OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I wasin the wrong part of the website?)
Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:
(1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?
(2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)
(3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?
(4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)
(5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?
(6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?
(7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?
(8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.
(9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?
(10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?
(11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?
Sorry if some of these are stupid questions - I’m just a beginner - and thanks for any help ya got!
OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I wasin the wrong part of the website?)
Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:
(1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?
(2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)
(3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?
(4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)
(5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?
(6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?
(7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?
(8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.
(9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?
(10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?
(11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?
Sorry if some of these are stupid questions - I’m just a beginner - and thanks for any help ya got!
On 6/22/22 1:25 PM, Sight Reader wrote:was in the wrong part of the website?)
OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I
Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:I think almost everything you ask about here is just speculation for
which there is no direct evidence and, for most, couldn't be.
(1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?None, to my knowledge.
(2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)Assuming a stable population, that actually seems very liberal. Only two
of an individual's offspring should live to reproduce, meaning that only slightly more than two might live to maturity.
(3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?
No such evidence could likely exist. I know of no evidence for play in sibling birds, in or out of the nest. That doesn't mean there isn't any.
But to extrapolate from living theropods to extinct, giant ones is dubious.
(4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)
Most reconstructions have them walking (not hopping) on four legs.
(5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?No. I have no idea what evidence for that could exist.
(6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?Nothing that I know of.
(7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?No evidence is possible.
(8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.No evidence is possible. Teeth are more reasonably interpreted as predation.
(9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?No evidence is possible.
(10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?No evidence is possible. This is just taken from living squid, very
distant relatives.
(11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?No, this is just extrapolated from some living cephalopods.
OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I wasin the wrong part of the website?)
Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:
Sorry if some of these are stupid questions - I’m just a beginner - and thanks for any help ya got!
On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:was in the wrong part of the website?)
On 6/22/22 1:25 PM, Sight Reader wrote:
OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I
I think almost everything you ask about here is just speculation for
Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:
which there is no direct evidence and, for most, couldn't be.
(1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?None, to my knowledge.
(2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)Assuming a stable population, that actually seems very liberal. Only two
of an individual's offspring should live to reproduce, meaning that only
slightly more than two might live to maturity.
I would expect major ups and downs in a population of recently evolved top predators.
Keep in mind that T-Rex is confined to the upper third of the Maastrichtian, ca. two million years, yet had a wide range.
So while the "average clutch" would not have a 5-member survival rate, it could happen
for some extended "boom" stages. These might be especially pronounced
as the species was conquering new parts of its final range.
By the way, I would expect most fossils of any animal to be found when the population
was near the peak of a boom stage, so it may not be out of the question for us to
find a fossilized nest of 15 T-Rex eggs.
(3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?
No such evidence could likely exist. I know of no evidence for play in
sibling birds, in or out of the nest. That doesn't mean there isn't any.
But to extrapolate from living theropods to extinct, giant ones is dubious.
I don't know whether big crocodilians have playful juveniles; do you?
(4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)
Most reconstructions have them walking (not hopping) on four legs.
Peter Wellnhofer's "pterosaur bible" spends much of pages 155-158 discussing pterosaur locomotion on the ground.
With certain specialized exceptions, he comes to the same conclusion.
(5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?No. I have no idea what evidence for that could exist.
Wellnhofer writes on p. 157:
"Pterosaurs were adapted to flight to an extreme extent. ...
They must have rested and bred on cliffs and rocks,
where they could hang with their sharp, hook-shaped claws
on hands and feet. To take off, they only needed to
swing themselves into the air. They did not need to
achieve the necessary take-off speed by taking a run on two legs."
My brother-in-law is an expert hang glider, and the last two sentences ring true
from what I've seen him do.
(6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?Nothing that I know of.
(7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?No evidence is possible.
However, there might be evidence that it was possible. Of course, the "courtship display" part is purely speculative.
(8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.No evidence is possible. Teeth are more reasonably interpreted as predation.
Or self-defense, or a mixture of both. A mammalian example: two stabbing "cats," of genera Nimravus and Eusmilus,
apparently fought each other, perhaps over prey, because the Nimravus skull was found with big holes
that were interpreted as fang marks of an Eusmilus.
(9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?No evidence is possible.
Why not? There have been a number of conclusions from fossil melanosomes of other kinds of animals
for there being various forms of pigmentation.
(10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?No evidence is possible. This is just taken from living squid, very
distant relatives.
