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

Sat Jan 5 21:40:10 CST 2019

Ken,

Just as a follow up on the subject that is really at issue - if II may the
risk of oversimplification. When it comes to evolutionary biogeography
there are basically two current viewpoints. 1) that fossil calibrated
molecular divergence dates give the actual or maximal ages of origin that
are falsifiers of earlier vicariance events (even if supporting a later or
coincident vicariance event) and 2) that tectonic correlations provide
biogeographic divergence estimates. The first is supported by the great
majority it appears, and probably all popular science journalists. The
critique from the second viewpoint is that the molecular divergence claim
is based on a false representation  - that fossil calibrated estimates are
actual or maximal. The reality is that they are minimums and cannot falsify
earlier vicariance events. That is the bottom line on all of this.

John Grehan

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 10:06 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ken,
>
> All science comprises opinions, but the science comes in when one involves
> evidence. That is why I said simply expressing an opinion is not science.
> When it comes to panbiogeography there are a set of views (opinions) for
> which there is a reasoned argument from sustaining evidence. This is normal
> practice in science. I notice you tend to just assert beliefs and when
> prompted for evidence you decline quite often, or asserting that majority
> belief has automatic scientific credibility. On these issues we disagree.
> Panbiogeography is no more religion than any science (to the point that if
> one tried to condemn panbiogeography as religion one risks condemning
> science in general by default).
>
> "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.
>
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:52 PM Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>  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> 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> on behalf of John
>> Grehan <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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>>
>>