Re: Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes
From: John Harshman (jharshman.diespamdie_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 03/17/05
- Next message: George: "Re: Grand Canyon genesis"
- Previous message: John Harshman: "Re: Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes"
- In reply to: George: "Re: Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes"
- Next in thread: George: "Re: Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:40:49 GMT
George wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:EXi_d.11423$C47.2009@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>news:mth_d.19662$Pz7.18926@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:5Ag_d.11369$C47.6810@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:Gi9_d.11294$C47.107@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:dR7_d.23874$OU1.9879@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:Ri7_d.19550$Pz7.12327@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Such as?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Such as many of the obsessions of sci.bio.paleontology, to pick one
>>>>>>>>>>>>simple area. Are birds dinosaurs? How did feathers evolve? How did
>>>>>>>>>>>>endothermy evolve in archosaurs? Is Cope's Rule a real phenomenon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>if so what causes it? Do birds have manal digits 1-2-3 or 2-3-4? For
>>>>>>>>>>>>other questions, stratigraphy combined with phylogeny can be helpful:
>>>>>>>>>>>>when did birds arise? Did birds suffer a mass extinction at the K-T
>>>>>>>>>>>>boundary? Did the radiation of Neornithes happen before or after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>K-T
>>>>>>>>>>>>extinction? Check out any issue of the various journal's I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>for more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, I think examining the rock record, and the fossils they
>>>>>>>>>>>contain
>>>>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>>quite useful in most, if not all of those cases. To determine how
>>>>>>>>>>>feathers
>>>>>>>>>>>evolved, you really do need the fossils, despite what you may believe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You aren't paying attention. The question is whether paleoecology has
>>>>>>>>>>anything to do with these matters, not paleontology. They were
>>>>>>>>>>expressly
>>>>>>>>>>problems in paleontology. The first set had nothing to do with
>>>>>>>>>>paleoecology or stratigraphy. The second set had nothing to do with
>>>>>>>>>>paleontology, but stratigraphy would be helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And my point is that no branch of science, not geology, not paleontology
>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>>paleobiology, not biology, chemistry or physics, works in isolation from
>>>>>>>>>one
>>>>>>>>>another. Most of the sciences today use an interdisciplinary approach
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>solving problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's your point? You have an odd way of making it. Was entirely
>>>>>>>>misunderstanding what I said part of this point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're point is that the issues you raised were "They were expressly
>>>>>>>problems
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>paleontology", which is not entirely the case. Most of those issues are
>>>>>>>expressly problems in taxonomy and anatomy. Paleontology is much more
>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>taxonomy and anatomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody said it wasn't. But you seem to be claiming that if it's not
>>>>>>paleoecology, or doesn't include paleoecology as a major component, then
>>>>>>it's not paleontology.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I said that paleontology is more than just taxonomy and anatomy. Those
>>>>>are
>>>>>just a couple of areas in which Paleontologists contribute.
>>>>
>>>>All of which is orthogonal to my point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>These *are* problems in paleontology, as you
>>>>>>yourself noted just a little while ago: "Actually, I think examining the
>>>>>>rock record, and the fossils they contain can be quite useful in most,
>>>>>>if not all of those cases. To determine how feathers evolved, you really
>>>>>>do need the fossils, despite what you may believe." If that's not
>>>>>>paleontology, what is it? What I'm saying is that taxonomy and anatomy
>>>>>>are tools that are useful in paleontology, and they are perfectly
>>>>>>adequate for handling a number of important questions, with no input
>>>>>
>>>>>>from paleoecology or stratigraphy. You're the person trying to limit the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>field here, to a little area centered around you. People who don't do
>>>>>>what you do aren't paleontologists; questions you don't ask aren't
>>>>>>paleontology questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree that taxonomy and anatomy are just tools that paleontologists and
>>>>>biologists use.
>>>>
>>>>And so is study of paleoenvironments, right?
>>>
>>>Actually, paleoenvironments are more of a product than a tool. They are what
>>>is
>>>produced from using all of the tools (like taxonomy and systematics, among
>>>many
>>>others) available to paleontologists.
>>
>>You persist in thinking you are the center of the universe (when it's
>>actually me).
>
>
> Me? No. Why would I want to be the center of the universe? I couldn't handle
> the responsibility.
>
>
>>You think of paleoecology as the central nexus of
>>paleontology. From your standpoint, systematics is a tool, and
>>paleoenvironments the product.
>
>
> One product, but a very important product.
Important to you. I find other products just as important, if not more so.
>>>From my standpoint (and that of any
>>paleontologist whose work is largely phylogenetic in scope), phylogeny
>>is a product, and paleoenvironments are a tool, though not one that
>>contributes significantly to phylogeny. All this depends on where you
>>stand. And you are not in a privileged reference frame.
>
>
> Well, I'm not the strictest of Linnaeus "geeks". I find it has it's uses, but I
> think lists of species are very limited in what they can tell you relative to
> what an entire ecosystem can tell you about life on earth, whether it be in the
> past or the present. We've been producing lists and descriptions of species
> since Linnaeus was an old geezer.
Are you doing this on purpose to annoy me? Once again you equate
systematics with species descriptions and species lists, which is only a
small part of what systematists do. If it's not on purpose, then you
have some kind of psychological block against understanding systematics.
> We have been describing paleoecology for how
> long? A few decades? There is so much more that we don't understand about them
> and we've got a lot of catching up to do to make up for the many years these
> studies weren't done simply because the science wasn't advanced enough for us to
> do them. Sorry, that is simply my opinion, and I think the opinion of others as
> well. Nothing personal.
>
And nothing relevant either.
- Next message: George: "Re: Grand Canyon genesis"
- Previous message: John Harshman: "Re: Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes"
- In reply to: George: "Re: Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes"
- Next in thread: George: "Re: Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
