A bible for cladists like Harshman?

[pnyikos]

By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
classifications.

"Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
did not include all of its descendants. [The old Reptilia excluded
mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
subfamilies, were paraphyletic.

Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
Harshman, from the discussion,
Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
and analysis

It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:

http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%20in%20paleobiology.pdf

On Apr 26, 9:57 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/13 6:42 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Apr 26, 8:58 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/26/13 5:44 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> >>> "Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse reaction of
> >>> paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that cladists occasionally
> >>> have made provocative statements which naturally released negative
> >>> reactions"
>
> >>> Occasionally, my foot! Cracraft seems blissfully unaware of how
> >>> provocative his relentless repetition of the pejorative "unnatural" to
> >>> describe paraphyletic taxa is. [He even uses the word "nonexistent"
> >>> enclosed in scare quotes.]
[snip]

> >> I'm amazed at your ability to beat on Joel Cracraft from 30+ years ago.
>
> > Why aren't you amazed at the ability of atheists and others to beat on
> > the Bible from 20 centuries or more ago?
>
> Joel will be happy to know that you're equating his paper with the
> bible. But I suppose it's that the bible is still actually a current
> issue, while Joel's 1981 paper isn't by any stretch.

Come off it, Harshman! In most of the posts where we debate the topic
of paraphyletic taxa, you might as well be channeling Joel with your
use of pejorative labels like the ones I quote above, and much else.

In fact, if he was the one who originated the use of pejoratives like
them, then he is to cladophilia as Moses is to Judaism. And one could
make a two-book "bible" of cladophilia with some writings of Hennig
being the analogue of Genesis and all but the last section of Joel's
paper being the analogue of Exodus.

I suspect the reason you stress that his paper is 30+ years old is
that the last section, where he finally gets off his anti-paraphyly
hobbyhorse, is an acute embarrassment to neo-Darwinists. For instance:

"The conclusion that evolution by natural
selection produced hypsodont teeth, or that
change in tooth structure through time is
consistent with population genetics, is axiomatic
(Cracraft 1981). Explanations of this kind, which
are common in the paleontological literature, are
structured so that they can account for any
observation. As such they have limited scientific
value, for how are we to say we are wrong in any
specific instance?" [pp. 466-467]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 30, 11:54�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.
>
> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> Harshman, from the discussion,
> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> and analysis
>
> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>

> http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...

Peter: Did you forget that you're a neo-Darwinist as well? Why don't
you answer Cracraft's question?

Ray

[John Harshman]

I would just like to respond to this by noting that there is nothing
here worth responding to.

[pnyikos]

I am not a neo-Darwinist, just someone who is convinced about the
reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one, having
posted on "Darwin of the Gaps" last year in reply to Randy C. after
whom I named a different attitude "Randy of the Gaps".

_____________excerpt ___________________________

Randy C's fixation on the phrase "God of the Gaps" inspired me to
come up with the natural counterpart:

Darwin of the Gaps

This is the default, one-size-fits-all, totally unfalsifiable
naturalistic explanation for any and all biological phenomena:

"Well, it's natural selection, y'know. The __________ that did/could/
are __________ had a survival advantage over the ones that didn't/
couldn't/weren't and so they are the ones we see today."

The irony is that I've seen very few U. of Ediacara types even go THIS
far in trying to explain biological phenomena. Randy C certainly
doesn't even pretend to do so below. So I do a little turnabout on
him.
=================end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c01ed40cd08cfe2?dmode=source
Message-ID: <54a41c25-adb7-458e-
ac4a-359...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
The last three symbols before the @ are 85f

Peter Nyikos

[ruben safir]

> I am not a neo-Darwinist, just someone who is convinced about the
> reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one, having
> posted on "Darwin of the Gaps" last year in reply to Randy C. after whom
> I named a different attitude "Randy of the Gaps".

I don't even know or even care what this means. Why don't you just stick
to Paleontology in this section and fuck everything else.



Ruben
--
The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home

[pnyikos]

On Apr 30, 5:11�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 11:54 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> > By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> > cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> > classifications.
>
> > "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> > did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> > mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> > paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> > subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> > Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> > Harshman, from the discussion,
> > Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> > and analysis
>
> > It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>

> >http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...

I see jillery agrees on another thread. Opposition to Peter Nyikos
makes for strange bedfellows.

But I have a question.

Is it true that nobody before Joel Cracraft had the chutzpah to label
paraphyletic taxa as "unnatural" and "nonexistent" in a peer reviewed,
NSF-grant sponsored paper?

If you have read what I wrote up there, you have seen me broaching
this issue, though not so explicitly.

Can I put you down for pleading *nolo contendere* on Joel's behalf?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Despite your hostile-seeming attitude, ruben, I always welcome a new
contributor to sci.bio.paleontology.

Is that the newsgroup in which you came across this thread?

Can I count on you to become active on other threads in this
newsgroup? I'd be very glad if you could start a few yourself.

I'm a set-theoretic topologist by profession, but if I had the time
for it, I would love to become a vertebrate paleontologist as well.

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

On Apr 30, 3:11�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 11:54 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> > cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> > classifications.
>
> > "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> > did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> > mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> > paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> > subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> > Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> > Harshman, from the discussion,
> > Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> > and analysis
>
> > It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>

> >http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...

This is my only line.

DJT

[Thrinaxodon]

> Peter Nyikos

You stick to Lamarkism? Probably not. But, you don't accept natural
selection?

[pnyikos]

Got tired of dealing with Ray Martinez? Can't really blame you.

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

Nah, Ray's not that lucky. I was just taking a short break. One can
only deal with insane troll logic for a while before one needs a rest.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

> reality of common descent. �I am with Cracraft on this one,....

[....snip....]

So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.

Ray

[Thrinaxodon]

Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
asshole, or you.

[erik simpson]

All right, I'll bite.

Prof. Nyikos:

What IS your 'big question'?

What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?

If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?

I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.

[Ray Martinez]

He's your evo brother, not mine.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Thrinaxodon]

There is no such thing, as an "evo brother". Evolution, is the changes
of allele frequencies within a population. And, evolution has done
great contributions to the medical field. No, evolution has brought
significant contributions to the medical field, creationism hasn't.

--

Thrinaxodon
A cynodont in a kitchen.

[pnyikos]

No, I just don't involve myself in the fine points of how it all comes
together in neo-Darwinian theory. What I know about it doesn't help to
make it possible to answer Cracraft's question.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 5:16锟絘m, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:18锟絧m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > reality of common descent. 锟絀 am with Cracraft on this one,....

>
> > [....snip....]
>
> > So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> > while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> > The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> > Ray
>
> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> Lamarkism".

You should never trust Ray for information about what my positions on
things are. He's a most unreliable witness.

See my reply to him just now for a much more mundane explanation of
what I said earlier.

> Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> asshole, or you.

I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole. But at least it's better
than thinking of me as a pushover about whom anyone can make up any
wild story they please, without me trying to do anything about it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

What do you say to the frequent creationist rejoinder, "that's
microevolution, with which I have no quarrel" (or words to that
effect)?

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:15:06 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<fd1d934c-8c49-4785...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On May 1, 2:16ï¿œam, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 10:18ï¿œpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> reality of common descent. ï¿œI am with Cracraft on this one,....

>>
>>> [....snip....]
>>
>>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
>>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
>>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
>> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
>> asshole, or you.
>
> He's your evo brother, not mine.

1 there ain't no such animal as an 'evo brother'

2 if there were, Peter wouldn't be one, as he's a creationist, and a
dishonest one at that.

>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>


--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<d187a762-6097-446e...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

> I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.

I doubt this. You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.

[Nick Keighley]

On Apr 30, 7:54�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> classifications.

I used to subscribe to New Scientist but life got too busy and unread
ones began to pile up, so I cancelled the subscription. At this point
there were these wierd crazies who rather stridently were trying to
reform the whole biological clasification system (I heard rumours of
near punch ups over museum organisation). Time passed and I started to
read New Scientist again. The lunatics has taken over the asylum.

:-)

[Thrinaxodon]

On May 5, 12:33�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <d187a762-6097-446e-9f7d-8237d99b7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this. You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
> out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

He's an intellectual dropout, and an ass-banger.

[Burkhard]

On 6 May, 11:58, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I don't think "lunatic" is a clade.Rather a massive example of
convergent evolution

[jillery]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Lunacy is an emergent property.

[John Harshman]

And proud of it, man.

[Burkhard]

On 6 May, 14:45, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:49:04 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>

property is theft

[pnyikos]

On May 5, 12:31�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:15:06 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
> (in article

> <fd1d934c-8c49-4785-bebf-72144a0d4...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:16 am, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 30, 10:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>> reality of common descent. I am with Cracraft on this one,....

>
> >>> [....snip....]
>
> >>> So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
> >>> while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
> >>> The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
>
> >>> Ray
>
> >> Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, "neo-
> >> Lamarkism". Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
> >> asshole, or you.
>
> > He's your evo brother, not mine.
>
> 1 there ain't no such animal as an 'evo brother'

What shameless hypocrisy! You don't allow Ray to use terms that make
sense, while you ride roughshod over the real meanings of words,
substituting meanings that fly in the face of common sense. See
below.

> 2 if there were, Peter wouldn't be one, as he's a creationist, and a
> dishonest one at that.

Admit it, you pathological liar: you use a dishonest *ad hoc*
definition of "creationist" whereby everyone who suggests that earth
life may be due to directed panspermia is a "creationist" including
that atheist Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick.

The only reason you aren't laughed out of talk.origins is that some
heavyweights, including Michael Coffey and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are allies of yours.

[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall to
you also, for instance.]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 5, 12:33�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:55:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <d187a762-6097-446e-9f7d-8237d99b7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > I'm sorry you think of me as an asshole.
>
> I doubt this.

I think you are being blatantly insincere. You put so much effort
into being an asshole, that you must surely realize that I am a
completely different person than you are.

Oh. Wait. Maybe being an asshole is something that has naturally
evolved in your character since early childhood, so that the following
example of verbal diarrhea from you comes to your mind with hardly any
effort at all:

> You put so much effort into being not merely an asshole but an
> out loud, extreme, infected, prolapsed rectum that you must be proud of it.

