinosaur". Unlike with "mammal", the
the traditional definition of "dinosaur" EXCLUDED birds.
>> - since that
>>>assumption is that all mammals are descended from a common ancestor
>>>through evolution.
>>Only if you DEFINE Mammalia as a crown group, and give "crown
>>group" a strictly phylogenetic meaning.
>I'm sorry. I haven't been able to understand the "crown group" argument
>at all. Perhaps if you explain how your statement above relates to
>Mike's I might get a bit of a handle on it.
"mammals are descended from a common ancestor" requires a LOT
more evidence than "mammals have hair and give milk" does.
And even if one gets more sophisticated and defines mammals
according to dentary-squamosal articulation, thereby making
it realistic to try to classify fossil forms according
to whether they are mammals or non-mammals, that is just
ONE character and it hardly gives a handle on the claim
that all mammals are descended from a common ancestor.
On the other hand, "crown group" MEANS "the last common
ancestor of all recent mammals, together with all its descendants,"
Tom DiBenedetto and Mike Noreen have mounted a massive smokescreen
campaign to obscure this phylogenetic meaning, hence my being extra
precise above.
Don Cates
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>Thank you for getting into the substantive issue, Don.
You're welcome. It's my prefered mode.
>If you
>wish, I could even set up a separate thread in talk.origins to deal with your
>non-substantive remarks. [I don't do this for everybody, you
>know, but I'll do it for you.]
No thank you, I'm finished with that thread now.
>ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[snip (posting reasons)]
>[Mike Noreen:]
>>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>>>Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
>>>contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
>>>is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
>>>it, I can almost guarantee it.
>>I can't speak for Mike, but if I understand him correctly, I would not
>>object to this paraphrase. And I agree, the creationists would love it.
>>But is that relavent to the scientific merits of the statement?
>Not to them.
IMHO, not to anyone.
>However, I am highly skeptical of even the
>scientific merits of the statement.
Yes, I am aware of that (from s.b.e.). The point I was trying to make
was that, no matter what *other* arguments you may have against
cladistics, I do not think that the possibility that creationists may be
able to get some comfort by misinterpreting the cladist view is one that
has merit. (If this is not your reason making the point, what is?)
>>Perhaps I can offer an analogy for my understanding of Mike's statement.
>>I define all the descendents of one of my 10 times greatgrandfathers
>>(ignoring all collateral ancestors) as the Cates Clan. Given this
>>definition, does the statement 'The Cates Clan contains the ancestors of
>>Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all?
>It doesn't give me additional information, no. On the other hand,
>you would be hard pressed to find Mike Noreen or Tom DiBenedetto
>making a statemnt like "I define dinosaurs to be all the descendants
>of ____________". They might even be opposed to it on ideological
>grounds, as their resistance to the whole crown group concept
>indicates.
Perhaps if they had the complete geneology of all dinosaurs back to that
"___________"? (B-) Sigh, one of the problems of using analogies. Let me
refine it.
At a family reunion, a group discuses the fragmented evidence they have
and conclude that they most likely had a common ancestor 10 or 12
generations ago. Define the Cates Clan as all folks (living or dead) who
have the same kind of evidence that they share this ancestor.
Now use the same argument as before.
>>>Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Propliopithecus,...Sayonara to you all!
>>>All that effort going into figuring out whether you primates
>>>are ancestral to Homo--all meaningless. ;-) ;-) ;-)
>>Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
>>*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless
>But it *literally* contradicts the claim that our ancestors
>are not to be found among the primates. Any time a person
>says something literally false, I don't think he has real
>cause for complaint if others take him at his word.
Whoa! It contraticts the claim as you state it but where does *Mike*
claim this? He claims that stating they *are* found among the primates
is meaningless (I understand this to mean that it is trivially, by
definition true; not false). I think you should retract your statement
that what Mike said was "literally false".
[snip for posting]
>>>>: It did lots of good. Name me one person who has been convinced
>>>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs by the childish wordplay,
>>>>: "birds ARE dinosaurs". AFAIK everyone who has been convinced by
>>>>: it would have been just as surely convinced had you told them
>>>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...
>>But the question is will saying "birds are descended from dinosaurs, and
>>here's the evidence..." convince more people than saying 'birds are
>>dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...'.
>Depends on what the evidence is.
My assumption was; the same evidence in both cases.
>One could conceivably define
>"dinosaur" to mean "warm-blooded vertebrate without hair".
One could. But would one be taken seriously by the scientific community?
>Or one
>could take hairlessness and warm-bloodedness in both what
>are commonly called birds and what are commonly called dinosaurs
>to be evidence that birds are dinosaurs.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this hypothesis is meaningful. It is
concievable that one could say that "birds are descended from dinosaurs
because they are warm-blooded vertabrates without hair. Just like the
dinosaurs." I don't think the 'definition' that you gave would be taken
any more seriously than my statement by either palentologists or
cladists (or practically anyone else for that matter).
>On the other hand, "birds are descended from dinosaurs" requires
>a mountain of additional evidence as to bone structure, etc.
>to make it convincing.
I think you see from above that I think "birds are dinosaurs" requires
just as much evidence (if not more) to back it up.
>>... I believe the cladist viewpoint is that "birds are
>>dinosaurs" and leaving birds in a separate class is not only
>>unwarraneted, but wrong. (Whether they are correct in this or not I will
>>leave for the systematists to fight over)
>I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that
>the cladist viewpoint that "birds are dinosaurs and therefore
>dinosaurs should NOT be in a separate class from birds even
>though birds are in a separate class from dinosaurs" is
>not only unwarranted, but wrong? If so, I am in full
>agreement.
Screw-up on my part. See below.
[snip]
>>>"birds are
>>>descended from dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."
>>>What Noreen.meaningful statement do you cladists have to
>>>put in its place? "Birds are dinosaurs" can be handled
>>>by a shrug of the shoulder and "OK, so what?"
>>How about "Birds are dinosaurs, and here is the evidence..."? If
>>cladistic analysis of the evidence shows that "birds are dinosaurs" is
>>correct and "birds are a separate family descended from the dinosaurs"
>>is inaccurate
^^ (the screw-up. This misunderstanding of mine is carried forward to my
previous statement)
>Oh, but they agree that birds are in a clade [not family--they
>want to do away with ranks] separate from dinosaurs. They
>simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of a group,
>"dinosaurs minus birds", calling it "unreal" and asserting
>that of course, they only study "real" groups.
I did know this. Really. The brain just went into idle. I am not a
cladist (or a systematist of any kind) and will be prone to making this
kind of boner. There are many (very) facets of this subject of which I
truely do not know anything, so I will be restricting any further posts
to this thread to that part involving creationists.
In this case, just let me say that I understand why cladists, in their
professional concerns, might want to be adament about precision in the
use of nomonclature. If cladistics is valid, then the insistence on
correct (cladisticly) usage is valid. If not, not.
I thought that for cladistics it means that the the most recent common
anscestor of all birds was a member of the clad known as dinosaurs.
I wonder if many cladists do not now regret the use of the phrase "birds
are dinosaurs"? It gets their point across to those who know some
cladistics, but unfortunately it also makes a great sound bite for the
popular press where its precise meaning is not understood. So the phrase
spread (especially with an *ARE* in it) far faster and farther than its
understanding.
> I don't. Though I think that even if
>>the cladists are correct, there is nothing wrong with using "birds are
>>descended from dinosaurs" in a non-scientific setting. IIRC at least one
>>of the cladists on s.b.e. stated that he had no quarrel with the use of
>>imprecise language in the popular forum.
>Mighty big of him. Not. If any language deserves to be
>called imprecise, it is "birds are dinosaurs" if ALL it means
>is what I said above.
[snip what I can't comment on]
>>>"apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
>>>are far too sophisticated to make that mistake;
>>Ah, but lots *more* aren't.
>I'd like to see one example of a creationist who equated
>"apes" with "the living great apes".
Well, about two days ago there was a letter to the editor in the local
paper that I will paraphrase.
'What made the Pope agree with evolution now? Is evolution really a
science? If evolution says we came from the monkeys, how come there are
monkeys still swinging in the trees? Evolution is stupid.'
Scarey. And I greatly fear he is not alone.
[snip]
>>>>: Cladistics is a step backwards from getting
>>>>: the public to accept evolution, IMO, by allowing creationists
>>>>: to subtract off the evolutionary component from "birds are
>>>>: dinosaurs".
>>But creationists do that anyway.
>Accept "birds are dinosaurs" without accepting "birds are
>descended from dinosaurs"?
No; "subtract off the evolutionary component".
>That was my point--they are
>comfortable with cladistic language but not with more
>traditional language.
And my point is -- so what? Why should scientists restrict themselves
out of fear of creationists.
And I don't see why creationists would be comfortable with "birds are
dinosaurs" after seeing 'Jurassic Park' and then the sparrow sitting on
their window. Are they going to try and claim that these are just the
same 'kind'?
[snip the rest]
Thanks for the attempt to fill me in on 'crown groups'. I'm afraid I
still don't see the argument.
Mike Noreen
Second repost - apparently the original posts 'disappeared'.
Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Ah, I see I'm starting to irritate Nyikos again. One can tell, because
then the newsgroups-line tends to expand, and he starts accusing
everyone of being creationists. I wonder if I'm re-included into the
'Incorrigibles' in this post, or if I (oh happy day!) has even made it
into the illustrious Order of Black Hydras? Has he enlisted the help
of the dynamic duo, TedEd, yet?
Follow-ups set to talks.origins, as this kind of rants have no place
in the sci.* groups. The sole purpose of Nyikos post is to insult me,
but I'm getting kind of used to it. Well, on with the show...
: I am ending a vacation of several months from talk.origins to resume
: a theme I was already talking about back then: the theme of how
: creationists and cladists make bedfellows in a way--strange bedfellows,
: but bedfellows just the same as far as the language of cladism is
: concerned.
Peter, the cladistic system of classification is based on descent with
modification. Yours is based on 'significant characters'. Which system
requires evolution to work?
But facts and logic were never your forté, were they.
: I disagree with both creationism and cladism, so it's kind of nice
: to be able to lump these two seemingly disparate philosophies together.
It is good that you specify that you disagree with creationism, as it
has often been very hard to tell, and you as late as yesterday was
confused with one by another poster. Your statement that taxons of
equal rank were of equal size and disparity, and that smaller/less
diverse taxons 'had not fulfilled their evolutionary potential'
certainly seemed to necessitate divine intervention in evolution.
Perhaps you should include the line 'I am not a creationist' in your
signature to avoid future confusion?
: It will be interesting to see whether the creationists will
: be able to exploit the hegemony that cladistics seems to be
: establishing within biology: it is my contention that cladistic
: language, at least the way a purist like Mike Noreen uses it,
: makes it almost impossible to intelligibly argue for the
: reality of macroevolution.
Because I state the obvious: there are no creationist-sense
intermediates. Not because there's a shortage of fossils, not because
organisms are the results of special creation - but because
creationist-sense intermediates are between TAXONS, like, say,
Reptilia and Aves(birds), and taxons are nothing but a name and a
rank, usually but not always referring to a clade (natural group of
related species).
Example: a human is a primate, is a mammal, is a vertebrate, is a
chordate. This means that we have share a common ancestor, with all
chordates, a common ancestor with all vertebrates, a common ancestor
with all mammals, a common ancestor with all primates - and we are
humans.
There was no line when we ceased to be, in order, chordates,
vertebrates, mammals, primates or humans. There never was a time when
we were intermediate between mammals and primates - we still are BOTH.
The same is true of, say, birds. Birds are birds, but also
coleurosaurians, dinosaurians, archosaurians, vertebrates and
chordates. They never stopped to be either of these, and still are all
of it. They are birds, and they are dinosaurs, just like we are humans
and mammals. Birds never stopped being dinosaurs, we never stopped
being mammals.
This doesn't mean that evolution hasn't occurred - it has. It just
means that there is an unbroken line from each living organism
backwards in time to the first primordial cell.
How Nyikos can believe that a system which is BUILT on descent with
modification doesn't contradict creation is totally and utterly beyond
me.
Well, to be honest it is NOT beyond me. This view makes the simplistic
argument that 'Archaeopteryx is half-bird, half-reptile' impossible,
and so makes life difficult for Nyikos.
: Mike Noreen is as dedicated a cladist as they come, although he does
: not seem to be very clear on the various doctrines of cladism. For
: one thing, he's painted himself into a corner on the thread,
: "Mammalia as a crown group" in sci.bio.systematics and sci.bio.paleontology
: thru not observing the most elementary distinctions. I attribute this
One should note that Nyikos has claimed that Mammalia is 'officially'
defined as a 'crown group', not by characters. After asking about
among my fellow systematists, I've found out that a 'crown group' is a
group defined as comprising of the recent species and their immediate
ancestor. This is not a cladistic term, and is basically disused in
systematics. I suggested a character-based definition, defining
mammals as animals which lactated, which would make it possible to
define the taxon Mammalia. This shocked Nyikos: how DARE I suggest
changing the 'official' definition of Mammalia?
Nyikos is a proponent of paraphyly. Paraphyly is arbitrary, and as in
all arbitrary systems, where proof cannot be used to support or
disproof the individuals personal opinion, disputes can only be
settled by appeal to authority. Nyikos horror should be viewed in that
light.
Myself I'm a cladist, as Nyikos says. That means that I analyze
relationship from the shared derived characters of the included
organisms; that I seek the least contradictive explanation to the
distribution of those traits when viewed in an evolutionary
perspective, and that classification should mirror the evolutionary
relationship between the organisms. Cladism isn't arbitrary since it
groups on an objective criterion -relationship- and I therefore do not
appeal to authority. My suggestion should be viewed in that light.
