Cold Blooded Dinosaurs
JTEM
Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
Sure, you could argue that the extended powered flight
thingy had to wait for some additional evolutionary
develpments, "Refinements," but if you accept that position
then you have to accept that endothermy could very well be
one of those refinements. An ectothermic animal isn't going
to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
for warm blood dinosaurs?
jensp...@hotmail.com
>An ectothermic animal isn't going
> to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
Pterosaurs were reptiles. Were they ectothermic?
> So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
> for warm blood dinosaurs?
They rate of carnivours to herbivours deduced from fossile finds I
guess?
J.O.
jensp...@hotmail.com
Also take a look at this.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/metabolism.html
J.O.
jensp...@hotmail.com
Also take a look at this.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/metabolism.html
J.O.
Klaus
Well, the fact that birds are warm blooded AND dinosaurs is one piece.
Then there are also other tips like rapid growth, body insulation, and
living in cold environments, at least for some dinosaurs.
I am not an expert; I am sure there is much more evidence.
Klaus
Bobby Bryant
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> writes:
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is the fact that
> birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular, but it goes
> something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds are
> endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
That may be wrong, but it isn't circular.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Psycho Dave
exothermic is not guesswork nor is it a matter of interpretation.
There are features in bones called "Haeversian canals". Haeversian
canals are small channels in the bones though which blood vessels
pass. Their presence indicates that the bones of a given fossil
specimen were warm-blooded.
Now sometimes, a specific fossil can have mineral deposits in it which
look like haeversian canals, or which are misinterpreted as such, but
for the most part, most of the time it's pretty obvious when you
examine a slice under a microscope.
Tha majority of dinosaurs were definitely cold blooded. It isn't until
the appearance of therapsids that we start seeing haeversian canals.
Many Therapsids are "reptile-like", but they have one or more features
found exclusively in mammals. Haeversian canals in their bones is one
such feature. The other features are differentialted dentition
(specialized teeth like molars, incisors, canine. Repriles only have
one type of tooth in their jaws), hair, and jaw bones made of a single
piece of bone.
Ron O
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
>
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
This isn't a circular argument. The evidence that we have is that
birds evolved from the dinosaur lineage and they are endothermic.
Some dino lineages related to birds had feather cover, and it might
have had something to do with retention of body heat. There is also
the fact that they can look at bone structure of dinos and it is more
like warm blooded animals than other reptiles in the vascular
structure. Look up the work of Horner.
Ron Okimoto
David Iain Greig
> Now sometimes, a specific fossil can have mineral deposits in it which
> look like haeversian canals, or which are misinterpreted as such, but
> for the most part, most of the time it's pretty obvious when you
> examine a slice under a microscope.
Seldom has there been more unstated penumbra around a paragraph then
looms about the one above. Oy.
--D.
CreateThis
>Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
You seem to want them to not be endothermic. Why?
CT
Greg G.
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
>
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
Some dinosaurs are birds.
Birds are endothermic.
Therefore, some dinosaurs are endothermic.
A poorly stated syllogism does not imply circularity.
>
> The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
No, it follows from its skeletal structure that Archaeopteryx was not
as efficient a flyer as a sparrow. The fact that Archaeopteryx had
insulation in the form of feathers implies that it was endothermic.
>
> Sure, you could argue that the extended powered flight
> thingy had to wait for some additional evolutionary
> develpments, "Refinements," but if you accept that position
> then you have to accept that endothermy could very well be
> one of those refinements. An ectothermic animal isn't going
> to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
Monarch butterflies?
>
> So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
> for warm blood dinosaurs?
Name an extant dinosaur that is not warm-blooded.
--
Greg G.
I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school
like I did.
--Yogi Berra
John Harshman
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
>
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
Well, it's certainly good evidence that *some* dinosaurs are endothermic.
> The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
Neither would a modern day crow, so you're not making your point well.
If you mean that Archaeopteryx probably couldn't fly as well as the
average modern bird, I would hope that's so or the tremendous
modifications to modern birds' bodies are pointless.
Now whether it could perform extended powered flight is another
question. I don't see a basis to rule it out. And it seems quite likely
that, say, Sinornis was a fairly decent flyer.
> Sure, you could argue that the extended powered flight
> thingy had to wait for some additional evolutionary
> develpments, "Refinements," but if you accept that position
> then you have to accept that endothermy could very well be
> one of those refinements. An ectothermic animal isn't going
> to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
This seems like a seriously backwards argument. Archaeopteryx couldn't
fly well. Ectotherms can't fly well. Therefore Archaeopteryx was an
ectotherm?
> So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
> for warm blood dinosaurs?
It's not circular. All the argument claims is that we know endothermy
evolved in some group of theropods. Now we have to try to figure out
where. I suggest that feathers are reasonable evidence of that point.
Sinosauropteryx has a body covering of protofeathers, and the most
obvious function for such a covering is insulation. Insulation implies
endothermy. So if endothermy evolved once in theropods, it seems to have
been around that node, making coelurosaurs either endothermic or having
secondarily lost endothermy. Not perfect evidence, but not bad either.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
>
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
In what sense is this a circular argument?
Birds are unquestionably endotherms. The question is: when did they
become endotherms? Is it a trait that they inherited from their
dinosaur ancestors? There is evidence to suggest that this might be the
case.
> The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
I thought that we were looking for signs of endothermy, not signs
of flight. Why would you think that flight is necesary for endothermy?
> Sure, you could argue that the extended powered flight
> thingy had to wait for some additional evolutionary
> develpments, "Refinements," but if you accept that position
> then you have to accept that endothermy could very well be
> one of those refinements. An ectothermic animal isn't going
> to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
You mean how bees and wasps can't fly, right?
> So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
> for warm blood dinosaurs?
You might try:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/endothermy.html
Mark
Psycho Dave
Hardly. I'm just being honest. Not all fossils are preserved in a
perfect, pristine state. Sometimes, they are badly damaged, and the
internal structure of the bone cannot be determined. Sometimes,
scientists make mistakes (usually due to inexperience or incomplete
information).
This is not an understatement, concealing a greater problem. You
presume (by saying that my admission above is an "unstated penumbra")
that most scientists, especially those dealing with fossils and
evolution, make gross mistakes or large leaps in conclusions, and that
I am trying to minimize this.
That is not the case at all. Determining whether a fossil is a mammal
or a reptile, warm blooded or cold blooded, reptile or bird, is
determined by specific features found in the fossils, and not through
guess-work or speculation. Mistakes are not FREQUENT. They are the
exception.
JTEM
jenspol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Pterosaurs were reptiles. Were they ectothermic?
Were they birds? Are you arguing that birds evolved
from them? Maybe dinosaurs evolved from them?
Seems you have to arguing one of those, or you
have no point....
jensp...@hotmail.com
Duuuh. Please note what quote from you that I was answering (you have
snipped it away).
Anyway I was not saying that pterosaurs were ectothermic. That
question is unsetteled just as is the case with dinosaurs.
Why don't you take a look at the the link I provided.