The above is just another example of your shameless dishonesty, after
having deleted the words that help to delineate what my behavior is
*really* all about. Here are those words again:

__________________ begin repost_______

But at least it's better
than thinking of me as a pushover about whom anyone can make up any
wild story they please, without me trying to do anything about it.

============end of repost

And you are the prime example of someone who, while showing too little
imagination to make up wild stories about me (except in one case,
where you fell flat on your face) do hurl wild, defamatory insults at
me in the majority of replies you make to my posts.

TEST OF O'SHEA SIMULATING SOFTWARE :-)

> And you are the prime example of someone who,
> while showing too little imagination to make up
> wild stories about me (except in one case,
> where you fell flat on your face) do hurl wild,
> defamatory insults at me in the majority
> of replies you make to my posts.

Liar.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

END OF TEST :-) :-)


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

and theft is loss, which means they lost their minds.

[jillery]

Michael Coffey? Perhaps he means his brother Mitchell.

>and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
>to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are allies of yours.
>
>[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall to
>you also, for instance.]

And here is a classic example of his understanding of "on-topic".
Where is the tit-for-tat "equivalence" so many claim in his defense?

[pnyikos]

And your evidence for this bizarre claim is....?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 1:32�pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All right, I'll bite.
>
> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?

species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.

Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
which family, ...

And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
classified as above.

In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
class Aves.

And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
extant birds as being candidates for descendants.

But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
all living birds.

> I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.

I am working with concepts that were completely standard until the
tremendous onslaught of aggressive cladophiles like Cracraft.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

You're being sarcastic, I'm sure. If you were serious, you would be
what I call a cladomaniac.

But until you clarify this comment, you are still a mere cladophile.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 30, 7:00�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/13 2:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 5:11 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >> On 4/30/13 11:54 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> By "cladists like Harshman" I mean what I call "cladophiles" --
> >>> cladists who will not tolerate paraphyletic taxa in formal
> >>> classifications.
>

> >>> "Paraphyletic" is a term for taxa like the traditional Reptilia which
> >>> did not include all of its descendants. �[The old Reptilia excluded
> >>> mammals and birds.] A sizable percentage of taxa used by
> >>> paleontologists like Romer, particularly on the level of families and
> >>> subfamilies, were paraphyletic.
>
> >>> Here is a reply to part of a post by the ardent cladophile John
> >>> Harshman, from the discussion,
> >>> Subject: Re: Paraphyletic taxon =? grade? Re: Turtle genome sequence
> >>> and analysis
>
> >>> It revolves around a 1981 article by Joel Cracraft:
>
> >>>http://research.amnh.org/vz/ornithology/pdfs/1981e.Pattern%20process%...
>

> >>> On Apr 26, 9:57 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:

> >>>> On 4/26/13 6:42 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>

> >> I would just like to respond to this by noting that there is nothing
> >> here worth responding to.
>

> > I see jillery agrees on another thread. �Opposition to Peter Nyikos
> > makes for strange bedfellows.
>
> > But I have a question.
>
> > Is it true that nobody before Joel Cracraft had the chutzpah to label
> > paraphyletic taxa as "unnatural" and "nonexistent" in a peer reviewed,
> > NSF-grant sponsored paper?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> > If you have read what I wrote up there, you have seen me broaching
> > this issue, though not so explicitly.
>
> > Can I put you down for pleading *nolo contendere* on Joel's behalf?
>
> No. Why should anyone care who was the first to do this perfectly
> reasonable thing? Why should anyone care whether or not it was
> NSF-sponsored?

You say these things, Harshman, because you have been conditioned not
to see anything offensive in the word "unnatural" when applied to
paraphyletic taxa.

In contrast, you (or at least a large segment of our population) have
been conditioned to be offended when someone uses "unnatural" in
connection with homosexual acts--in some cases, very deeply offended.

As for me, I would say it is extremely unprofessional to use the word
"unnatural" in either way in a peer-reviewed paper partially supported
by federal grants.

And I hope that answers your second question, at least. I do try to
leave all signs of my own conditioning out of my posted Usenet
comments, for reasons that I'd rather not go into here.

> Whatever is there in this post that is at all worthy of
> any sort of response?

Hmmm... maybe you ARE proud of being one of the lunatics
(cladomaniacs, to be specific) who have taken over the asylum. :-)

But seriously, perhaps Joel Cracraft was in the same boat you are in
now: *already* conditioned by his fellow cladophile radicals into
thinking there is nothing offensive about his use of words like
"unnatural" as above.

And that would mean that the use of the word "occasionally" was
sincere but naive, rather than blatantly disingenuous, in the
following statement of his:

"Several reasons can be suggested for the adverse
reaction of paleontologists towards cladistics. One is that
cladists occasionally have made provocative statements
which naturally released negative reactions"

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

pnyikos wrote:
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the
world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely
nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird
and see what it's doing � that's what counts. I learned very
early the difference between knowing the name of something
and knowing something." Richard Feynman.