According to Wikipedia, ammonites are phylogenetically closer to coleoids (squids, cuttlefish, and octopi) than are the nautiluses.
Don't nautiluses have changing bioluminescent patterns?
(11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?No, this is just extrapolated from some living cephalopods.
Which ones? if both nautiluses and coleoids are like this, it seems reasonable to infer that ammonites were like this too.
Granted, there is always the possibility of convergent evolution, with the "middle" taxons being more
"conservative" than the extremes. As you know very well, this is true of paleognathic birds, with tinamous being
monophyletic and the ratites being polyphyletic, with convergent features.
Either tomorrow or Friday, I will be posting some interesting details on paleognathic evolution on the thread, "Do birds dream?"
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer -- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
Wow, thank ALL of you guys for your time and generous responses!
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.”
(2) Then at the end: “To discover the science behind the stories, go to the Prehistoric Planet show page.” No link is given for the show page, but the most likely page has a single “bonus content” video for this episode. The nicely producedbonus video only mentions footprint evidence for T-Rex swimming but does not discuss any of the questions I raised above.
(3) Show consultants are S Brusatte, A Farnnsworth, K Formoso, H Habib, S Hartman, J Hutchinson, L Muscutt, P Skelton, R Spicer, P Valdes and M Witton.
(4) I had some photos of male tuarangisaurus pedaling skywards and thrusting their heads high and straight above water for sexual display and of the bioluminescent ammonites, but I can’t figure out how to attach photos to my post.
(5) If ammonites did die en-masse after mating (they show masses of ammonites bodies washing up on a beach), might it be possible that they found such masses of ammonites fossilized together?
(6) If eggs were deliberately buried to preserve moisture, might it be possible that remains of the burial material might have fossilized along with the egg underneath?
(7) Might fossilized plateau colonies of pterosaurs be possible? If so, how would we verified the plateau was indeed surrounded by a cliffs?
(8) I’m glad to hear of the trackways verifying the pterosaur gaits! Is it true that their “hands” faced backwards as they walked?
Thanks again everyone!
Wow, thank ALL of you guys for your time and generous responses!
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.
(2) Then at the end: “To discover the science behind the stories, go to the Prehistoric Planet show page.” No link is given for the show page, but the most likely page has a single “bonus content” video for this episode. The nicely producedbonus video only mentions footprint evidence for T-Rex swimming but does not discuss any of the questions I raised above.
(3) Show consultants are S Brusatte, A Farnnsworth, K Formoso, H Habib, S Hartman, J Hutchinson, L Muscutt, P Skelton, R Spicer, P Valdes and M Witton.
(4) I had some photos of male tuarangisaurus pedaling skywards and thrusting their heads high and straight above water for sexual display and of the bioluminescent ammonites, but I can’t figure out how to attach photos to my post.
(5) If ammonites did die en-masse after mating (they show masses of ammonites bodies washing up on a beach), might it be possible that they found such masses of ammonites fossilized together?
(6) If eggs were deliberately buried to preserve moisture, might it be possible that remains of the burial material might have fossilized along with the egg underneath?
(7) Might fossilized plateau colonies of pterosaurs be possible? If so, how would we verified the plateau was indeed surrounded by a cliffs?
(8) I’m glad to hear of the trackways verifying the pterosaur gaits! Is it true that their “hands” faced backwards as they walked?
Thanks again everyone!
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.
In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.
In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on display
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!story.”
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't seeAh, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on display
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!story.”
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't seeAh, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on display
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:story.”
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on display
Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too good tobe true".
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:story.”
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark >>>> Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't seeAh, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on display
to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too good
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different animals,or from a different location, a "fake"?
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true", withoutsupport of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:story.”
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark >>>> Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too good
or from a different location, a "fake"?Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different animals,
support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true", without
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:story.”
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark >>>> Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too good
or from a different location, a "fake"?Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different animals,
support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true", without
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:story.”
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark >>>>>> Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too good
or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different animals,
support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true", without
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:story.”
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate fossil record?
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:story.”
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate fossil record?
On 7/2/22 9:57 AM, Glenn wrote:their story.”
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:47:56 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't seeAh, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate
fossil record?
I do like to cast light on that obvious bias.See, Peter? He's attacking your primary interest here.
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:47:56 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:story.”
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>>>>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>>>>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate
fossil record?
I do like to cast light on that obvious bias.
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:story.”
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you.
Do you understand that
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate fossil record?
