How Harshman Derailed a Discussion of Paleontology

[Peter Nyikos]

This is an analysis of a mendacious post by Harshman on the thread,
Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats

His modus operandi is to make evasive statements that impede
discussion of a very important paleontological issue. At first,
the communication-derailing nature of the first evasion is apparent to an attentive reader.

The "At first" is not redundant, because the first evasion is
essentially repeated far, far down, near the end of this post,
where almost no one could tell what is evaded -- or even that something IS being evaded!

In between, there come several evasions whose "payoff" in
derailment only becomes apparent further down, after the
evasion has exited the top of most readers' screens.

These evasions are examples of what I call polemical opportunism:
making baseless statements which sound reasonable, because the
things that show their baselessness are not in view.


On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 11:00:55 PM UTC-4,
on https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/WP7JtxgJIio/m/siEAL7dvAwAJ
John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/14/22 4:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 4:54:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 7/11/22 11:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 10:11:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 7/7/22 6:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 11:54:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> If you want to present evidence that mesonychids, like whales,
> >>>>>> are nested within Artiodactyla, I would be interested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In my 1945 second edition of Romer's _Vertebrate_Paleontology_, p. 367, Fig. 277, on the left, there are
> >>>>> detailed drawings of the manus and pes of a mesonychid. Its astragalus looks
> >>>>> quite a lot like that of the Entelodont *Dinohyus,* shown on p. 452, Fig. 342 and that of the Camelid
> >>>>> *Poebrotherium,* p. 461, Fig. 348. All three astraguli look double-pulleyed to me.

Starting out sounding reasonable, Harshman nevertheless establishes a pattern of
never meaningfully engaging the scientific issue.

> >>>> I'm suspicious of this conclusion, which has never been mentioned in any
> >>>> phylogenetic analysis I know about.

The phylogenetic analyses with which Harshman is familiar were made long after 1966,
which is why I introduced the following reason:

> > There are good reasons, some mentioned below, and also the fact that Romer's 1945 book
> > had been superseded by the 1966 edition, and might not have kept the drawing of
> > *Synoplotherium,* but you've stubbornly resisted cracking that edition open:

Harshman suffers instant amnesia (or a lapse of reasoning ability)
about this newly introduced reason ("might not have kept...") below.

> >>> What kept you from opening your 1966 edition and looking up the drawings in there?
> >
> > <crickets>

> Because there wouldn't be much point to it.

So much for Harshman's alleged "suspicion." Once the 1966 edition came out,
active researchers would have naturally used it rather than the 1945 edition.


> >>> The index should have made it child's play.
> >>>
> >>> Don't you think *you* can recognize a double-pulleyed astragalus?
> >> I think so, though I may be wrong.
> >
> > Aren't you in touch with professional anatomists who could verify any guesses you make?

Harshman ducks this question, but his reply strongly suggests his answer is negative.
The sabotage involved comes far below.

> Well of course Pandora could do it, if she's paying attention to any of
> this stuff.

Harshman's "of course" is not evident from anything I've seen from Pandora.


<snip to get to the derailment payoff, beginning with a higly insulting false dichotomy>


> >>>> Either you are wrong about this or
> >>>> mammal paleontologists who have done the work are all incompetent.
> >>>
> >>> If these are the only alternatives you could think of, then you must be suffering from
> >>> a long lack of meaningful discussions with research biologists *qua* research biologists.
> >
> > When I remided you of this comment yesterday, you thumbed your nose at it.

> And rightly so.

On the contrary, the evasive reply above suggests that I made
an on-target guess, even *without* the opening "If" clause.

But the "If" clause is devastating, and Harshman thumbs his nose at
the consequences below:


> > But you ignored what I had subsequently written:
> >
> >>> I thought of two others right off the bat:
> >>>
> >>> 1. *Synoplotherium* was found to have been mis-classified after Romer's 1945 edition.
> >>>
> >>> 2. The reconstruction to which I referred was inaccurate. [The reconstruction of the skull
> >>> of Archaeopteryx in the same edition was criticized in a peer-reviewed paper comparing
> >>> it with modern reconstructions of the Eichstatt specimen and the London specimen.]
> >
> >> Both possible.
> >
> > And neither possibility occurred to you? Such incompetence!


Harshman ignores the conclusion:

> You win some, you lose some.

Harshman has lost a big chance to show competence at scientific reasoning.

Harshman has won at derailing discussion of alternatives of the present view
of *Synoplotherium*, one of which is that is a mesonychid closer to cetacean ancestry
than heretofore suspected.

He continues with this "victory" below. <snip for focus>


> >> Can we at least agree that, based on the failure of
> >> paleontologists to note it (and the excitement of paleontologists upon
> >> discovering whale astragali), that no mesonychid is known to have a
> >> double-pulley astragalus, despite anything you may have found in Romer 1045?
> >
> > We have no business agreeing on such a thing until you take a look
> > at your 1966 edition and tell us your opinion of what you see.

Again derailing the issue with an implicit refusal to look, and worse:

> Not relevant. What Romer said in 1966 is not relevant to what
> paleontologists notice thirty or more years later.

Completely illogical, because the issue is what Romer might NOT have
included in the edition. Harshman is taking advantage of the way
this fact is only evident far above, where I wrote:

"Romer's 1945 book had been superseded by the 1966 edition,
[which] might not have kept the drawing of *Synoplotherium,*..."


> > What keeps you from looking at it? Afraid it might cramp your style?

> Notice how you keep accusing me of being afraid of this or that?

Notice how Harshman perversely equates a lighthearted question with a nasty
accusation, thereby diverting attention from his evasion of the first question.

Harshman capitalizes on his chicanery with a baseless insult,
further diverting attention:

> Bad habit, which you should strive to restrain.



The analysis of the rest of Harshman's post will be
continued in my next post to this thread. It will include
parts that I snipped for the sake of focus, so
a third post may be necessary.


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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Of what relevance to current thought are really old books?

[John Harshman]

On 8/9/22 5:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This is an analysis of a mendacious post by Harshman on the thread,
> Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats

Seriously? A whole new thread that has nothing to do with paleontology?
Your obsession with my sins is not helping.

[Glenn]

Looks that it has something to do with paleontology, John.
But what do you mean by "helping"? Helping what?

What is the point of your claims here?

[John Harshman]

On 8/10/22 12:48 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 6:07:34 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/9/22 5:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> This is an analysis of a mendacious post by Harshman on the thread,
>>> Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats
>> Seriously? A whole new thread that has nothing to do with paleontology?
>> Your obsession with my sins is not helping.

I will answer your questions even though you never answer mine.

> Looks that it has something to do with paleontology, John.
> But what do you mean by "helping"? Helping what?

Helping make sci.bio.paleontology a working news group focused on
paleontology.

> What is the point of your claims here?

Different claims, different points. If you refer to my claim above, that
Peter's obsession is not helping, the point was to try to get him to
look at himself and try to change his future actions. I think that
should have been clear enough.

See how that works? Now you try answering questions when people ask.

[*Hemidactylus*]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 8/10/22 12:48 AM, Glenn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 6:07:34 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/9/22 5:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> This is an analysis of a mendacious post by Harshman on the thread,
>>>> Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats
>>> Seriously? A whole new thread that has nothing to do with paleontology?
>>> Your obsession with my sins is not helping.
>
> I will answer your questions even though you never answer mine.
>
>> Looks that it has something to do with paleontology, John.
>> But what do you mean by "helping"? Helping what?
>
> Helping make sci.bio.paleontology a working news group focused on
> paleontology.
>

That ship has now done sailed. So good luck with that Herculean task given
recent developments.

>
>> What is the point of your claims here?
>
> Different claims, different points. If you refer to my claim above, that
> Peter's obsession is not helping, the point was to try to get him to
> look at himself and try to change his future actions. I think that
> should have been clear enough.
>
> See how that works? Now you try answering questions when people ask.
>

How often does that happen? Sowing chaos using links from Uncommon Descent
and Evolution News seems more likely. Take a gander at many futile threads
on talk.origins to see how that turns out. This place may be doomed.

[erik simpson]

Unfortunately, interesting traffic here has gradually declined for a long time. Very few
new visitors, or posts about interesting new findings. Clearly we can't look for salvation
from Glenn, who's never showed any interest, or Peter, who can't avoid being distracted
back to his personal animosities. Too bad.