[Thrinaxodon]

I doubt you mean that. You are an intellectual dropout. When people
disagree with you, you resort to personal attacks. You have done many
lies on behalf of your service. I don't care that you have
credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
this board. When, you accept constructive criticism, I'll possibly
change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
asshole. My reasons put.

[Thrinaxodon]

Read my other post, responding to you, when you responded to J.J.

[Thrinaxodon]

Are you out of your mind?

[John Harshman]

Conditioned? Who would have done such a thing. No, I think the problem
is yours. "Unnatural" is a perfectly valid descriptive word. Some groups
are natural and some are not. We may disagree on what group are natural,
but I don't see any reason to suppose that calling some groups unnatural
is any sort of insult. Cool down.

[John Harshman]

On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson<eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...
>
> And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
> extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
> classified as above.

For the record, neither of these things confuses me. Peter is, if
anything, projecting.

> In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> class Aves.

Actually, by the modern definition I favor, Archaeopteryx is not a part
of Aves. Contrariwise, there are many clades of which Archaeopteryx is
certainly a part; Maniraptora or Avialae, for example.

> And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
> extant birds as being candidates for descendants.

It's certainly conceivable, but it's almost certainly not true.

I agree, though, that you have a tiny little semblance of a point: if
all taxa are to be assigned to a genus and species, then any genus
including ancestors must be paraphyletic. On the other hand, we have no
real way of knowing this except by phylogenetic analysis, and any genus,
even of fossils, that turns out to be paraphyletic is commonly
disassembled into smaller parts. Your intended real problem arises only
if we can identify a species as ancestral, which -- sorry -- we can't.

> But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
> be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
> even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
> all living birds.

And a good thing too, because there's just no way it's true. This isn't
a taboo; it's just a common sense bow to the reality of what we can know.

>> I don't intend these questions to be insulting, but it seems to me that you're either being very obtuse or you're working with different concepts than those of others.
>
> I am working with concepts that were completely standard until the
> tremendous onslaught of aggressive cladophiles like Cracraft.

That is, until we learned better, added rigor to systematics and
classification, and thought more clearly. That's scientific progress, in
fact.

[pnyikos]

On May 6, 6:58�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I wouldn't put it quite so strongly, but there is a large, hard, solid
kernel of truth to your last sentence. See the replies I did to
Harshman today, especially the part about "conditioning".

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

What if I said I didn't care about your little classifications of
scientists? What would that make me?

[pnyikos]

Sorry about the momentary lapse.

> >and Bob Casanova, are in thrall
> >to you, while Paul Gans, jillery, and Ron O are �allies of yours.
>
> >[I could be wrong about that breakdown; Gans might be in thrall �to
> >you also, for instance.]
>
> And here is a classic example of his understanding of "on-topic".

No, it is an example of *staying* partly off-topic in reply to a
partly off-topic AND blatantly dishonest comment by your ardent ally,
O'Shea.

And here, you are showing your solidarity with him by trying to change
the subject.

And I do believe one of the reasons you are an ally of his is that his
replies to me are not only mostly off topic, but they are so
dishonest, they make you look only slightly dishonest in comparison.

Also, you can trust him to go along with any lies you post about me,
of which there have been many of late. As they say, there is even
honor among thieves.

By the way, you do realize you are being completely off-topic, even in
the part I deleted below, don't you, hypocrite?

[pnyikos]

On May 6, 3:18�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> All right, I'll bite.
>
> >> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> >> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> >> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> >> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> > species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> > intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> > fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> > paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> > Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> > largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> > as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> > which family, ...
>

> � "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the
> � �world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely
> � �nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird
> � �and see what it's doing � that's what counts. I learned very
> � �early the difference between knowing the name of something
> � �and knowing something." Richard Feynman.

That's a nice quote, Roger, but if you think that it is relevant to
what I wrote, you are far more ignorant of the uses of traditional
classification (as practiced by Romer and Colbert, inter alia) than I
am about biochemistry.

Unfortunately, a detailed explanation by me will take too long for me
to do it for the next two weeks. But if you are interested, I can do
it for you shortly after the two weeks are up.

And now I *must* get down to serious work [as mentioned to Dana
Tweedy] I've lingered on Usenet too long already.

Peter Nyikos

> > And what confuses Harshman even more, is that by only working with
> > extant species, every one of the birds HE is interested in CAN be
> > classified as above.
>

> > In contrast, �Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
> > classification is concerned. �The smallest clade of which "Archie" is

> > known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> > class Aves.
>
> > And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> > Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
> > extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
>
> > But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to

> > be a taboo: Archie �HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. �It is

[erik simpson]

Maybe we should simply consider the fact that Prof. Nyikos is a mathematician, and as such has the luxury to deal in certainties. This might help explain his stubborn adherence to Linnaean classification with its apparent (unnatural?) precision at placing all organisms in their proper place.

As has been pointed out (Richard Norman?), this argument has already played out in the professional arena years ago, and continuing it in this forum with an extremely contentious and sensitive amateur serves no purpose whatever.

[pnyikos]

I'd like to know where you got THIS bizarre idea about me, too.