And why are you so hostile! Why is it so importaint to you whether
dinosaurs were ectothermic or not?
J.O.
WuzYoungOnceToo2
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
>
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
>
> The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
An African Sparrow, or a European Sparrow?
Lorentz
> to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
Flying insects are ectothermic. Most of them fly pretty far.
Monarch butterflies fly across continents.
Anyway, I thought that the arguement that some dinosaurs were
warm blooded is based on the traces of their bone marrow. I usually
hear it the other way around: evidence shows that they are warm
blooded, which when combined with other facts suggests that some
species of dinosaurs were warm blooded.
Greg G.
wrote:
I don't KNO0o..
--
Greg G.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a
policy, but nothing more.
--Albert Camus
JTEM
jenspol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Duuuh. Please note what quote from you that I was
> answering (you have snipped it away).
It's irrelevant. Regardless of what you want to argue
about Pterosaurs, it's pretty irrelevant.
> Anyway I was not saying that pterosaurs were
> ectothermic. That question is unsetteled just as
> is the case with dinosaurs.
I know. Everyone here knows.
> Why don't you take a look at the the link I provided.
I did. What about it?
> And why are you so hostile!
I'm not bad. I just type that way.
> Why is it so importaint to you whether
> dinosaurs were ectothermic or not?
What, never heard of curiosity? Besides, it's a great
subject for exploring assumptions. Don't kid yourself,
we all work off of assumptions...
JTEM
"Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> This isn't a circular argument. The evidence that we have
> is that birds evolved from the dinosaur lineage and they
> are endothermic.
Of course it's circular. One need only ask "What did dinosaurs
evolve from" to see this.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Now whether it could perform extended powered flight is
> another question. I don't see a basis to rule it out. And
> it seems quite likely that, say, Sinornis was a fairly
> decent flyer.
Well there's certainly a whole heck of evolutionary water
under THAT bridge.
As I pointed out, but I'll rephrase, if you assumed birds
evolved from dinosaurs you assume THEY EVOLVED!
THEY CHANGED!
So there's nothing the least bit inconsistant with saying
that endothermy was one of the evolutionary changes.
I guess that's why when you talk about dinosaurs &
warm v. cold blooded you've got to talk about dinosaurs.
> > Sure, you could argue that the extended powered flight
> > thingy had to wait for some additional evolutionary
> > develpments, "Refinements," but if you accept that position
> > then you have to accept that endothermy could very well be
> > one of those refinements. An ectothermic animal isn't going
> > to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
>
> This seems like a seriously backwards argument.
Ironically, it's not.
> Archaeopteryx couldn't fly well. Ectotherms can't fly well.
> Therefore Archaeopteryx was an ectotherm?
That's not what I said at all, but thanks for your normal pissing
match.
An animal whose metabolism won't allow it to remain
active for very long in under no evolutionary pressure to
develop body structures that would be necessary for
extended powered flight.
> > So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
> > for warm blood dinosaurs?
>
> It's not circular.
As I point out in another post -- and you would insist on
pretending you never saw -- we BEGIN with birds. None
of us were around during the mesozoic. You're using
your starting point as a rationalization for using your
starting point.
JTEM
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some dinosaurs are birds.
> Birds are endothermic.
> Therefore, some dinosaurs are endothermic.
>
> A poorly stated syllogism does not imply circularity.
It's presumptious because it goes beyond lineage. It's
circular because be BEGIN (not end) with birds -- we
are moving backwards, after all -- and using step-one
as the rantionalizing for returning to step-one.
> > The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> > damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> > birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> > certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
>
> No, it follows from its skeletal structure that Archaeopteryx
> was not as efficient a flyer as a sparrow. The fact that
> Archaeopteryx had insulation in the form of feathers implies
> that it was endothermic.
...or well camouflaged... or uses them for display...
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Now whether it could perform extended powered flight is
>>another question. I don't see a basis to rule it out. And
>>it seems quite likely that, say, Sinornis was a fairly
>>decent flyer.
>
>
> Well there's certainly a whole heck of evolutionary water
> under THAT bridge.
Sinornis is among the earliest birds, isn't it? Here's what you claimed
(and snipped), to which I responded as above: "The best argument against
this is the fact that it's pretty damn hard to indentify examples,
amongst the earliest birds, which could fly very well/for very long."
While this is true for Archaeopteryx, it's not true for several other of
the earliest birds. Unless you meant "earliest birds" to be synonymous
with "Archaeopteryx", which would be an odd thing to do. Do you see how
my point about Sinornis is a counter to the claim you made?
> As I pointed out, but I'll rephrase, if you assumed birds
> evolved from dinosaurs you assume THEY EVOLVED!
> THEY CHANGED!
>
> So there's nothing the least bit inconsistant with saying
> that endothermy was one of the evolutionary changes.
>
> I guess that's why when you talk about dinosaurs &
> warm v. cold blooded you've got to talk about dinosaurs.
If I can make any sense out of that rant (and it's not easy) I think you
mean to say that we are arguing about just where in dinosaur evolution
endothermy evolved. That should be obvious to anyone.
>>>Sure, you could argue that the extended powered flight
>>>thingy had to wait for some additional evolutionary
>>>develpments, "Refinements," but if you accept that position
>>>then you have to accept that endothermy could very well be
>>>one of those refinements. An ectothermic animal isn't going
>>>to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
>>
>>This seems like a seriously backwards argument.
>
>
> Ironically, it's not.
That remains to be seen.
>>Archaeopteryx couldn't fly well. Ectotherms can't fly well.
>>Therefore Archaeopteryx was an ectotherm?
>
>
> That's not what I said at all, but thanks for your normal pissing
> match.
>
> An animal whose metabolism won't allow it to remain
> active for very long in under no evolutionary pressure to
> develop body structures that would be necessary for
> extended powered flight.
Makes sense. But can you infer from lack of such structures that the
animal is ectothermic? No, not unless you think flying squirrels are
cold-blooded. So I don't see that you have a point. By looking at
Archaeopteryx's flight capability we can tell that it may or may not
have been endothermic. Whoopee.
>>>So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
>>>for warm blood dinosaurs?
>>
>>It's not circular.
>
> As I point out in another post -- and you would insist on
> pretending you never saw -- we BEGIN with birds. None
> of us were around during the mesozoic. You're using
> your starting point as a rationalization for using your
> starting point.
No, we do nothing of the sort. Birds are a data point that tell us
endothermy evolved some time in the lineage leading to birds. They don't
tell us when, and that's where we need other evidence. I note that you
snipped without comment the evidence I presented for a particular node
(Coelurosauria) as the relevant one. Why?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Sinornis is among the earliest birds, isn't it?
The dating isn't exactly universally excepted, but even so it
follows archaeopteryx by about 10 million years.
What did humans look like 10 million years ago? Been some
evolutionary changes, has there?
> Here's what you claimed
Amazing. You're as incapable of not starting pissing matches
as you are in admitting to it...
Greg G.
> "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Some dinosaurs are birds.
> > Birds are endothermic.
