Taxonomy as a Rigorous Science

[Jodie]

That's a very interesting perspective for you to reveal, Jodie, seeing as how disease epidemiologists usually use "might", "possibly", and "seems to indicate" when appropriate, too.

In fact, when the authors of an article on infectious disease epidemiology don't use those words when interpreting the data, it's pretty much a red flag.

Exactly.

 

[kellyb]

Exactly.

Exactly what?

 

[Akri]

From my perspective I was discussing how this applied to hominids

The whale paper does apply to hominids because it shows that the methodology is sound.

Let me give you a silly analogy. Imagine that you didn't believe I could write with a pen, and for some reason we were sitting somewhere without access to pens. But I did have a marker handy, and so I wrote a sentence or two using that marker. Now of course a marker is not a pen, but the methodology of using a marker is the same as for a pen. If I can write with one I can write with the other. If you look at what I wrote in marker, and verify that they're actual words spelled properly and with properly-formed letters, then you've verified that I can write by hand. It is unreasonable, at that point, to think that I can't write with pen, or pencil, or crayon, or any other writing implement.

That whale paper is like me writing with marker. It proves that the methodology is sound. There's no reason to think the methodology won't work when applied to hominids, or any other group. It didn't work with whales because they could check it against DNA, the ability to check it against DNA just confirmed that it worked. There's no reason to think the methodology will suddenly break if applied to hominids, just as there's no reason to think that my ability to write with a marker will not translate to writing with a pen.

 

[Dinwar]

Exactly what?

Jodie apparently wishes us to believe that all those reports she hasn't read and books she hasn't read in those fields she's unaware of (paleopathology, taphonomy, and morphometrics, to name a few) do not include caveats differentiating between data and interpretation. She appears to wish us to believe that scientists studing evolutionary history--who's work she has not familiarized herself with---abandon standard scientific conservativism in diction.

How she knows this is anyone's guess. As I have demonstrated, she was unaware fo the existence of these fields until I mentioned them. It's all nonsense, of course; paleontologists are, as I have said before, painfully aware of the limitations of our data and are often too willing to withhold judgement (both to prevent cherry-picking from dishonest folks and because in the past we weren't so hesitant and it bit us in the butt pretty hard).

The discussion was about ancient hominids, not whales. Other than them both being mammals, I don't see the relevance to humans, I'm sorry.

No. The discussion is about the validity of the methodologies used in paleontology. You wanted to focus on hominids, but I see no reason to limit our discussion in such a manner.

As for the relevance: You said that certain methods don't work, and that other methods are necessary. I have demonstrated that the results of all those methods (and a few others) are identical as far as we can can tell (the differences are due to fact that while the datasets overlap, they are not identical). That means that the methods are sound--or at leas that there's no rational reason to say that one is any more sound than the others. THAT means that we can apply those methods to any other creature within Mammalia, and I'd go so far as to say within Chordata, and get valid results--whether we use your preferred method or mine. There's no biological reason to reject such a statement. You have yet to counter it. You have yet to ADDRESS it.

I didn't call you incompetent,

True, in so far as you've studiously avoided those words. However, you've said that paleontologists as a group are incapable of differentiating between fossil species, which is no different from calling us incompetent. If you tell someone "You are incapable of doing your job", you are calling them incompetent.

So that's what this is about, you are on some kind of anti-creationist kick?

Nope. Not at all. If I were to attack Creationists (and make no mistake, I have more than ample reason to do so--again, you don't get to claim victimhood when the person you punch punches back), I'd attack Creationists. I'm merely pointing out where your arguments originated, and am speculating about how many more along that vein we'll see you trot out. It appears that you've been getting information from some really bad sources, when you bother to gather information on the topic at all (what I mean is, for example, you weren't aware of the field of paleopathology, so you obviously couldn't have gathered data on it). I'm pointing this out for two reasons: First, to show that your arguments don't have much credibility, so the peanut gallery can formulate an informed opinion on them. Second, I'm hoping that you question your sources. The folks feeding you these lines are not your friends. They are lying to you. If they themselves aren't doing it intentionally, the people they're learning these arguments from are.

