Not sure I follow this

[UC]

Iim not sure I follow this argument:

http://io9.com/5903216/dinosaurs-were-doomed-because-laying-eggs-made-them-too-huge

[prawnster]

On May 2, 1:38 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Iim not sure I follow this argument:
>

> http://io9.com/5903216/dinosaurs-were-doomed-because-laying-eggs-made...

Maybe the really big dinos chowed down on the medium ones but skipped
over the real little guys because they weren't worth the effort
calorie-wise, so now we don't have very many fossilized medium dinos
because they were preprocessed through some big dino's gut. I'm
thinking that may have been the biggest difficulty medium dinos
faced. Also, maybe the dinos weighing less than one kilogram could
hide easier than the medium dinos and avoid becoming late-night snack.

[jillery]

This was discussed in an earlier topic. IIUC Daryl Codron's argument
rests on three points. First, that all eggs are limited by physics to
a maximum size. From this, all dinosaurs, regardless of their
ultimate adult size, started out small, and so the "small dinosaur"
ecological niche was overcrowded. Second, that bigger is
competitively better. From this, dinosaurs that grew bigger faster
had an advantage while in that niche, and grew out of that niche into
a presumably less crowded one. And third, that big dinosaurs couldn't
cope with the rapid and cataclysmic changes resulting from the meteor
impact.

I have read points one and two used to explain tall trees today, that
trees necessarily start out from small seeds and grow tall fast in
order to get out of each others' shadows and into the sunlight.

I agree the cited article doesn't explain it well. Bigger and faster
isn't always a competitive advantage, and it isn't the only strategy
for staying alive. For niches with scarce resources, small, sneaky
and slow is the way to go. The Discover article cited in the earlier
topic made the point that during the Cretaceous, mammals likely
occupied those niches, and so that option wasn't readily available to
dinosaurs.

[UC]

On May 3, 1:29 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 13:38:37 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Iim not sure I follow this argument:
>

> >http://io9.com/5903216/dinosaurs-were-doomed-because-laying-eggs-made...

>
> This was discussed in an earlier topic.  IIUC Daryl Codron's argument
> rests on three points.  First, that all eggs are limited by physics to
> a maximum size.  From this, all dinosaurs, regardless of their
> ultimate adult size, started out small, and so the "small dinosaur"
> ecological niche was overcrowded.  Second, that bigger is
> competitively better.  From this, dinosaurs that grew bigger faster
> had an advantage while in that niche, and grew out of that niche into
> a presumably less crowded one.  And third, that big dinosaurs couldn't
> cope with the rapid and cataclysmic changes resulting from the meteor
> impact.
>
> I have read points one and two used to explain tall trees today, that
> trees necessarily start out from small seeds and grow tall fast in
> order to get out of each others' shadows and into the sunlight.
>
> I agree the cited article doesn't explain it well.  Bigger and faster
> isn't always a competitive advantage, and it isn't the only strategy
> for staying alive.  For niches with scarce resources, small, sneaky
> and slow is the way to go.  The Discover article cited in the earlier
> topic made the point that during the Cretaceous, mammals likely
> occupied those niches, and so that option wasn't readily available to
> dinosaurs.

Well could it not be that you have a situation where being very big or
very small each have significant advantages, but medium is not so hot.

[prawnster]

On May 3, 12:46 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Well could it not be that you have a situation where being very big or
> very small each have significant advantages, but medium is not so hot.

Yep. Too big too hide, but not big enough to dominate; just big
enough to look extra snacktastic to the big boys. Chomp, gulp,
dissolve, digest, dump; so no fossil.

[UC]

Well, what is the size distribution of dinosaurs anyway? And the
question is, did this change over time?

and were not many of the bigger ones plant-eaters?

[jillery]

It could be, but that wouldn't fit the author's arguments. If being
very small was a workable option for the dinosaurs, at least some of
them should have stayed very small. They didn't.

[UC]

Oh? So late dinosaurs are all large? I did not know this.