> > Therefore, some dinosaurs are endothermic.
>
> > A poorly stated syllogism does not imply circularity.
>
> It's presumptious because it goes beyond lineage. It's
> circular because be BEGIN (not end) with birds -- we
> are moving backwards, after all -- and using step-one
> as the rantionalizing for returning to step-one.
One example of an endothermic dinosaur shows that some dinosaurs were
endothermic. It does not imply that all dinosaurs are endothermic.
>
> > > The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> > > damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> > > birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> > > certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
>
> > No, it follows from its skeletal structure that Archaeopteryx
> > was not as efficient a flyer as a sparrow. The fact that
> > Archaeopteryx had insulation in the form of feathers implies
> > that it was endothermic.
>
> ...or well camouflaged... or uses them for display...
Or all of the above. To put it another way, feathers imply that they
were not exothermic. Feathers act as insulation. Insulation works both
ways. If a creature is getting heat from the environment, it needs to
do it efficiently. Having feathers prevents that. If they weren't
exothermic, then they were endothermic.
I like your curious mind. I throw up an idea or an observation
ocassionally and sometimes I get spanked. I learn from it which I
consider a profit.
--
Greg G.
There are three basic rules for having good teeth:
1. Brush them twice a day.
2. See your dentist twice a year.
3. Keep your nose out of other people's business.
Greg G.
Reptiles -->
cold-blooded dinosaurs -->
warm-blooded dinosaurs -->
birds
It's not circular. There is other evidence that there were warm-
blooded dinosaurs and there is other evidence that birds came from
them.
--
Greg G.
I always think twice before leaving my wife at home. I have to think
of a reason to leave the house, then think of a reason why she can't
come with me.
Bill Hudson
> On Feb 8, 8:06 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>>> Now sometimes, a specific fossil can have mineral deposits in it which
>>> look like haeversian canals, or which are misinterpreted as such, but
>>> for the most part, most of the time it's pretty obvious when you
>>> examine a slice under a microscope.
>> Seldom has there been more unstated penumbra around a paragraph then
>> looms about the one above. Oy.
>>
>> --D.
>
> Hardly. I'm just being honest.
OEM[1] is commenting on an incident that is well known incident to most
of the regulars here. It had to do with examining thin sections of some
samples looking for haversian canals (named after Clopton Havers[2], by
the way). This incident happened several years ago, and is now
considered as old as coal[3].
1) Our Esteemed Moderator
2) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversian_canals
3) A horse is a horse, of course, of course...
--
Bill Hudson - The Astrogeek
http://astrogeek.wordpress.com
JTEM
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reptiles -->
> cold-blooded dinosaurs -->
> warm-blooded dinosaurs -->
> birds
This is the conclusion, not the rationalization used
to reach the conclusion.
There is a difference.
I introduced the latter, while you are speaking of
the former.
JTEM
CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> You seem to want them to not be endothermic. Why?
You appear to be ignoring what I said in favor of
speculation centered my motives.
Why?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Bill Hudson" <oldgee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:eqguo...@news3.newsguy.com...
omigod! I've become a t.o. geek. I understood that!
Unless, of course, the horse, of course, is not the Mr. Ed I'm thinking of.
CreateThis
Do you mean you were serious with that idiocy? I naturally assumed
you were trolling - I mean, you can put sentences together...
CT
John Wilkins
A balonium halo?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
JTEM
CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> Do you mean you were serious with that idiocy?
The "I Wanna Marry Harshman" thread is that way--->
Ron O
Nope, you miss the boat again. We have other evidence that Dinos were
warm blooded. This coupled with the evidence that birds evolved from
Dinos is not a circular argument. If we had no evidence that dinos
were warm blooded there would be no reason to assume that birds might
have evolved from other warm blooded reptiles some guy proposing that
the bird lineage had to be warm blooded in order to have a high enough
metabolism to fly. What do you make of the inference that the common
ancestor of all extant birds was warm blooded because all extant birds
are warm blooded? What they are finding is that the lineages of dinos
that were thought to be more closely related to birds than others are
the ones that they are finding with feathers. Feathers are not only
ornimentation, but they are insulation. What does this indicate when
coupled with the bone vascularization studies? Inferences from this
evidence are not circular in the sense that you are proposing. If
this is circular any group of data that consistently lead to an
explanation would be considered to be circular. If that is your
definition then circular reasoning is about as good as you are ever
going to get.
Ron Okimoto
David Iain Greig
> David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
>> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>> > Now sometimes, a specific fossil can have mineral deposits in it which
>> > look like haeversian canals, or which are misinterpreted as such, but
>> > for the most part, most of the time it's pretty obvious when you
>> > examine a slice under a microscope.
>>
>> Seldom has there been more unstated penumbra around a paragraph then
>> looms about the one above. Oy.
>>
> A balonium halo?
Very droll, Bernard!
--D.
JTEM
"Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> Nope, you miss the boat again.
One of the oddities of usenet is that the people who
throw around statements like this are usually knee
deep in water themselves. In your case though, it's
about neck deep.
My comment was directed at one (what we'll call an)
"argument" in particular. Nothing you say contradicts
this. Unless, of course, you want to claim this "other
evidence" wouldn't amount to squat if our present day
birds were not endothermic.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Sinornis is among the earliest birds, isn't it?
>
>
> The dating isn't exactly universally excepted, but even so it
> follows archaeopteryx by about 10 million years.
>
> What did humans look like 10 million years ago? Been some
> evolutionary changes, has there?
So in fact when you say "the earliest birds" you mean Archaeopteryx and
nothing else. Is that right?
>> Here's what you claimed
>
>
> Amazing. You're as incapable of not starting pissing matches
> as you are in admitting to it...
I notice that you almost always remove all content from a post before
responding. I am trying to clarify what both of us are claiming. I
thought something you said was wrong, and said so. Now you seem to be
trying to remove all meaning from your original claim. And we are no
closer to knowing what node you think marks the transition from
ectothermy to endothermy, and why.
Walter Bushell
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Nope, you miss the boat again.
>
> One of the oddities of usenet is that the people who
> throw around statements like this are usually knee
> deep in water themselves. In your case though, it's
> about neck deep.
>
Old legal axiom: "When the evidence is on your side, pound the evidence;
when the law is on your side, pound the law; when neither is on your
side, pound the table."
> My comment was directed at one (what we'll call an)
> "argument" in particular. Nothing you say contradicts
> this. Unless, of course, you want to claim this "other
> evidence" wouldn't amount to squat if our present day
> birds were not endothermic.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
richardal...@googlemail.com
> >An ectothermic animal isn't going
> > to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
>
> Wrong, clearly.
> Flying insects are ectothermic. Most of them fly pretty far.
> Monarch butterflies fly across continents.
True, but they are tiny compared to birds. Scaling factors mean that
the energy required to fly increased exponentially in relation to
size. The heaviest modern birds which migrate great distances are
swans, the largest of which weight around 20 kilos. Albatrosses and
condors have a greater wing-span, but are lighter and rely on soaring
and gliding, which demand far less energy to cover great distances.
