[Taxacom] Ivie Message NOT sent to Taxacom

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Sat Jun 27 14:11:04 CDT 2009


Michael should not have emailed me privately - especially with that kind
of comment. My communications were with the list as a whole. Michael
gave no indication that he was extending a list to a private
conversation - which in my opinion would be in appropriate.

Anyway, I am still interested to see him post to the list a scientific
rebuttal of panbiogeography.

John Grehan 

-----Original Message-----
From: mivie at montana.edu [mailto:mivie at montana.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:51 PM
To: Robin Leech
Cc: John Grehan; mivie at montana.edu; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Ivie Message NOT sent to Taxacom

Dear Taxacomers,

Please note, the message attributed to me below was NOT sent to Taxacom.

Check your in box, no such message was received from me.  I agree with
Robin, this does not belong in your mailboxes, and I apologize for John
Grehan's inappropriate use of this listserver!! 
Sending messages to the listserver in other people's name, or sending
other peoples work without their permission is a violation of the terms
of use of Taxacom.  John Greham should be banned, and you can ban me
too.

Michael Ivie


> C'mon guys!  This is no longer scientific.  This kind of personal bun 
> fight should not be allowed on Taxacom.
> And Mike, you surprise me.
> Robin Leech
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> To: <mivie at montana.edu>
> Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 11:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Lightening up on Pongidae (was: orangutan
outrage)
>
>
>> Assume whatever you like. But I would still be interested to see you
post your scientific argument against panbiogeography.
>> John Grehan
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mivie at montana.edu [mailto:mivie at montana.edu]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:08 PM
>> To: John Grehan
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Lightening up on Pongidae (was: orangutan 
>> outrage) LOL, I have never seen any evidence you have any sense of 
>> humor, decent
or otherwise.  Plus, I kind of doubt you have any Afrocentric friends
either, so it might just be beyond your cultural breadth.
>> ;-)
>>> I may lack a decent sense of humor, but I see nothing funny about
bigotry of this kind and even less so in its dissemination.
>>> John Grehan
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mivie at montana.edu [mailto:mivie at montana.edu]
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 12:23 PM
>>> To: John Grehan
>>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> Subject: Lightening up on Pongidae (was: orangutan outrage) OK, 
>>> speaking of things that could be ignored, I just heard the most
amazing explanation of Grehan's vehemence on this subject from an
Afrocentric friend, and given John's idea that silly theoretical
constructs should not be ignored, thought I would share it.
>>> The rejection of an African sister-group to humans in favor of an
Asian one is simply another example of the dominant eurasian
>>> scientific elites trying to deny yet again the importance of African
contributions to history.  I.E. those who oppose the Homo-Pan sister
>> pair are racists.
>>> This logic has as much basis (or lack thereof) as some presented on
this listserver.
>>> But, it IS funny.
>>> Mike
>>>> What I see in the responses by Richard Zander and Ken Kinman is 
>>>> this
determination that the molecular evidence is really, really, right no
matter how it is contradicted by the morphological evidence. And by hook
or by crook they (or the molecular theorists) are going to find an
'explanation' (excuse) to explain away the morphological anomaly.
The idea that bean counting of DNA bases is the essence of phylogeny is
now so entrenched that I doubt anyone who has walked out on this plank
will be able to back away (especially if they have claimed that the
chimpanzee theory is fact). Of course I have walked out on an even
>>>> longer plank against popular opinion. But then only a few decades 
>>>> back panbiogeography was ridiculed out of hand, and while it is now

>>>> just
generally ignored (standard scientific procedure by the majority - one
>>>> technique that should be taught to students in science classes so 
>>>> they can recognize it in themselves or others), one can no longer 
>>>> get away
with ridicule.
>>>> 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, June 25, 2009 10:18 PM
>>>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>> Subject: [Taxacom] Pongidae (was: orangutan outrage) Richard Zander

>>>> wrote:
>>>>      If gorilla and pan were on a very short shared branch that did

>>>> not show up in molecular cladograms, then the paraphyletic group
homo-pongo would be the ancestor of gorilla-pan (mapping the traits that
characterize the taxa). Any evidence for a short molecular branch
>>>> connecting gorilla and pan?
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>  Dear All,
>>>>       Richard Zander brings up a very important point.  The group 
>>>> "Homo-Pongo" (and their extinct relatives) could very well have
paraphyletically given rise to a Gorilla-Pan clade.  If so, one might
regard gorillas as just overgrown chimps.  This would not surprise me in
the least.  And it would also mean that the morphological
>>>> similarities between humans and orangutans are retained 
>>>> plesiomorphies of the great apes that were subsequently lost in a 
>>>> Gorilla-Pan clade.
>>>>       That is why I think a thorough evaluation of great ape 
>>>> genomes is so important.  Whether the first such evaluation is
"thorough"
enough to convince the vast majority of scientists remains to be
>> seen.
>>>> My own personal expectation is that it will support an African 
>>>> clade
(Gorilla, Pan, and Homo) with orangutans as an outgroup (sorry,
>> John).
>>>> However, I have no strong expectations whether Pan (chimps) will 
>>>> clade
>>> exclusively
>>>> with gorillas or with humans.  We shall see.   Until then, I see no
>>> need
>>>> to comment further.  And as I have pointed out several times, my
Family Pongidae will remain paraphyletic with respect to Family
Hominidae no matter what the results are.  The results will only affect
which genus of Pongidae that I will code as the sister group to
>>> Hominidae.
>>>>            --------Ken Kinman
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>







More information about the Taxacom mailing list