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:their story.”
On 7/2/22 9:57 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:47:56 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't seeAh, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
too good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate >> fossil record?
Why did you never grow up?I do like to cast light on that obvious bias.See, Peter? He's attacking your primary interest here.
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:18:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:their story.”
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/2/22 9:57 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:47:56 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs. >>>>>>>>>> Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
Why did you never grow up?See, Peter? He's attacking your primary interest here.I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that >>>>> Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate >>>>> fossil record?
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
I do like to cast light on that obvious bias.
What on earth did you mean by "that obvious bias"? This is the first inkling I've EVER
had that you are a creationist.
Until now, all I've seen either here or in talk.origins
is unsupported accusations, like the much rarer claims that *I* am a creationist!
I am more intelligently anti-creationisM [note that last letter -- definitely not a T]
than Harshman, who idiotically thought that talk about the horse *lineage* was creationist!
He seems to have momentarily forgotten that all vertebrate evolution
is of the parent-offspring sort, so wedded is he to the ideology that all fossils
belong on the tips of evolutionary trees.
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:story.”
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV >>>>>>>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see >>>>>>>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you.
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
He is one of a steadily diminishing minority of people in talk.origins whom I have not seen
engaged in documentable dishonesty, cowardice, or hypocrisy.
Plus, he often posts links that contain much on-topic information of great interest to me,
like the two links in his first post to this thread.
Erik seriously misunderstood what those links were all about.
Have you even looked at them?
Do you understand that
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate
fossil record?
"here" refers to this thread, as of the time you posted this. There is no evidence for that, none whatsoever. Are you blindly taking Erik's distortions as being representative of the two links?
On 7/4/22 5:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:their story.”
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:18:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/2/22 9:57 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:47:56 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs. >>>>>>>>>> Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
too good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
Why did you never grow up?See, Peter? He's attacking your primary interest here.I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that >>>>> Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate >>>>> fossil record?
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
I do like to cast light on that obvious bias.
What on earth did you mean by "that obvious bias"? This is the first inkling I've EVER!!!!
had that you are a creationist.
One must assume that you seldom read Glenn's posts, which are almost
always trying to attack some feature of evolutionary biology.
Until now, all I've seen either here or in talk.origins
is unsupported accusations, like the much rarer claims that *I* am a creationist!
I am more intelligently anti-creationisM [note that last letter -- definitely not a T]
than Harshman, who idiotically thought that talk about the horse *lineage* was creationist!
Harshman never thought any such thing. You are confused.
And why attack me in a response to Glenn?
He seems to have momentarily forgotten that all vertebrate evolution
is of the parent-offspring sort, so wedded is he to the ideology that all fossils
belong on the tips of evolutionary trees.
This is a highly distorted statement of what I think, or have forgotten.
Shame on you.
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)around data processing and computational capabilities rather than direct access. As a result, existing research communities are struggling to protect their value proposition by installing IP barriers that request that their physical access advantage be
Anyway, from what I can tell, this is what these papers APPEAR to be saying:
Firstly, the increasing quality of digitized data is allowing more and more research to be conducted remotely - that is, without direct access to fossilized remains. Traditional research, unfortunately, is still predicated on physical proximity.
Thus, it would appears that we have a classic IP (intellectual property) struggle. A completely open exchange of digitized models would instigate a radical (and perhaps destructive?) restructuring of the research community and create teams centered
This, of course, would answer my question about why every museum cannot display equally comprehensive collections of recreations.
Did I at least get the summary right? I’m SO SO sorry to get on everyone’s nerves!
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:38:19 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:their story.”
On 7/4/22 5:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:18:10 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/2/22 9:57 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:47:56 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
too good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
!!!!Why did you never grow up?See, Peter? He's attacking your primary interest here.I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you. Do you understand that >>>>>>> Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate >>>>>>> fossil record?
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
I do like to cast light on that obvious bias.
What on earth did you mean by "that obvious bias"? This is the first inkling I've EVER
had that you are a creationist.
One must assume that you seldom read Glenn's posts, which are almost
always trying to attack some feature of evolutionary biology.
I've read a great many of his posts, and only a small minority fit your description; more importantly, I have never seen an attack that
is any different from my numerous attacks of documentable inaccuracies.
I challenge you to try and find a single bit of hard evidence that
he is motivated by creationism.
Until now, all I've seen either here or in talk.origins
is unsupported accusations, like the much rarer claims that *I* am a creationist!