> You have done many
> lies on behalf of your service.

I'm calling your bluff. Name one.

By the way, might your real name be Richard Alan Forrest? He is the
only other still-practicing paleontologist who was irrational about
me. And both of you are maddeningly irrational about me.

> I don't care that you have
> credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,

Give some, and I may listen. This crap you are posting is most
unprofessional.

> I'll possibly
> change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> asshole. My reasons put.

Bogus reasons, every one. And your next two replies don't even
attempt to give any.

And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

It serves the same purpose as any argument in this group, i.e.
amusement. What more were you looking to find here?

[John Harshman]

I agree. If everyone would stop poking Peter, he would have no reason to
keep poking back. You know he can't help himself, so stop applying the
stimulus. You, at least, may have an option, while Peter does not.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All right, I'll bite.
>>
>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>
>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>
>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>
>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.

Those good old-fashioned classifications exist in cladistics, too, do
they not?

And the paraphyletic taxa are produced not by fossils per se, but by new
information showing what the true relationships are.

> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> which family, ...

Paleontologists do that, too, when they are left with enough information
about an entity for a full description. I myself have seen it happen.

> In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> class Aves.

And what would you suggest as an alternative? Put Archaeopteryx in the
genus _Quelea_?

> And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants, not to mention ALL
> extant birds as being candidates for descendants.
>
> But Harshman is working under a taboo which he doesn't even realize to
> be a taboo: Archie HAS to be a "leaf" on the tree of all life. It is
> even "unnatural" to call Archie a candidate for being an ancestor of
> all living birds.

Harshman has answered that before. Treating fossil species as interior
nodes, not leaves, is not "unnatural"; it is stupid. Even in the highly
unlikely case that some other species is descended from _A.
lithographica_, nobody could ever possibly know.

You do raise one nomenclatural problem, but it is a minor one. When
referring to a *hypothetical* common ancestor of A and B, there is no
way to give it a formal traditional name it in cladistic terms. That
problem is minor (to the point of not being a problem at all) because it
still works perfectly fine to name it "the hypothetical common ancestor
of A and B."

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Thrinaxodon]

> I'm calling your bluff. �ｿｽName one.
>
> By the way, might your real name be Richard Alan Forrest? �ｿｽHe is the

> only other still-practicing paleontologist who was irrational about

> me. �ｿｽAnd both of you are maddeningly irrational about me.
>
> �ｿｽ> I don't care that you have

>
> > credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> > this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,
>

> Give some, and I may listen. �ｿｽThis crap you are posting is most

> unprofessional.
>
> > I'll possibly
> > change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> > asshole. My reasons put.
>

> Bogus reasons, every one. �ｿｽAnd your next two replies don't even

> attempt to give any.
>
> And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
> this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.
>
> Peter Nyikos

2 examples: "something rotten is going on in t.o: virtual witch
hunts", "Liars and Liars in talk.origins".

[John Harshman]

On 5/6/13 5:28 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>> On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All right, I'll bite.
>>>
>>> Prof. Nyikos:
>>>
>>> What IS your 'big question'?
>>>
>>> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>>>
>>> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU
>>> mean by 'taxon'?
>>
>> species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
>> intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
>> fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
>> paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Those good old-fashioned classifications exist in cladistics, too, do
> they not?

To a degree. The modern fashion is to dispense with most ranks, but
certainly one could do a cladistic classification with traditional
ranks. It gets messy.

> And the paraphyletic taxa are produced not by fossils per se, but by new
> information showing what the true relationships are.

Not exactly. The traditional systematists didn't care whether their taxa
were paraphyletic, and so tended to name them even when they had good
reason to think they were. And it has nothing especially to do with fossils.

>> Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
>> largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
>> as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
>> which family, ...
>
> Paleontologists do that, too, when they are left with enough information
> about an entity for a full description. I myself have seen it happen.
>
>> In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
>> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
>> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
>> class Aves.
>
> And what would you suggest as an alternative? Put Archaeopteryx in the
> genus _Quelea_?

Peter's alternative is a complicated system in which the same species is
put into several partly overlapping taxa; it's quite odd.

[jillery]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 16:50:30 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 5/6/13 1:39 PM, pnyikos wrote:

[...]

>> By the way, you do realize you are being completely off-topic, even in
>> the part I deleted below, don't you, hypocrite?
>>
>I agree.

No surprise.

>If everyone would stop poking Peter, he would have no reason to
>keep poking back.

Technically correct; he would have no reason. But your statement is
misleading to the point of dishonesty. Other posters including myself
have explicitly testified and proved that it doesn't matter what they
do or don't do; he continues to hound and harass others at his
pleasure. You act oblivious to the fact that "Michael" Coffey, Bob
Casanova, Paul Gans, Ron O. and myself had nothing to do with this
thread or with J.J.'s reply to Ray. His injection of these names, and
of his irrelevant feud with them, is but one method he habitually uses
to obfuscate a topic into incomprehensible noise.

>You know he can't help himself, so stop applying the
>stimulus. You, at least, may have an option, while Peter does not.