[Glenn]

Savor the sweet flavor of evolution.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 8:31:39 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 11:00:55 PM UTC-4,
> on https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/WP7JtxgJIio/m/siEAL7dvAwAJ
> John Harshman wrote:
> > On 7/14/22 4:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 4:54:33 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 7/11/22 11:52 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 10:11:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/7/22 6:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 11:54:14 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

Nobody who has responded on this thread has shown the slightest evidence
of having read even the first six lines documented in it, but I appreciate
the fact that neither Hemidactylus nor Glenn could realize their significance
even if they had read them:

> > >>>>>> If you want to present evidence that mesonychids, like whales,
> > >>>>>> are nested within Artiodactyla, I would be interested.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In my 1945 second edition of Romer's _Vertebrate_Paleontology_, p. 367, Fig. 277, on the left, there are
> > >>>>> detailed drawings of the manus and pes of a mesonychid. Its astragalus looks
> > >>>>> quite a lot like that of the Entelodont *Dinohyus,* shown on p. 452, Fig. 342 and that of the Camelid
> > >>>>> *Poebrotherium,* p. 461, Fig. 348. All three astraguli look double-pulleyed to me.

As Harshman knows, but is loath to let others know about it, the ankle bone known as
the astragulus was a key player in the revolutionary hypothesis, now universally accepted, that whales are
descended from the even-toed hoofed mammals known as artiodactyls. The closest
living animal to them is believed to be the hippopotamus.

The revolution in our understanding came when a fossil of a primitive whale
was shown to have a double-pulleyed astragulus. Until that point, whales
were believed to have descended from an extinct group of carnivorous
hoofed animals known as mesonychids. But all the mesonychids whose
characters had been scored by cladists were scored as being single-pulleyed.

The mesonychid referred to in my four lines above is the one I wrote about
in the part just after I left off in my first reply:

> >>> 3. The most complete skeleton of *Synoplotherium* was never subjected to a modern character analysis,
> >>> and so, other mesonychids were used in all the phylogenetic analyses that placed them outside Artiodactyla.
> >>>
> >>> I conclude this from a 2016 account by Riley Black in _Scientific American_, long after the all
> >>> the analyses of mesonychid affinities of which I know.
> >>>
> >>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/yale-s-mysterious-fossil-beast/
> >>> Subtitle: Despite being discovered over a century ago, *Synoplotherium* is still an enigma

> >>> The crucial excerpt:
> >>> "The first and last major source of information on Synoplotherium is a section of a massive review of Eocene mammals laid out by paleontologist Jacob Wortman in 1902. He covered the whole animal from its oversized skull to what remained of its tail, detecting a few surprises along the way."
> >
> > I wonder how easily his "coverage" can be translated into a modern character analysis.
> > It might require a whole new study of the specimen.

Harshman responded:

> Not if it's a proper description accompanied by clear photos and/or
> drawings.

The key point, though, is that no study of any sort has been undertaken, hence the use of "enigma" in the title.

<snip for focus>

> >>>>> Isn't the lack of a double-pulleyed astragalus the item that convinced most vertebrate paleontologists
> >>>>> to eliminate mesonychids from cetacean ancestry? AFAIK we have never found any mesonychid DNA,
> >>>>> so disqualification would have to use fossil morphology.
> >>>
> >>>> It's not the lack of a double-pulleyed astragalus alone, but the
> >>>> combined verdict of the many characters used in the phylogenetic
> >>>> analyses of the past 30 or so years.
> >
> > Even if this is true, other characters of Synoplotherium may be different
> > from those of the mesonychids that had actually been used in the analyses that
> > put them outside Artirodactyla. Seems like a new analysis is called for.

> Could be. You could ask a paleontologist why it wasn't included.

Note the implicit admission that Harshman is not a paleontologist.
This is a radical change from four years ago: for a while he even
supported the claim of Oxyaena that she was a paleontologist.

But this game came to a crashing end when Harshman called Mickey
Mortimer "a real paleontologist." Unfortunately, Mickey is quite upfront
about being "an amateur paleontologist."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 8/10/22 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Oh, look: some paleontology.

> the ankle bone known as
> the astragulus was a key player in the revolutionary hypothesis, now universally accepted, that whales are
> descended from the even-toed hoofed mammals known as artiodactyls. The closest
> living animal to them is believed to be the hippopotamus.

That's not true. The key in that hypothesis was the molecular data,
notably SINE insertions. The astragali (two of them, found almost at the
same time by separate paleontologists) were paleontological confirmation
of the molecular tree.

> The revolution in our understanding came when a fossil of a primitive whale
> was shown to have a double-pulleyed astragulus. Until that point, whales
> were believed to have descended from an extinct group of carnivorous
> hoofed animals known as mesonychids.

Again, not true. It was the SINE data.

> But all the mesonychids whose
> characters had been scored by cladists were scored as being single-pulleyed.

Or described by anyone, cladist or otherwise.

> The mesonychid referred to in my four lines above is the one I wrote about
> in the part just after I left off in my first reply:

> The key point, though, is that no study of any sort has been undertaken, hence the use of "enigma" in the title.

I would be interested in hearing from a mammal paleontologist on this
question. Pandora?

> Note the implicit admission that Harshman is not a paleontologist.

Admission? When have I ever claimed to be?

> This is a radical change from four years ago: for a while he even
> supported the claim of Oxyaena that she was a paleontologist.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

> But this game came to a crashing end when Harshman called Mickey
> Mortimer "a real paleontologist." Unfortunately, Mickey is quite upfront
> about being "an amateur paleontologist."

Amateur, perhaps. But real too. Whatever are you trying to say here?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:59:41 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/10/22 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Oh, look: some paleontology.

Yes, by me, both above [snipped by you] and below.
Your main contribution is about the molecular biology of living animals,
while ignoring the history of a decades-long controversy.

> > the ankle bone known as

> > the astragalus was a key player in the revolutionary hypothesis, now universally accepted, that whales are

> > descended from the even-toed hoofed mammals known as artiodactyls. The closest
> > living animal to them is believed to be the hippopotamus.

> That's not true.

Every bit of it is true. You play a cheap polemical trick of equating "a key"
with "the key" just as you equated a lighthearted question with
an accusation that I documented in the OP.

> The key in that hypothesis was the molecular data,
> notably SINE insertions.

If you tried to document this, you would be hard pressed to find
a reputable account as lopsided as the one you are giving here.

Also, it would reveal some key dates. Just when did molecular
biologists decide on the phylogeny that nested Cetacea inside
Artiodactyla? was it before the end of the cladist wars?

And when did the SINE insertions come to play
the key role in the molecular phylogeny?

> The astragali (two of them, found almost at the
> same time by separate paleontologists) were paleontological confirmation
> of the molecular tree.

Actually, this (2001) was when paleontologists came to accept the nesting
that is given by the molecular tree. This is what I meant as "a key,"
and this is why my use of it was completely correct.

HOWEVER, the molecular tree said nothing about whale ancestry,
since it was confined to extant animals. It was paleontology
that provided all the details.

It is only because paleontologists had long [no later than Carroll's 1988
unexcelled book on vertebrate paleontology] considered *Pakicetus*
to be a cetacean on morphological grounds that the 2001 discovery
has led to it and numerous other whale relatives (Ambulocetus, etc.)
to be referred to as "cetaceans" to this day.

> > The revolution in our understanding came when a fossil of a primitive whale
> > was shown to have a double-pulleyed astragulus. Until that point, whales
> > were believed to have descended from an extinct group of carnivorous
> > hoofed animals known as mesonychids.

> Again, not true.

True where paleontologists were concerned. Care to argue otherwise?

> It was the SINE data.

Which wasn't needed to convince the molecular biologists. Correct?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later today.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 8/11/22 7:53 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:59:41 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/10/22 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> Oh, look: some paleontology.
>
> Yes, by me, both above [snipped by you] and below.
> Your main contribution is about the molecular biology of living animals,
> while ignoring the history of a decades-long controversy.

I don't think you know that history.

