Are we sure?

[UC]

That all the trilobites are extinct?

[John Harshman]

UC wrote:
> That all the trilobites are extinct?
>

Well, I am. Are you?

[raven1]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>That all the trilobites are extinct?

I'm sure that they're the Best Fossils.

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>That all the trilobites are extinct?

Is this an attempt at a koan -- how can we be "sure" of anything?

If it is serious, then you should simply do a little research.
Trilobites of a wide variety of types were commonly seen in fossil
records up to the end of the Permain, about 250 million years ago. At
that time perhaps 90% of all species were eliminated. Given that they
haven't been seen since it is as sure as anything can be that they
will not somehow turn up again.

[UC]

On Jan 30, 11:08 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>

Well you know those people in India hide stuff!

[UC]

On Jan 30, 11:08 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>

That must have one hell of a week!

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>That all the trilobites are extinct?

No. Your point?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> That all the trilobites are extinct?

A Creationist on YouTube told me he saw live trilobites swimming
around the rocks at San Diego Harbor. I told him he should catch
one and sell it for a few million dollars at auction, since there
must be dozens of science institutes that would pay an astonishing
sum for a live trilobite.

Yet for some reason, he refused to do so. Weird.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[UC]

On Jan 30, 1:41 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That all the trilobites are extinct?
>
> A Creationist on YouTube told me he saw live trilobites swimming
> around the rocks at San Diego Harbor. I told him he should catch
> one and sell it for a few million dollars at auction, since there
> must be dozens of science institutes that would pay an astonishing
> sum for a live trilobite.
>
> Yet for some reason, he refused to do so. Weird.
>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

Oh, it's easy to mistake Mexicans for trilobites. Happens all the time.

[UC]

On Jan 30, 1:41 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That all the trilobites are extinct?
>
> A Creationist on YouTube told me he saw live trilobites swimming
> around the rocks at San Diego Harbor. I told him he should catch
> one and sell it for a few million dollars at auction, since there
> must be dozens of science institutes that would pay an astonishing
> sum for a live trilobite.
>
> Yet for some reason, he refused to do so. Weird.
>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

Is it true that horse-shoe crabs are the closest living group? Did
they exist long before the Permian extinction, and if so, why were
they spared if the trilobites were not spared?

[UC]

I found something:

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/horseshoecrab/History/pastpresent.html

[Boikat]

On Jan 30, 9:12 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That all the trilobites are extinct?

As sure as can be known from the fossil record. IMPO, there is always
a small chance that there may be a species of trilobite living then
the deep sea, given that only an exceedingly small percentage of the
ocean floor has been explored, much less sampled for "muck dwellers".

Boikat

[Boikat]

On Jan 30, 12:41 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That all the trilobites are extinct?
>
> A Creationist on YouTube told me he saw live trilobites swimming
> around the rocks at San Diego Harbor. I told him he should catch
> one and sell it for a few million dollars at auction, since there
> must be dozens of science institutes that would pay an astonishing
> sum for a live trilobite.

He probably saw some isopods. I could find hundreds of them in
Pensacola just by flipping over some of the rocks near what was called
"the fishing bridge", which was the old bridge between Pensacola and
Gulf Breeze.

>
> Yet for some reason, he refused to do so. Weird.

Probably the same reason Ray-Ray refuses to post his refutiation of
the ToE.

Boikat

[John Harshman]

You can find something easily. But does it have anything at all to do
with your original question? (Hint: no.)

[Paul J Gans]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>>That all the trilobites are extinct?

>No. Your point?

His point is the same as it always was. To jerk folks here around
as much as possible.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Frank J]

On Jan 30, 1:41 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That all the trilobites are extinct?
>
> A Creationist on YouTube told me he saw live trilobites swimming
> around the rocks at San Diego Harbor. I told him he should catch
> one and sell it for a few million dollars at auction, since there
> must be dozens of science institutes that would pay an astonishing
> sum for a live trilobite.
>
> Yet for some reason, he refused to do so. Weird.

That's such an expected reaction that I'd consider it weird if they
did anything *but* that.

You did ask the "creationist" which "kind" (OE(OL)C, OE(YL)C,
helioYEC, geoYEC, "don't ask, don't tell" IDer, etc.) he was, I hope.

>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

[Kalkidas]

On 1/30/2012 8:12 AM, UC wrote:
> That all the trilobites are extinct?

