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

Tue May 5 20:37:00 CDT 2009

Perhaps we should start with a definition of "definition", which must be one of the most abused terms in our language.

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Div of Entomology
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Landolt [JLANDOLT at shepherd.edu]
Sent: 01 May 2009 23:54
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the "hobbit")

Gentlemen,

Perhaps the next question to ask in this discussion is one to
designed illuminate the definition of "science" (at the risk of
pettifoggery) ;-)

Cheers,

John
John Landolt
Shepherd University

On May 1, 2009, at 9:28 AM, John Grehan wrote:

>
>> -----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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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