>>> the ankle bone known as
>>> the astragalus was a key player in the revolutionary hypothesis, now universally accepted, that whales are
>>> descended from the even-toed hoofed mammals known as artiodactyls. The closest
>>> living animal to them is believed to be the hippopotamus.
>
>> That's not true.
>
> Every bit of it is true. You play a cheap polemical trick of equating "a key"
> with "the key" just as you equated a lighthearted question with
> an accusation that I documented in the OP.

I say again: the astragalus was neither the key player nor a key player
in the revolutionary hypothesis. It was only subsequent confirmation.

>> The key in that hypothesis was the molecular data,
>> notably SINE insertions.
>
> If you tried to document this, you would be hard pressed to find
> a reputable account as lopsided as the one you are giving here.
>
> Also, it would reveal some key dates. Just when did molecular
> biologists decide on the phylogeny that nested Cetacea inside
> Artiodactyla? was it before the end of the cladist wars?

It was not. Why does that matter?

> And when did the SINE insertions come to play
> the key role in the molecular phylogeny?

SINE insertions were the strongest data for that hypothesis, further
confirmed by more work, both molecular and fossil. But I see that the
SINEs were not quite the first, being preceded slightly by a bit of
protein and DNA sequence. The first publication putting whales within
artiodactyls was in 1994, and the first SINE publication was 1997.
(Incidentally, Thewissen was first author on that; imagine, a
paleontologist using molecular data!)

I don't happen to have the initial publication on me, but this (which
predates the fossil publications, you will note) will provide the
references:

Shedlock A.M., Milinkovitch M.C., Okada N. SINE evolution, missing data,
and the origin of whales. Systematic Biology 2000; 49:808-817.

>> The astragali (two of them, found almost at the
>> same time by separate paleontologists) were paleontological confirmation
>> of the molecular tree.
>
> Actually, this (2001) was when paleontologists came to accept the nesting
> that is given by the molecular tree. This is what I meant as "a key,"
> and this is why my use of it was completely correct.

If that's true, which isn't at all in evidence, doesn't it show an
unfortunate bias on the part of these paleontologists regarding the
nature of evidence?

> HOWEVER, the molecular tree said nothing about whale ancestry,
> since it was confined to extant animals. It was paleontology
> that provided all the details.

Of course it said something about whale ancestry; it showed that whales
were descended from land-living artiodactyls. It showed, prior to the
fossil discoveries, that early whales must have had double-pulley
astragali. Mapping the morphology of extant species onto a phylogenetic
tree can show us much about the nature of the ancestors at internal
nodes. Are you claiming that comparisons of extant species can tell us
nothing about past species?

> It is only because paleontologists had long [no later than Carroll's 1988
> unexcelled book on vertebrate paleontology] considered *Pakicetus*
> to be a cetacean on morphological grounds that the 2001 discovery
> has led to it and numerous other whale relatives (Ambulocetus, etc.)
> to be referred to as "cetaceans" to this day.

No, it's only because the characters possessed by these various fossils
show, through phylogenetic analysis, where they fit on a tree of
mammals. I'm not clear on what you're trying to say there, but it seems odd.

>>> The revolution in our understanding came when a fossil of a primitive whale
>>> was shown to have a double-pulleyed astragulus. Until that point, whales
>>> were believed to have descended from an extinct group of carnivorous
>>> hoofed animals known as mesonychids.
>
>> Again, not true.
>
> True where paleontologists were concerned. Care to argue otherwise?

I have no clear basis for arguing about the opinions of some amorphous
consensus of paleontologists. And neither do you. Can you cite some
publication for your contention?

And again, if paleontologists can be convinced only by fossil data,
isn't that a sad comment on paleontologists? Now, I have met
paleontologists who think that way (not specifically regarding whales,
but regarding molecular data in general), but I have met others who
don't. I'd be interested in your source of information on this.

>> It was the SINE data.
>
> Which wasn't needed to convince the molecular biologists. Correct?

Of course it was. Or at least it was the first data I and many others
would consider conclusive regarding the question, and it was conclusive
enough on its own if you understand what SINE insertions are. Read the
Shedlock et al. paper.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 9:07:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/9/22 5:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > This is an analysis of a mendacious post by Harshman on the thread,
> > Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats

> Seriously? A whole new thread that has nothing to do with paleontology?

It has everything to do with paleontology and with your tactics in impeding
progress in discussing it. The first six lines of text in the OP beyond my preamble [1]
show the first fact; the second becomes apparent soon thereafter.

Did you snip everything past the first two lines (preserved above)
in order to make your loaded question look like the answer is "yes"
rather than a resounding NO?

[1]
[John:]

If you want to present evidence that mesonychids, like whales,
are nested within Artiodactyla, I would be interested.

[Peter:]

In my 1945 second edition of Romer's _Vertebrate_Paleontology_, p. 367, Fig. 277, on the left, there are
detailed drawings of the manus and pes of a mesonychid. Its astragalus looks
quite a lot like that of the Entelodont *Dinohyus,* shown on p. 452, Fig. 342 and that of the Camelid
*Poebrotherium,* p. 461, Fig. 348. All three astraguli look double-pulleyed to me.

[end of quotes]

For the benefit of non-regulars of s.b.p., I add that mesonychids are long-extinct mammals
known only from fossils, which are the defining feature of paleontology.
And that Artiodactyla is widely considered to be the sole taxon that has members
with a double-pulleyed astragalus.

> Your obsession with my sins is not helping.

You consistently seem satisfied with your "sins", like a sinner who lived during the Renaissance
and bragged about having committed every sin in the Roman Catholic canon except suicide.


What is at stake here, though, is the counterproductive behavior of others that your "sins" [your word, not mine]
engender year after year. You've got Hemidactylus swallowing your hypocritical deceptions hook, line, and sinker
right on this thread and Erik rewriting sci.bio.paleontology history [in the Orwellian sense] in response to him.

All of which has everything to do with impeding discussion of paleontology.


Peter Nyikos

*********** QUOTE OF THE WEEK *********

If you don't own up to your own elemental truth, falsehood will ultimately end up owning you.

-- https://www.inc.com/lolly-daskal/12-things-people-regret-the-most-before-they-die.html

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:58:59 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On 8/10/22 12:48 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 6:07:34 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 8/9/22 5:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> This is an analysis of a mendacious post by Harshman on the thread,
> >>>> Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats
> >>> Seriously? A whole new thread that has nothing to do with paleontology?
> >>> Your obsession with my sins is not helping.
> >
> > I will answer your questions even though you never answer mine.
> >
> >> Looks that it has something to do with paleontology, John.
> >> But what do you mean by "helping"? Helping what?
> >
> > Helping make sci.bio.paleontology a working news group focused on
> > paleontology.
> >
> That ship has now done sailed.

The ship was sunk in 2018 by Erik Simpson, who destroyed an agreement
which he and Harshman and I made back in 2015 to make that ship watertight.

Harshman and Oxyaena helped to make the sinking of the ship complete,
siding with Erik when I tried to enforce our 2015 agreement.

Since then, worse things than this thread have erupted from time to time.
Erik is trying to pull the wool over your eyes about that in response to this post of yours.

> So good luck with that Herculean task given
> recent developments.

You and Erik are only impeding that task with your behavior here
and on another thread, as is plain from what I documented in the
following post today:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/WP7JtxgJIio/m/MCqmGt3_BAAJ

Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats

[Excerpt with me addressing Erik:]
I think Hemi feels satisfaction now. After all, you've responded favorably
to his whining about me not giving any paleontology that is "useful" for *him*
while not lifting a finger to provide any, useful or otherwise.
[end of excerpt]

By the way, that last clause applies equally to Erik and yourself on this thread.
With his 2018 sabotage of our agreement, he and Harshman
have made s.b.p. more hospitable to the likes of you.


You and Harshman continue below to put obstacles in the way
of the Herculean task to which you've paid lip service:

> >
> >> What is the point of your claims here?
> >
> > Different claims, different points. If you refer to my claim above, that
> > Peter's obsession is not helping, the point was to try to get him to
> > look at himself and try to change his future actions. I think that
> > should have been clear enough.
> >
> > See how that works? Now you try answering questions when people ask.

Harshman is flaunting his hypocrisy here. The OP shows how he repeatedly ducked my
questions on an issue of pivotal importance to a discussion of paleontology.