[jillery]

Did you read your own cite?. It asserts that by the end of the
Cretaceous, most (not all) adult dinosaurs were large. I don't know
if that's actually true.

[UC]

On May 4, 9:58 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 04:46:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's what I'm questioning. There are some advantages to being small,
aren't there? I think being medium-sized might have been less
advantageous than being small. Too big to hide, too slow to run, too
small to fend off the biggest predators. But why would things change
over time? That isn't explained.

[UC]

On May 4, 9:58 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 4 May 2012 04:46:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I question why it should be more of a factor in the Cretaceous than in
earlier times.

[UC]

On May 4, 9:58 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 4 May 2012 04:46:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Here is some more info:

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurevolution/a/bigdinos.htm

[UC]

There are distributions like this in football. There are relatively
fewer medium size players in American football. Players tend to be
specialized for speed, strength, and durability (running backs) speed,
agility, and height (receivers and safeties) or size and strength
(line-men). Only linebackers tend to be medium-sized.

[UC]

and more still:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5244/rethinking-why-dinosaurs-got-so-big

[jillery]

I can't tell whether you're asking about your cite specifically or
about the concepts your cite mentions generally. When you say "that
isn't explained", I infer you're referring to your cite specifically.
When you say you're questioning what's actually true, I infer you're
referring to general concepts.

[UC]

I don't follow the argument in the article that I originally referred
to. Subsequently, I am exploring the topic and find a wide variety of
opinion. I don't follow the logic of the article. I think it says that
not-fully-grown dinos had to compete with fully grown ones that were
approximately the same size. I don't follow this at all. Some ‘the
same size’ were vegetarians and some were carnivores! Some ate one
kind of plants, and others another kind. And organisms of vastly
different size compete all the time for certain resources. What has
size got to do with it? Everybody like salmon! Bears eat salmon,
other fish eat salmon, etc. Lions bring down animals much bigger than
themselves through cooperative action. Hyenas steal kills from cats
again through cooperative action. I think the article is all wet.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<uranium-07237098-736d-...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups
.com>,

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There are distributions like this in football. There are relatively
> fewer medium size players in American football. Players tend to be
> specialized for speed, strength, and durability (running backs) speed,
> agility, and height (receivers and safeties) or size and strength
> (line-men). Only linebackers tend to be medium-sized.

Only some kickers can be medium sized or small. The rest are huge.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[prawnster]

> again through cooperative action. I think the article is all wet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So where are all the medium-size dinos? Why are there so few medium-
size dino fossils compared to little 'uns and big 'uns? And I'm not
being rhetorical; other than my speculative scenario above, I have no
answer.

[UC]

The article claimed that medium-sized dinos became less common over
time. I don't buy their reasons. Is there a chart somewhere showing
various dinos across the eons?

[jillery]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:44:42 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 4, 2:39 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 07:02:30 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>

>I don't follow the argument in the article that I originally referred
>to. Subsequently, I am exploring the topic and find a wide variety of
>opinion. I don't follow the logic of the article. I think it says that
>not-fully-grown dinos had to compete with fully grown ones that were

>approximately the same size. I don't follow this at all. Organisms of

>vastly different size compete all the time for certain resources.

>Everybody like salmon! Lions bring down animals much bigger than

>themselves through cooperative action. Hyenas steal kills from cats
>again through cooperative action. I think the article is all wet.

IIUC some of what you say is correct and some is not. I agree the
article you cite doesn't explain it well. Perhaps this one will help
you:


http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/17/egg.laying.beginning.end.dinosaurs

http://tinyurl.com/7bmb2hx

[UC]

On May 5, 11:39 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:44:42 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/17/egg.laying.beginning.end....
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7bmb2hx

I don't buy the argument that dinos of the same size were competitors.
That's not necessarily true. Some dinos lived in different climates
and some were vegetarians, some carnivores.

[jillery]

>> http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/17/egg.laying.beginning.end.dinosaurs

>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7bmb2hx
>
>I don't buy the argument that dinos of the same size were competitors.
>That's not necessarily true. Some dinos lived in different climates
>and some were vegetarians, some carnivores.