From my perspective I was discussing how this applied to hominids, maybe I wasn't clear, but I was genuinely interested until now. I'm simply disgusted at this point.

You're disgusted because someone in a field you attacked fought back. This is hardly something to be proud of.

Yes it has, but I think you need to rethink the rebuttal part.

The same advice is applicable to you.

 

[Dinwar]

I didn't say that, what I said was that discussing the table issue was ridiculous when the Smithsomian said that there were only 6000 fossils to represent hominids. Considering the population, that is not a lot.

Okay. I'm gonna ask again: Please provide evidence that ancient hominids had diversity similar to that found in modern humans, as opposed to the diversity found in pretty much every other organism ever studied. Humans are the special case; the default assumption is that organisms have similar diversity to that found in the majority of animals of that class.

You asked me to, so I thought I would so I could participate, what is wrong with that?

Two things: First, I was refering to your behavior in the other thread. You came out swinging, and swinging hard. Second, you've yet to acknowledge that your ignorance is coloring your views.

The only comment I got when I asked about the Giganto progenitor species the first time was, " I don't know, it's outside my field" .

This is an example of a scientist being rational, and you attacking him for it. You're also dropping the context here--in context, you were equating the lack of Giganto fossils in Africa with the lack of Giganto fossils in North America, in an attempt to explain how bigfoot could be Gigantopithicus and be in NA without a fossil record. There's a world of difference between "I don't know" and "No one knows", and there's a universe of difference between that and "It is unknowable". I don't know the data because it's not my area of expertise. The data are there, I simply haven't examined them.

You went into indepth detail about what you do as an ecopalepathologist, all very interesting. When I tried to redirect the conversation by reiterating my question yet another way, you got angry.

I get angry because you're not listening. I've answered your question.

You are saying that DNA evidence is necessary to reconstruct evolutionary history.

I'm saying it's not.

To prove it, I demonstrated that DNA evidence and morphological evidence produce the same results.

Please tell me which part of that you find confusing. The taxa don't matter AT ALL for this discussion; the concepts are as applicable to sponges as they are to humans as they are to conifers.

Also, the term "ecopaleontologist" simply doesn't exist. At best, it's paleoecology--and I haven't been discussing paleoecology, but rather taxonomy and cladistics.

Can you explain why some whales have teeth today and others don't considering the ocean has plankton throughout, what factors determined the direction the whale evolved in?

Yes--that paper I linked to specifically discusses that. In detail, in terms of morphology, ecology, and genetics.

Can you tell me where to at least look for the progenitor species for Giganto?

Sure. Look in the Middle East.

Can you explain to me why in every other field of science the sample size is important but not so in paleontology?

Sample size ISN'T as important as you make it out to be in other fields. Biologists routinely name new species on the basis of single specimens. I've been to three conferences where that's happened--and I mean biologists, the ones dealing with the squishy, wriggly things (particularly squishy in one case--sea slugs).

If they were simple questions, why weren't they addressed?

They have been. You simply don't like the answers.

No I didn't ignore anything, but you said DNA wasn't always necessary because the morphology always matched the genetics when I know that it doesn't in every case.

What you "know" isn't relevant to this discussion. What you can DEMONSTRATE is another matter. After all, you may be wrong.

Subjective how? You can't take DNA and reconstruct what the organism looked like exactly without a type specimen. However you can get a better idea of what something is related to by looking at the mtDNA in comparison with other species.

Oh, dear gods in Hell.

Okay, obviously I was going a tad over your head. I apologize for that; I had assumed that anyone willing to so emphatically attack a field of science would have a certain level of background knowledge, and obviously that assumption was mistaken. Allow me to explain how genetic testing is done.