Why do you continue to make excuses for him? Why do you treat him
like he belongs to some protected class? Why do you expect anybody
should put up with his abuse? As long as other posters offer him
tacit approval and turn a blind eye, as you do here and elsewhere, his
abusive behavior will continue to increase and grow worse.

[jillery]

>> Where is the tit-for-tat "equivalence" so many claim in his defense?
>

>No, it is an example of *staying* partly off-topic in reply to a
>partly off-topic AND blatantly dishonest comment by your ardent ally,
>O'Shea.

Wrong. J.J. replied directly to Ray about his comments. Your reply
to J.J. goes well beyond the scope of J.J.'s comments, and injects the
names of other posters who have nothing to do with this thread. Not
only are your comments off-topic to cladistics, they are off-topic to
J.J.'s post.

>And here, you are showing your solidarity with him by trying to change
>the subject.

It's simply amazing that you accuse me of changing the subject when I
am replying directly about the comments YOU made. This is the kind of
blatant hypocrisy for which you are so well known.

>And I do believe one of the reasons you are an ally of his is that his
>replies to me are not only mostly off topic, but they are so
>dishonest, they make you look only slightly dishonest in comparison.

So tell me how the above paragraph addresses anything either I or J.J.
wrote. It's nothing but innuendo and bald assertion.

>Also, you can trust him to go along with any lies you post about me,
>of which there have been many of late. As they say, there is even
>honor among thieves.

More innuendo. Of course, you don't identify any lies I posted about
you, because I have made none.

>By the way, you do realize you are being completely off-topic, even in
>the part I deleted below, don't you, hypocrite?

That would be you. Since I replied to your comments, I can only be as
off-topic as you say you are. The difference is YOU changed the
topic, not me. The difference is your reply goes way beyond what J.J.
wrote. That would make YOU the hypocrite. You want to have it both
ways, where you can say whatever you want about anybody you want
whenever you want, and then squeal like a stuck pig whenever anybody
calls you on it.

[Ron O]

On May 7, 12:36�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 16:50:30 -0700, John Harshman
>

Why doesn't Harshman take his own advice? Harshman has no problem
responding to the asshole and poking at him. My guess is that
everyone else gets the blow back of what a liar Harshman is from
Nyikos' bleating.

We might as well claim that if everyone stopped posting to the ass he
would run down and go back to his abortion buddies. It is just a fact
that not posting to the ass does not stop him from being an ass. In
the 3 month period after Nyikos' first stupid knockdown attempt where
we did not exchange posts, Nyikos was obviously still being an ass
about me even when I wasn't poking at him. Just not posting to the
ass does not work. Maybe if everyone stopped posting to Nyikos it
might work, but will that ever happen?

Ron Okimoto

[Walter Bushell]

In article <cd-dnfsF5dN...@giganews.com>,

I think not[1]. For humans to have free will in that sense is
tantamount to saying their can be physical results without physical
causes.

[1] Thus disproving René Descartes..

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[pnyikos]

On May 6, 8:28�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 1:32 pm, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> All right, I'll bite.
>
> >> Prof. Nyikos:
>
> >> What IS your 'big question'?
>
> >> What do YOU mean by 'neo-Darwinist' (that you are not)?
>
> >> If paraphyletic taxa are legitimate systematic groups, what do YOU mean by 'taxon'?
>
> > species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain -- and
> > intermediates such as "suborder," "superfamily, " etc. The good old
> > fasioned classification, which inevitably produces numerous
> > paraphyletic taxa when fossils are brought into the picture.
>
> Those good old-fashioned classifications exist in cladistics, too, do
> they not?

Yes, but it looks like the things I said about that below went in one
ear and out the other, to use a mixed metaphor.

> And the paraphyletic taxa are produced not by fossils per se, but by new
> information showing what the true relationships are.

Or old, long-established information; the larger the paraphyletic
taxon, the more likely this information goes back decades.

> > Harshman only works as a professional on extant species, so he is
> > largely oblivious to the advantage of every organism being classified
> > as to which of the above entities it is a member of -- which genus,
> > which family, ...
>
> Paleontologists do that, too, when they are left with enough information
> about an entity for a full description.

You have completely missed out on why paraphyletic taxa are popular
with paleontologists. Unfortunately, I have no time to explain
further. If you are interested, I'll have an explanation no more than
three weeks hence.

Until then, the little hint I gave above will have to do.

>I myself have seen it happen.

Here is something that went in one ear and out the other:

> > In contrast, �Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
> > classification is concerned. �The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
> > known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
> > class Aves.
>
> And what would you suggest as an alternative? �Put Archaeopteryx in the
> genus _Quelea_?

No, turkey. Give it its own family, order, and whatever, even if it
means that it is the sole member.

> > And it may be that the genus Archaeopteryx is paraphyletic, with some
> > Chinese fossils qualfying as possible descendants,

Some of which may deserve to belong in the same family, or even
subfamily.

Got to run. The first exam begins in 5 minutes.

[John Harshman]

I'll make an exception for you, since you probably can't help yourself
either. You and Peter feed off each other. But I think most other people
can indeed help themselves.