Of course it isn't just size that determines which organisms are
competitors, but that's not Codron's argument. I don't how to explain
it any better than I already have or what this article says. I'll
just assume I don't really understand your complaint here.

[UC]

> >>http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/17/egg.laying.beginning.end....

>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/7bmb2hx
>
> >I don't buy the argument that dinos of the same size were competitors.
> >That's not necessarily true. Some dinos lived in different climates
> >and some were vegetarians, some carnivores.
>
> Of course it isn't just size that determines which organisms are
> competitors, but that's not Codron's argument.  I don't how to explain
> it any better than I already have or what this article says.  I'll
> just assume I don't really understand your complaint here.

His argument is that dinos got bigger and bigger because as they grew
through this or that stage they were competing with ***adults*** of
the same size, so by becoming biggest of all they had no competitors.
The argument is preposterous. It makes no sense.

In other words as it grew to adulthood, a 3-ft tall juvenile was
competing against a 3-ft tall adult, then against a 6-ft tall adult,
then a 12-ft tall adult. Nonsense. The other dinos are of all sorts of
diets. The ***size*** is not the issue. The argument is stupid.

[UC]

> >>http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/17/egg.laying.beginning.end....

>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/7bmb2hx
>
> >I don't buy the argument that dinos of the same size were competitors.
> >That's not necessarily true. Some dinos lived in different climates
> >and some were vegetarians, some carnivores.
>
> Of course it isn't just size that determines which organisms are
> competitors, but that's not Codron's argument.  I don't how to explain
> it any better than I already have or what this article says.  I'll
> just assume I don't really understand your complaint here.

Here is the argument:

"When the young of large animals start out small, they must grow
through a large size range before reaching adulthood, and compete with
species of many different sizes as they do so. Codron and his
colleagues developed a model that suggests that there was intense
competition among small and medium-sized dinosaurs, so that it was
difficult for medium-sized adults to make a living, and adults had to
keep growing until they reached very large sizes to gain a competitive
edge. In comparison to mammals, relatively few dinosaurs are known
with adult sizes between 1 kilogram and 1,000 kilograms."

[UC]

But the opening statement is different: it is that the adults get very
large so they don't have to compete with their own young. Now that at
least is intelligible.

[jillery]

An ecological niche is the way an organism makes a living. It's not
just what it eats, but how, when and where it eats it. Size helps
determine which niches organisms can occupy.

I get that you think Codron's argument is stupid. Why you think it's
stupid continues to elude me.

[jillery]

You're conflating multiple sources. Your original cite is a summary
of a summary. Your quoted paragraph is actually written by Matt
Kaplan, not Daryl Codron:

http://www.nature.com/news/dinosaurs-grew-to-outpace-their-young-1.10465

The actual article both these articles refer to is here:

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl.2012.0240.full

Daryl Codron describes a computer simulation, and makes conclusions
based on it and observations from other sources. He doesn't say
anything like Matt Kaplan's opening statement. I'm pretty sure Codron
disagrees with it. From his Discussion:

********************************
Thus, we expect that, within terrestrial assemblages featuring
large-bodied, oviparous animals, size-specific competition among
species resulted in dominance of the largest taxa, because they
include life stages that escape such competition traps.
********************************

Besides, parents usually don't compete with their young, at least not
in the same sense as inter-species competition. In the case of large
dinosaurs, parents and young occupied different niches. In the case
of mammals and birds, parents actually support their young to
adulthood. ISTM parents competing with their young is maladaptive.

IIUC Kaplan's paragraph you cite is a reasonable summary of Codron's
results. I get that you believe Codron's conclusions are nonsense. So
unless you have some personal reasons for asserting your opinions
without basis, there's no need to continue doing so. OTOH it would
help further discussion if you based your expressed opinions on what
Codron actually wrote.

[UC]

On May 9, 4:26 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:55:25 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl....