> How often does that happen? Sowing chaos using links from Uncommon Descent
> and Evolution News seems more likely.

Here in sci.bio.paleontology, the chaos was sown by Harshman making
intensely derogatory accusations about Glenn while refusing to either
support them or retract them.

The following two posts, taken together, show that you have no
problems with chaos of that sort, when it comes from him:


https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/WP7JtxgJIio/m/vhurnx7HBAAJ

Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats

Aug 10, 2022, 7:18:37 PM

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/WP7JtxgJIio/m/3VYaSePMBAAJ

Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats

Aug 10, 2022, 9:04:19 PM

> Take a gander at many futile threads
> on talk.origins to see how that turns out. This place may be doomed.

Stop weeping crocodile tears. Your own behavior has doomed
many a thread.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

This is my second and final reply to this post of Harshman, picking up where I left
off in the first reply.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:59:41 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/10/22 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > But all the mesonychids whose
> > characters had been scored by cladists were scored as being single-pulleyed.

> Or described by anyone, cladist or otherwise.

Are you claiming to have read the 1902 article to which I referred to in the OP [information
reposted below]?

Or are you simply trolling?

> > The mesonychid referred to in my four lines above is the one I wrote about
> > in the part just after I left off in my first reply:

[unmarked snip by Harshman here, depriving readers of the name of the mesonychid, reposted:]

> >>> 3. The most complete skeleton of *Synoplotherium* was never subjected to a modern character analysis,
> >>> and so, other mesonychids were used in all the phylogenetic analyses that placed them outside Artiodactyla.
> >>>
> >>> I conclude this from a 2016 account by Riley Black in _Scientific American_, long after the all
> >>> the analyses of mesonychid affinities of which I know.
> >>>
> >>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/yale-s-mysterious-fossil-beast/
> >>> Subtitle: Despite being discovered over a century ago, *Synoplotherium* is still an enigma

> >>> The crucial excerpt:
> >>> "The first and last major source of information on Synoplotherium is a section of a massive review of Eocene mammals laid out by paleontologist Jacob Wortman in 1902. He covered the whole animal from its oversized skull to what remained of its tail, detecting a few surprises along the way."

[end of repost]

> > The key point, though, is that no study of any sort has been undertaken, hence the use of "enigma" in the title.

> I would be interested in hearing from a mammal paleontologist on this
> question. Pandora?

> > Note the implicit admission that Harshman is not a paleontologist.
> Admission? When have I ever claimed to be?

Why don't you answer that question yourself?

> > This is a radical change from four years ago: for a while he even
> > supported the claim of Oxyaena that she was a paleontologist.

> I have no idea what you're talking about.

So you allege. But you will remember very well when I jog your memory.

However, that will have to wait. Duty calls.

> > But this game came to a crashing end when Harshman called Mickey
> > Mortimer "a real paleontologist." Unfortunately, Mickey is quite upfront
> > about being "an amateur paleontologist."

> Amateur, perhaps. But real too. Whatever are you trying to say here?

I said what I wanted to say at that point; deal with it. I will say more tomorrow.

Got to go now.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 8/11/22 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This is my second and final reply to this post of Harshman, picking up where I left
> off in the first reply.
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:59:41 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/10/22 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> But all the mesonychids whose
>>> characters had been scored by cladists were scored as being single-pulleyed.
>
>> Or described by anyone, cladist or otherwise.
>
> Are you claiming to have read the 1902 article to which I referred to in the OP [information
> reposted below]?

No. True, it's possible that the original description did talk about the
state of the astragalus.

>>> The mesonychid referred to in my four lines above is the one I wrote about
>>> in the part just after I left off in my first reply:
>
> [unmarked snip by Harshman here, depriving readers of the name of the mesonychid, reposted:]
>
>>>>> 3. The most complete skeleton of *Synoplotherium* was never subjected to a modern character analysis,
>>>>> and so, other mesonychids were used in all the phylogenetic analyses that placed them outside Artiodactyla.
>>>>>
>>>>> I conclude this from a 2016 account by Riley Black in _Scientific American_, long after the all
>>>>> the analyses of mesonychid affinities of which I know.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/yale-s-mysterious-fossil-beast/
>>>>> Subtitle: Despite being discovered over a century ago, *Synoplotherium* is still an enigma
>
>>>>> The crucial excerpt:
>>>>> "The first and last major source of information on Synoplotherium is a section of a massive review of Eocene mammals laid out by paleontologist Jacob Wortman in 1902. He covered the whole animal from its oversized skull to what remained of its tail, detecting a few surprises along the way."
> [end of repost]
>
>
>>> The key point, though, is that no study of any sort has been undertaken, hence the use of "enigma" in the title.
>
>> I would be interested in hearing from a mammal paleontologist on this
>> question. Pandora?
>
>>> Note the implicit admission that Harshman is not a paleontologist.
>> Admission? When have I ever claimed to be?
>
> Why don't you answer that question yourself?

Because I don't know the answer.

>>> But this game came to a crashing end when Harshman called Mickey
>>> Mortimer "a real paleontologist." Unfortunately, Mickey is quite upfront
>>> about being "an amateur paleontologist."
>
>> Amateur, perhaps. But real too. Whatever are you trying to say here?
>
> I said what I wanted to say at that point; deal with it. I will say more tomorrow.

But what did it all mean? Why all this belaboring of who's a
paleontologist, or who I think is a paleontologist, and who isn't?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:38:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/11/22 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > This is my second and final reply to this post of Harshman, picking up where I left
> > off in the first reply.
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:59:41 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/10/22 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>> 3. The most complete skeleton of *Synoplotherium* was never subjected to a modern character analysis,
> >>>>> and so, other mesonychids were used in all the phylogenetic analyses that placed them outside Artiodactyla.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I conclude this from a 2016 account by Riley Black in _Scientific American_, long after the all
> >>>>> the analyses of mesonychid affinities of which I know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/yale-s-mysterious-fossil-beast/
> >>>>> Subtitle: Despite being discovered over a century ago, *Synoplotherium* is still an enigma
> >
> >>>>> The crucial excerpt:
> >>>>> "The first and last major source of information on Synoplotherium is a section of a massive review of Eocene mammals laid out by paleontologist Jacob Wortman in 1902. He covered the whole animal from its oversized skull to what remained of its tail, detecting a few surprises along the way."
> > [end of repost]
> >
> >
> >>> The key point, though, is that no study of any sort has been undertaken, hence the use of "enigma" in the title.
> >
> >> I would be interested in hearing from a mammal paleontologist on this
> >> question. Pandora?
> >
> >>> Note the implicit admission that Harshman is not a paleontologist.

> >> Admission? When have I ever claimed to be?
> >
> > Why don't you answer that question yourself?

> Because I don't know the answer.

Thanks for the candid answer. FTR, I never claimed to
be a paleontologist, not even an amateur paleontologist,
even though I have gone fossil hunting in a more serious way
than Oxyaena, who once claimed to be one. People both here and in t.o.
came down hard on me for being skeptical about it,
but the situation was clarified finally as I related earlier:

> >>> But this game came to a crashing end when Harshman called Mickey
> >>> Mortimer "a real paleontologist." Unfortunately, Mickey is quite upfront
> >>> about being "an amateur paleontologist."
> >
> >> Amateur, perhaps. But real too.

Mickey is a real constructer of phylogenies of extinct animals,
so on that basis, he could be called an amateur paleontologist.
But "real paleontologist" carries connotations of being a professional.
So does "paleontologist" itself.

There *are* amateurs who are so outstanding that they can
justifiably be called "real_______".

One such was J.L.B. Smith, discoverer of the living coelacanth _Latimeria_,
who may have been the best amateur ichthyologist there ever was
[his faculty position was in chemistry], and no one could reasonably
object to calling him "a real ichthyologist."

Calling Smith a "real paleontologist" is also justifiable, on the grounds
that he published a research article in a leading journal about an animal
long believed to be extinct, and this article made it clear that this was
an actual coelacanth.

> > > Whatever are you trying to say here?
> >
> > I said what I wanted to say at that point; deal with it. I will say more tomorrow.

I got sidetracked, so this is a week late.

> But what did it all mean? Why all this belaboring of who's a
> paleontologist, or who I think is a paleontologist, and who isn't?

Because there is no certification of paleontologists as there is of geologists.
So it is up to us to keep all kinds of abuses from creeping into s.b.p.

I would be willing to call Mickey Mortimer a "real paleontologist" if
he were to publish a research paper that is clearly related to paleontology
in a respected scientific journal. Only then can we tell whether his
methods meet acceptable standards.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[erik simpson]

Mickey is for real then
https://peerj.com/articles/7247/?td=bl&fbclid=IwAR09VFddJNY8v0rvmEh9HmtINsJLScQj0B98UsoKEbTjMMNZLTdxZyA4h4w

[Peter Nyikos]

I never heard of PeerJ.com before. Is this journal any more respected
than the Ukrainian journal that Harshman sneered at when he learned
that Richard Zander had published a paper in it?


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I've no idea. I've never published in either journal.

[Peter Nyikos]

Why didn't you wait for John to answer, then?

> I've never published in either journal.

Glenn will be impressed by your logic. Not.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

Depends on what is meant by "impressed". Certainly the respectability of journals can be inferred by laymen to some degree of "I have some idea" rather than "I have no idea", and not only by those who have published in other journals.
So his logic does leave me with an impression. Just because.

[erik simpson]

I answered because you asked me. What "logic" are you talking about? It's a statement of fact.
And Glenn's opinion is irrelevant.

[*Hemidactylus*]

“I just farted”???…to quote someone here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/rf3zA9qi93A/m/SCeGazhCEAAJ

[Peter Nyikos]

You are shackling yourself to Erik here.

[I was going to only talk about solidarity, but your use of the quote here goes well beyond that.]

You are also displaying (feigned?) inability to distinguish between logic and discussion of
theism and atheism in talk.origins.

…to quote someone here:

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/rf3zA9qi93A/m/SCeGazhCEAAJ

Flagrantly off topic for sci.bio.paleontology. Also, based on apparent
inability to understand the issues on the thread you've linked.

You at least were on topic when you posted this flamebait to talk.origins,
but that's ALL that can be said for it. See here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/WbpfjD3HAgAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter

There, I've suggested a first step for you on a journey to becoming a responsible adult,
and I'm curious to see whether you are man enough to take that step.


Peter Nyikos

[Popping Mad]

On 8/9/22 20:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This is an analysis of a mendacious post by Harshman on the thread,
> Re: Man closer kin to naked mole rats than bats

why do this. is there not enough hatred in the world.

[Peter Nyikos]

Nice to see you posting again, Ruben. Do I recall correctly that
you adopted the "Popping Mad' nym because Harshman was being
gratuitously obnoxious to you ca. 2017?

If you can't recall, I could jog your memory with an example.

There is a surplus, and Harshman had been contributing to it
on other threads, especially against Glenn. The thread we are
on now wasn't about hatred, though; it was about Harshman's counterproductive
[to put it euphemistically] behavior that stalled an on-topic discussion.

The post to which you are replying eventually had the desired effect:
Harshman has been much more reasonable after first compounding
-- to put it euphemistically --
his failure to communicate on this thread.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:38:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/11/22 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > This is my second and final reply to this post of Harshman, picking up where I left
> > off in the first reply.
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:59:41 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/10/22 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>>>On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 11:00:55 PM UTC-4,
>>>>on https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/WP7JtxgJIio/m/siEAL7dvAwAJ
>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 7/14/22 4:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>>>>> Even if this is true, other characters of Synoplotherium may be different
>>>>>>from those of the mesonychids that had actually been used in the analyses that
>>>>>>put them outside Artirodactyla. Seems like a new analysis is called for.
>>>>> Could be. You could ask a paleontologist why it wasn't included.

<snip for focus>

> >>> Note the implicit admission that Harshman is not a paleontologist.
> >> Admission? When have I ever claimed to be?
> >
> > Why don't you answer that question yourself?

> Because I don't know the answer.

> >>> But this game came to a crashing end when Harshman called Mickey
> >>> Mortimer "a real paleontologist." Unfortunately, Mickey is quite upfront
> >>> about being "an amateur paleontologist."
> >
> >> Amateur, perhaps. But real too. Whatever are you trying to say here?
> >
> > I said what I wanted to say at that point; deal with it. I will say more tomorrow.
> But what did it all mean? Why all this belaboring of who's a
> paleontologist, or who I think is a paleontologist, and who isn't?

I answered these questions in considerable detail, in a post to which you never replied:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/lwIJ-7O_ecE/m/KRV2EnEFAQAJ

Since then, my criteria have been refined a bit. Here is where they now stand:

To call myself an amateur paleontologist, I would have to either
(1) construct numerous phylogenetic trees using accepted standards,
something I have never done or (2) participate in at least one serious
fossil hunt in each of ten years (so far, I'm only up to three).
To call myself a "real paleontologist" I would ALSO have to
contribute significantly to a research article on paleontology
in a respected peer-reviewed journal. And to call myself a "paleontologist"
without qualification. I would have to be paid for this kind of work on a regular basis.
The upshot is that I do not qualify as any of the above.

[Yes, "real paleontologist" is weakened by the word "real," since no professional of any stature
would use that expression about him/herself in conversations with other professionals.]

In the reply to you that I linked, I wrote the following about Mickey Mortimer:

I would be willing to call Mickey Mortimer a "real paleontologist" if he were to publish a research paper that is clearly related to paleontology in a respected scientific journal. Only then can we tell whether his methods meet acceptable standards.

Erik did reply to that post, but only responded to that last paragraph, writing:

"Mickey is for real then"

and cited: https://peerj.com/articles/7247/?td=bl&fbclid=IwAR09VFddJNY8v0rvmEh9HmtINsJLScQj0B98UsoKEbTjMMNZLTdxZyA4h4w

My response was:

I never heard of PeerJ.com before. Is this journal any more respected than the Ukrainian journal that Harshman sneered at when he learned that Richard Zander had published a paper in it?

John, that incident may have long faded from your memory. So I ask instead:
is that journal in Peerj.com any more respected than the one in which Dr. Dr. Kleinman
published a paper which had been rejected by a highly respected journal on statistics
in medicine? You ran an investigation on it, and found that it is essentially a
"vanity press" journal. Remember?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS The very name "Peerj.com" sounds like what I wrote in brackets about "real paleontologist."

[John Harshman]

Poor definitions all. A paleontologist is a person who does
paleontology. That's all. You aren't doing paleontology unless you
publish your results. Getting paid is not relevant.

> The upshot is that I do not qualify as any of the above.
>
> [Yes, "real paleontologist" is weakened by the word "real," since no professional of any stature
> would use that expression about him/herself in conversations with other professionals.]
>
> In the reply to you that I linked, I wrote the following about Mickey Mortimer:
>
> I would be willing to call Mickey Mortimer a "real paleontologist" if he were to publish a research paper that is clearly related to paleontology in a respected scientific journal. Only then can we tell whether his methods meet acceptable standards.
>
> Erik did reply to that post, but only responded to that last paragraph, writing:
>
> "Mickey is for real then"
> and cited: https://peerj.com/articles/7247/?td=bl&fbclid=IwAR09VFddJNY8v0rvmEh9HmtINsJLScQj0B98UsoKEbTjMMNZLTdxZyA4h4w
>
> My response was:
>
> I never heard of PeerJ.com before. Is this journal any more respected than the Ukrainian journal that Harshman sneered at when he learned that Richard Zander had published a paper in it?
>
> John, that incident may have long faded from your memory. So I ask instead:
> is that journal in Peerj.com any more respected than the one in which Dr. Dr. Kleinman
> published a paper which had been rejected by a highly respected journal on statistics
> in medicine? You ran an investigation on it, and found that it is essentially a
> "vanity press" journal. Remember?

I have no idea about Peerj.com. Never heard of it before that reference.
Based on its Wikipedia entry, which you could have looked up yourself,
it seems entirely legitimate. But there's no real way to look up "highly
respected". More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
contribution to the paleontology literature, while none of Kleinman's
articles, even in legitimate journals, is a legitimate contribution to
anything.

Why are we talking about this? Did you explain that in your reply?

[Glenn]

I haven't been able to verify that claim. Have you published that result?

> > The upshot is that I do not qualify as any of the above.
> >
> > [Yes, "real paleontologist" is weakened by the word "real," since no professional of any stature
> > would use that expression about him/herself in conversations with other professionals.]
> >
> > In the reply to you that I linked, I wrote the following about Mickey Mortimer:
> >
> > I would be willing to call Mickey Mortimer a "real paleontologist" if he were to publish a research paper that is clearly related to paleontology in a respected scientific journal. Only then can we tell whether his methods meet acceptable standards.
> >
> > Erik did reply to that post, but only responded to that last paragraph, writing:
> >
> > "Mickey is for real then"
> > and cited: https://peerj.com/articles/7247/?td=bl&fbclid=IwAR09VFddJNY8v0rvmEh9HmtINsJLScQj0B98UsoKEbTjMMNZLTdxZyA4h4w
> >
> > My response was:
> >
> > I never heard of PeerJ.com before. Is this journal any more respected than the Ukrainian journal that Harshman sneered at when he learned that Richard Zander had published a paper in it?
> >
> > John, that incident may have long faded from your memory. So I ask instead:
> > is that journal in Peerj.com any more respected than the one in which Dr. Dr. Kleinman
> > published a paper which had been rejected by a highly respected journal on statistics
> > in medicine? You ran an investigation on it, and found that it is essentially a
> > "vanity press" journal. Remember?
> I have no idea about Peerj.com. Never heard of it before that reference.
> Based on its Wikipedia entry, which you could have looked up yourself,
> it seems entirely legitimate. But there's no real way to look up "highly
> respected". More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
> contribution to the paleontology literature, while none of Kleinman's
> articles, even in legitimate journals, is a legitimate contribution to
> anything.

Can you support that by citing a journal article? Above you claim that a paleontologist is simply one who publishes, or has published.
You are aware that s.b.p. is not a journal?

[Peter Nyikos]

This is a classic case of polemical opportunism. You claimed Mickey
Mortimer was a "real paleontologist" back in 2018, before he became
a co-author in the paper Erik tried to use.
I even talked about that earlier on the thread, but didn't see
any point in talking about when you made that claim.
Now I do.

Now you are making a supposedly authoritative comment
that contradicts what you wrote back then, with no further
authority for it than your highly unreliable say-so.

It also ignores something I wrote earlier, which is that,
in contrast to licensed geologists, there is no such
thing as a licensed paleontologist.

> > The upshot is that I do not qualify as any of the above.
> >
> > [Yes, "real paleontologist" is weakened by the word "real," since no professional of any stature
> > would use that expression about him/herself in conversations with other professionals.]
> >
> > In the reply to you that I linked, I wrote the following about Mickey Mortimer:
> >
> > I would be willing to call Mickey Mortimer a "real paleontologist" if he were to publish a research paper that is clearly related to paleontology in a respected scientific journal. Only then can we tell whether his methods meet acceptable standards.
> >
> > Erik did reply to that post, but only responded to that last paragraph, writing:
> >
> > "Mickey is for real then"
> > and cited: https://peerj.com/articles/7247/?td=bl&fbclid=IwAR09VFddJNY8v0rvmEh9HmtINsJLScQj0B98UsoKEbTjMMNZLTdxZyA4h4w
> >
> > My response was:
> >
> > I never heard of PeerJ.com before. Is this journal any more respected than the Ukrainian journal that Harshman sneered at when he learned that Richard Zander had published a paper in it?
> >
> > John, that incident may have long faded from your memory. So I ask instead:
> > is that journal in Peerj.com any more respected than the one in which Dr. Dr. Kleinman
> > published a paper which had been rejected by a highly respected journal on statistics
> > in medicine? You ran an investigation on it, and found that it is essentially a
> > "vanity press" journal. Remember?

> I have no idea about Peerj.com. Never heard of it before that reference.

I was asking specifically about the journal,
PALEONTOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE
(note the caps, as though the journal doth protest too much)
since the quality of their
journals could greatly vary with their subject matter.

> Based on its Wikipedia entry, which you could have looked up yourself,
> it seems entirely legitimate.

Wikipedia is highly unreliable, as even you know. In fact, there is a thread
in talk.origins, "Larry and Wikipedia go at it again" and I'd like to
see you take a more active role in trying to see who is right about
the point of dispute between them. I've already made my position clear.

> But there's no real way to look up "highly respected".

You seem to have done a highly effective job in the incident I
described above. Have you suffered amnesia on how you went about it?

> More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
> contribution to the paleontology literature,

How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that Mortimer and co.
used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

> while none of Kleinman's
> articles, even in legitimate journals, is a legitimate contribution to
> anything.
>
> Why are we talking about this? Did you explain that in your reply?

[repeated from above]

> > I answered these questions in considerable detail, in a post to which you never replied:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/lwIJ-7O_ecE/m/KRV2EnEFAQAJ

[end of copy]

And you still haven't replied. Do you have any intention of replying?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Be careful: Glenn may be highly interested in your answers to the questions I pose.

[John Harshman]

Do you know that Mickey is otherwise unpublished? I had no idea there
was such a thing as a licensed geologist, but why, even if so, is it
relevant? I still don't understand why we're talking about this.

>>> The upshot is that I do not qualify as any of the above.
>>>
>>> [Yes, "real paleontologist" is weakened by the word "real," since no professional of any stature
>>> would use that expression about him/herself in conversations with other professionals.]
>>>
>>> In the reply to you that I linked, I wrote the following about Mickey Mortimer:
>>>
>>> I would be willing to call Mickey Mortimer a "real paleontologist" if he were to publish a research paper that is clearly related to paleontology in a respected scientific journal. Only then can we tell whether his methods meet acceptable standards.
>>>
>>> Erik did reply to that post, but only responded to that last paragraph, writing:
>>>
>>> "Mickey is for real then"
>>> and cited: https://peerj.com/articles/7247/?td=bl&fbclid=IwAR09VFddJNY8v0rvmEh9HmtINsJLScQj0B98UsoKEbTjMMNZLTdxZyA4h4w
>>>
>>> My response was:
>>>
>>> I never heard of PeerJ.com before. Is this journal any more respected than the Ukrainian journal that Harshman sneered at when he learned that Richard Zander had published a paper in it?
>>>
>>> John, that incident may have long faded from your memory. So I ask instead:
>>> is that journal in Peerj.com any more respected than the one in which Dr. Dr. Kleinman
>>> published a paper which had been rejected by a highly respected journal on statistics
>>> in medicine? You ran an investigation on it, and found that it is essentially a
>>> "vanity press" journal. Remember?
>
>> I have no idea about Peerj.com. Never heard of it before that reference.
>
> I was asking specifically about the journal,
> PALEONTOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE
> (note the caps, as though the journal doth protest too much)
> since the quality of their
> journals could greatly vary with their subject matter.

Don't know about that one either. What I do know is that the one paper
I've looked at seems quite good.

>> Based on its Wikipedia entry, which you could have looked up yourself,
>> it seems entirely legitimate.
>
> Wikipedia is highly unreliable, as even you know. In fact, there is a thread
> in talk.origins, "Larry and Wikipedia go at it again" and I'd like to
> see you take a more active role in trying to see who is right about
> the point of dispute between them. I've already made my position clear.

Is there a need for such active contempt as "even you know"? Wikipedia
varies in quality, certainly. But I have no reason to doubt any of the
statements of fact in the article in question. Do you have a reason to
doubt?

No interest in even looking at that thread, sorry.

> > But there's no real way to look up "highly respected".
>
> You seem to have done a highly effective job in the incident I
> described above. Have you suffered amnesia on how you went about it?

No, but it doesn't apply here. I suspected that the journal was
predatory, and I found on a list of predatory journals. I have zero
reason to assume that the current journal in question is predatory, so I
have no reason to check that list.

>> More importantly, the article in question is a legitimate
>> contribution to the paleontology literature,
>
> How do you know? Did you investigate the matrix (or matrices?) that Mortimer and co.
> used to generate their phylogenetic trees in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18?

No. I just read the paper. Did you? Do you disagree?

>> while none of Kleinman's
>> articles, even in legitimate journals, is a legitimate contribution to
>> anything.
>>
>> Why are we talking about this? Did you explain that in your reply?
>
> [repeated from above]
>>> I answered these questions in considerable detail, in a post to which you never replied:
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/lwIJ-7O_ecE/m/KRV2EnEFAQAJ

I looked but didn't find anything I would consider an answer. Could you
perhaps quote the answer itself?

