Re: paleonet fossils and molecular data

From
Date
Reply-To
Three replies:

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilles Cuny <gilles@savik.geomus.ku.dk>
To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 03:45 PM
Subject: Re: paleonet fossils and molecular data


>On 10 Sep 2002, at 14:17, John V Jackson wrote:
>
>> You will find that subject is yet another example of palaeontologists
>> resisting science in order to protect their own interests.
>
>Does that mean that science is only about molecular studies and
>that palaeontologists have nothing to say? I thought that science
>was more open-minded.....
>

If it were open-minded, why would all consideration of theories based on an
ape-human split of 3.5 - 4 mya, the only one for which there is any good
evidence, be rejected "for reasons of space", yet a picture of Henry Gee's
head be given prominence in "Nature" ?  Does the "space" and the "open
mindedness" refer to the space between his ears?

If it were open-minded, why does the NHM in London insist that the
similarity between early birds and what they call bird-like non-avian
dinosaurs PROVES the first came from the second?  ...and never once suggest
any possibility of the alternative?


Xavier Panades I Blas <cogombra@hotmail.com> wrote via paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 04:09 PM


>On 10 Sep 2002, at 14:17, John V Jackson wrote:
>
> > You will find that subject is yet another example of palaeontologists
> > resisting science in order to protect their own interests.
>
>I did not know that molecular scientists had so much free time,
particularly
>dedicate to attack paleontologists. Instead of molecular scientists could
>spend this time contrasting their results with paleontologists, it may be
>more useful...

They have.  It was.  The palaeontologists refused to consider or mention to
the public the theory based on the best line of evidence.

You have enough time to study whatever it is you want, I have enough time to
deal with the corruption and incompetence that I see reducing the sciences I
am interested in to an absurd parody, in some cases by workers sponsored by
me.

A bet:

I'll put down 1000  Euros now, saying that in 20 years time the currently
most widely held interpretations of three of the four most popular issues in
evolution (evolution of man, evolution of birds, invasion of the land by
tetrapods - the fourth (not included in the bet) being the origin of life
itself) will be considered crap.

Specifically:

Man-ape split:

The predominant view will be that chimps and gorillas evolved from
australopithecine lines such as the gracile and robust forms known now from
fossils, and the date of the chimp-gorilla-huiman split be between 3.4 and
4.1 mya.


Invasion of land by tetrapods:

The predominant view will be that  hands and feet with free digits were
evolved not for pushing aside weeds but for pushing against solid substrate,
types with hands and feet that couldn't walk being ex-walkers or
ex-crawlers.


Dino-birds:

The predominant view will be that crocs, pterosaurs, birds and "dinos" all
evolved from plumed stock that first glided on primitive feathers in the
Permian, and that all arctometatarsalians and uncinated maniraptorans
descended from birds with powered flight.


Further details:

Anyone wanting a piece of the action to put in 1000 Euros and pay me that if
they lose, but take their share of my 1000 Euros if they win, equal with all
the other winners if any.

Professors of palaeontology and senior museum curators to put in 2000 Euros
and in the event of their losing, resign their posts if not yet retired; all
other conditions the same.



Reply to Peter....

Peter Paul Smolka <smolka@uni-muenster.de> wrote via paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 04:19 PM

[snip]
>
Dear Gilles,
Dear John,

first of all I must say that I did not read the quoted papers.

In principle, for all of us, I see the exciting question not
in an "either or" issue but in "why are, if applicable, both
correct, under which circumstances can this be the case, and
under which not".

###
JJ:  Not all issues can be sensibly converted to a compromise.  It was due
to the compromise between the etablished workers who needed a split date of
20 mya, and the chemical evidence, that the date has been creeping later and
later.  But there never was any good evidence for any other split date than
3.5 - 4mys.  The only reason was personal pride.  (Well, maybe "species
pride" too!)
###

Reason: To deduce (metaphorical) from remains of crashed planes
(in the sense of aviation) that around 1900 the first motorflight
took place is a reasonable issue. Even if the oldest available
"plane fossils" date back to 1910.

The same applies to "motorcar fossils".

Reasoning about a "car-plane-split" around 1890 is possible
(even though a chemical analysis of "motoroil fossils" might not
indicate any split before 1920).

[snip]

Thus I do think that a discussion on "who is right" and "who ignores
something" does not lead us to progress.

Learning (in the next decades to come) more about "which method
documents for which fossil class which change for which time"
could be quite fascinating (including seeing different times of
changes in the same fossil through different methods (hard parts,
DNS, etc.)).

Best regards, Peter

###
JJ:  I recommended such a compromise myself a year or two ago.  However in
that example, the apparent gross morphological split of the main lines of
modern mammals and birds coming after the molecular split was the reverse of
the situation with the ape-human split where the molecular evidence
suggested a *later* date than the ??? evidence.

Very often it is highly instructive to see two opposing theories as each
comprising a good part, and a predicate required to complete the story but
which is wrong, partly because the "good part" has a minor flaw.

For example, in the only two dino-bird theories ever allowed publication
outside private efforts, one holds that birds did not come from dinosaurs,
which is true, but overstates the case as total unrelatedness.  This error,
when projected out to explain the rest of the account, becomes ludicrous.

The opposing dogma that birds are related to dinosaurs is overstated as the
former coming from the latter, which is the reverse of the truth.  But a
minor tinkering with the central tenets would allow both to agree.

There is a place for both compromise and total rebuttal.  But not in the
minds of many adherents.

I understand the way these theories are created, propagated and protected
all to well I'm afraid, Peter!
##



JJ:
Finally, those wishing to demonstrate their open-mindedness may attend my
talk on the new dino-bird theories and their evidence at the Southampton
Mineral and Fossil Society, Friends' Meeting House, Ordnance Road (off
London Road), Southampton UK at 7:30 pm on Tuesday 17th September.

This is within easy reach of London, and if no-one from the NHM museum
comes, they can expect no mercy!


John V Jackson      jjackson@interalpha.co.uk

"So many professors . . . so little time . . ."

Dare you visit...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2099/index.html
Dare you not?