They're with us in spirit.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Jan 30, 6:59 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:41 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>
> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > That all the trilobites are extinct?
>
> > A Creationist on YouTube told me he saw live trilobites swimming
> > around the rocks at San Diego Harbor. I told him he should catch
> > one and sell it for a few million dollars at auction, since there
> > must be dozens of science institutes that would pay an astonishing
> > sum for a live trilobite.
>
> > Yet for some reason, he refused to do so. Weird.
>

> Is it true that horse-shoe crabs are the closest living group? Did
> they exist long before the Permian extinction, and if so, why were
> they spared if the trilobites were not spared?

"Spared"? You make it sound like someone mercifully decided not to
kill them.

In case you're thinking about floods, trilobites lived in the water.

If horse-shoe crabs were around back then, and survived, I'll guess
that they survived because they weren't trilobites, although I'm not
sure how that helped. I'll let someone else comment on how long there
were trilobites before they died.

[David Hare-Scott]

They have them in Tasmania, the thylacines eat them at low tide if the wind
is in the east and they cannot catch moas.

D

[Boikat]

On Jan 30, 9:12 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> That all the trilobites are extinct?

I forgot to add:

According to (M)adman, they turned into mice.

Boikat

[wiki trix]

On Jan 30, 7:12 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That all the trilobites are extinct?

About as sure as I was about coelacanths... Doh!

[Paul J Gans]

Pickled?

[John S. Wilkins]

Which they can't, moas being in New Zealand and both being extinct, like
the trilobites... oh, I see.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kerdl8.1cb2ja316pawprN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> David Hare-Scott <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
> > > <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> That all the trilobites are extinct?
> > >
> > > Is this an attempt at a koan -- how can we be "sure" of anything?
> > >
> > > If it is serious, then you should simply do a little research.
> > > Trilobites of a wide variety of types were commonly seen in fossil
> > > records up to the end of the Permain, about 250 million years ago. At
> > > that time perhaps 90% of all species were eliminated. Given that they
> > > haven't been seen since it is as sure as anything can be that they
> > > will not somehow turn up again.
> >
> > They have them in Tasmania, the thylacines eat them at low tide if the wind
> > is in the east and they cannot catch moas.
>
> Which they can't, moas being in New Zealand and both being extinct, like
> the trilobites... oh, I see.

The population is saved by donations from Girl Scouts who provide the
thylacines with some moas.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Richard Harter]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>That all the trilobites are extinct?
>

They aren't. Here is the info I posted a while back in my article,
"How I Knew Trilobites Were Brighter Than Sheep".

Well, now, that's a long story. A while back I was in Central Africa
on a sauropod hunting expedition. We didn't exactly find any sauropods
but we did find some men which sort of proves that men and dinosaurs
lived together at the same time except that dinosaurs are shyer than
men.

Anyway we were canoeing this little stream, following a sauropod. We
knew we were on its trail because it had just taken a dump. Sauropods
being the big eaters that they are the steam was, ah, contaminated. We
had just turned a bend when something grabbed our oar and pulled it
away from us. So there we were in the middle of the jungle and, so to
speak, up shit creek without a paddle.

Being the scientific sorts that we were we decided to find out what it
was that had grabbed our paddle. It might have been crocs but these
weren't croc waters. So I pulled out a lobster pot (I always carry a
lobster pot when I make field trips - you never know when you might
need one) and put it in the stream. Sure enough I caught something in
the pot.

I pulled it in and what did I see - a trilobite. Now as you know
trilobites used to be salt water creatures. Evidently they had evolved
into fresh water creatures. This explains why nobody has found recent
trilobite fossils. They've been looking in the wrong sediments.

Anyway we pulled half a dozen of the critters. I decided to give them
the standard animal comparative intelligence test. (I always carried
my animal IQ kit with me when I went on field trips - you never know
but what you might find a new animal and want to know how smart it
is.) So I ran them through the battery of tests and sure enough,
trilobites are smarter than sheep.

I let them go, of course. It was the only ethical thing to do. After
all they are an endangered species.

So that's how I knew. You wouldn't be doubting my word on this, would
you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:35:43 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

Could be, although it seems that every attempt involves
revealing his ignorance about science and, despite his
protests, language. I suspect this one is no different, but
only time will tell.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:45:21 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <1kerdl8.1cb2ja316pawprN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>> David Hare-Scott <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Richard Norman wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>> > > <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> That all the trilobites are extinct?
>> > >
>> > > Is this an attempt at a koan -- how can we be "sure" of anything?
>> > >
>> > > If it is serious, then you should simply do a little research.
>> > > Trilobites of a wide variety of types were commonly seen in fossil
>> > > records up to the end of the Permain, about 250 million years ago. At
>> > > that time perhaps 90% of all species were eliminated. Given that they
>> > > haven't been seen since it is as sure as anything can be that they
>> > > will not somehow turn up again.
>> >
>> > They have them in Tasmania, the thylacines eat them at low tide if the wind
>> > is in the east and they cannot catch moas.
>>
>> Which they can't, moas being in New Zealand and both being extinct, like
>> the trilobites... oh, I see.
>
>The population is saved by donations from Girl Scouts who provide the
>thylacines with some moas.