> [end of copy]
>
> And you still haven't replied. Do you have any intention of replying?

I don't, but I'll look again in case it changes my mind.

[John Harshman]

On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> Why are we talking about this? Did you explain that in your reply?
> [repeated from above]
>>> I answered these questions in considerable detail, in a post to which you never replied:
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/lwIJ-7O_ecE/m/KRV2EnEFAQAJ
> [end of copy]
>
> And you still haven't replied. Do you have any intention of replying?
>

Nope. Is this in fact what you consider an explanation?:

>> But what did it all mean? Why all this belaboring of who's a
>> paleontologist, or who I think is a paleontologist, and who isn't?
>

> Because there is no certification of paleontologists as there is of geologists.
> So it is up to us to keep all kinds of abuses from creeping into s.b.p.
>

> I would be willing to call Mickey Mortimer a "real paleontologist" if
> he were to publish a research paper that is clearly related to paleontology
> in a respected scientific journal. Only then can we tell whether his
> methods meet acceptable standards.

I see no explanation here. What abuses are in danger of creeping into
s.b.p, and when or where did that even come up?

[Popping Mad]

On 8/29/22 09:17, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Nice to see you posting again, Ruben. Do I recall correctly that
> you adopted the "Popping Mad' nym because Harshman was being
> gratuitously obnoxious to you ca. 2017?

No - just usenet in the general and the internet all around from
facebook to slashdot to mailings lists to usenet. It is a universal
sufferage. I would NEVER make a tirade like this pointed at someone. I
might argue a point and call someone an idiot, but to put this much into
purely emotional venting.... never.

[Peter Nyikos]

That's your choice, which I respect. But I have a deep commitment to meaningful
communication in sci.bio.paleontology, and Harshman was being
highly counterproductive. And I deny that I indulged in emotional venting, let alone "purely".

Did you even bother to read what I wrote in the OP? If you did, could you please
find an paragraph which you think fits the description?


I think you may have forgotten an incident in 2016 or 2017,
which I hope it won't be too painful for you to recall.

John Harshman accused you of being ignorant of a couple of scientific things,
and you demonstrated that he was wrong, and you showed your resentment
over his baseless accusation.

I invited you to join in the agreement that John and I and Erik and Richard Norman
had made less than halfway into 2015, to treat sci.bio.evolution like an embassy,
with us behaving like the best of ambassadors.

I wrote that if you had joined, Harshman would not have accused you like that.

Harshman replied saying that it would have made no difference, he would have acted the same way.

That really scared me, because I feared that our agreement could be ended then and there.
But I decided to ignore the comment ("Let sleeping dogs lie.") because Harshman hadn't
treated any of us who had made the commitment anything like he did you. I took a
chance that this had been a momentary impulse, soon to be forgotten.

And I was right: nothing like that happened between the four, then three [1] of us
until Spring 2018.Then the agreement was permanently shattered,
and we have been living with the consequences ever since.

[1] Richard disappeared without a trace early in 2017.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

And none of that screed could be called "venting". No doubt.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [1] Richard disappeared without a trace early in 2017.
>

Didn’t someone here trace Richard to his Quora posting after he left
usenet?

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/oSYc37f0510/m/ctHBIWU_AgAJ

[erik simpson]

At least of quora he's alive and kicking. Here's one of his contributions from today:

"What would happen if we added 70% isopropyl alcohol to 90% isopedyl alcohol? Would it just dilute into 80% or something?

"Actually if you were able to get hold of isopedyl alcohol you would find it has miraculous properties. Adding 70% isopropyl alcohol to it converts it into very drinkable ethyl alcohol plus some byproducts that completely imitate the flavor of aged single malt scotch whisky. Good luck with that!"

Good luck, indeed. (Don't try this at home, kids.) Sounds like our man.

[Peter Nyikos]

This is a self-serving assertion, given what you wrote next:

> >> A paleontologist is a person who does
> >> paleontology. That's all. You aren't doing paleontology unless you
> >> publish your results.

You cherry-picked ONE feature from the criteria I posted above, secure
in the knowledge that you once co-authored a paper with umpteen other authors
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

> Getting paid is not relevant.

OF course you would claim that: you have been an "unemployed biologist"
for -- how long exactly? since your last postdoc?


I only mentioned these things because of the way you have done a complete reversal
from less than a month ago, when you implied that you were NOT a paleontologist:

________________________ excerpt from post____________________

> Even if this is true, other characters of Synoplotherium may be different
> from those of the mesonychids that had actually been used in the analyses that
> put them outside Artirodactyla. Seems like a new analysis is called for.

Could be. You could ask a paleontologist why it wasn't included.

======================= end of excerpt =================


Your about-face clashes in the opposite direction with something
I reminded you the first time around:

> > This is a classic case of polemical opportunism. You claimed Mickey
> > Mortimer was a "real paleontologist" back in 2018, before he became
> > a co-author in the paper Erik tried to use.
> > I even talked about that earlier on the thread, but didn't see

> > any point in talking about [it] when you made that claim.
> > Now I do.

What's more, your support of Oxyaena's claim to be a "paleontologist,"
even though she did not give any sign of meeting *any* of the criteria
I listed, was much more dogged than your one-shot claim about Mickey.

> > Now you are making a supposedly authoritative comment
> > that contradicts what you wrote back then, with no further
> > authority for it than your highly unreliable say-so.

See above about the reliability of your say-so.

> > It also ignores something I wrote earlier, which is that,
> > in contrast to licensed geologists, there is no such
> > thing as a licensed paleontologist.

> I had no idea there
> was such a thing as a licensed geologist,

This seems to imply that you have not had any training as a paleontologist,
because you would have had to take lots of geology courses,
and would surely have learned about such a thing.
.
A related fact is that you are OK with *vertebrate* paleontology
being classed by universities as a branch of geology.

> but why, even if so, is it
> relevant? I still don't understand why we're talking about this.

My, you are slow on the uptake, even after having made a
carefully tailored description of criteria that make you a paleontologist.
And with no attempt whatsoever to justify them.


Continued tomorrow where I left off here, with some earlier context added.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

You seem to be accusing me of something, but I can't tell what. For the
record, I am not a paleontologist, the PNAS paper wasn't about
paleontology, and I have published many other papers in various places,
none of which was paleontology. How is any of this relevant?

>> Getting paid is not relevant.
>
> OF course you would claim that: you have been an "unemployed biologist"
> for -- how long exactly? since your last postdoc?

You still seem to be accusing me of something. Still not sure what.

> I only mentioned these things because of the way you have done a complete reversal
> from less than a month ago, when you implied that you were NOT a paleontologist:

I didn't imply. I said it explicitly. I am not a paleontologist and have
never, ever in my life, claimed to be a paleontologist. Whatever is this
about?

> ________________________ excerpt from post____________________
>
>> Even if this is true, other characters of Synoplotherium may be different
>> from those of the mesonychids that had actually been used in the analyses that
>> put them outside Artirodactyla. Seems like a new analysis is called for.
>
> Could be. You could ask a paleontologist why it wasn't included.
>
> ======================= end of excerpt =================
>
>
> Your about-face clashes in the opposite direction with something
> I reminded you the first time around:

What about face???

>>> This is a classic case of polemical opportunism. You claimed Mickey
>>> Mortimer was a "real paleontologist" back in 2018, before he became
>>> a co-author in the paper Erik tried to use.
>>> I even talked about that earlier on the thread, but didn't see
>>> any point in talking about [it] when you made that claim.
>>> Now I do.
>
> What's more, your support of Oxyaena's claim to be a "paleontologist,"
> even though she did not give any sign of meeting *any* of the criteria
> I listed, was much more dogged than your one-shot claim about Mickey.

Why are we bringing up either of these people?

>>> Now you are making a supposedly authoritative comment
>>> that contradicts what you wrote back then, with no further
>>> authority for it than your highly unreliable say-so.
>
> See above about the reliability of your say-so.

What above? What are you talking about?

>>> It also ignores something I wrote earlier, which is that,
>>> in contrast to licensed geologists, there is no such
>>> thing as a licensed paleontologist.
>
>> I had no idea there
>> was such a thing as a licensed geologist,
>
> This seems to imply that you have not had any training as a paleontologist,
> because you would have had to take lots of geology courses,
> and would surely have learned about such a thing.

Again, I'm not a paleontologist, though I have in fact taken lots of
geology courses and quite a few paleontology courses. Why, I'm only 3
credits short of an undergraduate biology major. So your "surely" bit is
wrong.

> A related fact is that you are OK with *vertebrate* paleontology
> being classed by universities as a branch of geology.

I don't really have a vote in the matter. But I will say that the
vertebrate paleontologists at the University of Chicago are in the
Anatomy Department, not Geology. Not that anyone would or should care.

>> but why, even if so, is it
>> relevant? I still don't understand why we're talking about this.
>
> My, you are slow on the uptake, even after having made a
> carefully tailored description of criteria that make you a paleontologist.
> And with no attempt whatsoever to justify them.

No, you are bizarrely misinformed. I never, and it's odd that I should
have to say this, claimed to be a paleontologist. But I now see what you
meant about me being self-serving, if that was your mistaken belief.

> Continued tomorrow where I left off here, with some earlier context added.

Try, when you're continuing, to remember that I have explicitly and
consistently claimed not to be a paleontologist. (Though again, I have
taken both undergraduate and graduate, vertebrate and invertebrate,
paleontology courses. But, to clear up any remaining confusion, that
doesn't make me a paleontologist, which I am not.)

[Peter Nyikos]

I don't recall ever seeing anything remotely like it from Richard while he was posting here or in talk.origins. Do you?

The "tracing" of which Hemi wrote happened almost four years ago, and no one has been able to
get in touch with him in all that time. So even though "without a trace" may not be literally true, "without a confirmed trace"
doesn't sound quite right, agreed?


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/q1YxRv3yAgAJ

[Peter Nyikos]

Erik, what did I write above to provoke the tirade to which you posted this link?
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/q1YxRv3yAgAJ

The tirade reads:
"Last call: Reading your recent posts make my brain itch. Engaging you is like scratching; makes the itch worse.
What items of interest to me seem always to be accompanied by many more lines of boasting, insults,
irrelevant digressions and denunciations of third parties who may or may not be following the conversations.
As if it could be made even more unappealing, much of it is highly repetitive and in a word, boring. So just forget
it. I know the denunciations will continue, probably for years, and that bothers me not at all. After all, I don't itch
anymore."

Please stick to the comments in this post. I can't see the relevance of the tirade to them; please explain.

Thanks in advance.


Peter Nyikos

[Popping Mad]

On 9/1/22 18:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> John Harshman accused you of being ignorant of a couple of scientific things,
> and you demonstrated that he was wrong, and you showed your resentment
> over his baseless accusation.

I don't even remember any longer, but if I ever wrote a multiple page
personal assualt against anyone on the internet, I have to humbly admit
that I was wrong to do so, and I beg forgiveness of the internet world
and all of usenet. It was wrong of me.

I might had said my peice in a line or two and then just /dev/nulled him.

I come to the internet looking for friends, and occasional intelectual
sparing partners, and occasionally to vent over a political issue.

[Popping Mad]

On 9/1/22 18:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> That really scared me,


this is usenet. Nothing happens here that should scare anyone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8n4MfhjUc

[erik simpson]

With respect to this post I will say just this: You are an absurd person, and you are obviously incapable
of recognizing absurdity when you see it.

With respect to the link, it's hard to believe you don't understand it. it says: "I don't want to engage you in ANY
protracted exchanges of the sort containing the elements I mentioned." You may change your behavior, but
history suggests that's unlikely. I won't be watching closely.

[Peter Nyikos]

Hi, Ruben. Before I address what you wrote below,
I want to let you know about a new thread I began
less than an hour ago, where I mention you at the beginning.
I hope I did a good job of talking about you there. Its title:
"The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics."
I hope to see you there some time this week (the sooner, the better).

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 9:49:03 AM UTC-4, Popping Mad wrote:
> On 9/1/22 18:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > That really scared me,

>>because I feared that our agreement could be ended then and there.
>

> this is usenet. Nothing happens here that should scare anyone.

You don't seem to understand how much sci.bio.paleontology means to me.
When I returned to it in December of 2010, I was horrified to see that
the Usenet forum I had enjoyed the most when I left it about a decade earlier
was on the verge of extinction.

The last exchange on it had been a month earlier, and it wasn't a particularly pleasant one.
It was hard to find, too, because the forum was almost taken over by spammers
advertising one solutions manual after another, dozens at a time, all with new OPs.

I was able to interest John Harshman in trying to revive s.b.p, and I put up with a lot of pettiness
from him because he did contribute a good amount of information.
We were joined in about two years by Richard Norman and Erik Simpson, and
by early 2015 the spamming, both the kind I described just now and that by Thrinaxodon
(later going by the byline Oxyaena), was over. Soon thereafter began the
"oasis of civilization" about which I wrote to you in the post to which you are replying.

The fear I was describing in the two lines at the beginning was that all that good work
would go down the drain. By keeping silent, I put off anything like that for many months.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 9/5/22 12:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I was able to interest John Harshman in trying to revive s.b.p, and I put up with a lot of pettiness
> from him because he did contribute a good amount of information.

Was that not an example of pettiness in itself?

[Glenn]

Is that question itself not an example of pettiness?

[John Harshman]

I smell an infinite regress.

[Glenn]

You didn't answer the question. Did you expect Peter to answer yours?

Do you mean that we could argue on endlessly about what constitutes pettiness and never arrive at a resolution?

[John Harshman]

You keep asking questions, but why would you expect an answer since you
never answer mine?

[Glenn]

Why do you think these false claims have relevance to whether certain questions should be answered? Think twice.

[John Harshman]

There's an improve game in which two people try to carry on a
conversation solely by answering a question with a question. You seem to
be playing that game. But I'm stopping.

[Peter Nyikos]

I've read enough of it to see two deficiencies and several peculiar details.


> Do you disagree?

Yes. To begin with, a simple scan shows that they nowhere mention which taxon
they used to root the tree. Very sloppy writing, refereeing, and editing is to blame, wouldn't you say?

Just above Fig. 17 is the following sentence:

"As *Ornitholestes* has never been recovered as a tyrannosauroid it is considered the most basal well supported member of Maniraptoromorpha here."

And yet, Ornitholestes appears neither in Fig. 17 nor Fig. 18. Their trees apparently don't
show the breadth of Maniraptoromorpha. More sloppiness.


Also, to a layman like me, it seems peculiar that they would use 700 characters,
and claim that their choice is better than that of Maryanska et. al.,
and yet it takes so little change to make some pretty big shifts.

"A Deinonychosauria including troodontids and dromaeosaurids was recovered as in many recent analyses. Positioning troodontids closer to Aves than dromaeosaurids only requires a single additional step, but non-eumaniraptoran troodontids are less parsimonious at six more steps. Scansoriopterygids form the first branch of Avialae, matching their stratigraphic placement, and constraining them as basal paravians instead is only one step longer. Their other suggested position as oviraptorosaurs requires 12 more steps though, so is unlikely. While Pedopenna emerges as a scansoriopterygid in the MPTs, one step moves the fragmentary specimen to Archaeopterygidae instead. The juvenile Zhongornis branches next, with alternative positions in Scansoriopterygidae or Confuciusornithiformes being four and five steps longer respectively."

The placement of the enigmatic Scansoriopterygids has been highly varied. Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae
The only tree it shows puts them well outside Avialae, and above the tree there is a long
discussion of numerous other analyses.

I suggest you compare the Mortimer et.al. matrix with one or more of the ones
among the analyses listed.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 9:59:52 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 10:55:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/30/22 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

I realized just now that the url for the article co-authored by "Mickey Mortimer"
was missing from my earlier reply this morning. Here it is:

https://peerj.com/articles/7247/?td=bl&fbclid=IwAR09VFddJNY8v0rvmEh9HmtINsJLScQj0B98UsoKEbTjMMNZLTdxZyA4h4w

I had to scroll up pretty far to find it, too.


Peter Nyikos

PS I left everything below intact; it's all about the linked article.