In doing genetic testing no one looks at the entire genome. Remember, it took several teams of researchers years to map the human genome! No one can afford to do that for a cladogram. They look at particular subsets of DNA. The selection process--the way they choose which DNA to look at--can include an element of subjectivity. Do you look at Cytocrome C? Do you look at the Vitamine C gene? The Y chromosome? Molecular clocks? That selection can have real impacts on the results, and is just as arbitrary as the selection of morphological characters (which is to say, until you start running the tests there's no way of knowing if you've selected one that's completely useless or not). Now, obviously there are protocols for picking which genes to look at, and pros and cons to each; my point is, genetic testing of this type doesn't look at the whole genome, as you clearly are implying. In fact, it's likely that morphological data looks at more of the genome than genetic data--morphology is largely controlled (and the characters we select are ideally entirely or almost entirely controlled) by genetics.

No, I assume nothing,

No scientist would every say such a thing. It is ALWAYS wrong. Period. EVERY argument has assumptions.

But the inverse is true when you state that statistical correlates for morphology are good enough. It really depends on how much of the fossil record you have for a species. Basic statistics dictates what sample size gives the highest confidence, what more needs to be said about that?

See, here's why you annoy me: You keep saying things like "basic statistics" and the like, implying that this is simple stuff. Yet when I give you concrete examples specifically to provide you with an opportunity to DEMONSTRATE those "basic" concepts, you not only fail to demonstrate it but you don't even try! I have given you ample opportunity to rip apart real-world conclusions by those whom you think are in error. If your argument was 1/10th as good as you think it is, you should be able to at least run the math. Yet you don't. You rely on simply repeating yourself.

I'm giving you the chance to do exactly what you say needs to be done. Analyze the whale paper the way you think it should be analyzed. If you can't, you are admitting that you cannot apply your criticisms to specific cases, in which case it's worthless.

Which is why I saw no point in introducing the whale study into the conversation in the first place. What partial radiation event? How do you make any assumption about hominids then?

Seriously? Okay....

Homo sapiens sapiens, when we left Africa, encountered numerous different environments and underwent numerous adaptations to those environments. I have pale skin, the ability to digest lactose, and a high tollerance for alcohol--all adaptations for the environment my ancestors inhabited. Other groups encountered different environments, and produced different adaptations. The result was numerous subpopulations of H. sapiens sapiens in varying degrees of genetic isolation from one another--precisely the conditions underwhich organisms undergo speciation. We started down that path, which necessarily increased diversity (that's sort of a requirement for that process). We can debate how far we got (Gould estimated 10,000 generations for true speciation to occur, and we certainly didn't get that far, or even halfway), but it's pretty much indesputable that our cosmopolitanism resulted in an abnormally high diversity.

As for the last question in that quote, the standard assumption is that an organism not undergoing a speciation event will have diversity similar to that of other organisms not undergoing speciation events within that class or family. Obviously if there's a reason to assume otherwise we do so; and there ARE tests for genetic diversity (asymetry, for example--higher asymetry=higher genetic diversity in many taxa). But if we have to make an assumption the basic rule of thumb is to assume the organism you're looking at ISN'T a special case until you have data to demonstrate otherwise. This presents a very good opportunity for you to prove me wrong: find the data that proves that hominids were abnormally diverse as a rule, and I'll gladly accept it.

I have painted a giant target on my argument, handed you a shotgun, and said "Here, have at it."

Well bully for you, I wondered what was wrong with you

Nothing's wrong with me (well, nothing relevant to this discussion, anyway). I'm over-emphasizing some aspects of science so that hopefully you pick up on them. In science it's considered good form to inform others of what evidence would prove one wrong. It shows that one has considered one's argument thoroughly. I have done so, in spades. You, on the other hand, have thus far not presented anything that you would accept as refuting your argument. This lends your argument the appearance of an unsinkable rubber duck.