Quite what the case was in pterosaurs is a difficult question. Some of
them were very large indeed, with wingspans in excess of 10 meters.
There is even a moderately reliable but as yet unpublished report of a
specimen whose wing-span may have been as great as 25 meters. The
suggestion is that they were pure gliders, incapable of flapping
flight, but as the material from these enormous animals is very
fragmentary it's impossible at this stage to test the hypothesis
against morphology.
One factor which suggests that they were not endothermic is that there
is no evidence for parental care, and recent discoveries of pterosaur
eggs suggest that they were born with fully developed wings, and were
able to fly more or less as soon as they were hatched. Such behaviour
suggest breeding behaviour more akin to that of crocodiles than birds.
In birds the extended period of parental care helps the young to grow
to full adult size very quickly, and requires a very high metabolic
rate.
It's worth bearing in mind that the distinction between ectotherm and
endotherm is not as clear-cut as we tend to think. Many animals we
think of as cold-blooded control their body temperature through their
metabolism rather than relying on external heat sources. Some, but not
all marine turtles are effectively warm blooded, as are tuna. The
muscles in tuna which generate heat are darker than the rest, which
you can see when you eat a tuna steak. Other heat parts of their
bodies. Marlin and great white sharks have a very specialised
adaptation which heats up the brain.
There's an excellent book by Chris McGowan called "Dinosaurs,
Spitfires and Sea Dragons" in which he goes into this in detail.
RF
John Harshman
Except of course for those birds that display no parental care and whose
chicks can fly at birth. Look up megapodes. So lack of parental care
doesn't disqualify an organism from being endothermic. By the way,
crocodiles do display parental care.
> It's worth bearing in mind that the distinction between ectotherm and
> endotherm is not as clear-cut as we tend to think.
This is very important. Extinct animals may have had varieties of
endothermy or near-endothermy that we don't see today. And it's not
something that arises instantly either; there must be intermediate
conditions, at least transiently. Many have been suggested.
JTEM
Walter Bushell <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> Old legal axiom: "When the evidence is on your
> side, pound the evidence; when the law is on
> your side, pound the law; when neither is on
> your side, pound the table."
Side?
The consensus seems to be that there isn't "A"
side, that there's compelling evidence concerning
some evidence for endothermy in some dinosaurs,
and some compelling evidence against it in other
dinosaurs.
JTEM
> So in fact when you say "the earliest birds" you
> mean Archaeopteryx and nothing else. Is that right?
*Yawn*
I mean that you identified a species which had
CLEARLY undergone large evolutionary changes since
their split from terrestrial ancestors. So if you
can't positively identify endothermy in those
ancestors, you can't rule out that endothermy is
amongst those later evolutionary changes.
Seriously. This is pretty basic stuff. If you let go
of your addiction to creating pissing matches (and
then denying it), even you could understand this.
Give it a try... for once.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So in fact when you say "the earliest birds" you
>>mean Archaeopteryx and nothing else. Is that right?
>
>
> *Yawn*
>
> I mean that you identified a species which had
> CLEARLY undergone large evolutionary changes since
> their split from terrestrial ancestors. So if you
> can't positively identify endothermy in those
> ancestors, you can't rule out that endothermy is
> amongst those later evolutionary changes.
Clearly true, and never at issue. You should try saying what you mean
this clearly all the time. We'd have fewer arguments about (apparently)
nothing. I also can't imagine how you thought I disagreed with this
simple point.
So we are agreed that it isn't true that "The best argument against
this is the fact that it's pretty damn hard to indentify examples,
amongst the earliest birds, which could fly very well/for very long."
That only works if by "the earliest birds" you mean Archaeopteryx, and
nothing else.
> Seriously. This is pretty basic stuff. If you let go
> of your addiction to creating pissing matches (and
> then denying it), even you could understand this.
>
> Give it a try... for once.
And you should try acknowledging misstatements and moving on.
So, back to endothermy. Would you consider the protofeather body
covering of Sinosauropteryx to be evidence for endothermy? Why or why not?
JTEM
> Clearly true, and never at issue. You should try
> saying what you mean this clearly all the time.
Yeah, or it's my fault if people argue pure nonsense...
Ron O
I put a post in on this the other day, but it hasn't shown up.
You are a basket case. Just think about what you are claiming. The
inference that birds evolved from warm blooded dinos is not circular,
not in the way that you ment it. If you can't accept that, what is
your problem?
Do you admit that there is evidence for warm blooded dinos, that there
is evidence that birds evolved from dinos, and that there are dinos
thought most closely related to birds with feathers and other evidence
of endothermy?
This is just pathetic and you know it. Why would we have to posit
that birds are endothermic because they inherited the trait from their
ancestors if they were not endothermic? That last statement was so
bogus that I can't believe that you made it. If birds were not
endothermic we would have to explain why they lost the trait that
their apparent dino acestors had.
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
> You are a basket case.
Transference.
> Just think about what you are claiming.
Likewise, I'm sure...
> The inference that birds evolved from warm
> blooded dinos is not circular, not in the
> way that you ment it.
There's no sense going beyond this, as it is
so momumentally flawed.
Then again, when you can't even bother reading
what you're responding to, I can't be surprised.
Ron O
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
You are just digging yourself in deeper. You don't know jack about
the evidence for endothermy in dinosaurs. I mentioned looking up
Horner, but you obviously didn't do that. Before the bone
vascularization data in the 1980s paleontologist just had body size to
claim that dinos had to be warm blooded along with climate estimates.
It would take a lot to warm up a brachiosaur in the sun to get it
going in the morning. You also had dinos in colder climates. Even
before the continents drifted to their current positions we have dinos
in Antarctica and Alaska. These were not tropical climates even 65
million years ago.
>
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
Who reasons that way today. Just put up an example.
>
> The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>
> Sure, you could argue that the extended powered flight
> thingy had to wait for some additional evolutionary
> develpments, "Refinements," but if you accept that position
> then you have to accept that endothermy could very well be
> one of those refinements. An ectothermic animal isn't going
> to fly for very long, very far, now is it?
Like a keel, but why would Archaeopteryx be fully feathered if it
didn't need the insulation?
>
> So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
> for warm blood dinosaurs?
I've already told you a couple of posts back, but you ignored it.
Really just look up Horner and get a clue.
Ron Okimoto
jensp...@hotmail.com
> jenspol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Duuuh. Please note what quote from you that I was
> > answering (you have snipped it away).
>
> It's irrelevant. Regardless of what you want to argue
> about Pterosaurs, it's pretty irrelevant.
Your claim was (if I understand you correctly) that their were no
large ectothermic animals capable of sustained fligt. I just point
out, that this is an unsetteled question.
> > Anyway I was not saying that pterosaurs were
> > ectothermic. That question is unsetteled just as
> > is the case with dinosaurs.
>
> I know. Everyone here knows.
So, why did you post in the first place? I don't get it.
> > Why don't you take a look at the the link I provided.
>
> I did. What about it?
It lists all the arguments. I just thought you might want to know
them.