: to his unswerving loyalty to Tom DiBenedetto, another cladist who
: painted himself into the same corner a while back. Tom got out
Replace 'unswerving loyalty to' with 'deep respect for the knowledge
of' and you've got it. Tom has forgotten more about cladism than Peter
pretends to know - and that's not little.
: while the getting was not so bad; Mike has tied himself into knots
: trying to cover for him, and the knot-tying has continued unabated
: to this day.
Says the man who cannot post two posts without contradicting himself.
For instance, when we last discussed this issue, I said that birds
WERE dinosaurs, you replied:
> Saying "birds are dinosaurs" only confused the issues in the
> minds of the public IMO, by obscuring the evolutionary
> component of the message.
>
> What got SOME members of the public to accept "birds are dinosaurs"
> [how big a percentage, I wonder? 1%? 10%? .01%?] was not your
> cladistic Newspeak which equates it to "birds are descended from
> creatures long considered dinosaurs", but a general
(Notice that even Peter realizes that the cladistic concept is based
on descent with modification)
> "dinosaur renaissance" involving a whole host of factors including
> the information that dinosaurs are a lot more "birdlike" than
> had been theretofore suspected.
I also said:
> >(compare to how long it's been accepted that humans are primates),
and Nyikos responded.
> Apples and oranges. Stop being cowardly and say how long
> it has been accepted that humans are apes. They are descended
> from apes, after all.
To which I replied that humans were not at all descended from apes,
but that apes and humans were both descended from a common ancetor.
That means that humans aren't apes, apes arent humans, but we're both
presumably hominids since we're all part of the family Hominidae, and
we're all certainly primates and mammals.
Nyikos, in another post, continued his crusade against the cladistic
notion that a birds are dinosaurs because they share ancestor with all
other dinosaurs, but all other dinosaurs are not birds because they
diverged before the ancestor of birds (that is, 'dinosaur' is a more
inclusive term than 'bird'):
: I allow the groups to
: overlap comfortably until birds have accumulated so many
: apomorphies over where they started that I feel comfortable
: in saying, "Here, we are no longer dealing with coelurosaurs."
Clearly he defines the animal not by its descent, but by its
characters. A creationist would be thrilled, for what is this but
'kinds'?
Then, suddenly, he replies this to another poster:
: Not to mention
: the fact that all birds are coelurosaurians anyway. [If there
: are any diehards who doubt that birds are descended from
: coelurosaurs, they'll probably doubt that they are descended
: from dinosaurs, period.]
A full 180, totally invalidating his main point for many posts -
including this one, the one I'm responding to here. Peter Nyikos never
ceases to amaze me - and I don't mean that in a good way.
: >: >: >: >Well, actually it's slightly less innocent than that. As you yourself
: >: >: >: >has stated, allowing grouping on primitive characters allows the
: >: >: >: >grouping of any species from the same clade.
: >: >:
: >: >: [Nyikos:]
: >: >: >: I have never stated anything of the sort. If I had, I would
: >: >: >: have been endorsing polyphyletic taxa, which I have never endorsed.
(my response deleted, probably for 'clarity')
: "grouping any species from the same clade" is tantamount to allowing
: all polyphyletic groupings. Mike denies this at the end of this
: post, but I set him straight.
Here Nyikos conveniently 'forgets' the qualifier 'grouping on
primitive characters'. Per definition grouping on primitive characters
gives paraphyletic groups, never polyphyletic, which are defined as
having been created by grouping on convergent or parallell characters
- and in later posts Nyikos seemed to acknowledge this, although he
also seemed to want to ignore he'd ever said the above either ("Of
course that approach <grouping on primitive characters> does not give
polyphyletic groups").
Apparently he has changed his mind AGAIN, since he's repeated his
falsehood and claims to have 'set me straight'.
: [Noreen:]
: > : >As I understand it you're saying that it is impossible for a cladist
: > : >to say that, say, primates contain the direct ancestors of humans, or
: > : >that the mammals contain the direct ancestors of primates - which is
: > : >strictly speaking true, since humans ARE primates, which in turn ARE
: > : >mammals.
:
: This is the sort of statement, I submit, which makes cladists
: and creationists strange bedfellows. But as I recounted next,
: Noreen gave me an even better one:
Notice that Nyikos can't even say that humans are mammals, because if
he does, then the logical conclusion is that birds are dinosaurs. In
Nyikosian terms, humans are DESCENDED from mammals, but they ARE not
mammals. I responded that there is no line our ancestors crossed to
STOP being mammals, and that we still are. Similarly there was no line
the ancestors of the birds crossed to stop being dinosaurs - and
present birds still are.
: [Nyikos:]
: > : Right, and you even let me paraphrase some other things you
: > : said along these lines as saying, "There are no missing links,
: > : because there are no links to miss." I think the creationists
: > : over in talk.origins would love to represent you as saying that,
:
: > They'd choke on that laughter for sure.
:
: Brave words, and the only thing that can make them come true,
: IMO, is for the "howler monkeys" to keep creationists so busy fending
: off personal accusations that they cannot concentrate on
: arguing with you. You have demonstated less reasoning ability
: than I have seen from many (though perhaps not most) creationists,
: and a greater propensity to tie yourself in knots than most
: people I've encountered on Usenet so far.
Indeed. As I've said, grouping on descent would be far more dependent
on evolution than grouping on character as you do. Realizing that
there are no such things as intermediates between taxons, just species
which do not fit the man-made definitions of groups, definitions we've
given those groups because we see them as snapshots in time rather
than the evolutionary units they are. This is why the whole issue of
intermediates is so confused - there has never been an intermediate
between reptiles and birds, no half-reptile, half-bird - birds are
still reptiles, but modified, evolved, reptiles.
Every last species from the Penguin to the primordial cell were 100%
viable species in their own right - not some kind of 'mosaic' or
'intermediate' like creationists like to think and many evolutionists
unwittingly play into the hands of the creationists by saying.
: > If they know what's good for them they'll fear clades much more than
: > taxons.
:
: Taxons, in and of themselves, are like the sound of one hand
: clapping. The other hand is provided by the forthright claim
: that a taxon IS paraphyletic--meaning, in part, that it gave
: rise to descendants
: that are not included in the taxon itself because their
: characters deviate too much from those in the taxon.
Yes, so you like to claim. You are part right - taxons can be
paraphyletic, and when they are they are not referring to any pattern
of evolution or to evolutionary units. They are then referring to
groups lumped together on the LACK of a trait which evolved in ANOTHER
group - like reptiles are lumped because they lack the derived type of
scale called feathers which developed in the group birds.
But taxons do not evolve. Taxons are a name and a rank. That which
evolves are clades, and normally taxons refer to clades, like my name
refers to me - but just like my name isn't me, the taxon isn't the
clade. My name doesn't grow old or get children - I do. The taxon
doesn't evolve and speciate - the clade does. In such cases that the
taxon doesn't refer to a clade, as with paraphyletic taxons, the taxon
is useless and says nothing about evolution - and in fact doesn't
depend on evolution for its existance.
I also note that you've not yet been able to define 'too much' in the
sentence "that are not included in the taxon itself because their
characters deviate too much from those in the taxon."
: A clear, unmistakable challenge to creationists that is
: not provided by clades, in and of themselves.
Yeah, artificial groups created by humans are an "unmistakable
challenge to creationists". Well, it may be more on their intellectual
level, but it is a no-win situation since paraphyly doesn't depend on
evolution, descent with modification, as clades do. Paraphyly is just
an artefact of systematics, of how the taxons (names and ranks) are
assigned.
: > A taxon doesn't imply evolution - that's why you can go on
: > grouping on things other than relationship.
:
: I don't take that route. I wait till the phylogeny is firmly
: in hand and THEN I group on phylogeny in a way that ALSO
: brings out certain aspects of the phylogeny better than
: your classifications do.
You wait till the phylogeny (say Lampropeltis) is in hand, then you
ignore it and arbitrarily decide that one species is 'different
enough' (Cemophora) to be removed from its relations. That must surely
have the creationists shaking in their boots.
: > A clade IS based on evolution,
:
: Creationists could successfully dispute that claim by getting into
: the cladograms y'all constructed. Although
How the hell do you reckon that?
: there are what LOOK like phylogenetic trees there, in reality
: all the known species, both extinct and extant, are at the
: tips of the twigs. All the "ancestral forms" are treated
: almost as legal fictions--you've abandoned all hope of ever
: putting anything there by your implacable opposition to
: paraphyletic groups.
Aha. You do realize that the species are at the top of the twigs
because we cannot say with certainty taht any one fossil is directly
ancestral to any other species? That we CANNOT say which internode it
belongs at, because we cannot say that it belongs at an internode AT
ALL?
You DO also realize that each internode in the cladogram represents an
ancestor? That the very assumption that makes the cladogram possible
is that there has been descent with modification?
: > : Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
: > : >primates is a meaningless statement -
:
: > : Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
: > : contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
: > : is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
: > : it, I can almost guarantee it.
:
: > I can see that, because it is not an equivalent statement:
:
: A minor detail. I just stuck "Homo" in there as an EXAMPLE
: of a vast number of statements which ALL seem to be implied
: by your statement.
In the process totally altering the meaning of the statement. Homo
isn't the ancestor of other primates, but the ancestor of Homo was a
primate (as is Homo herself - we never stopped to be primates, or
mammals, or vertebrates or...).
: > It is a box-in-a-box system, where smaller groups are inside larger -
: > not larger inside smaller. Primates DOES contain the ancestors of the
: > various species of Homo - and the various species of Homo.
:
: But not an apelike common ancestor of Homo, eh?
It may have been apelike, and whatever it looked like it was a Primate
by virtue of descent. (I assume that you here mean the common ancestor
of humans and the great apes, since I sincerely hope that you don't
still say that the apes were ancestral to humans.)
: Homo is a group of primates, and you've said that "the primates
: contain the ancestor of a group of primates" is a meaningless
: statement.
Hallo, Peter? Anybody home?
Humans are primates. The ancestor of us humans was also a primate.
Every last one descendant of some ancestor living during the
Cretaceous or even earlier are primates. And we're still humans.
The statement "the primates contain the ancestor of a group of
primates" is meaningless, but not logically flawed like your statement
that your system allowed you to say that 'two species are more closely
related' without comparing them to a third species. No, the statement
is only meaningless in the sense that it is void of information, and
void of information only because you've not defined WHICH group
primates contain the ancestor to. Replacing 'a group of primates' with
an actual group of primates immediately makes the sentence meaningful:
The primates contain the ancestor of Humans. The primates contain the
ancestor of Marmosets. The primates contain the common ancestor of
humans and great apes. The fact that Primates contains the ancestor of
these groups, also mean that they ARE primates.
: > Homo never ceased being a primate when it arose;
:
: But it ceased being an apelike common ancestor; whose existence,
: within Primates, is a "meaningless statement" according to your
: wording above. Care to retract it now, before the creationists
: realize what a good thing they have going for them?
Peter, you're a semantic wizard. Whenever pressed you go for the
semantics, don't you. I'm not as versed at twisting words as you are
Yes it ceased being a (possibly apelike) common ancestor - it became
humans AND apes. The branch split. Evolution occurred. There is no
meaningless statement to retract, other than your misrepresentations
of my views, which I by now know better than to expect you to retract.
And now, the words I'm sure more people than I have learned to dread:
: TO BE CONTINUED
Threat or promise? You be the judge.
: Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Proud to have been dubbed 'Incorrigible', 'idiot',
and 'IQ below 50' by that most "complex" of
Black Knights - Peter Nyikos!
Peter Nyikos
ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[Mike Noreen:]
>>>>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>>>>Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
>>>>contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
>>>>is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
>>>>it, I can almost guarantee it.
>>>I can't speak for Mike, but if I understand him correctly, I would not
>>>object to this paraphrase. And I agree, the creationists would love it.
>>>But is that relavent to the scientific merits of the statement?
>>Not to them.
"them" referred to "scientific merits".
>>However, I am highly skeptical of even the
>>scientific merits of the statement.
>Yes, I am aware of that (from s.b.e.). The point I was trying to make
>was that, no matter what *other* arguments you may have against
>cladistics, I do not think that the possibility that creationists may be
>able to get some comfort by misinterpreting the cladist view is one that
>has merit. (If this is not your reason making the point, what is?)
Well, the point is that, other things being equal, one would
like to say things in a way that doesn't give the creationists
ammunition. And the paraphrase does not make any scientific
statement that could not be said in a much better way, IMO.
[preliminary analogy by Don deleted to get to another one:]
>At a family reunion, a group discuses the fragmented evidence they have
>and conclude that they most likely had a common ancestor 10 or 12
>generations ago. Define the Cates Clan as all folks (living or dead) who
>have the same kind of evidence that they share this ancestor.
>Now use the same argument as before.
Meaning this [deleted above]?
Given this definition, does the statement 'The Cates
Clan contains the ancestors of
Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all?
No additional information, no. On the other hand, there is
no point in calling it a meaningless statement. If you did
NOT have the information about the Cates Clan that you
gave just now, it would be a meaningful statement, one
that might make someone look more deeply into what that Cates
Clan was all about.
>>>>Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Propliopithecus,...Sayonara to you all!
>>>>All that effort going into figuring out whether you primates
>>>>are ancestral to Homo--all meaningless. ;-) ;-) ;-)
>>>Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
>>>*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless
>>But it *literally* contradicts the claim that our ancestors
>>are not to be found among the primates. Any time a person
>>says something literally false, I don't think he has real
>>cause for complaint if others take him at his word.
>Whoa! It contraticts the claim as you state it but where does *Mike*
>claim this? He claims that stating they *are* found among the primates
>is meaningless
That is a literally false statement, and all I've done is to
say something that any careless reader, not just a creationist,
could easily conclude from it.
> (I understand this to mean that it is trivially, by
>definition true; not false).
Whoa! Since when does a statement that is trivially, by definition
true, get classed as "meaningless"?!
>[snip for posting]
>>>>>: It did lots of good. Name me one person who has been convinced
>>>>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs by the childish wordplay,
>>>>>: "birds ARE dinosaurs". AFAIK everyone who has been convinced by
>>>>>: it would have been just as surely convinced had you told them
>>>>>: that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...
>>>But the question is will saying "birds are descended from dinosaurs, and
>>>here's the evidence..." convince more people than saying 'birds are
>>>dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...'.
>>Depends on what the evidence is.
>My assumption was; the same evidence in both cases.
Not a very good assumption IMO. Here is what I subsequently
said to Mike in that same post:
======================== begin repost
What got SOME members of the public to accept "birds are dinosaurs"
[how big a percentage, I wonder? 1%? 10%? .01%?] was not your
cladistic Newspeak which equates it to "birds are descended from
creatures long considered dinosaurs", but a general
"dinosaur renaissance" involving a whole host of factors including
the information that dinosaurs are a lot more "birdlike" than
had been theretofore suspected.
>(compare to how long it's been accepted that humans are primates),
Apples and oranges. Stop being cowardly and say how long
it has been accepted that humans are apes. They are descended
from apes, after all.
Then tell me how long it's been accepted that humans are
prosimians, that humans are pantotheres, that humans are therapsids,
that humans are batrachosaurs, that humans are osteichtyans, that
humans are choanichthyans, that humans are agnathans, etc.
What makes "humans are primates" acceptable to so many is that
it does not make the claim that humans are descended from
lower primates. Cladistics is a step backwards from getting
the public to accept evolution, IMO, by allowing creationists
to subtract off the evolutionary component from "birds are
dinosaurs".
======================= end repost
>>Or one
>>could take hairlessness and warm-bloodedness in both what
>>are commonly called birds and what are commonly called dinosaurs
>>to be evidence that birds are dinosaurs.
>I'm sorry, but I don't think this hypothesis is meaningful. It is
>concievable that one could say that "birds are descended from dinosaurs
>because they are warm-blooded vertabrates without hair. Just like the
>dinosaurs."
THAT would certainly not be accepted by the scientific
community! You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "proof".
As I continued:
>>On the other hand, "birds are descended from dinosaurs" requires
>>a mountain of additional evidence as to bone structure, etc.
>>to make it convincing.
>I think you see from above that I think "birds are dinosaurs" requires
>just as much evidence (if not more) to back it up.
Quite the contrary. Name enough features Archaeopteryx and
the Dromaeosaurs had in common, and it soon becomes as
natural as saying, "bats are mammals", as long as the
person on the other end agrees that Archeopteryx was a bird
and Dienonychus and Velociraptor were dinosaurs.
But note, none of these critters was in a direct line of descent
from the others, so there need not be any mention of evolution
in the picture.
[...]
[Nyikos on cladists:]
>>Oh, but they agree that birds are in a clade [not family--they
>>want to do away with ranks] separate from dinosaurs. They
>>simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of a group,
>>"dinosaurs minus birds", calling it "unreal" and asserting
>>that of course, they only study "real" groups.
Like the great apes, until it becomes evident that their last common
ancestor also was an ancestor of human beings, when they do
a sudden about-face and start calling the group "unreal".
Science will be full of such flip-flops if cladists have
their way with scientific language.
>I did know this. Really. The brain just went into idle. I am not a
>cladist (or a systematist of any kind) and will be prone to making this
>kind of boner. There are many (very) facets of this subject of which I
>truely do not know anything, so I will be restricting any further posts
>to this thread to that part involving creationists.
>In this case, just let me say that I understand why cladists, in their
>professional concerns, might want to be adament about precision in the
>use of nomonclature. If cladistics is valid, then the insistence on
>correct (cladisticly) usage is valid. If not, not.
Validity is something that can meaningfully be applied to cladistic
techniques such as constructing phylogenetic trees based on
the principle of parsimony. I don't see how anyone can apply
the word "validity" to such statements as "the great apes are a
real group, unless it turns out that their last common ancestor
was also an ancestor of man, in which case they are an unreal group".
One can impose such word usage on the scientific community by sheer fiat,
but to call such insistence "valid" is wrong IMO.
[...]
>I wonder if many cladists do not now regret the use of the phrase "birds
>are dinosaurs"? It gets their point across to those who know some
>cladistics, but unfortunately it also makes a great sound bite for the
>popular press where its precise meaning is not understood. So the phrase
>spread (especially with an *ARE* in it) far faster and farther than its
>understanding.
Agreed.
[...]
At this point I thought I'd insert an excerpt from the post
in which Mike Noreen replied to the statement I reposted above;
it clears up an apparent misunderstanding about what I said
in reply:
============================ begin excerpt from Noreen post
: >(compare to how long it's been accepted that humans are primates),
:
: Apples and oranges. Stop being cowardly and say how long
: it has been accepted that humans are apes. They are descended
: from apes, after all.
Humans are descended from apes? I asked you in email if you really
thought that humans were descended from Pan troglodytes or other great
ape, and your response was 'Don't be rediculous'.
So - are humans descended from apes? Or are both apes and humans
descended from a common ancestor?
========================================== end of excerpt
And here was my reply to the last two questions:
>>>>"apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
>>>>are far too sophisticated to make that mistake;
>>>Ah, but lots *more* aren't.
>>I'd like to see one example of a creationist who equated
>>"apes" with "the living great apes".
The following statement does not speak to this issue, because
"the living great apes" means {Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, Siamang,
Gibbon}, not "monkeys":
>Well, about two days ago there was a letter to the editor in the local
>paper that I will paraphrase.
>'What made the Pope agree with evolution now? Is evolution really a
>science? If evolution says we came from the monkeys, how come there are
>monkeys still swinging in the trees? Evolution is stupid.'
>Scarey. And I greatly fear he is not alone.
Indeed, the cladists have a lot in common with him. Mike Noreen
would probably label "we came from monkeys" as meaningless on the grounds that
the category "monkeys" is "unreal". He's been at me before
about how we cannot give any meaning to Archie being a transitional
species because there is nothing for it to be transitional
between--"dinosaurs minus birds" being an unreal taxon in his POV.
Of course, it is possible that Mike might re-define "monkeys" to
name a subclade of primates that includes Homo and the great
apes, in which case he would STILL label "we came from monkeys"
as meaningless, but on quite different grounds!
[deletia to get to one parting shot about creationists:]
>>That was my point--they are
>>comfortable with cladistic language but not with more
>>traditional language.
>And my point is -- so what? Why should scientists restrict themselves
>out of fear of creationists.
>And I don't see why creationists would be comfortable with "birds are
>dinosaurs" after seeing 'Jurassic Park' and then the sparrow sitting on
>their window. Are they going to try and claim that these are just the
>same 'kind'?
Not likely; on the other hand, they are comfortable with "bunnies are
mammals" even after watching movies about King Kong and other
scary mammals.
Don Cates
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>>ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>>>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>[Mike Noreen:]
>>>>>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
[snip accurate paraphrase liked by creationists. (DC)Yes - so what per
scientific merits. (PN)agree doesn't address scientific merits]
>>>However, I am highly skeptical of even the
>>>scientific merits of the statement.
>>Yes, I am aware of that (from s.b.e.). The point I was trying to make
>>was that, no matter what *other* arguments you may have against
>>cladistics, I do not think that the possibility that creationists may be
>>able to get some comfort by misinterpreting the cladist view is one that
>>has merit. (If this is not your reason making the point, what is?)
>Well, the point is that, other things being equal, one would
>like to say things in a way that doesn't give the creationists
>ammunition. And the paraphrase does not make any scientific
>statement that could not be said in a much better way, IMO.
IMO I would not like to see scientists tailoring their communications so
as to avoid misinterpretation and misquotation by a bunch of loonies
(even {or especially} sophisticated ones). Most of their output is aimed
at other scientists and the circumlocutions required for this avoidance
would only hinder good communication.
I agree with your statement concerning your paraphrase. This is true of
most statements ("they could be said in a much better way") (B-)
But remember, it is *your* paraphrase and is not something which is
likely to appear in the scientific literature. It would most likely only
show up in forums such as this one.
>[preliminary analogy by Don deleted to get to another one:]
>>At a family reunion, a group discuses the fragmented evidence they have
>>and conclude that they most likely had a common ancestor 10 or 12
>>generations ago. Define the Cates Clan as all folks (living or dead) who
>>have the same kind of evidence that they share this ancestor.
>>Now use the same argument as before.
>Meaning this [deleted above]?
Yep.
> Given this definition, does the statement 'The Cates
> Clan contains the ancestors of
> Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all?
>No additional information, no. On the other hand, there is
>no point in calling it a meaningless statement.
But it is (IMO) supportable.
> If you did
>NOT have the information about the Cates Clan that you
>gave just now, it would be a meaningful statement, one
>that might make someone look more deeply into what that Cates
>Clan was all about.
If I didn't have the information I couldn't define the Cates Clan
properly. Certainly, changing my premises will change my conclusions. So
what?
>>>>>Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Propliopithecus,...Sayonara to you all!
>>>>>All that effort going into figuring out whether you primates
>>>>>are ancestral to Homo--all meaningless. ;-) ;-) ;-)
>>>>Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
>>>>*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless
>>>But it *literally* contradicts the claim that our ancestors
>>>are not to be found among the primates. Any time a person
>>>says something literally false, I don't think he has real
>>>cause for complaint if others take him at his word.
>>Whoa! It contraticts the claim as you state it but where does *Mike*
>>claim this? He claims that stating they *are* found among the primates
>>is meaningless
>That is a literally false statement, and all I've done is to
>say something that any careless reader, not just a creationist,
>could easily conclude from it.
My statement is false? Or Mike's is?
[Noreen:]
>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
I believe that my statement accurately portrays what Mike said.
Mike's statement is false by your stated criteria only if you translate
"meaningless" as 'false'. And I disagree with that translation. As you
say, "a careless reading" will give you the statement that *is*
literally false.
>> (I understand this to mean that it is trivially, by
>>definition true; not false).
>Whoa! Since when does a statement that is trivially, by definition
>true, get classed as "meaningless"?!
Hmm.. meaning = signification, import, force
"a statement that is trivially, by definition true" has no
signification, no import, no force.
I can go with that.
[snip for posting]
[DC]
>>>>But the question is will saying "birds are descended from dinosaurs, and
>>>>here's the evidence..." convince more people than saying 'birds are
>>>>dinosaurs, and here's the evidence...'.
>>>Depends on what the evidence is.
>>My assumption was; the same evidence in both cases.
>Not a very good assumption IMO. Here is what I subsequently
>said to Mike in that same post:
[snip repost. I have no idea how it addressed my assumption as not being
good]
[restoring Nyikos statement snipped (without note) by Nyikos]
[PN]
Depends on what the evidence is. One could conceivably define
"dinosaur" to mean "warm-blooded vertebrate without hair".
[restoring unnoted snip of my statement]
[DC]
One could. But would one be taken seriously by the scientific community?
>>>Or one
>>>could take hairlessness and warm-bloodedness in both what
>>>are commonly called birds and what are commonly called dinosaurs
>>>to be evidence that birds are dinosaurs.
>>I'm sorry, but I don't think this hypothesis is meaningful. It is
>>concievable that one could say that "birds are descended from dinosaurs
>>because they are warm-blooded vertabrates without hair. Just like the
>>dinosaurs."
Please note that my statement in quotes is a paraphrase of your
(deleted/restored) statement in quotes above.
[restoration of unnoted snip of my statement]
[DC]
I don't think the 'definition' that you gave would be taken any more
seriously than my statement by either palentologists or cladists (or
practically anyone else for that matter).
>THAT would certainly not be accepted by the scientific
>community! You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "proof".
As the restored part that you snipped shows, I am quite aware of that.
Since we are discussing science, not math, there is no proof, all is
evidence. Where do I mention "proof"?
[snip a bunch of cladistics related stuff]
>Validity is something that can meaningfully be applied to cladistic
>techniques such as constructing phylogenetic trees based on
>the principle of parsimony. I don't see how anyone can apply
>the word "validity" to such statements as "the great apes are a
>real group, unless it turns out that their last common ancestor
>was also an ancestor of man, in which case they are an unreal group".
>One can impose such word usage on the scientific community by sheer fiat,
>but to call such insistence "valid" is wrong IMO.
From this am I to take it that you believe that the scientific idea of
provisional acceptance based on evidence subject to revision on the
receipt of new evidence is not "valid"?
[snip point of agreement]
[snip exerpt of post from other thread]
>>>>>"apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
>>>>>are far too sophisticated to make that mistake;
>>>>Ah, but lots *more* aren't.
>>>I'd like to see one example of a creationist who equated
>>>"apes" with "the living great apes".
>The following statement does not speak to this issue, because
>"the living great apes" means {Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, Siamang,
>Gibbon}, not "monkeys":
IMO this is an extreme nit-pick. From the evidence below, the guy
probably doesn't even know the difference between monkeys and apes. Do
you really not think that if it was pointed out to him that evolution
says we are descended from apes that he would just substitute ape for
monkey in his question?
>>Well, about two days ago there was a letter to the editor in the local
>>paper that I will paraphrase.
>>'What made the Pope agree with evolution now? Is evolution really a
>>science? If evolution says we came from the monkeys, how come there are
>>monkeys still swinging in the trees? Evolution is stupid.'
>>Scarey. And I greatly fear he is not alone.
[snip comparison of above idiot with cladists]
>[deletia to get to one parting shot about creationists:]
>>>That was my point--they are
>>>comfortable with cladistic language but not with more
>>>traditional language.
>>And my point is -- so what? Why should scientists restrict themselves
>>out of fear of creationists.
>>And I don't see why creationists would be comfortable with "birds are
>>dinosaurs" after seeing 'Jurassic Park' and then the sparrow sitting on
>>their window. Are they going to try and claim that these are just the
>>same 'kind'?
>Not likely; on the other hand, they are comfortable with "bunnies are
>mammals" even after watching movies about King Kong and other
>scary mammals.
If, historically, bunnies were in a separate group and evolutionists
stated that mammals and bunnies had a common ancestor then the
creationists would just deny it. If cladists later showed that "bunnies
are mammals" then the creationists would not be comfortable with it
immediately. True, later, having divorced the evolutionary implications
from their minds, they would become comfortable with it. This may also
happen with "birds are dinosaurs" as well. At that time they will at
least be correct about two things.
I am interpreting your selective, unnoted, deletia above, which gave a
false impression of my statements, as dishonest. I will not be
participating in this thread any futher.
Peter Nyikos
My suspicions about Mike Noreen continue to grow with each post.
He really disgraces himself with the one to which I am replying.
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>Second repost - apparently the original posts 'disappeared'.
>Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
>Ah, I see I'm starting to irritate Nyikos again. One can tell, because
>then the newsgroups-line tends to expand, and he starts accusing
>everyone of being creationists.
This is a falsehood for which I demand an apology and retraction:
I have not accused anyone of being a creationist this past month,
except for Henry Morris, who is proud of the status. Nor have
I ever accused anyone of being a creationist who would not mind
being labeled one.
I think your last statement is a dirty debating trick known
as the Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy: accusing someone of doing
something that the accuser himself comes awfully close to doing
himself, if he doesn't habitually do it, and which he plans
on coming close to doing later against the one he is accusing.
In so doing, one creates a huge smokescreen which makes it very hard for
people to see who is really inclined to the reprehensible behavior.
I wonder if I'm re-included into the
>'Incorrigibles' in this post, or if I (oh happy day!) has even made it
>into the illustrious Order of Black Hydras? Has he enlisted the help
>of the dynamic duo, TedEd, yet?
And charter Bandar-log member Don Cates claimed not to have seen
any of your posts in talk.origins!
I on the other hand, know that you are a Bandar-log-wannabe, which
indicates a fair amount of familiarity with t.o. since I don't recall
ever mentioning that little group to you.
Don set your membership application back quite a bit. Now you
are going to have to work hard to show you fulfill one of the
criteria: demonstrated strong double standards
vis-a-vis other Bandar-Log members or their allies on the
one hand and those who attack them on the other. I thought you
were at least a Bandar-Log ally and hence a shoo-in since you
do have strong double standards in dealing with yourself on the
one hand and me on the other.
>Follow-ups set to talks.origins, as this kind of rants have no place
>in the sci.* groups.
Since you didn't have the decency to trim the Newsgroups line in
your own post, I am going to crosspost the substantive stuff
to sci.bio.systematics. And I've added alt.catastrophism
since you brought Ted Holden into the picture.
[By the way, who is Ed? Don't you mean Ev?]
>The sole purpose of Nyikos post is to insult me,
Another demonstrable falsehood. I really doubt that you are a biologist now.
No professionalism, none whatsoever.
>: I am ending a vacation of several months from talk.origins to resume
>: a theme I was already talking about back then: the theme of how
>: creationists and cladists make bedfellows in a way--strange bedfellows,
>: but bedfellows just the same as far as the language of cladism is
>: concerned.
>Peter, the cladistic system of classification is based on descent with
>modification. Yours is based on 'significant characters'. Which system
>requires evolution to work?
Another demonstrable falsehood, and a dirty attempt to lump me
in with the pheneticists.
>But facts and logic were never your forté, were they.
On the contrary, it is you whose logic belongs on the trash heap.
>: I disagree with both creationism and cladism, so it's kind of nice
>: to be able to lump these two seemingly disparate philosophies together.
Now comes the passage that led me to suspect Mike was indulging
in a Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy:
>It is good that you specify that you disagree with creationism, as it
>has often been very hard to tell,
I am pretty sure you are being deliberately insincere here.
> and you as late as yesterday was confused with one by another poster.
Wrong: I was peremptorily, in defiance of all the facts, accused of
being a creationist by another strong candidate for Bandar-log
status. This kind of character assassination is very common in
talk.origins, and the fact that you would stoop to it only
makes me suspect even more that you are just a Usenet yahoo
pretending to be a biologist.
You never did have the guts to tell me where you work, only
that it is about thirty miles from "your" library; and when
I asked you where you got your university degrees, you
ducked the question.
And y'all got on Lirpa Loof's case for hiding behind a
pseudonym! At least 'e was forthright about it. How can
I even know your real name is Mike Noreen? In one post,
you even admitted you didn't know the origin of the name;
then after a convenient number of months had passed and
no mention of your nationality had ever passed between us
[although I did say you were behaving mock-Irish at one point]
you came out with a stupid/dishonest statement insinuating
that it should be obvious to me that English is not your
native language; it was then that I learned for the first
time that you are Swedish [as opposed to e.g. a slang-wielding
native English speaker temporarily in Sweden.]
> Your statement that taxons of
>equal rank were of equal size and disparity, and that smaller/less
>diverse taxons 'had not fulfilled their evolutionary potential'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a grotesque distortion of what I said. Where are the
instincts of a scientific researcher in anything you write? where is
the traditional caution of scientists formulating hypotheses?
>certainly seemed to necessitate divine intervention in evolution.
See? You are trampling on all the traditions of logic, with
this non sequitur.
>Perhaps you should include the line 'I am not a creationist' in your
>signature to avoid future confusion?
Perhaps you should include the line, "I believe 2 + 2 = 4" in your
signature to avoid future confusion? ;-)
Remainder to be crossposted to sci.bio.systematics, with an eye
to expanding to sci.bio.paleontology. Unlike you, I am
deeply interested in the animals we talk about--Sauropsids and
Synapsids--from way back.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Peter Nyikos
Don Cates shows his true colors here, the ones that earned
him membership in the Bandar-log. In the middle of a perfectly
reasonable conversation, he seizes upon the fact that I made an
unmarked deletion, and uses that as an excuse for the announcement
that he will not be participating in this thread any more.
That might fool some people, were it not for the fact that
Don admitted to having made two non-substantive posts to this thread,
and even made some hypocritical remarks including, "Why
not take the high road?" to my having followed up to one of them.
ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
And so on, back and forth, until we get to a statement made
by Mike Noreen:
>>[Mike Noreen:]
>>>>>>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>>>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>[snip accurate paraphrase liked by creationists. (DC)Yes - so what per
>scientific merits. (PN)agree doesn't address scientific merits]
Misrepresentation.
>>>>However, I am highly skeptical of even the
>>>>scientific merits of the statement.
>>>Yes, I am aware of that (from s.b.e.). The point I was trying to make
>>>was that, no matter what *other* arguments you may have against
>>>cladistics, I do not think that the possibility that creationists may be
>>>able to get some comfort by misinterpreting the cladist view is one that
>>>has merit. (If this is not your reason making the point, what is?)
>>Well, the point is that, other things being equal, one would
>>like to say things in a way that doesn't give the creationists
>>ammunition. And the paraphrase does not make any scientific
>>statement that could not be said in a much better way, IMO.
>IMO I would not like to see scientists tailoring their communications so
>as to avoid misinterpretation and misquotation by a bunch of loonies
>(even {or especially} sophisticated ones). Most of their output is aimed
>at other scientists and the circumlocutions required for this avoidance
>would only hinder good communication.
This makes nice general sense, except that it is totally unrelated
to Mike's unscientific statement above.
>>[preliminary analogy by Don deleted to get to another one:]
>>>At a family reunion, a group discuses the fragmented evidence they have
>>>and conclude that they most likely had a common ancestor 10 or 12
>>>generations ago. Define the Cates Clan as all folks (living or dead) who
>>>have the same kind of evidence that they share this ancestor.
>>>Now use the same argument as before.
>>Meaning this [deleted above]?
>Yep.
>> Given this definition, does the statement 'The Cates
>> Clan contains the ancestors of
>> Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all?
>>No additional information, no. On the other hand, there is
>>no point in calling it a meaningless statement.
>But it is (IMO) supportable.
Only because you used a speculative (AFAIK) interpretation of "meaningless".
You didn't consult Mike to find out whether that was the
interpretation he used, did you?
>> If you did
>>NOT have the information about the Cates Clan that you
>>gave just now, it would be a meaningful statement, one
>>that might make someone look more deeply into what that Cates
>>Clan was all about.
>If I didn't have the information I couldn't define the Cates Clan
>properly. Certainly, changing my premises will change my conclusions. So
>what?
So, someone else may have defined the Cates Clan while you were
just going along with his jargon without even knowing the
definition, and parroted his claims. Who said anything about you
having defined the clan properly?
>>>>>>Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Propliopithecus,...Sayonara to you all!
>>>>>>All that effort going into figuring out whether you primates
>>>>>>are ancestral to Homo--all meaningless. ;-) ;-) ;-)
>>>>>Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
>>>>>*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless
>>>>But it *literally* contradicts the claim that our ancestors
>>>>are not to be found among the primates. Any time a person
>>>>says something literally false, I don't think he has real
>>>>cause for complaint if others take him at his word.
>>>Whoa! It contraticts the claim as you state it but where does *Mike*
>>>claim this? He claims that stating they *are* found among the primates
>>>is meaningless
>>That is a literally false statement, and all I've done is to
>>say something that any careless reader, not just a creationist,
>>could easily conclude from it.
>My statement is false? Or Mike's is?
Mike's is, at least the way I interpret "meaningless":
>[Noreen:]
>>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>I believe that my statement accurately portrays what Mike said.
>Mike's statement is false by your stated criteria only if you translate
>"meaningless" as 'false'.
Mike's statement is everything you see up there,
not just the part that precedes "is a meaningless statement".
As such, it is false by at the most elementary and literal meaning
of the word "meaningless"
>>> (I understand this to mean that it is trivially, by
>>>definition true; not false).
>>Whoa! Since when does a statement that is trivially, by definition
>>true, get classed as "meaningless"?!
>Hmm.. meaning = signification, import, force
>"a statement that is trivially, by definition true" has no
>signification, no import, no force.
Unless the person hearing it does not realize that, because
he does not know what the definitions are.
[...]
>[restoring Nyikos statement snipped (without note) by Nyikos]
>[PN]
>Depends on what the evidence is. One could conceivably define
>"dinosaur" to mean "warm-blooded vertebrate without hair".
>[restoring unnoted snip of my statement]
>[DC]
>One could. But would one be taken seriously by the scientific community?
About as seriously as one defining "mammal" by "vertebrate with
hair". Your point?
>>>>Or one
>>>>could take hairlessness and warm-bloodedness in both what
>>>>are commonly called birds and what are commonly called dinosaurs
>>>>to be evidence that birds are dinosaurs.
>>>I'm sorry, but I don't think this hypothesis is meaningful. It is
>>>concievable that one could say that "birds are descended from dinosaurs
>>>because they are warm-blooded vertabrates without hair. Just like the
>>>dinosaurs."
>Please note that my statement in quotes is a paraphrase of your
>(deleted/restored) statement in quotes above.
Yes, but it is in response to a very different statement by me,
and refers to THAT statement. Do you deny this?
>[restoration of unnoted snip of my statement]
>[DC]
>I don't think the 'definition' that you gave would be taken any more
>seriously than my statement by either palentologists or cladists (or
>practically anyone else for that matter).
That is because your statement used the word "because", indicating
proof, while mine used "evidence", and I indicated later that lots of more
evidence might be needed.
>>THAT would certainly not be accepted by the scientific
>>community! You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "proof".
>As the restored part that you snipped shows, I am quite aware of that.
As the retained part shows, that is not at all clear.
>Since we are discussing science, not math, there is no proof, all is
>evidence. Where do I mention "proof"?
You used the word "because" in a way that made it look like
that was ALL the evidence the person making the statement
required.
>[snip a bunch of cladistics related stuff]
>>Validity is something that can meaningfully be applied to cladistic
>>techniques such as constructing phylogenetic trees based on
>>the principle of parsimony. I don't see how anyone can apply
>>the word "validity" to such statements as "the great apes are a
>>real group, unless it turns out that their last common ancestor
>>was also an ancestor of man, in which case they are an unreal group".
>>One can impose such word usage on the scientific community by sheer fiat,
>>but to call such insistence "valid" is wrong IMO.
>From this am I to take it that you believe that the scientific idea of
>provisional acceptance based on evidence subject to revision on the
>receipt of new evidence is not "valid"?
No, because that would be a flagrant *non sequitur* in addition
to being a seriously deluded statement, worthy of the charter
Bandar-log member that you are.
>[snip point of agreement]
>[snip exerpt of post from other thread]
>>>>>>"apes" doesn't mean "the living great apes". Lots of creationists
>>>>>>are far too sophisticated to make that mistake;
>>>>>Ah, but lots *more* aren't.
>>>>I'd like to see one example of a creationist who equated
>>>>"apes" with "the living great apes".
>>The following statement does not speak to this issue, because
>>"the living great apes" means {Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, Siamang,
>>Gibbon}, not "monkeys":
>IMO this is an extreme nit-pick.
I believe you are being insincere. You snipped the post that
clearly indicated this was the bone of contention between me
and Mike. No wonder you made a big show of pretending to
be offended by an unmarked deletion: you wanted to create
a smokescreen to make it look as though merely pointing out
that you snipped something exonerates you of all duplicity,
didn't you?