>
> Daryl Codron describes a computer simulation, and makes conclusions
> based on it and observations from other sources.  He doesn't say
> anything like Matt Kaplan's opening statement.  I'm pretty sure Codron
> disagrees with it.  From his Discussion:
>
> ********************************
> Thus, we expect that, within terrestrial assemblages featuring
> large-bodied, oviparous animals, size-specific competition among
> species resulted in dominance of the largest taxa, because they
> include life stages that escape such competition traps.
> ********************************
>
> Besides, parents usually don't compete with their young, at least not
> in the same sense as inter-species competition.  In the case of large
> dinosaurs, parents and young occupied different niches.  In the case
> of mammals and birds, parents actually support their young to
> adulthood.  ISTM parents competing with their young is maladaptive.
>
> IIUC Kaplan's paragraph you cite is a reasonable summary of Codron's
> results.  I get that you believe Codron's conclusions are nonsense. So
> unless you have some personal reasons for asserting your opinions
> without basis, there's no need to continue doing so.  OTOH it would
> help further discussion if you based your expressed opinions on what
> Codron actually wrote.

What is Codon's argument? I seem to be confused.

[jillery]

Join the club. Do you understand what he actually wrote?

[UC]

No.

[jillery]

Then how do you know you disagree with it?

[UC]

On May 10, 12:28 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >What is Codon's argument? I seem to be confused.
>
> >> Join the club.  Do you understand what he actually wrote?
>
> >No.
>
> Then how do you know you disagree with it?

I found the argument presented by the second-hand articles rubbish. I
am not sure what the original theory is, so I cannot comment on it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 09:28:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 10, 12:28 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 06:55:50 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>

>I found the argument presented by the second-hand articles rubbish.

That's what I said, but you insisted otherwise.

> I
>am not sure what the original theory is, so I cannot comment on it.

Now that you know where to read Codron's actual argument, you have no
good reason not to comment on what he actually wrote.

[UC]

On May 10, 3:48 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 09:28:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

Except that I can't read it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:52:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> >> >What is Codon's argument? I seem to be confused.
>>
>> >> >> Join the club. Do you understand what he actually wrote?
>>
>> >> >No.
>>
>> >> Then how do you know you disagree with it?
>>
>> >I found the argument presented by the second-hand articles rubbish.
>>
>> That's what I said, but you insisted otherwise.
>>
>> > I
>> >am not sure what the original theory is, so I cannot comment on it.
>>
>> Now that you know where to read Codron's actual argument, you have no
>> good reason not to comment on what he actually wrote.
>
>Except that I can't read it.

I can. Why can't you?

[UC]

It says "Content not found"

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl

[UC]

On May 11, 1:08 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

"This item requires a subscription to Biology Letters."

[UC]

On May 11, 1:08 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

and this link shows only the abstract:

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl.2012.0240.abstract

[UC]

On May 11, 1:08 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Need to pay or something.

[jillery]

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl.2012.0240.full

http://tinyurl.com/bpmz6um

[jillery]

I have no such subscription. The website might not accurately reflect
the policies of the publisher.



http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl.2012.0240.full

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bpmz6um

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:17:38 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

This is very strange. Sometimes I get the full text, and sometimes I
get the message you get.

Assuming this is a bug on the website, the abstract and the summary
you quoted from Matt Kaplan should be sufficient for your purposes.

[Richard Norman]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:17:38 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I get the same results UC does: it requires a subscription.

[UC]

On May 11, 10:25 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:17:38 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 11 May 2012 06:51:11 -0700 (PDT), UC
> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>On May 11, 1:08 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:52:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> >>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >What is Codon's argument? I seem to be confused.
>
> >>> >> >> >> Join the club. Do you understand what he actually wrote?
>
> >>> >> >> >No.
>
> >>> >> >> Then how do you know you disagree with it?
>
> >>> >> >I found the argument presented by the second-hand articles rubbish.
>
> >>> >> That's what I said, but you insisted otherwise.
>
> >>> >> > I
> >>> >> >am not sure what the original theory is, so I cannot comment on it.
>
> >>> >> Now that you know where to read Codron's actual argument, you have no
> >>> >> good reason not to comment on what he actually wrote.
>
> >>> >Except that I can't read it.
>
> >>> I can.  Why can't you?
>
> >>"This item requires a subscription to Biology Letters."
>
> >I have no such subscription.  The website might not accurately reflect
> >the policies of the publisher.
>

> >http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl....