> > Why is it so importaint to you whether
> > dinosaurs were ectothermic or not?
>
> What, never heard of curiosity? Besides, it's a great
> subject for exploring assumptions.
You original post reads more like you are looking for someone to make
and argument that you can argue.
If it really was out out curiosity, then I don't understand why your
reponse to the link I provided was "What about it?"
J.O.
JTEM
> You are just digging yourself in deeper.
Do tell.
> You don't know jack about the evidence for
> endothermy in dinosaurs.
Oh, please, introduce this "jack."
> I mentioned looking up Horner, but you obviously
> didn't do that.
I thought you said you were looking at me and you
were horny. My mistake.
> Before the bone vascularization data in the 1980s
> paleontologist just had body size to claim that
> dinos had to be warm blooded along with climate
> estimates. It would take a lot to warm up a
> brachiosaur in the sun to get it going in the
> morning.
You've got it backwards. The enormous size suggests
that they were cold blooded. The last time I touched
on this (in a different thread) I brought up the
example of the modern Elephant. In the wild, they
eat for about 16 hours a day. They consume anywhere
up to half a ton a food in a day. And, yeah, dinosaur
mouths were NOT proportionally larger.
The evidence strongly implies that your Brachiosaur
was a gigantotherm -- an outdated but descriptive
term for a cold blooded animal whose body mass trapped
heat, and lent them a warm blooded lifestyle without
actually being warm blooded.
> You also had dinos in colder climates. Even
> before the continents drifted to their current
> positions we have dinos in Antarctica and Alaska.
And the climate was NOTHING as it is today. All the
Alaskan dinosaurs, for example, date within a
Cretaceous period of WARMING.
TODAY, right now, with the climate we've got, small
reptiles like snakes live in Canada. It wouldn't
take much of a warming to give snakes a foothold in
Alaska TODAY.
> > The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> > the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather
> > circular, but it goes something like this: Birds are
> > dinosaurs. Birds are endothermic. Dinosaurs are
> > endothermic.
>
> Who reasons that way today. Just put up an example.
Okay.
Message-ID: <8md0fr$6k0$1...@news.duke.edu>#1/1
> > The best argument against this is the fact that it's
> > pretty damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the
> > earliest birds, which could fly very well/for very
> > long. Archaeopteryx certainly couldn't keep up with
> > a modern day Sparrow.
>
> So what does this have to do with the price of tea
> in China?
I'll leave you to figure it out...
> Like a keel, but why would Archaeopteryx be fully
> feathered if it didn't need the insulation?
Evolution strictly follows your personal rules of
logic? Why didn't I get the memo?
> Really just look up Horner and get a clue.
Ad Verecundiam.
JTEM
> Your claim was (if I understand you correctly) that
> their were no large ectothermic animals capable of
> sustained fligt. I just point out, that this is an
> unsetteled question.
The question is, how is a cold blooded animal going to
remain active for so long?
> > > Anyway I was not saying that pterosaurs were
> > > ectothermic. That question is unsetteled just as
> > > is the case with dinosaurs.
>
> > I know. Everyone here knows.
>
> So, why did you post in the first place?
Why did you bring it up?
> I don't get it.
Exactly.
> > What, never heard of curiosity? Besides, it's a great
> > subject for exploring assumptions.
>
> You original post reads more like you are looking for
> someone to make and argument that you can argue.
It helps that most people here are in attack kitten mode,
ready to pounce on anything that moves.
> If it really was out out curiosity, then I don't
> understand why your reponse to the link I provided
> was "What about it?"
It's inconclusive -- to say the least -- and even rather
contradictory, attacking many of it's own arguments.
Ron O
You just have to demonstrate how monumentally flawed it is after
looking up Horner. Go for it.
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
> You just have to demonstrate how monumentally
> flawed it is after looking up Horner.
If you've got an argument to make, please make
it. You're telling that you don't, but that
someone else does and I should find them.
And the strangest thing of all is that this
somehow makes sense to you...
josephus
It seems to make sense to you. -- you understood it. what is your
problem with looking up Jack Horner. he did a lot of this work.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer and look at stars in the winter.
Everybody's ignorant-- just on different subjects.
---- Will Rogers jr.----
Ron O
I already summarized the evidence above, but you can probably find
what you want in:
John R. Horner, in Dinosaur Lives: Unearthing an Evolutionary Saga.
Harper Collins, 1997.
"Jack Horner, the renowned paleontologist, covers the hot topics of
the dinosaur world, including whether dinosaurs gave rise to modern
birds and whether dinosaurs were decimated by a gigantic meteorite 65
million years ago."
All I did was Google Horner and dinosaurs.
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
> > If you've got an argument to make, please make
> > it. You're telling that you don't, but that
> > someone else does and I should find them.
>
> > And the strangest thing of all is that this
> > somehow makes sense to you...
>
> It seems to make sense to you.
Continuing down this road, why don't you simply
imagine that I already did "look up" everything,
and that I did so while riding on the back of a
winged elephant?
JTEM
> I already summarized the evidence above,
You could call it "data," but not "Evidence."
After all, as I pointed out, the exact same
"data" (better) lends itself to the opposite
conclusion.
josephus
if it floats your boat. but it still means you are willfully ignorant.
you don t strike me as stupid, just willful and malicious
JTEM
> if it floats your boat. but it still means
> you are willfully ignorant. you don t strike
> me as stupid, just willful and malicious
Not that I don't appreciate people who just leap
into a middle of a thread & (f)Lame it up, but I
had already addressed his points.
If YOU go check things out yourself I believe
you'll find that he's either misunderstanding
Horner, misunderstanding me or misunderstanding
the both of us.
Anyhow, this is a discussion group. People who
have nothing to discuss should discuss nothing.
And, yeah, no matter how badly someone wants "Go
look up something!" to be considered a discussion,
it is not.
jensp...@hotmail.com
> jenspol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Your claim was (if I understand you correctly) that
> > their were no large ectothermic animals capable of
> > sustained fligt. I just point out, that this is an
> > unsetteled question.
>
> The question is, how is a cold blooded animal going to
> remain active for so long?
Who said that I could?
> > > > Anyway I was not saying that pterosaurs were
> > > > ectothermic. That question is unsetteled just as
> > > > is the case with dinosaurs.
>
> > > I know. Everyone here knows.
>
> > So, why did you post in the first place?
>
> Why did you bring it up?
To help you understand.
> > I don't get it.
>
> Exactly.
Well, since it your motvation I don't understand, then maybe you could
enlighten me?
> > If it really was out out curiosity, then I don't
> > understand why your reponse to the link I provided
> > was "What about it?"
>
> It's inconclusive -- to say the least -- and even rather
> contradictory, attacking many of it's own arguments.
Precisely. It's stating the current knowledge and understanding of the
question. Does it surprise you that it's possible to just look at the
evidence pro and con and conclude that we don't know, and that you
don't have to take sides like it was some kind of fight.
If it surprices you, then it would be interresting to know why?
J.O.