>From the evidence below, the guy
>probably doesn't even know the difference between monkeys and apes. Do
Stupid non sequitur.
>>>Well, about two days ago there was a letter to the editor in the local
>>>paper that I will paraphrase.
>>>'What made the Pope agree with evolution now? Is evolution really a
>>>science? If evolution says we came from the monkeys, how come there are
>>>monkeys still swinging in the trees? Evolution is stupid.'
>>>Scarey. And I greatly fear he is not alone.
>[snip comparison of above idiot with cladists]
The comparison hurt, didn't it?
>I am interpreting your selective, unnoted, deletia above, which gave a
>false impression of my statements, as dishonest. I will not be
>participating in this thread any futher.
I am interpreting the above parting shot as totally insincere
and cowardly.
Mike Noreen
: Given this definition, does the statement 'The Cates
: Clan contains the ancestors of
: Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all?
:
: No additional information, no. On the other hand, there is
: no point in calling it a meaningless statement. If you did
Because it is trivially true - the name of Don Cates show him to be a
member of Clan Cates.
Now, if we change the statement to read 'Does the statement The Cates
Clan contains the ancestors of Don King and family' things change a
bit, don't they. We couldn't assume that Don King was part of the
Cates clan, because he wasn't categorized as such (doesn't have the
Cates name).
This is the situation you advocate, and this is the reason 'The
Coelurosauria contains the ancestors of Aves' *isn't* trivially true
in paraphyletic systems: the classification has hidden the fact that
Don King is part of the Cates clan.
: >>>Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
: >>>*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless
:
: >>But it *literally* contradicts the claim that our ancestors
: >>are not to be found among the primates. Any time a person
(Which WHOM, exactly, has claimed WHERE, Peter?)
: >>says something literally false, I don't think he has real
: >>cause for complaint if others take him at his word.
: >Whoa! It contraticts the claim as you state it but where does *Mike*
: >claim this? He claims that stating they *are* found among the primates
: >is meaningless
:
: That is a literally false statement, and all I've done is to
: say something that any careless reader, not just a creationist,
: could easily conclude from it.
Like - how?
(BIG snip of stuff not relevant to the discussion included from other
posts by PN, probably to confuse issues and intimidate opponents)
: >>Or one
: >>could take hairlessness and warm-bloodedness in both what
: >>are commonly called birds and what are commonly called dinosaurs
: >>to be evidence that birds are dinosaurs.
:
: >I'm sorry, but I don't think this hypothesis is meaningful. It is
: >concievable that one could say that "birds are descended from dinosaurs
: >because they are warm-blooded vertabrates without hair. Just like the
: >dinosaurs."
:
: THAT would certainly not be accepted by the scientific
: community! You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "proof".
: As I continued:
Perhaps you missed the line 'I don't think this hypothesis is
meaningful' - and he's right, of course, grouping a group on OTHER
groups traits is BAD (although that IS what you have been advocating
when you advocate paraphyly). And you're right - the scientific
community doesn't accept that kind of stuff any more.
: >>On the other hand, "birds are descended from dinosaurs" requires
: >>a mountain of additional evidence as to bone structure, etc.
: >>to make it convincing.
:
: >I think you see from above that I think "birds are dinosaurs" requires
: >just as much evidence (if not more) to back it up.
:
: Quite the contrary. Name enough features Archaeopteryx and
: the Dromaeosaurs had in common, and it soon becomes as
: natural as saying, "bats are mammals", as long as the
: person on the other end agrees that Archeopteryx was a bird
: and Dienonychus and Velociraptor were dinosaurs.
What a curious statement.
Silly as I am, I'd have thought that "enough features Archie and the
(Dromaeosaurs? Is that an old group? Let's say Coelurosaurs instead)
other Coelurosaurs had in common" equalled evidence. I'd even have
thought that it was THE EXACT SAME mountain of evidence as you refer
to above.
I'd also, silly as I am, have thought that the above approach would
ALSO have led to the conclusion 'birds are reptiles' just as surely
*and for the same reason* we say that 'bats are mammals' - and, don't
you know it, Archie would still be a bird and Deinonychus/Velociraptor
still dinosaurs - as would Archie be. Or has it escaped you that Deino
and Velo belong to another sub-group inside the dinosauria? That
'dinosaur' is a more inclusive group than both Aves and
Deinonychosauria.
You really have problems with the concept of hierarchical systems,
don't you, Peter. Care to squirm on what you REALLY meant?
: [...]
: [Nyikos on cladists:]
: >>Oh, but they agree that birds are in a clade [not family--they
: >>want to do away with ranks] separate from dinosaurs. They
: >>simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of a group,
: >>"dinosaurs minus birds", calling it "unreal" and asserting
: >>that of course, they only study "real" groups.
:
: Like the great apes, until it becomes evident that their last common
: ancestor also was an ancestor of human beings, when they do
: a sudden about-face and start calling the group "unreal".
No, then we do a sudden about-face and call humans apes. If that was
the case, of course, which present evidence doesn't seem to support
(depending on whether Orang-utans are considered 'apes' or not).
: Science will be full of such flip-flops if cladists have
: their way with scientific language.
Since cladism isn't arbitrary, there'll be only one flip, when old
arbitrary, unnatural, non-evolutionary, artefactual, groups are
buried.
: the word "validity" to such statements as "the great apes are a
: real group, unless it turns out that their last common ancestor
: was also an ancestor of man, in which case they are an unreal group".
They'd be, until humans were included in the group. Can you supply
some evolutionarily useful definition of 'great ape' under the above
assumption which excludes humans?
: One can impose such word usage on the scientific community by sheer fiat,
: but to call such insistence "valid" is wrong IMO.
Bonk.
: The following statement does not speak to this issue, because
: "the living great apes" means {Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, Siamang,
: Gibbon}, not "monkeys":
Well, you'll have to exclude atleast the gibbons. Whether the
orang-utan is excluded or not is not known to me, but then again,
perhaps you could tell me exactly which taxonomic unit 'great apes'
refer to? Pongidae? Hominoidea? What?
Here's a hint: it's an informal, and AFAIK undefined, term.
: Indeed, the cladists have a lot in common with him. Mike Noreen
: would probably label "we came from monkeys" as meaningless on the grounds that
: the category "monkeys" is "unreal".
HAHAHAHAHA! Nyikosian.logic in its prime. No, Peter, what I'd actually
say is that humans are monkeys, and that the statement 'monkeys are
ancestors of monkeys' while true is trivial.
: He's been at me before
: about how we cannot give any meaning to Archie being a transitional
: species because there is nothing for it to be transitional
: between--"dinosaurs minus birds" being an unreal taxon in his POV.
And which you've been sadly unable to contend, except as above, with
backstabs on other threads, hand-waving and insults. How about
addressing an issue once in a while, Peter? I know Black Knights
aren't supposed to, but still, it'd be nice and help your rep.
: Of course, it is possible that Mike might re-define "monkeys" to
: name a subclade of primates that includes Homo and the great
: apes, in which case he would STILL label "we came from monkeys"
: as meaningless, but on quite different grounds!
Well, how about that - Peter is perfectly aware what my real position
is, only he pretends not to. The word 'misrepresentation' comes to
mind.
: Not likely; on the other hand, they are comfortable with "bunnies are
: mammals" even after watching movies about King Kong and other
: scary mammals.
So why aren't you comfortable with saying that, on the exact same
grounds, that birds are archosaurs? Jurassic Park got to you?
How do you logically back this inconsistency, Peter?
Mike Noreen
Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
: Don Cates shows his true colors here, the ones that earned
: him membership in the Bandar-log.
Lucky guy! I'm just an Usenet Salesman and Usenet Yahoo now that
you've stripped me of the title of Incorrigible.
: In the middle of a perfectly
: reasonable conversation, he seizes upon the fact that I made an
: unmarked deletion, and uses that as an excuse for the announcement
: that he will not be participating in this thread any more.
I wonder why he'd do that with a reasonable guy like you.
: That might fool some people, were it not for the fact that
: Don admitted to having made two non-substantive posts to this thread,
: and even made some hypocritical remarks including, "Why
: not take the high road?" to my having followed up to one of them.
The above is known as 'bait', to lure Don back. Nyikos is apparently a
troll, a creature living on and for the flames he can create - which
I'm sure no one suspected.
(Rest of post, where Nyikos among other things ducks having falsely
accused me of having said that humans weren't primates by deleting
that paragraph and leaving another paragraph, and claiming that that's
what he referred to all along, euthanized. Grow up, Peter.)
Mike Noreen
Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
: Don Cates shows his true colors here, the ones that earned
: him membership in the Bandar-log.
Lucky guy! I'm just an Usenet Salesman and Usenet Yahoo now that
you've stripped me of the title of Incorrigible.
: In the middle of a perfectly
: reasonable conversation, he seizes upon the fact that I made an
: unmarked deletion, and uses that as an excuse for the announcement
: that he will not be participating in this thread any more.
I wonder why he'd do that with a reasonable guy like you.
: That might fool some people, were it not for the fact that
: Don admitted to having made two non-substantive posts to this thread,
: and even made some hypocritical remarks including, "Why
: not take the high road?" to my having followed up to one of them.
The above is known as 'bait', to lure Don back. Nyikos is apparently a
Mike Noreen
Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
: Don Cates shows his true colors here, the ones that earned
: him membership in the Bandar-log.
Lucky guy! I'm just an Usenet Salesman and Usenet Yahoo now that
you've stripped me of the title of Incorrigible.
: In the middle of a perfectly
: reasonable conversation, he seizes upon the fact that I made an
: unmarked deletion, and uses that as an excuse for the announcement
: that he will not be participating in this thread any more.
I wonder why he'd do that with a reasonable guy like you.
: That might fool some people, were it not for the fact that
: Don admitted to having made two non-substantive posts to this thread,
: and even made some hypocritical remarks including, "Why
: not take the high road?" to my having followed up to one of them.
The above is known as 'bait', to lure Don back. Nyikos is apparently a
Peter Nyikos
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
>: I've restored sci.bio.systematics to this second follow-up
>: to Mike Noreen's disgraceful post.
>...and I've restored its title, to more accurately reflect the
>contents, and set follow-ups to talk.origins, since
Since you always want to get the last word in on sci.bio.systematics,
eh? The sincere way of going about all this would be to set
the *Newsgroups* line to talk.origins. I've restored s.b.s.
because the following "reason" is pure hypocrisy:
> that's where you belong, not in the sci.* groups.
Typical Pee Wee Hermanism: I cast serious doubt on you being
a scientist like you claim, you respond with unsupported insults.
Do you have your own website? A snail mail address you are
willing to give out? A university degree? A research position?
I have all of these, and I even make my snail mail address here
public [see virtual .sig below].
I've also added alt.catastrophism just to give Ted Holden
some ammunition to put in his archives in case you try to dispute
your membership in his "howler monkeys".
>: Three demonstrable falsehoods, a false accusation [by his standards]
>: and one grotesque distortion by Mike, discussed in my first follow-up,
>: have been deleted here. Mike polluted sci.bio.systematics with them while
>: hypocritically claiming that such talk had no place in sci* newsgroups,
>: and merely set follow-ups out of that newsgroup.
>A lot of hot air, but little argumentation. Passion isn't arguments,
More hypocrisy. If you lie your head off, will you also
say "A lot of hot air" when your lies are demonstrated?
When you said "Liar" to me in e-mail, without even
demonstrating that what I was saying was UNTRUE, were you
indulging in argumentation?
>Peter, and you've offered nothing but passion.
Another demonstrable falsehood [see small demonstration below,
with much more on the way; besides, anyone can see how
false it is by looking at the post you are following up to.]
Do you think "A lot of hot air" is a GOOD thing?
do you think "little argumentation" is a good thing?
It certainly looks that way, from the way you behave.
> Did you manage to deal with ONE SINGLE issue?
Of course:
[Nyikos:]
>: Have you replied yet to the posts in s.b.e. and s.b.s. where the following
>: exchange took place?
>Yes, I have, which is why I don't treat it in depth here.
I saw no treatment of this particular issue:
>: ================ excerpt from post to the thread,
>: Defining paraphyly (Was: cladistics) [NOT SO LONG]
>(MN)
>: >Errrm - I don't know how to put this to you, Peter, but a "taxon" IS a
>: >name and a rank. Mammalia is such a name and rank,
>(PN)
>: I've never seen anyone except you use the word "rank" in this
>: way. AFAIK "rank" refers to such concepts as "class", "order"
>: "family" etc. To me, the claim that Mammalia is a "rank"
>: sounds as absurd as saying "General Eisenhower was a rank".
>: ===================== end of excerpt
>:
>: ...or, even more precisely, saying "Dwight D. Eisenhower was a rank."
>or rather less precisely, since that's just the name, you need a rank
>too. General Eisenhower is a name and a rank, and of course you
>changed that because you realised this.
Since "Mammalia" is just a name, you've just refuted your
own claim that Mammalia is a rank.
See how easy it is to deal with some issues? All I have to do
is give you enough rope, and you hang yourself.
Remaining issues to be dealt with on original subject: line,
and with alt.catastrophism removed.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
I followed up to Mike's post on the thread,
"Mike Noreen applies for Bandar-log membership"
and eliminated s.b.s. from the newsgroups.
Peter Nyikos
This is a follow-up to mock-biologist Mike Noreen on his thread,
"Nyikosian Rhetoric II (was:Re: Aves and Reptilia)"
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
>: CC: Mike Noreen, because of the change from the misleading thread title,
>: "Re: Nyikosian Rhetoric (Was: Re: Creationism and cladism, with Mike Nore)"
>: ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>: [deletia of defamatory questions by Mike Noreen, to be
>: dealt with later on the talk.origins thread, "Mike Noreen
>: applies for Bandar-log membership" to be set up some time
>: this week, assuming *our* ISP doesn't have problems.]
>YESYESYES! I'm getting Bandar-Log membership! YESSSSS! SCORE!
Don't get your hopes up. Don Cates dealt a severe blow
to your Bandar-log membership application by claiming
he'd never seen a post by you in talk.origins. Since he is a
charter member of the Bandar-log, his word carries weight as far
as future memberships go. Not deciding weight, of course--so
there is still hope for you.
By the way, whom did you learn from about the Bandar-log? I
don't recall ever mentioning that clique to you, so I was
quite surprised to receive your public application on s.b.s.
>: [Nyikos:]
>: >: "birds ARE dinosaurs" is a statement that is neither true nor
>: >: false until one defines one's terms. The way YOU and your
>: >: fellow cladists use it, it means nothing more or less than
>: >: that birds are descended from dinosaurs--except that your
>: >: brand of Newspeak does not allow you to give the same
>: >: meaning to "dinosaurs" as a great many people do.
>:
>: >Meaning what? Coelurosaurians certainly are dinosaurs, are they not?
>:
>: Yep, they've been classified as such since they were first studied,
>: being clear-cut members of Theropoda. On the other hand, birds
>: were NOT classified as dinosaurs until about 1990, not officially.
>Yup. Science advances.
What do you know about science, you stupid layman?
>: What we are lacking, in other words, is a definition of "dinosaur"
>: besides the old "member of either the order Ornithischia or
>: the order Saurischia," which excluded birds, and your newfangled
>: definition of the 1990's.
>No, we don't need it.
Cladist-wannabes like you don't need it. Bandar-log-wannabes
like you don't need it. But people wanting to communicate
scientific information to creationists do need it.
But that never was your game, was it? Your style is to
bullshit your way around with them, isn't it?
If the answer to both is Yes, the hopes for you becoming
a Bandar-log member have gone up a few notches.
>What we need is acceptance that birds are
>dinosaurs just like Carnosaurs are dinosaurs. Either that, or we,
>logically, need terms to define all groups minus one group, ie 'all
>mammals except primates'.
Yet more evidence that you don't even know the meaning
of the word "logically".
>If birds, as seem to be the case, are part of the clade Coelurosauria,
>including many of the most populat dinosaurs, then where's the problem
>in saying birds are dinosaurs (you've indicated you have no problem
>saying that primates are mammals, which is an analogous situation)?
I've already told you more times than I care to count that,
as far as I am concerned, it is NOT an analogous situation.
Quick--can you name the reason I gave? If you can't, or
won't, your Bandar-log application is looking rosier every
minute.
But don't get your hopes up just yet. There is one necessary
condition for membership that Don Cates made it hard for
you to satisfy. Just ask whatever source told you about
the Bandar-log in the first place if you don't know what that is.
[grade school level question deleted]
>: >Coelurosauria. There's even a fossil find of a basal Coelurosaurian,
>: >(non-Avian, to stop you from your usual semantic excursions) with
>: >feathers, and in all probability they were all warm-blooded.
>:
>: Yep, these are interesting finds, giving additional evidence,
>: if any was needed, that birds are descended from Coelurosaurians.
>Not so fast: IMHO it shows that Aves ARE coelurosaurians.
That is a most humble opinion indeed. Especially since
you aren't saying anything more than I did, once your
statement is explained in terms intelligible to the general
public.
> Your statement is equal to saying that 'hair and lactation in primates
>show that primates are descended from mammals',
...in your cladist-wannabe lingo. Not in classical lingo,
and I'll stick to that until a real scientist starts
saying what you are saying here.
[...]
>Preserving status quo is, IMHO, not desirable in science, which should
>advance, not stand still.
Some truths never change, in science or elsewhere. As you would
know if you had any aptitude for science.
>: All kidding aside, my own personal preference is for making
>: a new class Dinosauria with Aves as a subclass, but until
>: that idea gets accepted, I'll just stick with the old paraphyletic
>: class "Reptilia", which you seem to have confused with a strange
>: hybrid group born of trying to dovetail competing systems.
Stupid questions by Mike Noreen, not dealing with my closing
clause, deleted.
>: >: > That they'd
>: >: > be descended from dinosaurs even when remaining dinosaurs,
>: >:
>: >: Could mean simply, "birds are descended from birds while
>: >: remaining birds", since you have already said "birds ARE
>: >: dinosaurs".
>:
>: >Yes, but it doesn't work both ways. All humans are mammals; not all
>: >mammals are humans. It's a hierarchical.
>:
>: See, you cut things off too. You cut birds off from what a
>: logical Mike Noreen would call "other dinosaurs", with weird
>: results.
>I don't cut them off any more than erecting the group Primates cuts
>primates off from Mammalia.
Yeah, but the results aren't as weird because Primates is a
mere order inside Mammalia.
[irrelevant babble by Mike Noreen deleted]
>: Of course, not being logical, you claim "other dinosaurs" is
>: an unreal category, and that you only study real categories.
>'Other dinosaurs' is an unreal, as in 'lacking evolutionary unity'
>group,
Playing games with words again. What bizarrre definition
of "evolutionary unity" are you using here? Did you
not read my post where I explained the term "monolithic"
for groups like Dinosauria?
>You can of course still informally talk about 'dinosaurs other than
>birds' if you need, just like one can talk about 'mammals other than
>primates', but there's precious little use for these informal terms,
>since their not being evolutionary units also means that the groups
>lack natural coherence.
Now you are playing games with the word "coherence". What
you are talking about is "adherence"--they don't adhere quite
as well to the birds in the Linnean system as they do in
cladistics, and they don't adhere as closely in cladistics
as they do in my system since you have cheapened the word
"relationship" to mean "3 taxon exclusivity".
>Could you tell me when it might be useful to talk about 'dinosaurs
>other than birds'?
In talking to creationists. I've made that point abundantly
clear:
>: >: > and that
>: >: > birds being dinosaurs is equally incompatible with Genesis as birds
>: >: > being descended from dinosaurs is conveniently ignored here.
>: >:
>: >: Incorrect. Since "dinosaur" no longer means, "a certain kind
>: >: of animal which lacks hair and feathers" it then becomes
>: >: completely harmless to the Genesis account to say "birds are
>: >: dinosaurs".
[...]
> You claim that it is "completely harmless to the
>Genesis account to say "birds are dinosaurs", and I pointed out the
>explicit assumption which makes the statement possible:
That's another matter entirely. Once you actually tell a
creationist what you said next, you can actually begin
to have an argument with him/her.
I've deleted it to illustrate how useless "birds are dinosaurs"
is without it.
>: >Your personal beliefs has blinded you, Peter.
>:
>: Are you insinuating that I am a creationist, Mike? If so,
>No. Not that I've not wondered, on occasion, but no. I'm stating that
>your personal vendetta against cladism has blinded you to the fact
>that cladism is diametrically opposed to creationism,
As is classical systematics. I've known that all along, turkey.
>: I understand you perfectly well, Mike. You have a serious
>: pedagogical problem with explaining your statements to the
>: general public, though, and THAT is the issue here.
>Yeah. B-)
Nice to see you agree. Now maybe you'll even see why, now
that I deleted your belated explanation of what you mean
by "birds are dinosaurs".
>:
>: >Please explain to me how saying that birds are NOT related to
>: >dinosaurs
>:
>: Creationists say birds are not related to dinosaurs; I don't.
>: And if you don't see that, then you probably don't have the
>: aptitude to become the biologist you have been claiming to be.
>Dang that it took me this long to discover that I didn't have what it
>took to be a systematist. Think of all that time I could've been
>drinking lager and chasing chicks on the beach instead of reading
>books...
Oh, I think you've spent more time on the former as it is.
> How long did it take you to discover that you didn't have the
>grasp of logic it takes to be a math professor?
What a farce! You don't even know the mathematical and
Aristotelian meaning of the word "logic", do you?
Tell me, what does "logic" mean to you? "Taking things to
their logical conclusions"?
And what does "Taking things to their logical conclusions"
mean to you? From what you said above about mammals and
primates, it probably means "jumping to conclusions."
Well, I don't have the grasp of the fine art of jumping
to conclusions on the base of ridiculously inadequate
premises that you do; if I did, I would never have become
a math professor.
>: >because they've got a specialized brand of scales disproves
>: >Genesis more than explicitly saying that they share a common ancestor
>: >with all the other dinosaurs,
>:
>: "birds are dinosaurs" does not explicitly say it; that has been
>: one of my points all along. Look up the word "explicitly" in
>: an English-Swedish dictionary if you are having trouble with it.
>No comprendo. Que dices? No speak inglese very well please.
Typical Noreen-DiBenedetto evasive maneuver. I nailed you,
and you know it.
>: >: I only said it CAN be handled that way.
>:
>: >It can't, really. Evolution permeates the cladistic system; grouping
>: >neatly on characters permeates paraphyletic systems.
>:
>: Again you confuse paraphyly with polyphyly, after having been
>: corrected on this umpteen times by me. Yet more evidence that
>: you are not the scientist you claim to be.
>How many times must I tell you that I'm really Batman?
Another N-B. e. m.
[Usenet Treadmill Sales Pitch by Noreen, deleted]
>
[Nyikos:]
>: Who are these alleged creationists who believe in mermaids?
>Have you actually read talks.origin at ALL, Peter? Try some of karls
>messages; you can jog him along by asking him what he thinks of
>intermediates.
I was a regular in talk.origins for over a year, bozo. Ask
Don Cates.
>: >Tell me, Peter, can you say that humans are mammals?
>:
>: Another insincere question, IMO. Of course I can say it--I've
>: been maintaining it all along.
>Then you're contradicting yourself again when you say that birds are
>not dinosaurs.
Yet more evidence that you don't know the meaning of "logically".
Space provided for Mike to rant about how he didn't use the
word "logically" in his last sentence:
[Usenet Treadmill Sales Pitch by Noreen, deleted]
Peter Nyikos
This is a follow-up to a post on the Noreenite thread,
Nyikosian Hot Air & Handwaving (Was: Re: Creationism and cladism, with Mike Noreen)
I've deleted sci.bio.systematics since it seems abundantly clear
that Mike Noreen is not a scientist.
Mike has yet to demonstrate that he has all the qualifications
for Bandar-log membership, but, with one possible exception,
he is certainly bent on proving that he qualifies, from the
looks of his recent posts.
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>: Given this definition, does the statement 'The Cates
>: Clan contains the ancestors of
>: Don Cates and family.' give you any information at all?
>:
>: No additional information, no. On the other hand, there is
>: no point in calling it a meaningless statement. If you did
>Because it is trivially true - the name of Don Cates show him to be a
>member of Clan Cates.
Typical Usenet yahoo illogic.
Does everyone who has a Scottish name belong to the Scottish
clan of the same name? No, someone could have simply changed
his name from Manischewitz to MacBeth, or whatever.
>Now, if we change the statement to read 'Does the statement The Cates
>Clan contains the ancestors of Don King and family' things change a
>bit, don't they. We couldn't assume that Don King was part of the
>Cates clan, because he wasn't categorized as such (doesn't have the
>Cates name).
>This is the situation you advocate,
False statement. Were you deliberately lying when you made it,
or did you have some such mental reservation in mind as:
Although Nyikos advocates a system where taxa
overlap to make recapture of phylogeny possible,
I've deliberately closed my mind to his proofs
that it does this, and so I am allowed to make
statements like the above.
Of course, it helps to also not know that your parenthetical reason
for "wasn't categorized as such" is another case of you
jumping to conclusions on the basis of ridiculously
inadequate premises.
Additional illogic by Noreen deleted.
[Don Cates, Mike's biggest obstacle to Bandar-log membership:]
>: >>>Here I think you have made an erroneous conclusion. Stating which
>: >>>*specific* primates are our ancestors is not meaningless
>: >>But it *literally* contradicts the claim that our ancestors
>: >>are not to be found among the primates. Any time a person
>: >>says something literally false, I don't think he has real
>: >>cause for complaint if others take him at his word.
>: >Whoa! It contraticts the claim as you state it but where does *Mike*
>: >claim this? He claims that stating they *are* found among the primates
>: >is meaningless
>:
>: That is a literally false statement, and all I've done is to
>: say something that any careless reader, not just a creationist,
>: could easily conclude from it.
>Like - how?
A meaningless statement could hardly be true, could it? And
since "human ancestors are found among the primates" is not true,
it is natural for a careless reader to conclude that human
ancestors are NOT to be found among the primates--or anywhere
else for that matter.
>: >>Or one
>: >>could take hairlessness and warm-bloodedness in both what
>: >>are commonly called birds and what are commonly called dinosaurs
>: >>to be evidence that birds are dinosaurs.
>:
>: >I'm sorry, but I don't think this hypothesis is meaningful. It is
>: >concievable that one could say that "birds are descended from dinosaurs
>: >because they are warm-blooded vertabrates without hair. Just like the
>: >dinosaurs."
>:
>: THAT would certainly not be accepted by the scientific
>: community! You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "proof".
>: As I continued:
>Perhaps you missed the line 'I don't think this hypothesis is
>meaningful'
No, I did not. Anyway, it's irrelevant to his statement
which begins "It is conceivable that..." and so is what you allege
next:
- and he's right, of course, grouping a group on OTHER
>groups traits is BAD (although that IS what you have been advocating
>when you advocate paraphyly). And you're right - the scientific
>community doesn't accept that kind of stuff any more.
Wrong. Ask Tom DiBenedetto's U. of Michigan colleague Mark D. Uhen, who wrote
a long piece in Paleobiology 22 (1) this year, pp. 8-22,
who listed oodles of paraphyletic taxa and talked about them
in lots of ways without even a hint that these are on the
way out.
By the way, did you ever read any papers by Tom DiBenedetto?
Can you name even one that appeared in the professional literature?
>: >>On the other hand, "birds are descended from dinosaurs" requires
>: >>a mountain of additional evidence as to bone structure, etc.
>: >>to make it convincing.
>:
>: >I think you see from above that I think "birds are dinosaurs" requires
>: >just as much evidence (if not more) to back it up.
>:
>: Quite the contrary. Name enough features Archaeopteryx and
>: the Dromaeosaurs had in common, and it soon becomes as
>: natural as saying, "bats are mammals", as long as the
>: person on the other end agrees that Archeopteryx was a bird
>: and Dienonychus and Velociraptor were dinosaurs.
>What a curious statement.
>Silly as I am, I'd have thought that "enough features Archie and the
>(Dromaeosaurs? Is that an old group?
No, you ignoramus. Don't you know the first thing about Maniraptorans?
You've talked about Maniraptorans before--was that ghost-written by
someone else?
> Let's say Coelurosaurs instead)
>other Coelurosaurs had in common" equalled evidence.
Of course it does.
> I'd even have
>thought that it was THE EXACT SAME mountain of evidence as you refer
>to above.
Yes, that was silly of you.
[redundant bullshit by Noreen deleted]
>You really have problems with the concept of hierarchical systems,
>don't you, Peter. Care to squirm on what you REALLY meant?
No, only an illogical fool like you could possibly mistake my
meaning.
>: [...]
>: [Nyikos on cladists:]
>: >>Oh, but they agree that birds are in a clade [not family--they
>: >>want to do away with ranks] separate from dinosaurs. They
>: >>simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of a group,
>: >>"dinosaurs minus birds", calling it "unreal" and asserting
>: >>that of course, they only study "real" groups.
>:
>: Like the great apes, until it becomes evident that their last common
>: ancestor also was an ancestor of human beings, when they do
>: a sudden about-face and start calling the group "unreal".
>No, then we do a sudden about-face and call humans apes.
That too.
If that was
>the case, of course, which present evidence doesn't seem to support
>(depending on whether Orang-utans are considered 'apes' or not).
Of course they are, you ignoramus. Don't you know anything
about English usage?
BTW don't bet your shirt on chimps being more distantly related
to us than they are to gorillas. Assuming of course, you
believe gorillas are apes.
>: Science will be full of such flip-flops if cladists have
>: their way with scientific language.
>Since cladism isn't arbitrary, there'll be only one flip, when old
>arbitrary, unnatural, non-evolutionary, artefactual, groups are
>buried.
Like the great apes, after that flip-flop? And what if more
evidence puts humans back to being just the sister group
of the great apes?
Of course, your mind is made up that Cladistics is Motherhood
and Apple Pie, and Can Do No Wrong, isn't it? ;-)
>: the word "validity" to such statements as "the great apes are a
>: real group, unless it turns out that their last common ancestor
>: was also an ancestor of man, in which case they are an unreal group".
>They'd be, until humans were included in the group.
No chance of any more flip-flops? My, you certainly
are falling into Bandar-log line.
>perhaps you could tell me exactly which taxonomic unit 'great apes'
>refer to? Pongidae? Hominoidea? What?
>Here's a hint: it's an informal, and AFAIK undefined, term.
Says a silly little twit who also said,
Pretty much like saying 'humans are descended from apes' for a long
time messed up the real evolutionary implications of humanoids being
the sister group of the great apes, you mean?
>: Indeed, the cladists have a lot in common with him. Mike Noreen
>: would probably label "we came from monkeys" as meaningless on the grounds that
>: the category "monkeys" is "unreal".
>HAHAHAHAHA! Nyikosian.logic in its prime. No, Peter, what I'd actually
>say is that humans are monkeys,
Ah, so that's how you define "monkeys". With a Usenet yahoo like you,
one never can tell whether you'll say, about "monkeys",
"Here's a hint: it's an informal, and AFAIK undefined, term."
or whether you opt for attaching the word to some clade or other.
Which clade, btw.?
>: He's been at me before
>: about how we cannot give any meaning to Archie being a transitional
>: species because there is nothing for it to be transitional
>: between--"dinosaurs minus birds" being an unreal taxon in his POV.
>And which you've been sadly unable to contend,
Empty bravado.
>: Of course, it is possible that Mike might re-define "monkeys" to
>: name a subclade of primates that includes Homo and the great
>: apes, in which case he would STILL label "we came from monkeys"
>: as meaningless, but on quite different grounds!
>Well, how about that - Peter is perfectly aware what my real position
>is,
I wasn't until now, you stupefyingly illogical twit. I covered
both bases, and you revealed which base you opted for.
>only he pretends not to. The word 'misrepresentation' comes to
>mind.
Can you say "hoist by your own petard"?
If you can't, because you don't know the meaning of the term,
Bandar-log charter member Steve LaBonne will probably be
glad to fill you in. Who knows, he may even be able to
undo the damage Don Cates did to your application for
Bandar-log membership.
>: Not likely; on the other hand, they are comfortable with "bunnies are
>: mammals" even after watching movies about King Kong and other
>: scary mammals.
>So why aren't you comfortable with saying that, on the exact same
>grounds, that birds are archosaurs?
What exact same grounds? The ones a cladist-wannnabe like
you wants to impose on me?
>How do you logically back this inconsistency, Peter?
How do you logically back up your silly question about
"exact same grounds" with no apparent referent?
Don Cates
Well, I *am* returning to this thread. Not in response to Peter's
flame-bait but by the appearrence of Mike Noreen.
I initially jumped in on this thread on the assumption that Mike would
not want to become embroiled with Peter on an unmoderated group. BOY,
WAS I WRONG. (go get'im Mike! - better you than me (B-)).
Anyway, as a complete newcomer to systematics/cladistics, trying to get
an idea of some of the basics by lurking on s.b.e. (instead of actually
looking something up [lazy]) I answered the following snippet.
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
>contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
>is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
>it, I can almost guarantee it.
My reply agreed with the last statement and said that I didn't mind the
paraphrase since I believed it was stating the obvious. (ie. the
evidence shows that "the various species of Homo" are primates)
Mike's reply did not agree with the paraphrase.
(by "statement in the paraphrase" I mean 'the paraphrase' minus 'is
meaningless'. Does that make it paraphyilitic? (B-) )
My first thoughts were:
Well, Mike is saying that the evidence shows that the statement in the
paraphrase is true, so it is not meaningless. Then we can conclude from
it that "the various species of Homo" are primates. I just started with
that conclusion as my starting point. No big deal.
Then I realized that it was a big deal. I now think that the above
distinction is crutial to what cladistics does.
As I now understand it, cladistic analysis of the evidence shows the
relationship (ie. the statement in Peter's paraphrase could be the
actual result of a cladistic analysis). As a consequence, by definition,
if the group we have decided to call "primates" is to be a proper clad,
then it *must* include "the various species of Homo". (as must any other
clad containing an ancestor of "the various species of Homo")
AM I starting to get a better handle on cladistics?
Peter Nyikos
This is a follow-up to a post on the thread,
"Creationism and cladism, with Mike Noreen"
I've removed sci.bio.systematics from the newsgroups for this followup.
ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
>Well, I *am* returning to this thread. Not in response to Peter's
>flame-bait
Telling it like it is, may be flamebait where you are concerned.
You insinuated dishonesty on my part and I showed that I was not
guilty of any.
You indulged in an old Usenet confusing-the-issue ploy, by
making selective deletia, giving them labels that gave
no clue as to how relevant the deleted stuff was; then
to confuse the issue, you made trumped-up charges about an
unmarked deletion on my part; and I showed that the
deleted material was irrelevant to the discussion.
There--I've given you some more statements that you can
label "flamebait" as an excuse for running away from them.
but by the appearrence of Mike Noreen.
>I initially jumped in on this thread on the assumption that Mike would
>not want to become embroiled with Peter on an unmoderated group. BOY,
>WAS I WRONG.
Are you clueless enough to think sci.bio.systematics is moderated?
> (go get'im Mike! - better you than me (B-)).
This last statement may ultimately undo the damage you did
to Mike's Bandar-log membership application. Time will tell.
>Anyway, as a complete newcomer to systematics/cladistics, trying to get
>an idea of some of the basics by lurking on s.b.e.
Weren't you also lurking on s.b.s.?
Remainder to be dealt with on the original thread, which I'm
hoping will be flame-free from now on.
Peter Nyikos
ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
[deletia of things dealt with outside s.b.s. on "Mike Noreen
applies for Bandar-log membership]
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>>> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
>>>primates is a meaningless statement -
>>Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
>>contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
>>is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
>>it, I can almost guarantee it.
>My reply agreed with the last statement and said that I didn't mind the
>paraphrase since I believed it was stating the obvious. (ie. the
>evidence shows that "the various species of Homo" are primates)
>Mike's reply did not agree with the paraphrase.
>(by "statement in the paraphrase" I mean 'the paraphrase' minus 'is
>meaningless'. Does that make it paraphyilitic? (B-) )
>My first thoughts were:
>Well, Mike is saying that the evidence shows that the statement in the
>paraphrase is true, so it is not meaningless. Then we can conclude from
>it that "the various species of Homo" are primates. I just started with
>that conclusion as my starting point. No big deal.
>Then I realized that it was a big deal. I now think that the above
>distinction is crutial to what cladistics does.
Not really. It is crucial to how cladistics communicate
with the public.
>As I now understand it, cladistic analysis of the evidence shows the
>relationship (ie. the statement in Peter's paraphrase could be the
>actual result of a cladistic analysis).
Um...aren't you talking about the statement in the paraphrase?
The paraphrase as a whole could not be the actual result
of cladistic analysis unless "meaningless" were defined in
the way you originally thought Mike intended it, viz.
"trivially true".
The statement in the paraphrase could be the actual
result of cladistic analysis, and probably has been for
a long time.
> As a consequence, by definition,
>if the group we have decided to call "primates" is to be a proper clad,
>then it *must* include "the various species of Homo". (as must any other
>clad containing an ancestor of "the various species of Homo")
True, as long as the ancestors of Homo *are* in the clade.
I am convinced that they are, of course, but I'm speaking
from a theoretical POV here.
To appreciate the point I am making here: there is (or was
at one time) some
controversy over whether tree shrews and flying lemurs
are primates. To get a cladistic handle on this, one would first
have to take those creatures that everyone can agree to
be primates, and see whether the tree shrews and/or
flying lemurs are descended from their common ancestor.
Same applies to "humans are primates" from a cladistic
perspective.
Of course, one could simply define "primates" to mean
"the clade consisting of humans and _____________"
but that would be partly defeating the purpose of the
claim "humans are primates" as far as the professed
purpose of talk.origins is concerned.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
I followed up on "Mike Noreen applies for Bandar-log membership".
Peter Nyikos
This is a follow-up to Mike Noreen on
Nyikosian Rhetoric V (was: Re: Creationism and cladism, with Mike Noreen)
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
>: Don Cates shows his true colors here, the ones that earned
>: him membership in the Bandar-log.
>Lucky guy! I'm just an Usenet Salesman and Usenet Yahoo now that
>you've stripped me of the title of Incorrigible.
Since you call him lucky, I'll assume you are clueless
on what it takes to become a Bandar-log member.
>: In the middle of a perfectly
>: reasonable conversation, he seizes upon the fact that I made an
>: unmarked deletion, and uses that as an excuse for the announcement
>: that he will not be participating in this thread any more.
>I wonder why he'd do that with a reasonable guy like you.
I'm sure he'll be glad to spin a yarn about it for you, if you
ask him. Usenet is, alas, permeated
with his type. It's heartbreaking when you think of what
an ideal forum Usenet could be for the exchange of ideas.
>: That might fool some people, were it not for the fact that
>: Don admitted to having made two non-substantive posts to this thread,
>: and even made some hypocritical remarks including, "Why
>: not take the high road?" to my having followed up to one of them.
>The above is known as 'bait', to lure Don back. Nyikos is apparently a
>troll, a creature living on and for the flames he can create - which
>I'm sure no one suspected.
Of course, Mike is saying this after a long history of arguing
with me in which I forebore making innumerable flaming comments
in the face of massive flamebait by him. Only in the last month
or so, when it became increasingly evident that Mike IS a troll,
did I finally begin to treat him like one; and even then,
I relapsed several times into attempts to create a mature
discussion between us; as recently as yesterday in sci.bio.evolution.
>(Rest of post, where Nyikos among other things ducks having falsely
>accused me of having said that humans weren't primates
I can't even imagine what words of mine you are labeling in
this way. But then, I am not a troll.
> by deleting
>that paragraph and leaving another paragraph, and claiming that that's
>what he referred to all along, euthanized. Grow up, Peter.)
Your last sentence is a smokescreen to create the illusion
of sincerity concerning what you wrote before. I'd be impressed by its
cleverness, were I not used to seeing such things on Usenet
innumerable times since 1992.
I'm calling your bluff, Mike. Post the alleged paragraphs
and explain why you said what you did about them.
Don Cates
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[The usual crap - deleted]
Fuck off, Peter. I'm not talking to you.
In the extremely unlikely event that there is *anyone* out there
interested in the allegations made by Peter and myself, I direct them to
the original posts. (If you can find them. I'm not interested enough to
continue tracking them.) Make up your own mind. Don't take Peter's word
for the correct interpretation. Nor mine, but anyway, here is my opinion
of Peter.
He is a pompous, nit-picking asshole. He is obviously a fairly
intelligent guy, but is so full of himself that it seriously impares his
judgement.