>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/bpmz6um
>
> This is very strange.  Sometimes I get the full text, and sometimes I
> get the message you get.
>
> Assuming this is a bug on the website, the abstract and the summary
> you quoted from Matt Kaplan should be sufficient for your purposes.

I am still not sure what the original argument is. Could someone
please summarize it?

[jillery]

Which argument? Codron's, mine, or your's? If mine, it is that your
original cite doesn't explain things well, but it doesn't represent
Codron's argument. If Codron's, the paragraph you quoteds is a
reasonable summary. If your's, why don't you understand your own
argument?

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 13:40:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

No answer? Shall I assume you have no argument to understand, that
your posts are just usenet farts?

[UC]

On May 12, 1:25 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2012 13:40:28 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:55:10 -0700 (PDT), UC

maybe i was busy for the last 10 hours

[UC]

On May 11, 1:40 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:55:10 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't know waht the original argument is. I have no access to it.
the second-hand one is garbage.

[jillery]

Didn't stop you from making other posts. Didn't stop you from posting
this latest bit. What excuse are you using now?

[jillery]

That didn't stop you the first time you posted to this topic. Or the
second. Or third. Why stop now? You're on a roll!

[UC]

On May 13, 1:45 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 21:25:22 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well the story kept changing depending on which version one read. I
would like to know what the original hypothesis is.

[jillery]

>Well my story kept changing depending on which version one read. I
>would like to know what my original hypothesis is.


I fixed your post for greater accuracy.

[UC]

No, damn it! i STILL don't know the original hypothesis because I
don't have access to the original document! What is it?

The second-hand ones conflict with one another.

[jillery]

When I found myself in a situation where I wanted to know what a
particular scientific article actually says, and the Internet sources
are paywalled, I have used 3 strategies:

1. I asked someone with a subscription to read their copy.
2. I went to a university library with a subscription and read it
there.
3. I paid for a copy over the Internet. Yes I know, but the option is
there.

I don't presume that any of these solutions will work for you, or that
these are the only solutions. Speaking for myself, I have found that
demanding others to do my work for me is counterproductive. YMMV.

[UC]

On May 13, 2:14 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't want to bother now. I saw the second-hand article and found it
not coherent. I simply wanted to know what the original said since the
second-hand one made no sense.

[jillery]

Then why did you ask for a summary?

[UC]

On May 14, 2:31 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:48:49 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Because I don't know what his hypothesis is! If someone wants to
summarize it or quote from it, I'd be grateful.

[jillery]

You already got your summary, remember? You haven't shown any
gratitude yet.

[UC]

Not that I am aware of, yet.

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:27:52 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>> >> >I don't want to bother now. I saw the second-hand article and found it
>> >> >not coherent. I simply wanted to know what the original said since the
>> >> >second-hand one made no sense.
>>
>> >> Then why did you ask for a summary?
>>
>> >Because I don't know what his hypothesis is! If someone wants to
>> >summarize it or quote from it, I'd be grateful.
>>

>You already got your summary, remember? You haven't shown any
>gratitude yet.
>

>Not that I am aware of, yet.

Don't be silly. You quoted it yourself. As I said earlier, it's the
paragraph you copied. Are you saying you can't remember doing that?
You seem to have a lot of trouble remembering what you wrote before.
Perhaps you should get that checked out.

Anyway, between it and the abstract, you have more than enough to
comment on Codron's actual point. Now show some gratitude.

[UC]

On May 15, 3:42 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:27:52 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

No, I am unaware of the exact formulation of the hypothesis. Please
clarify.