JTEM
> > It's inconclusive -- to say the least -- and
> > even rather contradictory, attacking many
> > of it's own arguments.
>
> Precisely. It's stating the current knowledge
> and understanding of the question. Does it
> surprise you that it's possible to just look
> at the evidence pro and con and conclude that
> we don't know, and that you don't have to take
> sides like it was some kind of fight.
>From some of the responses I've gotten here, yes.
> If it surprices you, then it would be
> interresting to know why?
Because so very many people live in a black &
white world. You pick a fight simply by daring
to ask a question!
Ron O
Creationists have this problem. I call it the "20 posts" when they
know that they are wrong, but they will keep on for 20 or more posts
until they are certified incompetents. It isn't pretty, and it isn't
the smart thing to do.
Demonstrate that you ever demonstrated anything of the kind. I
summarized the evidence and you never showed that it could mean the
oppoisite. Just put up the post.
Horner did a lot with a project that he had in the 1980s for nest
sites that he found. He showed that bone vascularization was more
like warm blooded animals than cold blooded, he showed that growth was
more rapid than cold blooded animals, and you also had the older
speculations about body size and whether dinos could be cold blooded
and be that size. So show where you demonstrated that this means
something else. I just had to Google to get you a reference, and you
can probably look up web ditties if you don't want to go to the
library.
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > I already summarized the evidence above,
>
> > You could call it "data," but not "Evidence."
> > After all, as I pointed out, the exact same
> > "data" (better) lends itself to the opposite
> > conclusion.
>
> Creationists have this problem.
Okay. So you have the same problem as creationist.
Admitting your problem is the first step towards
recovery.
Recover, already!
> I call it the "20 posts" when they know that they are
> wrong,
Gee, that really counters the way I pointed out that
the climate was NOT the same during the mesozoic.
And it utterly refutes the fact that reptiles -- snakes
for example -- presently live in Canada, and would
require only a small change in climate to move well into
Alaska.
And your confusion over producing one's own body heat
and retaining body heat was masterful!
Mind if I bask in your glow? I mean, at a safe distance
while you light yet another fart?
Thanks in advance.
Werewolfy
> if it floats your boat. but it still means you are willfully ignorant.
> you don t strike me as stupid, just willful and malicious
Please excuse my presence, I have followed this JTEM thing here. I
won't take up a great deal of your time.
JTEM is not in the slightest interested in Dinosaurs...or anything
else for that matter. What interests him is provoking people.
He has spent the last 10 years trolling Usernet and has recently taken
an especial delight in bothering me.
To make matters fair: as he enters the forum I use, so I enter those
he uses. In doing so, I hope to spread an awareness amongst regulars
as to exactly how annoying, persistant, foul mouthed and unpleasent
this JTEM animal is.
His idea of 'discussion' is to insult at every opportunity.
We all know that Daniel Min is mad. JTEM is worse. He is malicious
too.
Werewolfy
Ron O
So, do you admit that cold blooded animals do not do well in colder
climates or not? We are talking about large herds of dinos, possibly
migrating like birds buy over land instead of flying. Some of them
like the ones stuck on Antarctica didn't have much of an option.
What about the other evidence? What do you have to counter that
vascularization patterns and growth rates are more like warm blooded
animals than cold? What about feathers? You are the one that is
skirting the issues. If you can't see that you are pretty lost. You
admit that you didn't know what the data was. That is OK, but when
someone tells you the data and where to go to look it up, maybe you
should before you determine that it isn't good enough.
20 posts might be relevant to you unless you give up before you hit
that number.
Go for it. I'd expect someone on the ball to realize that they come
up short after just one or two, but just look at McClueless or Ray as
your shining examples.
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
> What about the other evidence?
*Yawn*
What does "Transitional" mean to you?
Endothermy leaps into existence with that
first shared characteristic? Does it wait
for the second? What?
And when did feathers first develop? How?
Are you arguing for endothermy reaching into
the Triassic or earlier? What?
Take all your "Evidence," plot it on a timeline
and you'll find that endothermy would have to
be rooted a very, *Very* long time ago.
It pre-existed itself in dinosaurs!
Maybe, just maybe, as other people have pointed
out, we really don't know.
Ron O
Maybe you should go up the thread and see what your original argument
was. This is just ridiculous. Remember, it had something to do with
a circular argument, that isn't circular.
7 posts and counting.
Ron Okimoto
Ken Shackleton
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
>
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
The logic as you present it is not circular, it's just wrong...and a
strawman.
The logic can be made perfectly sound by properly wording the premises
and qualifying the conclusion:
1. *All* birds are endothermic
2. *Some* dinosaurs are birds
3. Therefore....*some* dinosaurs are endothermic
There is nothing wrong with the logic if it is clearly and properly
presented....argue all you like about the correctness of the premises,
but there is nothing circular about the logic.
Ken
JTEM
> Maybe you should go up the thread and see what
> your original argument was.
Um, okay. I looked. I don't see how you can
pretend that it's the least bit inconsistant
with my later suggesting that maybe (just
maybe) we really don't know.
> This is just ridiculous.
I'll say....
> Remember, it had something to do with
> a circular argument, that isn't circular.
....only it is.
JTEM
"Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> The logic as you present it is not circular,
> it's just wrong...and a strawman.
Wow. I never imaged such sloppy thinking...
Ron O
We're already winding down. Not even completing sentences. Not even
trying to make an argument.
Just demonstrate that it is a circular argument. You forgot to do
that in any of your posts. Remember to take into consideration the
dino data when you do it.
8 post and counting.
Ron Okimoto
Ken Shackleton
You are plain wrong, it's no simpler than that.
Here is your original logic; which I am sure that you know is wrong,
and simply a strawman that you have constructed:
Birds are dinosaurs.
Birds are endothermic.
Dinosaurs are endothermic.
Let's try your original logic using more familiar creatures and
attributes:
Trout are fish.
Trout live in fresh water.
Fish live in fresh water.
Do you see how this is simply wrong rather than circular.
Can you "image" that?
Ken
josephus
JTEM
> > Wow. I never imaged such sloppy thinking...
>
> it sounds like you [...]
I'm not dealing with the way anything sounds. I'm
spelling it out like it is. I was handed a whole
heaping portion of sloppy thinking from someone
who has demonstrated their inability to understand
why... even when it's explained to them.
JTEM
"Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> We're already winding down.
Please. An entire bottle of Viagra couldn't have got you
"Up" in the first place. You originally replied to me
because you wanteda fight. Amazing, but everything
you read fed into your desire, whether it existed or not.
You're acting like Harshman. I didn't spell out a
conclusion, so you insist that's a license to attack
whatever conclusion you think you've got the best
argument against...
Ron O
Insults are so scientific and really make you sound like you really
have an argument.
9 posts and counting. Anyone want to take bets that we will get to 20
posts without this guy admitting that he made a simple mistake? Maybe
he really doesn't understand what circular reasoning is?
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
> Insults are so scientific and really make you sound
> like you really have an argument.
What do you want me to argue?
> 9 posts and counting.
Two more and you'll have to take off your shoes...
> Anyone want to take bets that we will get to 20
> posts without this guy admitting that he made a
> simple mistake?
Oh, is that it! You're too stupid to see your own
mistake, AND you believe you're some kind of
"Truth Police." Well, you're certainly in the right
newsgroup...
Ron O
10 posts and counting. If you don't know what to argue why are you
still arguing? Just read the first couple of posts and your first
misguided response. That could give you a clue, but I doubt that you
need one by this time. Of course there is always the chance.
Ron Okimoto
Ken Shackleton
The thing is....you rarely explain anything that you say. You make
assertions that are poorly worded, often ambiguous, and wrong. You
snip replies to change context, and then claim that the person you are
replying to said something that they did not.
When challenged by well-intentioned respondants, you fall back on
insult in an attempt to hide the fact that you cannot support your
orginal claims.
So....how exactly is your original post an example of circular
reasoning? I don't see how the premise of "Birds are dinosaurs"
suggests or assumes the validity of "Dinosaurs are endothermic".
Ken
JTEM
> The thing is....you rarely explain anything
> that you say.
How does the saying go? "Give a man a fish and
you've fed him for a day. Teach him how to
fish and you've fed him for life."
You got your fishing lesson, baby, yet you're
still casting your line away from the water.
JTEM
> 10 posts and counting.
So it's a good thing you're not posting in this
thread, or you'd look like a frigging hypocrite.
Ron O
11 posts and counting, although this comment looks like it is coming
out of left field. You can explain it once you get around to
demonstrating what you claimed in the post that started this whole
thing. You know, the one where you claimed that I was wrong about the
circular argument?
My guess is that you are just running out of excuses and stupid things
to say. Could be less than 20 posts. You have to look up Ray and
McNamless to find out how real experts make themselves look like
morons.
Ron Okimoto
Ken Shackleton
Nice.....true to form, you still have not explained how the original
post is circular reasoning; and I am casting my line in a different
pond. I am not interested in arguing the evidence of dinosaur
endothermy with you....I simply want you to show how the logic as you
have presented it is circular rather than just another one of your
strawmen.
Ken
Desertphile
You made a simple mistake; now you act like a precocious brat to
divert attention from the simple mistake. What does that say of
your emotional maturity?
--
"Nope! Nope! No pictures, no X-rays. I got things in there I
don't want seen. Dark thoughts and evil plans." --- Kolchak
JTEM
> You made a simple mistake;
Not at all.
Dude, what the hell did you think a circular
argument was?
JTEM
"Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> 11 posts and counting,
Like I said, it's a real good thing that you're
not posting in this thread or you'd look like
a goddamn idiot...
Oops.
JTEM
> Nice.....true to form, you still have not
> explained how the original post is circular
> reasoning;
Give me a break, guy. It's not like you can grasp
even simple, obvious concepts.
Why don't we start with what you mistakenly believe
a circular argument to be.
That would be step-1.
Ken Shackleton
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
> Well, okay, not really. At least not any strong evidence.
I may be casting pearls to swine....but here goes....
JTEM, you ask, and answer the question about the evidence concerning
dinosaur endothermy. Your *conclusion* is that no strong evidence
exists to support the hypothesis that dinosaurs were endothermic.
Now....it has been my experience that your posts are often vague; you
then pounce on respondents who you feel have missed your point.
However, even the question above is vague...when you use the word
"dinosaurs", what are you referring to?
1. All dinosaurs that have ever existed?
2. Some subset of dinosaurs, extinct or living?
3. Extant dinosaurs, known commonly as birds.
I am fairly certain that you are not talking about the third category,
but it's a toss-up between the first two...so, which is it? Are you
referring to all dinosaurs that have ever existed, or a subset?
If you are saying that no strong evidence exists to support endothermy
in all dinosaurs that have ever existed; then I am reasonably certain
that most would agree with you....and your post is simply the act of a
troll. However, if you are referring to a subset of dinosaurs....then
be specific as to which you mean.
In the second sentence, where you answer your own question, you
conclude no strong evidence exists. So, do you accept that some
evidence exists...however weak? What would be strong evidence in your
opinion?
Then there is the question of what you might mean by endothermy. Are
you talking about the highly regulated systems employed by extant
mammals and birds? Would the sort of limited endothermy employed by
such creatures as the Great White shark count in your opinion?
I do assume, at my peril, that you are only talking about the highly
regulated endothermy that we see today in extant mammals and birds.
>
> The best argument -- or what passes for evidence -- is
> the fact that birds are endothermic. It's all rather circular,
> but it goes something like this: Birds are dinosaurs. Birds
> are endothermic. Dinosaurs are endothermic.
As I [and others] have already told you, this is not circular logic.
It's simply a straw-man. Real circular reasoning goes something like
this:
God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it
is the Word of God.
Your straw-man is better presented as follows:
1. All birds are endothermic
2. Some dinosaurs are birds
3. Therefore, some dinosaurs are endothermic
I am reasonably certain that you would accept the first premise as
true. The second premise is supported by lines of evidence that place
Aves [in which all extant birds are placed] firmly within the Dinosaur
clade. If you accept that the premises are true, then the conclusion
is also true; but what does this mean? It means that the most recent
common ancestor of all extant birds [an avian dinosaur] was
endothermic.
Now....were there other dinosaurs, non-avian dinosaurs, that were
endothermic? That's another question entirely. Perhaps this is the
question that is really on your mind?
>
> The best argument against this is the fact that it's pretty
> damn hard to indentify examples, amongst the earliest
> birds, which could fly very well/for very long. Archaeopteryx
> certainly couldn't keep up with a modern day Sparrow.
How, exactly, is this any kind of argument against endothermy in birds
[or dinosaurs]? There are quite a number of large, active, endothermic
creatures living today that have no flight capability at all. The idea
that some early birds [or their dinosaur ancestors] may not have flown
very well does not speak at all to their endothermic status. If this
is the "best argument against" then you have no argument at all.
<drivel snipped>
> So, ignoring the circular bird argument, what's the evidence
> for warm blood dinosaurs?
Others have posted some excellent links that you should probably read.
It seems to me that there are several strong lines of evidence that at
least some dinosaurs were endothermic.
Here are a few links that examine the question...if others have posted
these already, I apologize:
http://home13.inet.tele.dk/palm/warmweb.htm
Ken Shackleton
I answered it in my last post.....here it is again:
"God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because
it
is the Word of God."
See how each premise is also a conclusion that is supported by the
other? Also, neither premise can stand independant of the
other....that's circular.
Ken
Ken Shackleton
I know that it's bad form to answer your own post....but I need to add
one thing for your consideration JTEM.
Please note that the positions taken in the circular argument are not
necessarily wrong.....God may exist, the Bible may be His Word;
however, using A to argue B is not a valid argument if the truth of A
depends on the veracity of B.
The difference in the other argument is that the premises stand or
fail on their own merits, and neither premise requires that the
conclusion be true. The conclusion flows from the premises.
Ken
Ron O
Still no cogent response indicating that you know what you are talking
about, and just the usual kind of response that indicates that you
never knew what you were talking about in the first place.
