Talk:Proteaceae

message: According to current scientific consensus, flowering plants did not arise until the early Cretaceous. This is impossible to reconcile with the claim that the Proteaceae arose in the Carboniferous. Such outrageous claims should only be given coverage here if they are published in a reputable journal and taken seriously by the scientific community. I can see no evidence that this is the case here. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories for more information.
Hesperian 05:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but logic dictates that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Scientific consensus once thought the body was comprised of black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood. Dr. Levin makes his points logically and has been studying plate tectonics and botany for many years. And, indeed, every few years the timeline for the origin of angiosperms has been pushed back. David Dilcher, himself, at UF, concedes the point that the date of origin of the angiosperm is uncertain. Dr. Levin's arguments have the tacit support of geophysicist D.H. Tarling, whose credentials are unquestioned. All the DNA studies in the world can't date origin of a particular family of plant. You are merely citing a theory to refute a hypothesis. Levin's work deserves mention. Mikems (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Levin's work is credible, he should have no trouble getting it published in a reliable source. When he does, we'll include it here. Hesperian 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern science seeks to rule out alternative explanations.  The article you're linking too suffers from a fair dose of confirmation bias.  It's one thing to say that the date of origin of the angiosperms is uncertain - it's quite another to take that (bounded) uncertainty and use it to propose a data that's entirely outside of the currently accepted range.  It is a fringe idea, and it also hasn't been published in the literature.  So it's outside of the scope of this article.  Guettarda (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I need some time to digest this. Okay I will have a look at the angiosperm page as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Limited evidence for the hypothesis that the angiosperms arose in the Paleozoic, is a million miles away from evidence that the Proteaceae arose in the Carboniferous. I could explain the fundamental differences, and why the former does not imply the latter; but all that really matters here is that the former has been published in a reliable source, and the latter has not. Hesperian 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Whether Levin's article (the one you linked to; don't know anything about his other work) is "consistent" with other findings or not is actually beside the point.  Levin's article doesn't constitute a reliable source.  We can't use.  That is, of course, quite apart from the fact that Levin's article doesn't rule out other explanations that could explain his observations.  If you provide an explanation for an observation, and fail to rule out alternative explanations, you aren't doing science.  If your explanation requires turning to current understanding on its head, and you fail to rule out other explanations...then you're in the real of fringe.  Guettarda (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Entirely beside the point.  Levin's article is (a) not a reliable source, and (b) makes no attempt to address other, more plausible explanations.  So it isn't something we can use.  That's all.  Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Mike, you're trying to make this into a discussion about Cretaceous versus Paleozoic origin of the angiosperms. No-one disagrees that the claim of Paleozoic origin of the angiosperms should be included in Wikipedia. That claim has been published in reliable peer-reviewed journals, and is currently covered in our angiosperm article. What this discussion is about, is whether our Proteaceae article should cover the claim for a Carboniferous origin of the Proteaceae—a claim which, as far as I can tell, has never been been accepted for publication in a reliable source.If indeed Levin's ideas "gain in plausibility" as time goes by, then I expect we'll start to see coverage in reliable sources, at which time we'll be happy to introduce coverage here. But until then, nothing doing.Hesperian 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Whatever; hopefully he gets it published in a reliable source, so that we can use it. Hesperian 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Carboniferous? I think not!

message: The organization under subfamily Grevilleoideae given here is considerably different than that found at the subfamily article. Can somebody look into it and apply the same division to both articles? Circéus (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the more up to date. I did them both according to Johnson and Briggs (1975), then later updated this one to Weston and Barker (2006). I'll sort it out. Hesperian 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hesperian 00:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions