[Taxacom] Pangeography as religion? (was: Aging New Zealand's species)

[Kenneth Kinman]

 John,
        You said: "Of course you and anyone is entitled to whatever opinion on that. But opinions are not science. They are beliefs. Simply asserting a belief is more akin to religion than science. Seems to me at least."
         I agree that can be true.  But whether panbiogeography is itself also a belief system (religion) is also open to scrutiny.  Somewhat similar to my
"cherry-picking" criticism, Mike Ivie once compared panbiogeography to a religion, as in the following quote ( http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2009-June/112858.html ):


"This lead me to reexamine Panbiogeography, thinking maybe I had missed
something the first 2 times.  I reread what I could stomach of the
literature (passing on a reread of Croizat himself). But, again, for the
third time, it let me down.  It produces an ex post facto narrative with a
seductively attractive answer that fits the data, but it is circular and
inherently unscientific in the end.  It does produce predictions, but
those predictions can only be supported by possibly random coincidence,
and cannot be refuted by non-corresponding data, as those are explained by
the same method as just other tracks, not refutation of the one previously
proposed.  Like religion, panbiogeography will explain any discovered
annomaly."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Ken, there is a difference sometimes between what I say and what you  interpret. I said not all journals. Might imply many or not. But certainly not what I said.

"s not only predicted by Craw and other biogeographers, but many who are not panbiogeographers.   So that was really no big surprise to many. " Sure, although it was Croizat who perhaps more than any others made the most expansive argument early on (OK, so I could be wrong if someone else did even more, no worries)

"However, extrapolating Craw's prediction about that into suggesting a Mesozoic origin or very early Cenozoic origin for many organisms in New Zealand and New Caledonia is not accepted by most." So? Science by the vote? Remember Semmelweis, or even McClintock.

"What you call a wealth of evidence is regarded by many as an extreme exaggeration, and that your claim of no "empirical evidence" to the contrary is also exaggerated."

OK, so demonstrate that.

"This is what many refer to as "cherry-picking".

How so?

 "Trevor Worthy's belief that a lot of New Zealand's species aren't very old is more likely correct even you think it is wrong."

Of course you and anyone is entitled to whatever opinion on that. But opinions are not science. They are beliefs. Simply asserting a belief is more akin to religion than science. Seems to me at least.

John Grehan


On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:56 PM Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com<mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>> wrote:
      I think that suggesting that many journals subscribe to a "totalitarian control of science" is a bit much (if not an extreme exaggeration).  As for your earlier post about moths and angiosperms being found in the Jurassic, that was not only predicted by Craw and other biogeographers, but many who are not panbiogeographers.   So that was really no big surprise to many.
     However, extrapolating Craw's prediction about that into suggesting a Mesozoic origin or very early Cenozoic origin for many organisms in New Zealand and New Caledonia is not accepted by most.  What you call a wealth of evidence is regarded by many as an extreme exaggeration, and that your claim of no "empirical evidence" to the contrary is also exaggerated.  This is what many refer to as "cherry-picking".   Trevor Worthy's belief that a lot of New Zealand's species aren't very old is more likely correct even you think it is wrong.

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com<mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2019 3:34 PM
To: taxacom
Subject: [Taxacom] Aging New Zealand's species

Fortunately not all journals subscribe to totalitarian control of science
and so despite calls for such  by some prominent NZ scientists, the popular
Journal "The Listener" recently allowed reference to alternative viewpoints
by publishing a 'letter to the editor' Transcript below. I can provide pdf
of the original article and letter for anyone so interested.

John Grehan

The Listener December 22 2018 – January 4 2019

Letters, p. 6

Aging New Zealand’s species

Trevor Worthy and his colleagues are to be commended for their efforts to
reveal the existence of now extinct elements of New Zealand’s animal life.
“Exotic Paradise”, September 29). However, I would assert that he is wrong
in his belief that “a heck of a lot’ of New Zealand’s species aren’t very
old. There is no empirical evidence for this and molecular clocks often
cited as support are only minimum estimates. Instead, as demonstrated in
unprecedented detail and broad  scope in Michael Head’s “Biogeography and
Evolution in New Zealand” (2018, CRC Press), there is a wealth of
biogeographic and tectonic evidence that most of New Zealand’s endemic
biota are fragments of eastern Gondwana before the rifting of Zealandia.
This evidence was further supported in a recent study in Zootaxa (2018:
4415) demonstrating that New Zealand’s ghost moths also follow similar
Gondwana patterns. While many  researchers may have assumed that most of
the original biota was ‘drowned’ in the Oligocene, or that the surviving
fauna lacked major predator groups, this was never the case for pioneering
researchers such as Robin Craw and Michael Heads who characterized the
tectonic evolution of New Zealand’s biota long before the new fossil
evidence. They demonstrated that New Zealand’s biological and geological
origins have a shared history, and I contend that it is this finding to be
the most significant educational message for the students of tomorrow.

John Grehan
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.