I am more intelligently anti-creationisM [note that last letter -- definitely not a T]
than Harshman, who idiotically thought that talk about the horse *lineage* >>> was creationist!
Harshman never thought any such thing. You are confused.
If so, you wrote mindlessly about what you think. This was in talk.origins late last year.
You claimed it was a typical creationist claim, because, y'know, the horse family isn't
a single lineage, it's a widely branching bush.
Trouble is, I spoke specifically about the lineage from an early equid to Equus, and not about the horse family.
> And why attack me in a response to Glenn?
Why did you attack Glenn in an earlier response to me? [...pot...kettle...]
He seems to have momentarily forgotten that all vertebrate evolution
is of the parent-offspring sort, so wedded is he to the ideology that all fossils
belong on the tips of evolutionary trees.
This is a highly distorted statement of what I think, or have forgotten.
I admit, the first clause was satirical, but I stand by what follows as a probable explanation
for your reaction to my talk of the lineage. Your ideology forbids you to construct
trees like Kathleen Hunt's fine one of Equioidea in the Talk.origins horse FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
You can see a lineage going directly from Hyracotherium all the way to Equus, consisting of prime candidates [remember my definition?] for direct ancestry of
each genus to the next. In the text, she even talks about a lineage within Merychippus, with gradual evolution from one species to the next.
Shame on you.
Au contraire, you need to be careful about trying to support your allegations of confusion and distortion.
Remember how you claimed that you hadn't confused the Higgs field with the Higgs boson,
and Glenn dug up the very post where you got confused?
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)around data processing and computational capabilities rather than direct access. As a result, existing research communities are struggling to protect their value proposition by installing IP barriers that request that their physical access advantage be
Anyway, from what I can tell, this is what these papers APPEAR to be saying:
Firstly, the increasing quality of digitized data is allowing more and more research to be conducted remotely - that is, without direct access to fossilized remains. Traditional research, unfortunately, is still predicated on physical proximity.
Thus, it would appears that we have a classic IP (intellectual property) struggle. A completely open exchange of digitized models would instigate a radical (and perhaps destructive?) restructuring of the research community and create teams centered
This, of course, would answer my question about why every museum cannot display equally comprehensive collections of recreations.
Did I at least get the summary right? I’m SO SO sorry to get on everyone’s nerves!
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
Anyway, from what I can tell, this is what these papers APPEAR to be saying:
Firstly, the increasing quality of digitized data is allowing more and more research to be conducted remotely - that is, without direct access to fossilized remains. Traditional research, unfortunately, is still predicated on physical proximity.
Thus, it would appears that we have a classic IP (intellectual property) struggle. A completely open exchange of digitized models would instigate a radical (and perhaps destructive?) restructuring of the research community and create teams centeredaround data processing and computational capabilities rather than direct access.
As a result, existing research communities are struggling to protect their value proposition by installing IP barriers that request that their physical access advantage be respected before opening data to analysis.
This, of course, would answer my question about why every museum cannot display equally comprehensive collections of recreations.
Did I at least get the summary right?
I’m SO SO sorry to get on everyone’s nerves!
On 7/4/22 4:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:their story.”
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't seeAh, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you.
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
He is one of a steadily diminishing minority of people in talk.origins whom I have not seen
engaged in documentable dishonesty, cowardice, or hypocrisy.
Perhaps you don't generally read his posts. Is that true?
Plus, he often posts links that contain much on-topic information of great interest to me,
like the two links in his first post to this thread.
Erik seriously misunderstood what those links were all about.
Have you even looked at them?
No, but it seems clear that he's attacking paleontology, especially in
the second link, which plays up the prevalence of faked (composite) fossils.
Do you understand that
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate
fossil record?
"here" refers to this thread, as of the time you posted this. There is no evidence for that, none whatsoever. Are you blindly taking Erik's distortions
as being representative of the two links?
You are entirely mistaking Glenn's purpose.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
And believe me, this "fight" is mild compared to some donnybrooks that have taken place here in the past.
I alluded to an oasis of civilization we once made of sci.bio.paleontology in my reply to Harshman less than an hour ago,
but I'm afraid that bringing it back is only remotely possible.
Anyway, from what I can tell, this is what these papers APPEAR to be saying:
What you write next is a reasonably good assessment of the first linked article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00739-0,
Firstly, the increasing quality of digitized data is allowing more and more research to be conducted remotely - that is, without direct access to fossilized remains. Traditional research, unfortunately, is still predicated on physical proximity.
The first paper holds out hope with virtual 3-d scans being of great value. I learned a lot about
paleontology of Arctoidea after reading the fascinating description of the extinct *Kolponomos*
which is accompaned by two views of a 3-d scan.
From the name, I had long assumed that Arctoidea only included the bear family Ursidae and the raccoon family
Procyonidae, but it includes Canidae, Mustelidae, the pinnipeds, and various extinct groups like the dog-bears
(Hemicyonidae), but not the bear-dogs (Amphycionidae). Kolponomos belongs to the sister group of the pinnipeds,
it seems. All this was new to me.
around data processing and computational capabilities rather than direct access.Thus, it would appears that we have a classic IP (intellectual property) struggle. A completely open exchange of digitized models would instigate a radical (and perhaps destructive?) restructuring of the research community and create teams centered
That isn't destructive, but an unfortunate sign of the times: governmental sources of funding for paleontology are
increasingly tied to computer applications, because those can be touted to be of value to money-making applications
remote from paleontology.
Invertebrate paleontologists have a cozy relationship with oil and mineral companies, but private support of
vertebrate paleontology is much less reliable.
As a result, existing research communities are struggling to protect their value proposition by installing IP barriers that request that their physical access advantage be respected before opening data to analysis.
There is a lot of that, but the article holds out hope for greater sharing of digital information, perhaps for a fee.
This, of course, would answer my question about why every museum cannot display equally comprehensive collections of recreations.
Did I at least get the summary right?
Of the first link. I gave a little summary of the second in reply to Harshman.
I’m SO SO sorry to get on everyone’s nerves!
No such thing happened.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:40:42 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:their story.”
On 7/4/22 4:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 7:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:48:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/1/22 2:31 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:08:13 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:23:41 AM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is
display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and MarkOther full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't seeAh, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on
good to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too
animals, or from a different location, a "fake"?
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different
without support of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true",
I've never understood Glenn's appeal for you.
Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored.
Funny you should say that, without having said anything about his first post to this thread, which gave
more information than either you or Erik did after that post first appeared.
IOW, it is you and Erik who are behaving like contrarians in this sub-thread.
He is one of a steadily diminishing minority of people in talk.origins whom I have not seen
engaged in documentable dishonesty, cowardice, or hypocrisy.
I value freedom from this kind of despicable behavior more highly than believing in common descent; you are obviously very different from me in that respect.
Perhaps you don't generally read his posts. Is that true?
I don't "generally" read ANYONE'S posts in talk.origins.
Unlike here in s.b.p., it is next to impossible for me to follow all but a tiny percentage of the threads.
I'm usually confined to one or two threads a great part of the time, partly because of irresponsible personal attacks on me.
Those attacks are a win-win situation for almost all the attackers: if I show how
unjust they are, people routinely lie that I "attack people for disagreeing with" me.
If I keep mum about them, they mislead people about what I am like.
Talk.origins is a cesspool, in stark contrast to the civilized group we made of
sci.bio.paleontology between April 2015 and early 2018. I'd rather not go into
what became of it in the next four years, for the sake of some semblance of peace between us
("us" includes Erik).
Plus, he often posts links that contain much on-topic information of great interest to me,
like the two links in his first post to this thread.
Erik seriously misunderstood what those links were all about.
Have you even looked at them?
No, but it seems clear that he's attacking paleontology, especially in
the second link, which plays up the prevalence of faked (composite) fossils.
About dishonest merchants and NOT about fossils in museums, where "fakery"
is obviously used with tongue in cheek until the point, far down the article, where it says:
"And then there are outright fakes" https://fossilcollector.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/fakingit2/
Just as I suspected, you are blindly following an equivocation by Erik, which you are parroting.
I wonder how many more of your impressions of Glenn's purpose are similarly second- or third- hand.
Do you understand that
Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate >>>> fossil record?
"here" refers to this thread, as of the time you posted this. There is no >>> evidence for that, none whatsoever. Are you blindly taking Erik's distortions
as being representative of the two links?
You ducked the question, fat lot of good that did you.
You are entirely mistaking Glenn's purpose.
So you allege, but you have yet to come up with a smidgin of evidence. Ironically, if Glenn hadn't put his foot in it with "the obvious bias," I wouldn't
even have a smidgin of it.
And no, I'm NOT going to try to read Glenn's mind about what that meant.
You are so trigger-happy with accusations of mind-reading, you even confuse descriptions
of your *behavior* with mind-reading your *motivations*.
On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote: >>>
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
You are being downright despicable.
Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted, and that you were no better.
Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.
On 7/4/22 7:26 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote: >>>
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
You are being downright despicable.
Seems a little extreme.
Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted, and that you were no better.
Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.
True, it's hard to be sure of Glenn's motivations, since he almost never says. I'm largely going by his past behavior, with most of his posts
seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots, and
his rare comments on his links fit that idea.
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:49:29 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 7:26 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
You are being downright despicable.
Seems a little extreme.
The injustice you committed is like a Bill of Attainder: just by showing up, Glenn is doing something
that deserves to be punished because...because...he is Glenn. The US Constitution specifically
forbids Congress to issue Bills of Attainder.
Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted, >>> and that you were no better.
Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.
True, it's hard to be sure of Glenn's motivations, since he almost never
says. I'm largely going by his past behavior, with most of his posts
seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots, and
his rare comments on his links fit that idea.
Not on THAT post.
Anyway, since you say "most of his posts" it should be no trouble for you
to come up with four (4) posts where this intent is very easy to infer.
Feel free to consult anyone in talk.origins who feels the same way
about him as you do. There should be at least eight who are on very good terms with you: I can name that many whom I've had lots of interaction with, and never seen you be on any but friendly terms with them. All have a very low opinion of Glenn.
One is right here: Erik Simpson.
So if just half of them come up with one post apiece that fit the description,
I'll accept that you acted in good faith with your "blame the victim" style comment.
Any four posts in the last decade are fair game.
On 7/5/22 5:06 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:49:29 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 7:26 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
You are being downright despicable.
Seems a little extreme.
The injustice you committed is like a Bill of Attainder: just by showing up, Glenn is doing something
that deserves to be punished because...because...he is Glenn. The US Constitution specifically
forbids Congress to issue Bills of Attainder.
Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted,
and that you were no better.
Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.
True, it's hard to be sure of Glenn's motivations, since he almost never >> says. I'm largely going by his past behavior, with most of his posts
seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots, and >> his rare comments on his links fit that idea.
Not on THAT post.
How do you know unless you can say what his purpose in posting was?
Anyway, since you say "most of his posts" it should be no trouble for you to come up with four (4) posts where this intent is very easy to infer.
Feel free to consult anyone in talk.origins who feels the same way
about him as you do. There should be at least eight who are on very good terms with you: I can name that many whom I've had lots of interaction with,
and never seen you be on any but friendly terms with them. All have a very low opinion of Glenn.
One is right here: Erik Simpson.
So if just half of them come up with one post apiece that fit the description,
I'll accept that you acted in good faith with your "blame the victim" style comment.
Any four posts in the last decade are fair game.
Perhaps you could move this to talk.origins.
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/5/22 5:06 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:49:29 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 7:26 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
You are being downright despicable.
Seems a little extreme.
The injustice you committed is like a Bill of Attainder: just by showing up, Glenn is doing something
that deserves to be punished because...because...he is Glenn. The US Constitution specifically
forbids Congress to issue Bills of Attainder.
Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted,
and that you were no better.
Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.
True, it's hard to be sure of Glenn's motivations, since he almost never
says. I'm largely going by his past behavior, with most of his posts
seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots, and
his rare comments on his links fit that idea.
Not on THAT post.
How do you know unless you can say what his purpose in posting was?What part of "seeming intended to show...bad and/or idiots" don't you understand? Those are YOUR words, not mine.
You are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have given
ZERO evidence of intent by Glenn where THAT post is concerned, and expect
me to believe what you wrote about "most of his posts," despite the fact that
you have also given ZERO evidence of that so far.
If all you meant was that "I, Harshman, am of the opinion that he is,
and has had, the intent of showing that `evolutionists' are bad and/or idiots,
but I can't give evidence that would convince even Erik or my other good friends in talk.origins,"
then we can safely dismiss your opinion.
However, in that case, you owe The Sight Reader an apology for the misleading
words you uttered about Glenn, some in direct reply to him.
Anyway, since you say "most of his posts" it should be no trouble for you
to come up with four (4) posts where this intent is very easy to infer.
And, since they are on good terms with you, you might even tryFeel free to consult anyone in talk.origins who feels the same way
about him as you do. There should be at least eight who are on very good terms with you: I can name that many whom I've had lots of interaction with,
and never seen you be on any but friendly terms with them. All have a very low opinion of Glenn.
One is right here: Erik Simpson.
contacting some of them in private email if you don't want
to interrupt whatever they are doing in talk.origins.
So if just half of them come up with one post apiece that fit the description,
I'll accept that you acted in good faith with your "blame the victim" style comment.
Any four posts in the last decade are fair game.
Perhaps you could move this to talk.origins.Feel free to do that yourself, if you think it will help you to round the right people up.
I'm not going to do YOUR work for you.
Peter Nyikos
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 6:56:33 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/5/22 5:06 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:49:29 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 7:26 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
You are being downright despicable.
Seems a little extreme.
The injustice you committed is like a Bill of Attainder: just by showing up, Glenn is doing something
that deserves to be punished because...because...he is Glenn. The US Constitution specifically
forbids Congress to issue Bills of Attainder.
Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted,
and that you were no better.
Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.
True, it's hard to be sure of Glenn's motivations, since he almost never
says. I'm largely going by his past behavior, with most of his posts >> seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots, and
his rare comments on his links fit that idea.
Not on THAT post.
How do you know unless you can say what his purpose in posting was?What part of "seeming intended to show...bad and/or idiots" don't you understand? Those are YOUR words, not mine.
You are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have given
ZERO evidence of intent by Glenn where THAT post is concerned, and expect me to believe what you wrote about "most of his posts," despite the fact that
you have also given ZERO evidence of that so far.
If all you meant was that "I, Harshman, am of the opinion that he is,
and has had, the intent of showing that `evolutionists' are bad and/or idiots,
but I can't give evidence that would convince even Erik or my other good friends in talk.origins,"
then we can safely dismiss your opinion.
However, in that case, you owe The Sight Reader an apology for the misleading
words you uttered about Glenn, some in direct reply to him.
Anyway, since you say "most of his posts" it should be no trouble for you
to come up with four (4) posts where this intent is very easy to infer.
And, since they are on good terms with you, you might even tryFeel free to consult anyone in talk.origins who feels the same way about him as you do. There should be at least eight who are on very good
terms with you: I can name that many whom I've had lots of interaction with,
and never seen you be on any but friendly terms with them. All have a very low opinion of Glenn.
One is right here: Erik Simpson.
contacting some of them in private email if you don't want
to interrupt whatever they are doing in talk.origins.
So if just half of them come up with one post apiece that fit the description,
I'll accept that you acted in good faith with your "blame the victim" style comment.
Any four posts in the last decade are fair game.
Perhaps you could move this to talk.origins.Feel free to do that yourself, if you think it will help you to round the right people up.
I'm not going to do YOUR work for you.
Peter Nyikos
I have absolutely no intention of "documenting" Glenn's essentially destructive behavior here or anywhere else.
I'd be happy if there
were more discussion of, say, paleontology?
That's ostensibly the subject here.
If you disagree, that's fine, but senseless quarreling
over just about anything seems be the main topic in TO, at least for the present.
Why not take your outrage over Glenn's treatment
there and enlighten everyone about his qualities?
I'm sure you'll get a bigger audience. Feel free to make comments about me. I've
become indifferent to that kind of crap.
Why not take your outrage over Glenn's treatment there
and enlighten everyone about his qualities?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 6:56:33 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/5/22 5:06 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:49:29 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 7:26 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
You are being downright despicable.
Seems a little extreme.
The injustice you committed is like a Bill of Attainder: just by showing up, Glenn is doing something
that deserves to be punished because...because...he is Glenn. The US Constitution specifically
forbids Congress to issue Bills of Attainder.
Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted,
and that you were no better.
Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.
True, it's hard to be sure of Glenn's motivations, since he almost never
says. I'm largely going by his past behavior, with most of his posts >> seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots, and
his rare comments on his links fit that idea.
Not on THAT post.
How do you know unless you can say what his purpose in posting was?What part of "seeming intended to show...bad and/or idiots" don't you understand? Those are YOUR words, not mine.
You are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have given
ZERO evidence of intent by Glenn where THAT post is concerned, and expect me to believe what you wrote about "most of his posts," despite the fact that
you have also given ZERO evidence of that so far.
If all you meant was that "I, Harshman, am of the opinion that he is,
and has had, the intent of showing that `evolutionists' are bad and/or idiots,
but I can't give evidence that would convince even Erik or my other good friends in talk.origins,"
then we can safely dismiss your opinion.