12 posts and counting. Maybe you will get to 20.
What does that indicate about your level of discourse? All that you
have to do is make good on your assertion, or admit that you can't.
Who is the "goddamn idiot?" What is the "20 post" comment supposed to
indicate about a poster like yourself? You could just stop responding
like most post and run posters and leave some doubt about your
competence, but you insist on joining the ranks of guys like Mc
Nameless and Ray.
Pretty sad, don't you think?
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
> I may be casting pearls to swine....
Boomerng pearls?
> but here goes....
Not unlike the budget surplus under Bush...
> JTEM, you ask, and answer the question about the
> evidence concerning dinosaur endothermy. Your
> *conclusion* is that no strong evidence exists
> to support the hypothesis that dinosaurs were
> endothermic.
Wow. Only a few sentences into a very long reply,
and already you've stumbled.
I'll bring you up to speed.
I mention a very specific argument and pointed out
that it was circular. You mistakenly disagreed. We
went back & forth a bit, and then I challenged you
to explain what it was exactly you were thinking a
circular argument is.
THAT is what you were dispute, THAT is what we
argued over, and THAT is what I attempted to
clear up... even though I knew (from experience)
that I was wasting my time.
JTEM
> "God exists because the Bible says so,
Birds are assumed to have evolved from dinosaurs.
It is NOT a fact. You could call it a widely
accepted (though not entirely undisputed) conclusion,
yes, but you can't call it a fact.
> and the Bible is true because it
> is the Word of God."
So your proof is your starting point... "God."
And we start with birds, now don't we?
> See how each premise is also a conclusion that
> is supported by the other?
Overly simplistic. A better example would be the
often "newly discovered" city of Sodom. We know
the city has to be sodom because the bible says
there's a city called sodom, and the fact that
the city is Sodom proves that the bible is accurate.
Oh. There really is a bible and there really are
archaeological finds. Sort of like how there's
really endothermy, birds & there really were
dinosaurs.
But endothermy doesn't prove endothermy. There's
nothing logical to the notion that an animal
can't be endothermic unless it's ancestors were
as well. Just the opposite. Logically that would
require that no animal today could be endothermic.
HTH.
JTEM
> Still no cogent response indicating that
> you know what you are talking about,
Don't worry, parakeet. You'll never wear
out that mirror.
Besides, I for one feel your incredibly lame
counting posts will never get old... not to
mention it's the most unique (f)Lame I've
ever seen....
"Agree with me or I'll keep counting!"
What's next, holding your breath 'til you
turn blue?
Kent Paul Dolan
> Is there any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic?
Lots.
One interesting one was on TV a couple of days ago.
"Sue", the largest T. Rex fossile ever found, grew
to her massive size in less than 40 years, since
she died younger than that [it has finally become
possible to determine the age at death of individual
T. Rex's, scientists found bones where counting
growth rings works, which it doesn't for leg bones,
it turned out].
Cold blooded animals don't grow nearly that fast.
A "biggest" crocodile, for example, is much smaller
than Sue, but can be over a century old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile
Whale sharks, the largest fishes, grow to their
immense size in lifespans also estimated at up to a
century.
There's one, of many, pieces of evidence, though you
don't seem particularly interested in mere "evidence"
based on the rest of your postings in this thread.
FWIW
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> A balonium halo?
Hmmm, while it is well known that balonium fuels
creationist arguments in favor of spooky "zap into
existence without leaving a trace of evidence"
action at a distance by deities, and fuels IDiot
arguments in favor of designers that are omniscient
but fail by factors of 1000s to match human design
accomplishments, I was under the impression that
balonium always collapsed under its own weight of
illogical improbability.
Wouldn't a balonium halo, therefore, be an unstable
configuration?
FWIW
xanthian.
Still, one could only hope that their false aura of
inerrancy would fall around the throats of balonium
halo equipped creationists before constricting to
strangle them each and every one.
[Now that the Dover court has officially
held that IDiots are still just the same
tired old Creationists whose
misrepresentations of reality were excluded
by law from public educational venues, are
we obliged to distinguish the two kinds of
science illiterates any more, or does
"creationists" suffice for both?]
JTEM
> "Sue", the largest T. Rex fossile ever found, grew
> to her massive size in less than 40 years, since
> she died younger than that [it has finally become
> possible to determine the age at death of individual
> T. Rex's, scientists found bones where counting
> growth rings works, which it doesn't for leg bones,
> it turned out].
>
> Cold blooded animals don't grow nearly that fast.
Maybe, but it's not as black & white as you're making
it out to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus
Oh. What you should take from that link:
Crocodile -- Reptile -- ectothermic
Huge -- 8 metric tons -- maximum life expectancy of
50 to 60 years.
Crocodiles reach adult size in about 10 years. Their
growth slows after that.
Growth curve:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/nimages/croc/grphc144.gif
Dinosaurs -- like your Sue -- appear to display the
distinctly reptilian/cold blooded trait of growing their
entire lives.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Crocodile -- Reptile -- ectothermic
> Huge -- 8 metric tons -- maximum life expectancy
> of 50 to 60 years.
Except that the page I referenced identified living
crocodiles up to 130 years old, double your claim.
> Crocodiles reach adult size in about 10 years.
> Their growth slows after that.
> Growth curve:
> http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/nimages/croc/grphc144.gif
Do you often find success here with use of lying and
misdirection to make your point? You've posted a
size for one crocodile, and a growth curve for quite
a different one.
That graph is for a "crocodile" whose adult length
is shorter by a hand-span than my height of 187 cm.
The crocodile that weighs 8 metric tons is going to
be more like 800 cm long.
Also, "adult size" is size at reproductive age, not
full size for a creature that continues to grow
throughout its life, more misdirection by you.
You don't seem to demonstrate much shame for your
misbehavior here, so doubtless this detection of
more lying by you will slide right off your back
without improving your future actions.
Creationists are like that, which is why the list of
the 0.15% of working geologists and biologists who
support creationism is also very likely the
identical list of the least respected members of
those two trades.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html
xanthian.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>"Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> "God exists because the Bible says so,
>
>Birds are assumed to have evolved from dinosaurs.
>It is NOT a fact. You could call it a widely
>accepted (though not entirely undisputed) conclusion,
>yes, but you can't call it a fact.
There is no better theory on the table.
--
Bob.
Ron O
It won't get old until guys like you stop acting like morons. Isn't
that the point? The issue stopped being whether you agree with me or
not, just how long you will behave in a fashion that leaves no doubt
about your credibility.
Number 13 and still no, response worth mentioning.
If you look back through the posts, all that I have done is state the
facts and the flaming seems to be sort of one sided.
I do state facts like you acting like a moron, but those are just
facts that anyone can determine for themselves. You obviously aren't
acting like a sensible person.
Just think about what counting the posts really indicates about you.
It isn't that you disagree with me it is how you deal with reality.
It might hit you out of the blue, but if lightning was going to strike
it probably would have already.
Ron Okimoto