 

[shadron]

Homo sapiens sapiens, when we left Africa, encountered numerous different environments and underwent numerous adaptations to those environments. I have pale skin, the ability to digest lactose, and a high tollerance for alcohol--all adaptations for the environment my ancestors inhabited. Other groups encountered different environments, and produced different adaptations. The result was numerous subpopulations of H. sapiens sapiens in varying degrees of genetic isolation from one another--precisely the conditions underwhich organisms undergo speciation. We started down that path, which necessarily increased diversity (that's sort of a requirement for that process). We can debate how far we got (Gould estimated 10,000 generations for true speciation to occur, and we certainly didn't get that far, or even halfway), but it's pretty much indesputable that our cosmopolitanism resulted in an abnormally high diversity.

What is to be said for the argument that mankind as a whole is remarkably non-diverse and homogenous (according to Spencer Wells and others), most likely from the bottleneck that occurred 70,000 years ago with the eruption of Toba, and the diminuation of the species to some thousands of individuals in Africa as a result? I presume this diversity happened since then, a bare 3500 generations afterward? It seems to be about right, as we certainly haven't speciated since then, not yet.

(PS: great discussion. Thanks.)

 

[Dinwar]

What is to be said for the argument that mankind as a whole is remarkably non-diverse and homogenous (according to Spencer Wells and others), most likely from the bottleneck that occurred 70,000 years ago with the eruption of Toba, and the diminuation of the species to some thousands of individuals in Africa as a result? I presume this diversity happened since then, a bare 3500 generations afterward?

Well, to be fair genetic diversity is a tad more complex than I'm making it seem. All of adaptations I've mentioned have arisen in the past 70k years (a few have arisen in the Holocene). A lot of other aspects have remained essentially identical thanks to the bottleneck. That's one reason why geneticists don't use the whole genome--a lot of the information is superfluous.

The main reason for the increased diversity was that we encountered a huge variety of new selection pressures. Humans didn't have to worry very much about Vitamin D before we left Africa. Once we got to Northern Europe, it became somewhat more problematic, and we adapted lighter skin to take advantage of the more limited daylight. There was also most likely mixing with other species (contrary to the biological species concept hybridization is possible in animals--even fertile mules have occurred). That certainly helped add diversity.

 

[Vortigern99]

The resounding sound of crickets from the opposing camp is telling, to say the least.

 

[Jodie]

If you are referring to me Vort, no, Dinwar said they can't use hominid fossils the way that they use other species for the models in paleontology. After that, there wasn't anything left for me to discuss since I thought that was the point of thread, not taxonomy in general. I never had an issue with the discipline as far as work done with other species and I repeatedly said so to no avail.

I think it's more telling that Dinwar waited to enlighten us with that point until 3 pages into this new thread and never bothered to mention it in the old thread where the topic originated. Obviously you didn't read my posts either Vort, or you would see what my original comment was in relation to rather than Dinwar's wounded pride having his profession supposedly besmirched.

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar said they can't use hominid fossils the way that they use other species for the models in paleontology.

Where the devil did I say that? I said that YOU have to prove YOUR hypothesis that hominids have an extraordinary amount of diversity. I then pointed to a few cases where paleontologists have done so. One of these cases happens to include our own species--SPECIES, not family--which underwent a partial radiation due to expanding into novel territories.

You're making accusations that don't withstand even casual analysis at this point. Nothing I've said can rationally be construed as me saying that "they can't use hominid fossils the way they use other species" in anything in paleontology. We do. Constantly. It's just that paleontology is vastly more complicated than your cartoon outline makes it appear.

I've given you every opportunity. I've handed you specific research studies which you could use to demonstrate the problems with morphology (which is the standard method used in paleontology, NOT genetics--which has its own problems, as I discussed). I've told you where to look for the data you demanded. I've all but written the research proposal for how to prove me wrong. Yet you still can't do it. Your only resort is to make up nonsense.

You're wrong. There's no shame in it, but you have to admit it.

 

[Dinwar]

I've re-read my posts on this page, and stilll can't find anywhere that I said hominids can't be dealt with the same way every other species in paleontology can.

At best, I said that our own species was something of a special case--but certainly not a unique one. Our species underwent a partial radiation; we started down a path that would have eventually lead to speciation. The Age of Exploration more or less put a stop to that; however, during the previous millenia there was constrained genetic flow between certain populations, allowing them to diversify in different directions. This makes humans--and, to clarifiy, whenever I say "human" I mean H. sapiens sapiens--abnormally diverse.

Jodie appears to believe that we need to assume that all other hominids were equally diverse. However, I do not see any justification for such an assumption. Other hominids were not nearly as cosmopolitan as humans, nor did they have the length of time we did to diversify (they died out first). Furthermore, unless we have some evidence that they were going through some sort of radiation similar to that which humans went through, we can assume--as is the standard assumption in paleontology--that those hominids had similar diversity to that found in other ape groups (apes being the most similar group for which we have good records).

Humans are different than what paleontologists normally deal with; however, such radiations aren't impossible ot deal with in paleontology. We don't fit the standard model used, but the whole reason we call something "the standard ____" is because there are others used in situations where the standard one breaks down. Humans fit a less common--but still widely accepted--model for species diversity. The thing is, we can't assume that an organism is a special case unless there is evidence to demonstrate that it is. In humans, there's more than ample evidence that we're special; same with dogs and many domestic animals. For the rest of the hominids, there's not.

There ARE ways to determine diversity even with a small number of fossils. First, we can compare the small number we have. Fifty random humans will be much more diverse than fifty random bison. Second, we can look at the niche. Humans are diverse because we inhabit so many different environments; if the organism was highly specialized to one environment, or one food, or similar, that organism will almost certainly be less diverse. If the fossils are spread widely they're likely to be more diverse than a species found only in one area. And there has been research demonstrating that asymetry within a single organism can reflect the genetic diversity of the population of sexually reproducing organisms. There are others, and a single sentence certainly isn't enough to get into the details of any of these, but that's the basic concept behind each.

Jodie, that's me loading the gun, putting it against my argument's head, and putting your hand on the trigger. I have just told you how to prove my entire argument wrong. Look at hominids. Figure out if the fossils we've found from each species are abnormally diverse. See if they were generalists or highly specialized (Gigantopithicus was hypothesized to be highly specialized, by the way). See if they were found in a relatively small area, or in a large one. THAT is how you need to support your argument. You need to examine the fossils. Until you do, you aren't even speculating; you're rambling.

 

[Dinwar]

I saw this while looking for some taphonomic studies (it's in the same issue) and thought it worth posting:

http://www.psjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1666/0094-8373%282000%2926%5B341%3APAATFR%5D2.0.CO%3B2

The link goes to an abstract (psjournals is the Paleontological Society, a profesional organization for paleontologists). I'm a member, and am printing this out to read for my own edification; it touches on some issues I've been having with cladistics lately. The part that is of interest to this discussion is that it demonstrates the openness of scientists to questioning even such well-established concepts as cladograms. It's just that you have to go about doing it properly. mere speculation gets you shot down, particularly if you're speculating without knowing what you're talking about. From what I've seen (I looked at the figures before printing it) this article is fairly well-researched and attacks specific issues with standard methodologies, as well as providing data to support their ideas (often in the form of testing against models, but since the question is about testing against models to begin with, that's fair).

I apologize for the fact that it's behind a paywall. The technical aspects of it aren't really relevant, though, so the abstract is sufficient. We ARE willing to ask these questions. They were asked thirteen years ago. But it requires a tremendous amount of knowledge to be able to ask them honestly. This isn't something you can learn by reading up on a few small issues one night; it requires nearly a decade of formal academic work (no other environment is ammenable to the type of concentration required), as well as decades of private research on your own time. I'm not at that level yet--I'm reading this article because, as I said, it hits on questions I had.

 

[Jodie]

I do not find that assumption valid, for reasons I discussed earlier--to wit, humans are extraordinarily diverse compared to any non-domestic species in the wild. If you provide the data, we can discuss it. Until then, the fact that humans underwent a period of partial radiation means that we cannot use them as an analog for other taxa, including other hominids.

Right here is where you said it, by all means, continue talking to yourself. If you can't have a conversation without denigrating the person involved then your motives are exactly the same as those I generalized about in the other thread where this discussion originated. You know it and I know it. I've not insulted you, but you used presumed insult as an excuse to attack the arguer, and you've done it one too many times for me to invest anymore time in this discussion.

 

[Akri]

Right here is where you said it

Nope. "we cannot use [humans] as an analog for other taxa" is not the same as "they can't use hominid fossils the way that they use other species for the models in paleontology".

I've not insulted you

Yes you have, as has been shown several times. Ignoring when we point it out does not make us wrong.

 

[Dinwar]

Right here is where you said it,

As Akri said, you are failing to differentiate between "human" and "hominid". I had hoped that my clarification would fix this, but unfortunately it's obvious that you aren't going to acknowledge your error.

By the way, here's the part of the quote that proves you haven't bothered to read even the part you quoted. I've highlighted the part that demonstrates that I was specifically talking about Homo sapiens sapiens, and specifically addressing your contention that because humans are incredibly diverse therefore all hominids are.

...we cannot use them as an analog for other taxa, including other hominids.

By the way, I've since clarified that I was only talking about other taxa not demonstrably undergoing a radiation event. If they are, H. sapiens sapiens may be a good model. But you have to prove they are; you cannot merely assume they are, because H. sapiens sapiens isn't normal.

If you can't have a conversation without denigrating the person involved then your motives are exactly the same as those I generalized about in the other thread where this discussion originated.

I have merely named your actions. You're the one who took them. If you can't stand to have your actions named, don't do them. It's not my obligation to protect your fragile ego; trust me, scientists don't get any protection either.

I've not insulted you,

Your entire argument boils down to the following:

I have not studied this field, I can't even get the names right, I refuse to study the data even when the data are presented, but the practitioners are incompetent.

If that's not what you intended to say, you really need to work on delivery--because that's the underlying theme of every post in this thread from you. You HAVEN'T studied paleontology. You DO get the terms wrong ("ecopaleontologist", for example). You ARE unaware of the fields addressing exactly what you're talking about. You HAVE refused to examine the data (no, looking at the pictures doesn't count). And you HAVE called us incompetent, by saying that we are incapable of doing the task that is, fundamentally, what our job is (being incapable of doing one's job is the definition of incompetence, and if you're going to say we fit that definition you're saying we're the word; if it looks like a duck...).

Here's n article you need to read. The very concept of that argument is insulting. I can tolerate it for a few iterations, but when you make it clear that you expect your ignorance to trump my knowledge--and the knowledge of everyone I have referenced--and arrogantly demand that I bow to your opinions while ignoring data left and right, yeah, it's an insult.

but you used presumed insult as an excuse to attack the arguer

I have only named what you've done. That's not attacking, that's clarifying.

and you've done it one too many times for me to invest anymore time in this discussion.

~shrug~ I've given you every chance to prove your arguments. I've presented precisely the type of argument you say isn't valid. I've told you exactly how to prove me wrong. I've given you multiple methods when you said you didn't like the dataset I was using. I've done everything but write the posts for you. If your reaction to someone doing all that is "You're a big fat meany-head and I'm taking my ball and going home", that's your problem not mine. I have gone out of my way to give you every opportunity to disprove my statements and to provide evidence supporting your own. You've refused to do any of that.

As a bit of friendly advice, if you try any of this garbage--ANY of it--at an actual academic conference you'd be counting me among the most courteous people you met that day. Most would dismiss you out of hand. Most would do so while telling everyone else about the crackpot they'd met. Anyone willing to engage you would make my worst comments seem perfectly civil (I've seen it; it's not pretty). I actually engaged you. AT BEST you could expect to be asked to leave. Actual riots have been started over less. At this point your arguments are not worth the trouble, at least as far as 99% of the people you're accusing of incompetence would be concerned.