[jillery]

Make up your mind. You asked for a summary. You have one. That you
lack an exact formulation of the hypothesis, didn't stop you before
from posting your baseless assertions about Codron's hypothesis. Why
should it stop you now? But since you keep moving your goalposts,
you're on your own.

[UC]

I DO NOT have the summary. I DO NOT know what the original hypothesis
is. The second-hand ones are conflicting and absurd.

[jillery]

You copied and posted it yourself.

> I DO NOT know what the original hypothesis is.

That's what I kept telling you. But you insisted on saying Codron's
hypothesis is stupid.

>The second-hand ones are conflicting and absurd.

So ignore the second-hand hypotheses, and focus on the summary and
abstract, which you have. Or get off your lazy behind and find a copy
of the original article yourself.

[UC]

On May 16, 3:23 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The second-hand account is stupid.

>
> >The second-hand ones are conflicting and absurd.
>
> So ignore the second-hand hypotheses, and focus on the summary and
> abstract, which you have.

I DO NOT HAVE THIS!

Or get off your lazy behind and find a copy
> of the original article yourself.

I can't. It requires payment.

[UC]

On May 16, 3:23 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What about the fact that plesiosaurs also grew to enormous sizes?

[jillery]

Are you denying that you said Codron's hypothesis is stupid? Are you
denying that you conflated the second-hand summaries with Codron's
article? Are you denying that I explicitly pointed this out to you?

>> >The second-hand ones are conflicting and absurd.
>>
>> So ignore the second-hand hypotheses, and focus on the summary and
>> abstract, which you have.
>
>I DO NOT HAVE THIS!

Are you denying that you have access to Codron's abstract? Are you
denying that you copied from your cite a paragraph which I identified
it as a reasonable summary of Codron's article?

>Or get off your lazy behind and find a copy
>> of the original article yourself.
>
>I can't. It requires payment.

Are you denying that's your problem? Are you denying that you know of
multiple solutions to your problem? Are you denying that I explicitly
identifed multiple solutions to your problem?

[UC]

No, I don't know what it is.

> Are you
> denying that you conflated the second-hand summaries with Codron's
> article?  Are you denying that I explicitly pointed this out to you?

I don't know what's what.

>
> >> >The second-hand ones are conflicting and absurd.
>
> >> So ignore the second-hand hypotheses, and focus on the summary and
> >> abstract, which you have.
>
> >I DO NOT HAVE THIS!
>
> Are you denying that you have access to Codron's abstract?

No, but it's insufficient to evaluate or understand the hypothesis.

> Are you
> denying that you copied from your cite a paragraph which I identified
> it as a reasonable summary of Codron's article?

Don't know which one that is.

>
> >Or get off your lazy behind and find a copy
> >> of the original article yourself.
>
> >I can't. It requires payment.
>
> Are you denying that's your problem?  Are you denying that you know of
> multiple solutions to your problem?  Are you denying that I explicitly
> identifed multiple solutions to your problem?

I don't have time. I'm busy!

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:41:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>> Are you denying that's your problem?  Are you denying that you know of
>> multiple solutions to your problem?  Are you denying that I explicitly
>> identifed multiple solutions to your problem?
>
>I don't have time. I'm busy!

That's what I thought. Thanks for proving my point.

[UC]

On May 17, 1:32 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:41:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Are you denying that's your problem?  Are you denying that you know of
> >> multiple solutions to your problem?  Are you denying that I explicitly
> >> identifed multiple solutions to your problem?
>
> >I don't have time. I'm busy!
>
> That's what I thought.  Thanks for proving my point.

All I'm asking is for someone to provide the original so I can examine
it. It is also worth noting that Plesiosaurs were huge too, and I
don't see how the same selection factors apply.

[jillery]

Why should anybody bother? You don't have the time to read it.

[UC]

Yes, I would read it if it's not too long. What about the Plesiosaurs?

[jillery]

That's a show-stopper.


>What about the Plesiosaurs?


Probably they're too long too.

[UC]

On May 17, 3:57 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 17, 2:01 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 May 2012 07:01:52 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 17, 1:32 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:41:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> >> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> >> Are you denying that's your problem?  Are you denying that you know of
> >> >> >> multiple solutions to your problem?  Are you denying that I explicitly
> >> >> >> identifed multiple solutions to your problem?
>
> >> >> >I don't have time. I'm busy!
>
> >> >> That's what I thought.  Thanks for proving my point.
>
> >> >All I'm asking is for someone to provide the original so I can examine
> >> >it. It is also worth noting that Plesiosaurs were huge too, and I
> >> >don't see how the same selection factors apply.
>
> >> Why should anybody bother?  You don't have the time to read it.
>
> >Yes, I would read it if it's not too long.
>
> That's a show-stopper.
>
> >What about the Plesiosaurs?
>
> Probably they're too long too.

What I mean is that they too were huge, and the selection factors
cannot have been the same as among dinosaurs.

[jillery]

An interesting point. Perhaps you should read the article.

[UC]

On May 18, 3:13�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:10:55 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It almost alone defeats their hypothesis. Surely the same cause cannot
have been operating among Plesiosaurs, who gave birth to live young,
it is believed.

[UC]

On May 18, 3:13 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:10:55 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosauria

[jillery]

What hypothesis are you referring to? The one in the article you
haven't read?

[UC]

The part that said that egg-laying had something to do with the size.

[UC]

and it seems that everything was big back then!

http://planetdinosaur.com/PrehistoricMarineReptiles.aspx

[UC]

and in this corner:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18641_7-terrifying-prehistoric-creatures-that-are-still-around.html

[jillery]

There is no such hypothesis that I know of.

[UC]

On May 18, 5:38 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:25:09 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It was in one of those second-hand accounts.

[UC]

On May 18, 5:38 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:25:09 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Duh:

First post!

http://io9.com/5903216/dinosaurs-were-doomed-because-laying-eggs-made-them-too-huge

[jillery]

Yet another stupid goal post shift.

[UC]

On May 19, 1:40 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:16:00 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What? It was part of the hypothesis!

[jillery]

But not Codron's hypothesis. If you read his abstract you would know
this.

[UC]

That's the problem, dammit! I don't know what his hypothesis IS!

[jillery]

No. That's your problem, not my problem. Let me know when you have
it figured out.

[UC]

Keep waiting.

[Burkhard]

On May 13, 6:05 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 12:31 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 06:38:31 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On May 13, 1:45 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 12 May 2012 21:25:22 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> > >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On May 11, 1:40 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:55:10 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> > >> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On May 11, 10:25 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:17:38 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >On Fri, 11 May 2012 06:51:11 -0700 (PDT), UC
> > >> >> >> ><uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >>On May 11, 1:08 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:52:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> > >> >> >> >>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >What is Codon's argument? I seem to be confused.
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Join the club. Do you understand what he actually wrote?
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >No.
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> Then how do you know you disagree with it?
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >> >I found the argument presented by the second-hand articles rubbish.
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >> That's what I said, but you insisted otherwise.
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >> > I
> > >> >> >> >>> >> >am not sure what the original theory is, so I cannot comment on it.
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >> Now that you know where to read Codron's actual argument, you have no
> > >> >> >> >>> >> good reason not to comment on what he actually wrote.
>
> > >> >> >> >>> >Except that I can't read it.
>
> > >> >> >> >>> I can.  Why can't you?
>
> > >> >> >> >>"This item requires a subscription to Biology Letters."
>
> > >> >> >> >I have no such subscription.  The website might not accurately reflect
> > >> >> >> >the policies of the publisher.
>
> > >> >> >> >http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/12/rsbl....
>
> > >> >> >> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/bpmz6um
>
> > >> >> >> This is very strange.  Sometimes I get the full text, and sometimes I
> > >> >> >> get the message you get.
>
> > >> >> >> Assuming this is a bug on the website, the abstract and the summary
> > >> >> >> you quoted from Matt Kaplan should be sufficient for your purposes.
>
> > >> >> >I am still not sure what the original argument is. Could someone
> > >> >> >please summarize it?
>
> > >> >> Which argument?  Codron's, mine, or your's?  If mine, it is that your
> > >> >> original cite doesn't explain things well, but it doesn't represent
> > >> >> Codron's argument.  If Codron's, the paragraph you quoteds is a
> > >> >> reasonable summary.  If your's, why don't you understand your own
> > >> >> argument?
>
> > >> >I don't know waht the original argument is. I have no access to it.
> > >> >the second-hand one is garbage.
>
> > >> That didn't stop you the first time you posted to this topic.  Or the
> > >> second.  Or third.  Why stop now?  You're on a roll!
>
> > >Well my story kept changing depending on which version one read. I
> > >would like to know what my original hypothesis is.
>
> > I fixed your post for greater accuracy.
>
> No, damn it! i STILL don't know the original hypothesis because I
> don't have access to the original document! What is it?
>
> The second-hand ones conflict with one another.

of for intercurses sake:

"Given the physiological limits to egg size, large-bodied non-avian
dinosaurs experienced some of the most extreme shifts in size during
postnatal ontogeny found in terrestrial vertebrate systems. In
contrast, mammals—the other dominant vertebrate group since the
Mesozoic—have less complex ontogenies. Here, we develop a model that
quantifies the impact of size-specific interspecies competition on
abundances of differently sized dinosaurs and mammals, taking into
account the extended niche breadth realized during ontogeny among
large oviparous species. Our model predicts low diversity at
intermediate size classes (between approx. 1 and 1000 kg), consistent
with observed diversity distributions of dinosaurs, and of Mesozoic
land vertebrates in general. It also provides a mechanism—based on an
understanding of different ecological and evolutionary constraints
across vertebrate groups—that explains how mammals and birds, but not
dinosaurs, were able to persist beyond the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T)
boundary, and how post-K–T mammals were able to diversify into larger
size categories. "

Daryl Codron et al.: Ontogenetic niche shifts in dinosaurs influenced
size, diversity and extinction in terrestrial vertebrates

sorry Jillery, I know you do your best to be educational, give a man a
fish and all that, and you are right of course, but this will never
stop otherwise...

[jillery]

Not my problem.

[jillery]

It's not your fault, and I share your frustration. Besides, that's
just the abstract, which I previously cited, and which UC several
times insisted wasn't good enough for him. We'll see if he continues
his stupid act.

[UC]

There is no hypothesis there! Damn it! It says merely what they
studied!

[UC]

On May 22, 10:34 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

It says nothing more than Anne Elk's theory!

http://youtu.be/cAYDiPizDIs

[Burkhard]

In the category: There was no cake, just a lot of sugar, milk, eggs,
flour, all put in the oven and sugar-coated when ready

[UC]

There is no hypothesis!

[UC]

On May 22, 5:36 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

"Given the physiological limits to egg size, large-bodied non-avian
dinosaurs experienced some of the most extreme shifts in size during
postnatal ontogeny found in terrestrial vertebrate systems."

(Statement of alleged fact)

"In contrast, mammals—the other dominant vertebrate group since the
Mesozoic—have less complex ontogenies."

(Statement of alleged fact)

"Here, we develop a model....

(What is it, Miss Elk?)

....that quantifies the impact of size-specific

interspecies competition on abundances of differently sized dinosaurs
and mammals, taking into account the extended niche breadth realized
during ontogeny among large oviparous species."

"Our model ....

(What is it, Miss Elk?)

predicts low diversity at intermediate size classes
(between approx. 1 and 1000 kg), consistent
with observed diversity distributions of dinosaurs, and of Mesozoic
land vertebrates in general."

(We know you have a theory, but what is it!)

"It also provides a mechanism—based on an
understanding of different ecological and evolutionary constraints
across vertebrate groups—that explains how mammals and birds, but not
dinosaurs, were able to persist beyond the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T)
boundary, and how post-K–T mammals were able to diversify into larger
size categories. "

Oh does it now?