Ah, the Tiny Trilobite question...

"Sir, may I please have some moa?"

[Paul J Gans]

Absolutely not. It has that certain ring to it.

[Burkhard]

On Jan 31, 4:12 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
>

Sir, I put it to you that you are a shameless liar! A known gourmand
like yourself would never have resisted the temptation of trilobite
creole - so stuff that story about releasing them again. Battery of
tests? Trilobites in batter more likely.

http://www.recipesource.com/misc/weird/trilobite-creole1.html

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<6a55799a-3d86-4276...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> http://www.recipesource.com/misc/weird/trilobite-creole1.html

I prefer to substitute butter for the vegetable oil.

What kind of vegetable? Can't find broccoli oil, or turnip oil or carrot
oil or anything oil from anything that's a vegetable. Perhaps olive oil?

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:13:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

You are obviously wrong. Trilobites are parasitic to Polynesians.
What the trilobites are actually saying is "Sir, may I please have
Samoans?

[Richard Harter]

I have but two things to say to you, sir. The first is that my
veracity is not to be questioned. The second is, much better than
shrimp.

[jillery]

The problem isn't with your word. Clearly nobody can prove you
experience false. Just as clearly, your logic is flawed. In
actuality, you proved trilobites are dumber than sheep, your tests
notwithstanding. After all, when was the last time you caught a sheep
in your lobster pot? Huh? HUH??

[Walter Bushell]

In article <068gi7hlvkhtj2cst...@4ax.com>,

With a twist like that someone will beat the Dickens out of you.

[Roger Shrubber]

But what color was the canoe?

[Richard Harter]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:34:02 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Last Saturday. Why do you ask?

[Richard Harter]

Before or after?

[jillery]

I know for a fact the Universe was made yesterday. So there!

[chris thompson]

On Jan 31, 6:55 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:34:02 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

So on your first try, you catch a half-dozen trilobites. And last
Saturday, after years of effort, you finally catch ONE sheep.

Clearly, sir, you have the Mk IIa Animal Intelligence Quotient kit.
It's outmoded, and it's time for you to upgrade.

Chris

[Tim Anderson]

John S. Wilkins wrote:
> David Hare-Scott <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
> > > <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> That all the trilobites are extinct?
> > >
> > > Is this an attempt at a koan -- how can we be "sure" of anything?
> > >
> > > If it is serious, then you should simply do a little research.
> > > Trilobites of a wide variety of types were commonly seen in fossil
> > > records up to the end of the Permain, about 250 million years ago. At
> > > that time perhaps 90% of all species were eliminated. Given that they
> > > haven't been seen since it is as sure as anything can be that they
> > > will not somehow turn up again.
> >
> > They have them in Tasmania, the thylacines eat them at low tide if the wind
> > is in the east and they cannot catch moas.
>
> Which they can't, moas being in New Zealand and both being extinct, like
> the trilobites... oh, I see.
>
> --

No moa
No moa
In old Ao-Tea-Roa
Can't get 'em
They've eat 'em
They're gone and there ain't no moa

[Burkhard]

On Jan 31, 10:32 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:13:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:45:21 -0500, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>

> >>In article <1kerdl8.1cb2ja316pawprN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,

> >> j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >>> David Hare-Scott <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > Richard Norman wrote:
> >>> > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
> >>> > > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > >> That all the trilobites are extinct?
>
> >>> > > Is this an attempt at a koan --  how can we be "sure" of anything?
>
> >>> > > If it is serious, then you should simply do a little research.
> >>> > > Trilobites of a wide variety of types were commonly seen in fossil
> >>> > > records up to the end of the Permain, about 250 million years ago.  At
> >>> > > that time perhaps 90% of all species were eliminated.  Given that they
> >>> > > haven't been seen since it is as sure as anything can be that they
> >>> > > will not somehow turn up again.
>
> >>> > They have them in Tasmania, the thylacines eat them at low tide if the wind
> >>> > is in the east and they cannot catch moas.
>
> >>> Which they can't, moas being in New Zealand and both being extinct, like
> >>> the trilobites... oh, I see.
>
> >>The population is saved by donations from Girl Scouts who provide the
> >>thylacines with some moas.
>
> >Ah, the Tiny Trilobite question...
>
> >"Sir, may I please have some moa?"
>
> You are obviously wrong.  Trilobites are parasitic to Polynesians.
> What the trilobites are actually saying is "Sir, may I please have
> Samoans?

