[Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the "hobbit")

Fri May 1 08:28:22 CDT 2009

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:25 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
> "hobbit")
> 
> John Grehan wrote:
> 
> "What people believe is not science."
> 
> I guess that depends on what we mean by "believe", doesn't it?  

Not in my opinion.

I
> "believe" that our modern theory of evolution is a powerful explanatory
> device that is consistent with the evidence and is better than other
> attempts to explain that evidence (e.g., Intelligent Design). 

Sure, I believe that too. But my belief is just my belief. Not science

 Of course,
> some use the word "believe" as synonymous with "acceptance of something
> based on personal or emotional perspectives, rather than objectively
> determined evidence."  If the latter is what John means, then I agree -
> it's not science.  But, we must clarify our usage of words when we make
> absolute statements.

My view is different, belief is what you believe based on whatever influences you. If 'objectively determined evidence' is the basis of belief then its still belief. Even the 'objectively determined evidence' is neither here nor there as different people, including scientists, may believe different things about the same evidence.

Just my belief.

John Grehan

> 
> Dick J
> 
> Richard Jensen, Professor
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> 
> tel: 574-284-4674
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
> "hobbit")
> 
> And of course I would agree that Ken should not back down just because
> someone (in this case myself) disagrees with the informativeness of his
> classification - just as I would not back down on the orangutan evidence
> just because just about no one in the primate systematics field else
> accepts it.
> 
> While my characterization of 'worthless' may be harsh (and no more harsh
> than the worthlessness of the orangutan theory condemned in the hominid
> origins field) I at least gave the basis for my characterization, and I
> stand by the view that a classification that lacks presentation of the
> systematics decision making process that leads to particular
> classification decisions is not of any real evaluative value. If others
> think otherwise on this list then I would be interested to hear.
> 
> Ken makes the point that the orangutan theory is accepted by very few
> biologists is neither here nor there for the science of classification.
> What people believe is not science.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:33 PM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the "hobbit")
> >
> > Dear All,
> >      I was asked to forward the post below to the list.  I thank Mark
> > for his response, and my own response to it is that I indeed do not
> > intend to back down.  I gave two perfectly good reasons for
> > preliminarily assigning the "hobbit" (florensis) to early Homo erectus
> > (sensu lato), and near georgicus in particular, and John Grehan offered
> > neither a credible rebuttal to those reasons, nor any attempt to justify
> > any alternate assignment.
> >      Nor will I back down on the assignment of Kenyanthropus platyops to
> > Australopithecus (and I suspect it will indeed prove to be a synonym of
> > A. afarensis).  As for the proposed outgroups to Hominidae, Ardipithecus
> > and Orrorin seem excellent candidates, although whether they clade
> > together or separately remains to be seen.  Sahelanthropus is less
> > certain and may end up clading with gorillas and/or chimps.  John
> > Grehan's hypothesis of orangutans as an alternate outgroup to hominids,
> > on the other hand, is obviously still accepted by very few biologists.
> >        --------Ken Kinman
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Ken,
> >      For some reason the listserve rejected my posting. Please forward
> > it on my behalf.
> > -Mark
> > ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> > From:  <farmer at cellmate.cb.uga.edu>
> > Subject:  Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
> > "hobbit")
> > Date sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:32:14 -0400
> > Dear Ken,
> > I have never posted to this group before and my expertise is in protists
> > (a long way from hominids) BUT I think that science only progresses by
> > individuals putting forward new ideas and offering data in support of
> > them (as opposed to creationist BS of "new ideas").
> >
> > Ken, I am way out my area of comfort zone here but I think for the good
> > of science you should not back down, UNLESS the data compels you to do
> > so. I myself have abandoned my long held ideas about mitochondrial
> > origins in the earliest eukaryotes, but it was the data and reasoned
> > arguments that caused me to do so. That is the ESSENCE of good science.
> > -Mark Farmer
> > On 30 Apr 2009 at 16:59, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >        Well, if everyone agrees with John Grehan that my
> > classifications are "pretty worthless", then maybe I should just stop.
> > But I wouldn't post them if I didn't believe they would provide a useful
> > new viewpoint (at least for some workers) compared to other available
> > classifications.
> > ------- End of forwarded message -------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 