Mike Noreen
Replying to ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates)
: Well, I *am* returning to this thread. Not in response to Peter's
: flame-bait but by the appearrence of Mike Noreen.
Well, I'm getting out. I'm no longer going to answer Peter; he's
become unhinged like he did earlier in email discussions with me - and
he apparently has *way* more spare time on his hands than I do.
: I initially jumped in on this thread on the assumption that Mike would
: not want to become embroiled with Peter on an unmoderated group. BOY,
: WAS I WRONG. (go get'im Mike! - better you than me (B-)).
I've been debating with Peter for over three months, most of the time
in mail. He's still repeating most of the stuff he said back then, and
the stuff he's changed his mind on he refuses to acknowledge ever
having thought differently about.
: >> Saying that the primates contains the ancestors of a group of
: >>primates is a meaningless statement -
:
: >Mind if I paraphrase this to say, "Saying that primates
: >contains the ancestors of the various species of Homo
: >is a meaningless statement"? The creationists would love
: >it, I can almost guarantee it.
:
: My reply agreed with the last statement and said that I didn't mind the
: paraphrase since I believed it was stating the obvious. (ie. the
: evidence shows that "the various species of Homo" are primates)
:
: Mike's reply did not agree with the paraphrase.
: My first thoughts were:
: Well, Mike is saying that the evidence shows that the statement in the
: paraphrase is true, so it is not meaningless. Then we can conclude from
: it that "the various species of Homo" are primates. I just started with
: that conclusion as my starting point. No big deal.
:
: Then I realized that it was a big deal. I now think that the above
: distinction is crutial to what cladistics does.
: As I now understand it, cladistic analysis of the evidence shows the
: relationship (ie. the statement in Peter's paraphrase could be the
: actual result of a cladistic analysis). As a consequence, by definition,
: if the group we have decided to call "primates" is to be a proper clad,
: then it *must* include "the various species of Homo". (as must any other
: clad containing an ancestor of "the various species of Homo")
Yes. If we have a group which contains an ancestor of Homo, but NOT
Homo itself, then you've got an unnatural, incomplete, group. Cladism
only accepts natural, monophyletic, groups.
Incomplete groups are created by grouping on primitive characters,
which is another way of saying that they are created on the LACK of a
trait found uniquely in the removed groups. Since the decision of
which lacking traits to group on is arbitrary, so are the incomplete
groups: they lack any real existance, but are artefacts of
classification.
: AM I starting to get a better handle on cladistics?
Yup, I think so.
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Proud to have been dubbed 'Incorrigible', 'idiot',
and 'IQ below 50' by that most "complex" of
trolls - Peter Nyikos!
Mike Noreen
Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
: I've also added alt.catastrophism just to give Ted Holden
: some ammunition to put in his archives in case you try to dispute
: your membership in his "howler monkeys".
You and TEd go well together. I would also be proud of any insulting
title given to me by TEd, just as I am proud over those you give me -
because it shows that *I* don't go well with *YOU*. An insult from
you, TEd or karl is a badge of honour for any scientist.
: >: Three demonstrable falsehoods, a false accusation [by his standards]
: >: and one grotesque distortion by Mike
: >A lot of hot air, but little argumentation. Passion isn't arguments,
:
: More hypocrisy. If you lie your head off, will you also
: say "A lot of hot air" when your lies are demonstrated?
When have you demonstrated a lie, Peter? Do you have quotes, like I
have numerous quotes of you contradicting yourself and then refusing
to admit that you ever contradicted yourself?
: When you said "Liar" to me in e-mail, without even
: demonstrating that what I was saying was UNTRUE, were you
: indulging in argumentation?
I don't know - I don't remember. And frankly, my dear, I don't give a
damn.
: >Peter, and you've offered nothing but passion.
:
: Another demonstrable falsehood [see small demonstration below,
This is your level of showing that I 'lie' and say 'falsehoods', is
it? You ASSERT it?
(insults snipped)
: >Yes, I have, which is why I don't treat it in depth here.
:
: I saw no treatment of this particular issue:
:
: >: ================ excerpt from post to the thread,
: >: Defining paraphyly (Was: cladistics) [NOT SO LONG]
:
: >(MN)
: >: >Errrm - I don't know how to put this to you, Peter, but a "taxon" IS a
: >: >name and a rank. Mammalia is such a name and rank,
:
: >(PN)
: >: I've never seen anyone except you use the word "rank" in this
: >: way. AFAIK "rank" refers to such concepts as "class", "order"
: >: "family" etc. To me, the claim that Mammalia is a "rank"
: >: sounds as absurd as saying "General Eisenhower was a rank".
: >: ===================== end of excerpt
: >:
: >(PN)
: >: ...or, even more precisely, saying "Dwight D. Eisenhower was a rank."
Dealt with TWICE even, and once in the post you respond to.
: Since "Mammalia" is just a name, you've just refuted your
: own claim that Mammalia is a rank.
God, Peter, this is pre-school. Even you aren't normally this stupid,
so I'm guessing that you are deliberately trying to be obnoxious -
most of your posts the last weeks has seemed to be just that. You
cannot, even you, possibly be unaware that Mammalia is the name of a
class of organisms. The taxon is the name and rank of those organisms:
the taxonomic unit. Don't take my word for it: look it up somewhere.
: See how easy it is to deal with some issues? All I have to do
: is give you enough rope, and you hang yourself.
Seldom have I seen someone so happy over such a childish point. This
is very familiar, Peter, this is almost exactly the way you acted in
email when I finally had to refuse to answer any more mails from you
until you'd regained control of your mental faculties. I am going to
have to do the same again, I guess.
: Remaining issues to be dealt with on original subject: line,
: and with alt.catastrophism removed.
And what is the deal with the incessant splitting of messages and
renaming of threads? You change the thread EACH REPLY now! Why? Surely
you have SOME rationale? Is it, as I suspect, to make it more
difficult for me to track down quotes to show your contradictions?
: Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Proud to have been dubbed 'Incorrigible', 'idiot',
and 'IQ below 50' by that most "complex" of
trolls - Peter Nyikos!
Peter Nyikos
I am reluctantly leaving s.b.s. for two reasons: (1) so that people there
can be apprised of what is going on in talk.origins and (2) because
Mike has indulged in more than ordinary deceit about me here,
deleting words of his that make a mockery of what he subsequently
alleges about me.
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>Replying to nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
>: I've also added alt.catastrophism just to give Ted Holden
>: some ammunition to put in his archives in case you try to dispute
>: your membership in his "howler monkeys".
>You and TEd go well together.
Only in the sense that both Ted Holden and I [I know nothing of Ed nor even
what his last name is] know that there is an enormous
amount of injustice being inflicted on people in talk.origins.
I am trying to make it easy for people to see who the real
culprits are. Ted, unfortunately, has an ax to grind just against
people who are convinced of the truth of evolution, greatly diluting
the effectiveness of his "howler monkeys" category. In fact,
I am trying to encourage him to start applying higher standards
to "howler monkey" membership, and this is one indirect attempt
to do so.
There are other huge differences between me and Ted but those
are best dealt with elsewhere than in this post.
Your attempt at guilt by association is noted, and chalked up
to your application for Bandar-log membership, originally
made here in s.b.s. and being dealt with where it belongs, in
talk.origins.
I would also be proud of any insulting
>title given to me by TEd, just as I am proud over those you give me -
>because it shows that *I* don't go well with *YOU*.
Indeed, a dishonest net.thug like you does not go well with
honest people like me.
> An insult from
>you, TEd or karl is a badge of honour for any scientist.
Not only is this false where I am concerned, but your claim
to be a scientist is almost certainly fraudulent.
The only way you can even keep up the facade is to make
sneaky selective deletia as in the following passage:
>: >(MN)
>: >: >Errrm - I don't know how to put this to you, Peter, but a "taxon" IS a
>: >: >name and a rank. Mammalia is such a name and rank,
>:
>: >(PN)
>: >: I've never seen anyone except you use the word "rank" in this
>: >: way. AFAIK "rank" refers to such concepts as "class", "order"
>: >: "family" etc. To me, the claim that Mammalia is a "rank"
>: >: sounds as absurd as saying "General Eisenhower was a rank".
>: >: ===================== end of excerpt
>: >:
>: >(PN)
>: >: ...or, even more precisely, saying "Dwight D. Eisenhower was a rank."
====================== begin restoration of sneaky deletion by Noreen
>>>or rather less precisely, since that's just the name, you need a rank
>>> too. General Eisenhower is a name and a rank, and of course you
>>>changed that because you realised this.
===================== end of restoration
>: Since "Mammalia" is just a name, you've just refuted your
>: own claim that Mammalia is a rank.
>God, Peter, this is pre-school.
No, I would rate your selective deletion at middle school level
at least. And your con game below at about 5 on a scale
of 1 to 10, with "Honest, honest Iago" in Shakespeare's
Othello rated 9.9, and ordinary run of the mill insincerity
like you usually indulge in rated about 1.1.
>Even you aren't normally this stupid,
>so I'm guessing that you are deliberately trying to be obnoxious -
I think it should be obvious to everyone concerned that you are
really talking to yourself in these last two lines, or rather
should be, now that I have restored your sneaky selective deletion.
>most of your posts the last weeks has seemed to be just that.
Again, your words should be directed to yourself. This is
not nearly so easy to demonstrate, of course, as it was
with your specific claim, but I think any knowledgeable
systematist reading our posts of the last two weeks can
see that.
>cannot, even you, possibly be unaware that Mammalia is the name of a
>class of organisms.
Oh, you know that I know that. You also know that Dwight D. Eisenhower
was the name of a general. But of course, you know, as the
words you selectively deleted show, that Dwight D. Eisenhower
is not a rank. Yet you persist with your insincere/idiotic
defense of your insincere/ignorant claim that Mammalia is a rank.
> The taxon is the name and rank of those organisms:
>the taxonomic unit. Don't take my word for it: look it up somewhere.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another Phantom Error Correction Scam.
Remainder to be dealt with in talk.origins alone.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
ev-mi...@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
>Replying to ca...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates)
>: Well, I *am* returning to this thread. Not in response to Peter's
>: flame-bait but by the appearrence of Mike Noreen.
>Well, I'm getting out. I'm no longer going to answer Peter; he's
>become unhinged like he did earlier in email discussions with me
A totally false accusation, one I believe Mike knows to be false.
However, since he has killfiled me (or so he alleges) I will
be brief and delete the rest of his false accusations.
I am also deleting most of Don Cates's words, having responded
to his post directly earlier.
[Cates:]
>: As a consequence, by definition,
>: if the group we have decided to call "primates" is to be a proper clad,
>: then it *must* include "the various species of Homo". (as must any other
>: clad containing an ancestor of "the various species of Homo")
>Yes. If we have a group which contains an ancestor of Homo, but NOT
>Homo itself, then you've got an unnatural, incomplete, group.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These pejorative words are part of the ideology known
as "cladism", not to be confused with the branch of systematics
known as cladistics. Some cladists don't have any problems
with paraphyletic groups. This includes Robert L. Carroll,
author of the authoritative 1988 text, _Vertebrate Paleontology
and Evolution_.
> Cladism only accepts natural, monophyletic, groups.
Mike is being redundant since "natural" MEANS "monophyletic"
to a cladophile [one steeped in the ideology of cladism] when
modifying the word group. I've never seen any argument for
the appropriateness of "natural" here and "unnatural" for
paraphyletic groups that even *sounded* convincing.
>Incomplete groups are created by grouping on primitive characters,
>which is another way of saying that they are created on the LACK of a
>trait found uniquely in the removed groups.
This use of the word "LACK" is misleading since the "trait" involved
might simply be the absence of a trait. For example, postorbital
bars are plesimorphic for theraspids but the most primitive
mammals lacked them. Thus, in Noreen's parlance, primitive
theraspids lacked the trait, "no postorbital bar".
> Since the decision of
>which lacking traits to group on is arbitrary,
"arbitrary" is a word Mike loves, probably because of its
elasticity. He has tried to woo me into agreeing with statements
like the above by downplaying the pejorative connotations
of the word, but it is clear from what he says elsewhere that
once people agree with a wording like this, "their ass is grass"
as far as Mike is concerned. ["their ass is grass" is a term
Mike used in exactly such a context; he seems to be like
Caliban of Shakespeare's _The Tempest_ where the English
language is concerned, taking special
delight in vulgarities like this one. His native language,
at least so he claims, is Swedish.]
> so are the incomplete
>groups: they lack any real existance, but are artefacts of
>classification.
Pure ideology. All groups are artefacts of classification;
all groups are natural in the sense that they are well-defined sets
of species, about whose member species we are almost always
somewhat ignorant. Paraphyletic taxa simply are more complex
than clades because they are created by starting with a clade
and removing one or more sub-clades. But one can always use
the clade and its sub-clades to get a handle on what organisms
are included and which ones are not. If the base clade evolves,
the paraphyletic group evolves too if the new members aren't
in one of the subtracted-off clades. If a new member of the
base clade is discovered, it goes either into the paraphyletic
group or into one of the subtracted-off clades.
>: AM I starting to get a better handle on cladistics?
>Yup, I think so.
Yes, because unlike Noreen, he restricted himself to talking
about the meaning of the word "clade" which predates even
cladistics, but is absolutely essential to understanding
cladistics. No ideology in Cates's statement.
Peter Nyikos
I am correcting one unfortunate wording that crept into my last post
to this thread:
>I am reluctantly leaving s.b.s.
I meant to say that I was reluctantly leaving s.b.s. in the Newsgroups: line
among the newsgroups to which I was crossposting.
I will always be glad to respond to people who are sincerely interested
in scientific matters on s.b.s. In the past week I have been partially
separating the on-topic materials into separate threads, and hope
that some people are interested in discussing these matters further.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --