[Taxacom] Panbiogeography 1, critics 0

[John Grehan]

I was rather intrigued, given the intensity of demands for specific details
in response to 'solid' criticisms of panbiogeography, and even though no
details for the assertions were ever offered, that there was no further
comment when,  out of the kindness of my heart, I provided one example with
respect to the false claims about geology involving the Chathams Islands.
Those details showed that there had been no avoidance of criticism - in
fact to the contrary, and no ignoring of the geological evidence - in fact
to the contrary. So with this one example, the accusation is clearly
falsified. Presumably the subsequent silence is recognition of that fact.
Making allusions to donkeys and lions is all good fun (and sure, I know who
the donkey is supposed to be), but demands for details should be
accompanied by details in order to have any effective conversation (whether
or not anyone ends up being convinced of anything). And when details are
provided (as for the Chathams) one might at least expect those to be
addressed.

At least clarification of objections may be gained, such as some on this
list taking the view that fossil calibrated molecular divergence ages are
actual or maximal even though they are not.

There is nothing solid about Waters et al (2013) at all. Anyone is welcome
to try to present details in defence of Waters et al. I will be interested
to see if anyone can.

Cheers, John Grehan