[John Harshman]

On 5/7/13 5:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> You have completely missed out on why paraphyletic taxa are popular
> with paleontologists.

*Were* popular, if anything. Not any more.

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 04:31:03 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

I recall Harshman's characterization of your post in the Turtle Genome
topic, that it "was a way over-the-top rant", and compare it to his
characterization of rockhead's reply to J.J. in this topic, that he
"can't help himself". His blatant double-standards are indefensible.

[John Harshman]

It's still conceivable to me that Ron might be able to help himself. But
I'm willing to be convinced that he too is as caught in a behavioral
loop as you and Peter.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <zNKdnYvCk9M...@giganews.com>,

But still we classify life forms by other characteristic than descent.
Like edible, useful for furniture, dangerous in various categories,
parasitic and so on.

[John Harshman]

On 5/7/13 8:12 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<zNKdnYvCk9M...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/13 5:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> You have completely missed out on why paraphyletic taxa are popular
>>> with paleontologists.
>>
>> *Were* popular, if anything. Not any more.
>
> But still we classify life forms by other characteristic than descent.
> Like edible, useful for furniture, dangerous in various categories,
> parasitic and so on.
>

We do indeed. But nobody calls those taxa. Taxa are parts of a special
classification that has a unitary purpose and criterion. At least they
are these days. In the bad old days they had dual purposes, and that led
to the inability to satisfy either purpose properly. Cladists will
gladly use the word "tree" to describe big, woody plants. But nobody
wants to call trees a taxon.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/7/13 5:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 6, 8:28 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 5/6/13 11:04 AM, pnyikos wrote:

>> [...]

>>> In contrast, Archaeopteryx is a complete mess where cladistic
>>> classification is concerned. The smallest clade of which "Archie" is
>>> known to be a member, besides the genus Archaeopteryx itself, is the
>>> class Aves.
>>
>> And what would you suggest as an alternative? Put Archaeopteryx in the
>> genus _Quelea_?
>
> No, turkey. Give it its own family, order, and whatever, even if it
> means that it is the sole member.

How is that different from traditional cladistics? _Trichoplax
adhaerens_ is the sole member of its *phylum*.

[pnyikos]

On May 6, 9:16�pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'm calling your bluff. Name one.
>
> > By the way, might your real name be Richard Alan Forrest? He is the

> > only other still-practicing paleontologist who was irrational about

> > me. And both of you are maddeningly irrational about me.

>
> > > I don't care that you have
>
> > > credentials, you are immature. You have driven many people away from
> > > this board. When, you accept constructive criticism,
>

> > Give some, and I may listen. This crap you are posting is most

> > unprofessional.
>
> > > I'll possibly
> > > change my mind. But, for now, you are an intellectually dishonest
> > > asshole. My reasons put.
>

> > Bogus reasons, every one. And your next two replies don't even

> > attempt to give any.
>
> > And now, I really am going back to work. The only reason I replied to
> > this one is that you are either very new or you are Forrest.
>
> > Peter Nyikos

> 2 examples: "something rotten is going on in t.o: virtual witch
> hunts", "Liars and Liars in talk.origins".

That's neither here nor there. You fail to show that I did anything
wrong in either of these.

Are you of the Coffey ilk, thinking that there is something morally
wrong with talking about WHAT has happened without identifying WHO was
involved? Coffey was the only one who tried seriously to allege that
what I was doing was wrong -- because it didn't baby the people who
don't give a damn what happens, and whose only concern is to figure
out which side to take.

You ducked my question about who you are. I failed to take your
advanced age into account. I now suspect that you are someone I
clashed with on Panda's Thumb. Harshman knows who I mean--I'm too
pressed for time to look up the name; I do remember the first name was
John.

And if that is who you are, it's no wonder you don't understand the
advantages of paraphyletic groups: your specialty was invertebrates.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 7, 9:37�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/13 6:22 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Tue, 7 May 2013 04:31:03 -0700 (PDT), Ron O<rokim...@cox.net>

You've got it backwards. Ron O caught himself in a loop a few weeks
after I returned in December 2010. The reason he gives the illusion
otherwise is that he is under the delusion that he won every debate
with me on the simple grounds that I "ran away" from his slapped-on
crud that was not even relevant to the main issues dividing us.

And thus, the long silences for which I alone was responsible have
fooled you.

But you bear a great deal of the blame for the revival of fireworks
between us in March. You saw how clueless he was about the article
that he posted on, about mammalian evolution. You handled him with
kid gloves, and then when you saw that his idiocy about what the
article contained could no longer be handled with kid gloves, you
abandoned the thread, as did everyone else. That's when I stepped in.

I made several on-topic attempts to correct him, but he was so
fixated on his vendetta against me that he totally ignored every on-
topic thing I wrote.

I know I haven't burst your bubble, Mr. Dontwanna Hearaboutit. I only
posted what I did here for the benefit of those who are interested.
As for you, you can safely ignore this post.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 06:13:22 -0700, John Harshman

Pathetic evasion noted. Ad hominem noted. Some people believe what
you say about me, but what about the others? Are you going to make
exceptions for Coffey, Casanova, Gans, Ron O., and Mark Isaak as
well? That would really be testing your personal credibility.

