[Taxacom] Timing of the Lepidoptera-Trichoptera split (and their split from Antliophora, i.e. flies and scorpionflies)

Mon Nov 4 10:55:10 CST 2019

Ken wrote:

"My response: However, the point is that Kawahara et al. did NOT make
minimums into maximums. Their minimum and maximum were over 100 million
years apart"

The point is, as you stated Ken, is that they did make maximums as well as
minimums!

"conservative age constraint on the Amphiesmenoptera (Lepidoptera +
Trichoptera) root" between 201 Ma and 314.4 Ma. Grehan might not like those
particular numbers, but they certainly were not "making minimums into
maximums" (magically or otherwise).

If not magic – where did the maximums (e.g. 314.4 Ma) come from
empirically? If from fossil calibration then they did magically invent
their maximum values out of data that can only provide minimums.

"Most of his criticisms were minor nit-packing, and now he is nitpicking my
post as well. I wouldn't call that kind of nitpicking very "essential" to
science."

Ken – you make various assertions. They are open to question just as mine
are.

"Anyway, my post was meant to point out the positive contribution the
article in order to counter Grehan's verbose and negative review."

Fine, but that does not obviate the fact that maximum ages in this article
were magically created without scientific evidence - a fact that you seem
to step around constantly.

«  it was worth the inevitable nitpicking I almost always get from Grehan. »

Happy to oblige, and always happy to question what I see as unsupported
assertions (and the obverse - always happy to have my assertions questioned
as well).

John Grehan

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:40 AM Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>
> Grehan wrote:  "When it comes to magically making minimums into maximums
> there is not scientific contribution since the transmogrification comes
> from outside science. "
>
>       My response:    However, the point is that Kawahara et al. did NOT
> make minimums into maximums.  Their minimum and maximum were over 100
> million years apart:  "conservative age constraint on the Amphiesmenoptera
> (Lepidoptera + Trichoptera) root" between 201 Ma and 314.4 Ma.   Grehan
> might not like those particular numbers, but they certainly were not
> "making minimums into maximums" (magically or otherwise).   Most of his
> criticisms were minor nit-packing, and now he is nitpicking my post as
> well.  I wouldn't call that kind of nitpicking very "essential" to science.
>      Anyway, my post was meant to point out the positive contribution the
> article in order to counter Grehan's verbose and negative review.   And I
> also hoped my posting would put their results and conclusions into a wider
> context regarding the other insect clades within Holometabola
> (Endopterygota) and their known fossil records.  If my positive post did
> that, then it was worth the inevitable nitpicking I almost always get from
> Grehan.
>                                ----------------------Ken
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 9:24 AM
> To: Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Timing of the Lepidoptera-Trichoptera split (and
> their split from Antliophora, i.e. flies and scorpionflies)
>
>
> “It makes sense that these clades split apart "in" the Late Carboniferous
> (again, you can substitute "by" instead of "in" to avoid getting nitpicked)”
>
> It only makes sense if one believes it does. But empirically it does not.
> The evidence does not show that these clades split apart in the Late
> Carboniferous. Ken's assertion of belief over evidence exemplifies my point.
>
> “so I regard the nitpicking about Kawahara et al., especially phrases like
> "junk science" and "magical creation", as unnecessarily harsh and
> detracting from their scientific contribution.”
>
> When it comes to magically making minimums into maximums there is not
> scientific contribution since the transmogrification comes from outside
> science. This is a fact so harsh or not it is the reality and no one
> (including Ken) has ever been able to demonstrate otherwise other than to
> appeal to belief (and ironically at least some molecular specialists admit
> that priors are based on belief, not evidence). The scientific contribution
> is restricted to their phylogenetic results (which may or may not be a
> great as they say). My critique does not detract from that.
>
> 'Nit picking' is pejorative (as are my terms magic and junk science), but
> nit picking is essential to science. All scientific progress is effectively
> the result of 'nit picking' since nitpicking is just another way of
> referring to critiques. Just as one person's food is another person's
> poison, one person's scientific critique may be another person's annoyance.
> Its all relative.
>
> Making something into something else outside scientific knowledge does
> conform to magic. Since it is outside science there is nothing inaccurate
> in my description of such maneuvers as junk – hence junk science (meaning
> that the assertions about clade ages being actual or maximal are
> scientifically non existent).
>
> My critique should not dissuade anyone from reading the article since it
> exemplifies a common problematic practice - which is why I provided the
> article link.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:52 AM Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> wrote:
> Hi All,
>       I am hoping that Grehan's nitpicking review of Kawahara et al.
> (2019) won't dissuade anyone from reading this excellent paper.  Their data
> and analysis are pretty convincing that the origins of Lepidoptera extend
> back "into" the Late Carboniferous (or "by" the Late Carboniferous", if you
> want to avoid Grehan's nitpicking).
>       Their conclusion fits in very well with the Permian fossils of
> sister group Trichoptera, perhaps extending back into the early Permian if
> the larval cases found in Brazil are indeed trichopteran larval cases.  And
> the sister group to clade Lepidoptera-Trichoptera, namely clade
> Antliophora, is also known from the Permian (the scorpionfly Family
> Nannochoristidae).
>       It makes sense that these clades split apart "in" the Late
> Carboniferous (again, you can substitute "by" instead of "in" to avoid
> getting nitpicked).   The same could well be true of the split of
> Coleopterida from Neuropterida, and the origin of Hymenoptera could also
> extend back into the Permian or even Late Carboniferous.   All of these
> insects Orders form Superorder Holometabola (endopterygotans), and their
> common ancestor could be very closely related to members of Order
> Miomoptera (of the Late Carboniferous and Permian).
>        So if you are searching for the earliest members of any of these
> insect Orders, then Late Carboniferous ("Pennsylvanian") rocks probably
> would be the best place to look.   Early Carboniferous would probably be
> rather "iffy", so I regard the nitpicking about Kawahara et al., especially
> phrases like "junk science" and "magical creation", as unnecessarily harsh
> and detracting from their scientific contribution.
>                                               ----------------Ken Kinman
>
> Kawahara et al 2019. Phylogenomics reveals the evolutionary timing and
> pattern of butterflies and moths:
> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1907847116
>
> 2016 paper about Early Permian larval cases (trichopterans?):
> https://www.nature.com/articles/srep19215
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>