However, in that case, you owe The Sight Reader an apology for the misleading
words you uttered about Glenn, some in direct reply to him.
Anyway, since you say "most of his posts" it should be no trouble for you
to come up with four (4) posts where this intent is very easy to infer.
And, since they are on good terms with you, you might even tryFeel free to consult anyone in talk.origins who feels the same way about him as you do. There should be at least eight who are on very good
terms with you: I can name that many whom I've had lots of interaction with,
and never seen you be on any but friendly terms with them. All have a very low opinion of Glenn.
One is right here: Erik Simpson.
contacting some of them in private email if you don't want
to interrupt whatever they are doing in talk.origins.
So if just half of them come up with one post apiece that fit the description,
I'll accept that you acted in good faith with your "blame the victim" style comment.
Any four posts in the last decade are fair game.
Perhaps you could move this to talk.origins.Feel free to do that yourself, if you think it will help you to round the right people up.
I'm not going to do YOUR work for you.
Peter Nyikos
Why not take your outrage over Glenn's treatment
there and enlighten everyone about his qualities?
I'm sure you'll get a bigger audience.
Feel free to make comments about me. I've
become indifferent to that kind of crap.
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology, despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
<snip very familiar verbiage>
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
with this episode.
I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology, despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
<snip very familiar verbiage>
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm throughThere's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology, despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
<snip very familiar verbiage>
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm throughThere's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Your theological debates are of no interest to me.
"Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology, despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
<snip very familiar verbiage>
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm throughThere's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Your theological debates are of no interest to me.There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
"doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
"Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.You never looked at the thread, did you?
But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
with a completely on-topic post:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
Peter Nyikos
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
<snip very familiar verbiage>
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm throughThere's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Your theological debates are of no interest to me.There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
"doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
"Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.You never looked at the thread, did you?
But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
with a completely on-topic post:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
Peter NyikosNot unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
good".
It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology has
generally moved on in the last thirty years.
I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.
I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
<snip very familiar verbiage>
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm throughThere's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Your theological debates are of no interest to me.There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
"doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
"Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.You never looked at the thread, did you?
But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago with a completely on-topic post:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"Peter NyikosNot unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
good".
you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology hasThat's a highly non-scientific comment.
generally moved on in the last thirty years.
I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."You have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that, about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
[1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
of Eris, the goddess of discord.
In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
Peter Nyikos
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
<snip very familiar verbiage>
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm throughThere's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Your theological debates are of no interest to me.There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious
"doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
"Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.You never looked at the thread, did you?
But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago with a completely on-topic post:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"Peter NyikosNot unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
good".
you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology hasThat's a highly non-scientific comment.
generally moved on in the last thirty years.
I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."You have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that,
about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted
you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
[1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
of Eris, the goddess of discord.
In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
Peter NyikosIt seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Not unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religiousI've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.<snip very familiar verbiage>
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply >>>>>>>> to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology, >>>>>>>> despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words. >>>>>>>>
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Your theological debates are of no interest to me.
"doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
"Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.You never looked at the thread, did you?
But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
with a completely on-topic post:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
Peter Nyikos
good".
you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology hasThat's a highly non-scientific comment.
generally moved on in the last thirty years.
I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet anotherThe thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.
The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial orYou have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded >> to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that, >> about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted >> you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
[1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
of Eris, the goddess of discord.
In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
Peter Nyikos
It seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.
On 9/27/22 7:59 AM, erik simpson wrote:Consider it done.
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:11:35 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:02:16 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Not unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religiousI've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread. >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.<snip very familiar verbiage>
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply >>>>>>>> to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology, >>>>>>>> despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words. >>>>>>>>
Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
with this episode.
Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.
So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Your theological debates are of no interest to me.
"doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."
Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?
"Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.You never looked at the thread, did you?
But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago >>>> with a completely on-topic post:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?
Peter Nyikos
good".
you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.
It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology hasThat's a highly non-scientific comment.
generally moved on in the last thirty years.
I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another >>> phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.
I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial orYou have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.
if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.
Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded
to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that,
about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted
you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.
[1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
of Eris, the goddess of discord.
In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.
Peter Nyikos
It seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.Somebody will have to end this pointless exchange, and you seem the best candidate for that.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:15:28 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,420 |
| Posted today: | 1 |