[Thrinaxodon]

He started acting like an ass towards me in those emails. And then,
on here. He completely changed the subject from me debating with
Martinez, to me and him going back and fourth. He is delusional, when
I pointed out, that he always resorts to personal attacks, when
someone criticizes his notions, he denied, contrary to what has
happened to all of us. Is he doing this on purpose?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <je6dnWMOQ41...@giganews.com>,

Ah, my formal biology education was apparently in the bad old days.

[John Harshman]

On 5/7/13 1:31 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<je6dnWMOQ41...@giganews.com>,

> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/13 8:12 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article<zNKdnYvCk9M...@giganews.com>,
>>> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/7/13 5:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You have completely missed out on why paraphyletic taxa are popular
>>>>> with paleontologists.
>>>>
>>>> *Were* popular, if anything. Not any more.
>>>
>>> But still we classify life forms by other characteristic than descent.
>>> Like edible, useful for furniture, dangerous in various categories,
>>> parasitic and so on.
>>>
>> We do indeed. But nobody calls those taxa. Taxa are parts of a special
>> classification that has a unitary purpose and criterion. At least they
>> are these days. In the bad old days they had dual purposes, and that led
>> to the inability to satisfy either purpose properly. Cladists will
>> gladly use the word "tree" to describe big, woody plants. But nobody
>> wants to call trees a taxon.
>
> Ah, my formal biology education was apparently in the bad old days.
>

Most likely. But that isn't your fault.

[Ron O]

On May 7, 8:37�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/13 6:22 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Tue, 7 May 2013 04:31:03 -0700 (PDT), Ron O<rokim...@cox.net>

I'd wonder about yourself. Can there be any help for you? Who
claimed that I was the one feeding Nyikos when he was posting over an
order of magnitude more posts to the guy who was calling you a liar
and claiming in his post to me that he was kicking your butt?

Nyikos would starve on what I post to the loser.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

The saddest thing is Nyikosian projection. Nyikos was only back a
couple weeks when he found that he was wrong about the ID scam and
Ohio. Who was running from that post where he requested the evidence
and had claimed that it didn't exist? Who started the misdirection
thread to claim that someone else was running when he was the one that
couldn't face reality? From that point on dishonesty was all you
could muster. Demonstrate otherwise. If what I claim is not the
facts, why did it take you a year and a half to deliver your three
pathetic knockdowns? You shouldn't be able to lie to yourself
forever, but you can try all you want, reality won't change. Your
three pathetic knockdowns tell me that at some level you understand
just what a pathetic asshole you are. Who couldn't come up with
anything better?

>
> And thus, the long silences for which I alone was responsible have
> fooled you.

You were running from your stupid claims and lying to other posters
about me. You were not silent in the months that you did not post to
me. You were just a coward that couldn't face reality and had to lie
to anyone else that you could post to that didn't care one way or the
other. That is simply how sad you are.

>
> But you bear a great deal of the blame for the revival of fireworks
> between us in March. �You saw how clueless he was about the article
> that he posted on, about mammalian evolution. �You handled him with
> kid gloves, and then when you saw that his idiocy about what the
> article contained could no longer be handled with kid gloves, you
> abandoned the thread, as did everyone else. �That's when I stepped in.

What are you blaming Harshman for?

If anyone else had put up the info I would have read it, but no one
did, probably because they all missed it like I did.

That is what makes you so sad. Who is the one that does dishonest
deeds like you claimed for me? Was the topic anything that we had
disagreed about before? Was it even anything that we had ever
discussed? Had I ever done anything like you accused me of before?
Since the answer to all those questions is no, what kind of asshole
are you? It was just a plain and simple fact that I did not read your
post. What was your last post to me like? Harshman knows because it
was all about him and not me. Why would I want to read your post on a
new topic that I had no interest in discussing with you? What kind of
delusional ass would expect me to want to start up new topics of
discussion with you? What kind of asshole have you been on the topics
that we have discussed? Just go back over your pathetic knockdowns to
get a summary of just how bogus you can be. Aren't they all made up
stories? How sad is that for your efforts for a year and a half?
Really, what have you been doing with respect to me besides lying
about the past and claiming that your knockdowns would soon be coming
or had been delayed?

>
> I made several on-topic attempts to correct him, but �he was so
> fixated on his vendetta against �me that he totally ignored every on-
> topic thing I wrote.

You are just an ass, face the facts and move on.

>
> I know I haven't burst your bubble, Mr. Dontwanna Hearaboutit. �I only
> posted what I did here for the benefit of those who are interested.
> As for you, you can safely ignore this post.
>
> Peter �Nyikos

Still claiming to be kicking Harshman's butt and I am the one that is
supposed to be feeding you. Just get lost and don't bug me anymore.

Ron Okimoto

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lv6dnfOMOtf...@giganews.com>,

But the whippersnappers rag on me for collecting Social Security which
they have to pay for and won't get. I do pity them born too late to
take in the fruits of the last glow of the capitalist boom.