[Taxacom] panbiogeography

[mivie at montana.edu]

> I put the keyword in the subject line as a courtesy to those who find
> this subject irritating so they can hit the delete button (so I do not
> expect to see any complaints posted). The rest is for those who are
> curious or like to see opinions for the sake of it.

Of course you should expect to see objections, there is a whole listserver
for this topic, and THIS ONE IS NOT IT. You continue to not understand
logic, and put forth ridiculous assertions like that that show you do not
understand cause-effect relationships.  This example is indicative of your
entire approach.

In addition, you were politely asked to stop, but refused.  You are really
not after anything but attention, as the only "empirical" evidence you
want to recognize is what supports your pre-conceived opinions.

As for Cracraft, you justify my pugnaciousness by your inherently flawed
and self-serving lack of logic: You confuse the polite with the weak!  So
much for wasting time even trying to be polite -- you will just misuse the
courtesy.

And, about your disappointment in not getting to debate my interesting
biodiversity information, I subscribe to the dictum "do not throw your
pearls before swine."  You will just revel in the attention, and never get
the logic errors inherent in your method. My reserve saves you from
looking bad, me from being disgusted, and everyone else from wearing the
"delete" off the key.

Michael Ivie



>
>
>
> I noticed that Michael Ivie managed to express his irritation and then
> duck out of further discussion when it suited him - nothing inherently
> wrong with that I suppose although it seemed that he has some
> interesting biogeographic observations that could have been examined
> further, and Michael did try to offer some empirical considerations for
> Ivie to consider and discuss further.
>
>
>
> I took a look again at Cracraft's 2000 review that Ivie quoted. The
> review is probably understandable from one who is taking a phylogenetic
> approach to biogeographic analysis, but overall his criticisms
> notwithstanding, he said the book should be read. As to the critiques,
> mostly they are expressions of a view, not any kind of substantiated
> argument. Some are more about criticizing what was not covered in the
> 1999 book, and that is inevitable in a book of a finites size and
> purpose.
>
>
>
> Specifically on the comments listed by Ivie:
>
>
>
> "A major weakness of their presentation and the method is the
> oversimplistic interpretation of generalized tracks and of the
> geological events that are assumed to cause them."
>
>
>
> No empirical evidence was given for this view.
>
>
>
> "Most applications of the panbiogeography method tend towards the
> narrative rather than the analytical"
>
>
>
> He did give the caveat that this was "at least not in the sense observed
> in vicariance biogeography"
>
>
>
>
>
> "...they strongly advocate using biogeographic distributions as evidence
> of phylogenetic relationships, but their examples have preconceived
> notions of relationships built into them."
>
>
>
> He never said how they were preconceived.
>
>
>
> "The authors are strong supporters of the importance of systematics, but
> they are short on specific analytical procedures of how biogeography
> might be used to infer relationships."
>
>
>
> This was only one subject among many.
>
>
>
> Regarding Ivie's reference to "Serious problems inherent in the
> Panbiogeography method, which have been documented in the literature ad
> nauseum' the comments by Cracraft do not point to any "serious problems"
> that negate the validity of the method, and in particular its real,
> predictive achievements (that have to be dismissed by opponents out of
> hand even though a corresponding predictive ability in dispersal
> biogeography has never been produced).
>
>
>
> As Cracraft notes, "each biogeographic method has its strengths and
> limitations in describing and explaining biogeographic patterns".
> However such views may be applied to panbiogeography is up to each
> individual, but so far the rejections of panbiogeography have not been
> on the level of empirical falsification (e.g. of the novel predictions,
> of tectonic correlations etc.). Even the molecular clock theorists, who
> thought they had the falsification, failed by misrepresenting molecular
> clock divergence dates as maximal rather than minimal estimates.
>
>
>
> John Grehan
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. John R. Grehan
>
> Director of Science
>
> Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway
>
> Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
>
> email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
>
> Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
>
>
>
> Panbiogeography
>
> http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
> han/evolutionary-biography
> <http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php>
>
> Ghost moth research
>
> http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
> han/ghost-moths
> <http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php>
>
>
> Human evolution and the great apes
>
> http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-gre
> han/human-origins
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>