[Taxacom] more science nonsense

[John Grehan]

The nature of 'evidence' is rarely self evident, perhaps never. What
constitutes evidence is based on a broader conceptual framework, whether in
evolution or in forensics. So ye, one's fingerprints on the murder weapon
is only evidence that you touched the weapon at some stage recently, and
not any kind of evidence that you are the murderer." There are quite a few
crime dramas that have focused on that difference.

"If a group did have a S Hemi origin, then one would expect the oldest and
most primitive fossils to be found there" - only if the fossil record is a
complete and accurate record of origin and that there is a center of origin
within the range of the group represented.

John Grehan

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 4:19 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> I disagree! That's like saying that your fingerprints being on the murder
> weapon is only evidence that you touched the weapon at some stage recently,
> not any kind of evidence that you are the murderer!
>
> If a group did have a S Hemi origin, then one would expect the oldest and
> most primitive fossils to be found there, so finding exactly that confirms
> the hypothesis (not 100% proof, but nevertheless).
>
> Anybody else???
>
> Stephen
>
> On Wednesday, 2 October 2019, 08:06:33 pm UTC, John Grehan <
> calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Stephen, There is nothing in science to support the contention that " If
> the oldest and most primitive member of a group is discovered as a fossil
> in the S Hemisphere, then that evidence suggests a S Hemisphere origin for
> the group." There is just no basis for that. You are incorrect to say that "
>  such an origin is suggested by the available evidence." It is not. The
> location of the oldest and most primitive fossil member of a group is only
> evidence of the oldest (known) and most primitive (known) fossil member
> being at a particular location at a particular geological date.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:55 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> John,
> I'd like to know what other Taxacomers think about this, as it is crucial
> to the proper understanding of science itself. You seem to be trying to
> undermine scientific inferences on the basis that there are other possible
> explanations of the same facts. That might be a sensible approach to
> certain kinds of cases, but not ones of this kind, I suggest. You seem to
> be conflating certainty with empirical support (for a hypothesis). Science
> isn't about determining the truth, it is about being led by evidence. If
> the oldest and most primitive member of a group is discovered as a fossil
> in the S Hemisphere, then that evidence suggests a S Hemisphere origin for
> the group. Sure, there are other, more convoluted possibilities which could
> be wheeled in ad hoc, but that's not science! The authors are not claiming
> any certainty of a S Hemisphere origin for the group, merely that such an
> origin is suggested by the available evidence. I see no particular problem
> with this, except perhaps the overly heavy weight that science puts on
> working with mere inconclusive suggestions from empirical evidence. For
> applied science, at the end of the day, somethinbg either works or it
> doesn't, but, for pure science, the inconclusive suggestions just lead to
> inconclusive theories with which scientists occupy their time and
> resources, but for what???
> Stephen
>
> On Wednesday, 2 October 2019, 02:11:13 pm UTC, John Grehan <
> calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Stephen - the assertion that a southern hemisphere origin "is suggested by
> the new evidence" is indeed nonsense. The fossil can only suggest that a
> clade was present at a particular place and time. Empirically it says
> nothing about the origin of the taxon with respect to younger fossils
> elsewhere. Its quite possible that the group had its origin from a
> widespread ancestor that was in both the northern and southern hemisphere
> and the (current) oldest fossil happens to be located in the south. It does
> not matter that the fossil may represent the basal lineage as this may just
> represent an initial vicariance. So dreaming up a local (southern) origin
> is not science at all, just nonsense.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:21 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> Hold on there one minute John!
> On the scale of "science nonsense", this might not even qualify! The key
> word is "suggests". The fossil does demonstrate that the oldest and most
> primitive *known* member of the group is from the Southern Hemisphere, so
> that it *evidence* that the group evolved there. It is the simplest
> explanation of the known facts, that's all. Otherwise, you have to posit
> the existence of unknown like fossils in the Northern Hemisphere, for which
> there is currently no evidence, and consider it chance that the first such
> fossil just happened to be found in the Southern Hemisphere. Sure, that
> it *possible*, but nobody seems to be saying that a Southern Hemisphere
> origin it is 100% certain, just that it is suggested by the new evidence.
> Stephen
>
> On Wednesday, 2 October 2019, 03:04:40 am UTC, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Never ceases to amaze me. In a recent paper the following assertion:
>
> "All previously known Paleocene records of pelagornithids stem from the
> Northern Hemisphere, but as the oldest and phylogenetically most basal
> representative,
> Protodontopteryx suggests that these birds actually evolved in the Southern
> Hemisphere."
>
> Apart from the  center of origin illusion, there never has been any
> empirical demonstration that the location of the oldest fossil corresponds
> to the oldest occupied area for a taxon. But still they keep saying it as
> if it were real.
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335873378_Oldest_smallest_and_phylogenetically_most_basal_pelagornithid_from_the_early_Paleocene_of_New_Zealand_sheds_light_on_the_evolutionary_history_of_the_largest_flying_birds
>
>
> John Grehan
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
>