Science isn't nice. ScienTISTS aren't nice. Particularly not to people too arrogant to actually bother demonstrating their arguments. I mean this as friendly advice: if you ever try to have this conversation in the real world, don't be so cocky. It will not go over well.

 

[Jodie]

As Akri said, you are failing to differentiate between "human" and "hominid". I had hoped that my clarification would fix this, but unfortunately it's obvious that you aren't going to acknowledge your error.

By the way, here's the part of the quote that proves you haven't bothered to read even the part you quoted. I've highlighted the part that demonstrates that I was specifically talking about Homo sapiens sapiens, and specifically addressing your contention that because humans are incredibly diverse therefore all hominids are.

I never said that, as a matter of fact, I even said we had no way to know when discussing Neanderthal. The 10% was some arbitrary number used to demonstrate the math.

By the way, I've since clarified that I was only talking about other taxa not demonstrably undergoing a radiation event. If they are, H. sapiens sapiens may be a good model. But you have to prove they are; you cannot merely assume they are, because H. sapiens sapiens isn't normal.

Once again, you are going off on a tangent not based on anything I actually said.

I have merely named your actions. You're the one who took them. If you can't stand to have your actions named, don't do them. It's not my obligation to protect your fragile ego; trust me, scientists don't get any protection either.

I believe it's the other way around, but this is your little show so carry on with it.

Your entire argument boils down to the following:

I have not studied this field, I can't even get the names right, I refuse to study the data even when the data are presented, but the practitioners are incompetent.

Nope, what I did say, and have said repeatedly, is that you don't have enough of a fossil record or DNA to make the assumptions that are made about hominids. Feel free to once again twist that anyway you feel obliged to justify going off on a tangent, that although might be interesting (it was to me), it still doesn't really address what I said.

If that's not what you intended to say, you really need to work on delivery--because that's the underlying theme of every post in this thread from you. You HAVEN'T studied paleontology. You DO get the terms wrong ("ecopaleontologist", for example). You ARE unaware of the fields addressing exactly what you're talking about. You HAVE refused to examine the data (no, looking at the pictures doesn't count). And you HAVE called us incompetent, by saying that we are incapable of doing the task that is, fundamentally, what our job is (being incapable of doing one's job is the definition of incompetence, and if you're going to say we fit that definition you're saying we're the word; if it looks like a duck...).

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth to justify attacking the arguer for some imagined insult to your integrity.

Here's n article you need to read. The very concept of that argument is insulting. I can tolerate it for a few iterations, but when you make it clear that you expect your ignorance to trump my knowledge--and the knowledge of everyone I have referenced--and arrogantly demand that I bow to your opinions while ignoring data left and right, yeah, it's an insult.

I demand nothing, I stated an opinion. You choose not to address that by subverting the topic going off on tangents about your own insecurities within your own field of expertise.

I have only named what you've done. That's not attacking, that's clarifying.

If you like I can quote the insults.

~shrug~ I've given you every chance to prove your arguments. I've presented precisely the type of argument you say isn't valid. I've told you exactly how to prove me wrong. I've given you multiple methods when you said you didn't like the dataset I was using. I've done everything but write the posts for you. If your reaction to someone doing all that is "You're a big fat meany-head and I'm taking my ball and going home", that's your problem not mine. I have gone out of my way to give you every opportunity to disprove my statements and to provide evidence supporting your own. You've refused to do any of that.

There evidently was no argument if you knew that the same methods used for whales, your example, wouldn't apply to hominids. The only thing you went out of your way to do was to wave that banner for attention "Look at me, look at me" and some of us have already caught on to that.

As a bit of friendly advice, if you try any of this garbage--ANY of it--at an actual academic conference you'd be counting me among the most courteous people you met that day. Most would dismiss you out of hand. Most would do so while telling everyone else about the crackpot they'd met. Anyone willing to engage you would make my worst comments seem perfectly civil (I've seen it; it's not pretty). I actually engaged you. AT BEST you could expect to be asked to leave. Actual riots have been started over less. At this point your arguments are not worth the trouble, at least as far as 99% of the people you're accusing of incompetence would be concerned.

I'm sure you are speaking from personal experience being on the receiving end of that treatment, this forum happens to provide you with a format to play the other role anonymously.

Science isn't nice. ScienTISTS aren't nice. Particularly not to people too arrogant to actually bother demonstrating their arguments. I mean this as friendly advice: if you ever try to have this conversation in the real world, don't be so cocky. It will not go over well.

I would suggest that you follow your own advice.

 

[Jodie]

error duplicate post

 

[Slowvehicle]

I've re-read my posts on this page, and stilll can't find anywhere that I said hominids can't be dealt with the same way every other species in paleontology can.

At best, I said that our own species was something of a special case--but certainly not a unique one. Our species underwent a partial radiation; we started down a path that would have eventually lead to speciation. The Age of Exploration more or less put a stop to that; however, during the previous millenia there was constrained genetic flow between certain populations, allowing them to diversify in different directions. This makes humans--and, to clarifiy, whenever I say "human" I mean H. sapiens sapiens--abnormally diverse.

Jodie appears to believe that we need to assume that all other hominids were equally diverse. However, I do not see any justification for such an assumption. Other hominids were not nearly as cosmopolitan as humans, nor did they have the length of time we did to diversify (they died out first). Furthermore, unless we have some evidence that they were going through some sort of radiation similar to that which humans went through, we can assume--as is the standard assumption in paleontology--that those hominids had similar diversity to that found in other ape groups (apes being the most similar group for which we have good records).

Humans are different than what paleontologists normally deal with; however, such radiations aren't impossible ot deal with in paleontology. We don't fit the standard model used, but the whole reason we call something "the standard ____" is because there are others used in situations where the standard one breaks down. Humans fit a less common--but still widely accepted--model for species diversity. The thing is, we can't assume that an organism is a special case unless there is evidence to demonstrate that it is. In humans, there's more than ample evidence that we're special; same with dogs and many domestic animals. For the rest of the hominids, there's not.

There ARE ways to determine diversity even with a small number of fossils. First, we can compare the small number we have. Fifty random humans will be much more diverse than fifty random bison. Second, we can look at the niche. Humans are diverse because we inhabit so many different environments; if the organism was highly specialized to one environment, or one food, or similar, that organism will almost certainly be less diverse. If the fossils are spread widely they're likely to be more diverse than a species found only in one area. And there has been research demonstrating that asymetry within a single organism can reflect the genetic diversity of the population of sexually reproducing organisms. There are others, and a single sentence certainly isn't enough to get into the details of any of these, but that's the basic concept behind each.

Jodie, that's me loading the gun, putting it against my argument's head, and putting your hand on the trigger. I have just told you how to prove my entire argument wrong. Look at hominids. Figure out if the fossils we've found from each species are abnormally diverse. See if they were generalists or highly specialized (Gigantopithicus was hypothesized to be highly specialized, by the way). See if they were found in a relatively small area, or in a large one. THAT is how you need to support your argument. You need to examine the fossils. Until you do, you aren't even speculating; you're rambling.

There ought to be a way to nominate you for a "body of work" TLA...

Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this.

 

[kellyb]

Nope, what I did say, and have said repeatedly, is that you don't have enough of a fossil record or DNA to make the assumptions that are made about hominids.

Can you give an example of a particular assumption you take issue with?

 

[Akri]

Nope, what I did say, and have said repeatedly, is that you don't have enough of a fossil record or DNA to make the assumptions that are made about hominids.

Which means you're calling paleontologists incompetent. After all, they do think they have enough information to draw conclusions. So if they can't tell that there's not enough data, whereas a complete neophyte can, then they must be incompetent.

Feel free to offer a scenario where a competent paleontologist can fail to notice something that's glaringly obvious to someone who barely knows anything about the field.

There evidently was no argument if you knew that the same methods used for whales, your example, wouldn't apply to hominids.

He never said that. Read his posts more carefully.