They are very nice with chutney, though I prefer them backed rather
than fried, for weight reasons. But I must admit I never saw no
trilobite at my local Indian.

[Paul J Gans]

Thursday, you heretic.

[Klaus Hellnick]

On 1/30/2012 10:08 AM, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> That all the trilobites are extinct?
>

> Is this an attempt at a koan -- how can we be "sure" of anything?
>
> If it is serious, then you should simply do a little research.
> Trilobites of a wide variety of types were commonly seen in fossil
> records up to the end of the Permain, about 250 million years ago. At
> that time perhaps 90% of all species were eliminated. Given that they
> haven't been seen since it is as sure as anything can be that they
> will not somehow turn up again.
>

I have seen small creatures that closely resembled trilobites to the
naked eye in the wet sands of Galveston. I did not capture any. I
suspect they were either larval horseshoe crabs, or possibly isopods.
Some creatures have survived from the Cambrian period, such as the
tardigrades, which are miniature versions of aquatic onychophorans.

[jillery]

Splinter!

[Richard Norman]

"Closely resembled" is a matter of some dispute depending on just how
familiar you might be with the wide variety of critters with a lot of
jointed legs and a broad, possibly segmented exoskeleton over its
body. The same goes for the resemblence between tardigrades and
onychoporans. And an awful lot of creatures have survived from the
Cambrian -- molluscs, arthropods, annelids, echinoderms...

[David Hare-Scott]

Bugs would be a more authentic substitute than prawns.

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

Well they look the part anyway.

D

[John S. Wilkins]

I like Chinese.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net

A 7, a 9, a 5 and lychees

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 02:24:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

Hey, it's Usenet. Maybe he posted it last Friday.

[Don Cates]

>>> The prYolande <yoland...@hotmail.com>oblem isn't with your word. Clearly nobody can prove you

>>> experience false. Just as clearly, your logic is flawed. In
>>> actuality, you proved trilobites are dumber than sheep, your tests
>>> notwithstanding. After all, when was the last time you caught a sheep
>>> in your lobster pot? Huh? HUH??
>>
>> Last Saturday. Why do you ask?
>
> So on your first try, you catch a half-dozen trilobites. And last
> Saturday, after years of effort, you finally catch ONE sheep.
>
> Clearly, sir, you have the Mk IIa Animal Intelligence Quotient kit.
> It's outmoded, and it's time for you to upgrade.
>

I don't understand the problem. For the distinction being made (is it
smarter than a sheep) no sophisticated AIQ is needed.

Simply observe the specimen. If it is a sheep then the answer is 'no',
otherwise the answer is 'yes'.


--
--
Don Cates "he's a cunning rascal" (PN)

[John S. Wilkins]

I will bet a lot of money that any trilobite specialist (I know two)
would dispute your claim that they in any real way resembled trilobites.
What "looks like" something depends crucially on the degree of
familiarity and knowledge of the observer. Like, I don't know, thinking
a Jackson's chameleon looks like a triceratopsian...

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1ketwhs.1cea1fxhymlm3N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Klaus Hellnick <khelSP...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/30/2012 10:08 AM, Richard Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC
> > > <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> That all the trilobites are extinct?
> > >
> > > Is this an attempt at a koan -- how can we be "sure" of anything?
> > >
> > > If it is serious, then you should simply do a little research.
> > > Trilobites of a wide variety of types were commonly seen in fossil
> > > records up to the end of the Permain, about 250 million years ago. At
> > > that time perhaps 90% of all species were eliminated. Given that they
> > > haven't been seen since it is as sure as anything can be that they
> > > will not somehow turn up again.
> > >
> >
> > I have seen small creatures that closely resembled trilobites to the
> > naked eye in the wet sands of Galveston. I did not capture any. I
> > suspect they were either larval horseshoe crabs, or possibly isopods.
> > Some creatures have survived from the Cambrian period, such as the
> > tardigrades, which are miniature versions of aquatic onychophorans.
>
> I will bet a lot of money that any trilobite specialist (I know two)
> would dispute your claim that they in any real way resembled trilobites.
> What "looks like" something depends crucially on the degree of
> familiarity and knowledge of the observer. Like, I don't know, thinking
> a Jackson's chameleon looks like a triceratopsian...

The test of wether something is a trilobite is not wether it walks like
a trilobite etcetera, but wether it "reproduces"[1] like a trilobite.
This also goes for stegosaursen etcetera.

[1] I do dislike obfuscation, but it's better than being crude.

[Ceorl Jones]

They only come up to your knees.

Wait a minute! Another movie?!?
--
Ceorl Jones
snorefoot @ Alpha Alpha Tango dot November Echo Tango

[Paul J Gans]

And some of our politicians.

[Paul J Gans]

Divisionist!

[Paul J Gans]

No excuses. Maud is easily provoked.

[John S. Wilkins]

Now boys. There's always a lowest common divisor to be found.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <1keuocg.10qym4n1tq5ca6N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

...

> > >>>I know for a fact the Universe was made yesterday. So there!
> > >>
> > >>Thursday, you heretic.
> >
> > >Splinter!
> >
> > Divisionist!
>
> Now boys. There's always a lowest common divisor to be found.

"One is one, and all alone, and ever more shall be-o"

[jillery]

Leave it to us to multiply the difference.

[Paul J Gans]

Ah yes. For half the integers it is 2, but it is 1 for almost
all of them. However, I have discovered that the way to the
godhead is to divide by 0.

[Paul J Gans]

Each difference finding its own niche! Let's call it EVOLUTION!

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:05:33 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Infinities. How typical of those seeking godhead.

[Paul J Gans]

Of course.

[Darwin123]

On Jan 30, 10:12 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That all the trilobites are extinct?

We can't be sure that they are extinct. We are sure that they
are very rare. The extreme limit of very rare is extinct.
There is more than one reason that we are not very sure. First,
there may be an animal very similar to a species of Paleozoic
trilobite that still lives somewhere, undetected. Second, there is a
fuzziness in the taxonomic classification which may allow us to
redefine a modern arthropod as trilobite.
Falsifying the first would involve finding a trilobite species
previously thought of as extinct. Falsifying the second would involve
reclassifying a known animal living today as a trilobite. The second
possibility may be already on its way to falsification.
The horse shoe crab is very similar to trilobites formerly
thought to be extinct. It is not considered a trilobite primarily due
to it "oversized" cephalothorax. It has a very small abdomen. However,
there were extinct species of trilobite with a small abdomen and a
large cephalothorax.
The horseshoe crab is definitely in the phylum arthropod. However,
it seems in some ways between the archnid class and the crustacean
class. It may be that the horseshoe crab is an unrecognized
"trilobite". Or maybe one should count the horseshoe crab as a
"transitional animal" between trilobite and arachnid.
Trilobites were actually a very large and varied class of
arthropods. Some trilobites varied considerably from the other
trilobites. Some were filter feeders. The filter feeders looked very
much like a horseshoe crab.
It is too bad we don't have trilobite DNA to compare with the DNA
of horseshoe crabs. However, there is enough resemblance in anatomy to
make one seriously consider the homology between trilobites and
horseshoe crabs. The distinction may be one of semantics.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:12:50 -0500, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-8ce49ec0-40dc-...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

> That all the trilobites are extinct?
>

Trilobites LIVE! <http://airshipstore.com/ornatetrilo.aspx> All hail the One
True Heterodyne!

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 22:16:31 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <jgcv6f$709$2...@reader1.panix.com>):

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the difference between Ron Paul and
Rupaul?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:27:58 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in talk.origins:

Ru is fabulous. Ron sleeps in his suits.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 12:19:41 -0500, Free Lunch wrote
(in article <o4qqi79tj216266np...@4ax.com>):

Ah. I thought that it'd be something like that.

[John S. Wilkins]

J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:12:50 -0500, UC wrote
> (in article
> <uranium-8ce49ec0-40dc-...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > That all the trilobites are extinct?
> >
>
> Trilobites LIVE! <http://airshipstore.com/ornatetrilo.aspx> All hail the One
> True Heterodyne!

That girl is a genius!

[Tim Anderson]

On Feb 2, 10:51 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <1ketwhs.1cea1fxhymlm3N%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
>  j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 1/30/2012 10:08 AM, Richard Norman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:12:50 -0800 (PST), UC

> > > > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

"Wether"! Sheep pun cascade starts here.

Ewe wouldn't recognise a trilobite if it rammed into you.

[jillery]

That one pulled the wool over my eyes.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 20:06:13 -0500, John S. Wilkins wrote
(in article <1kezqwn.1t7ycpu1drklvyN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>):

> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:12:50 -0500, UC wrote
>> (in article
>> <uranium-8ce49ec0-40dc-...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>)
>> :
>>
>>> That all the trilobites are extinct?
>>>
>>
>> Trilobites LIVE! <http://airshipstore.com/ornatetrilo.aspx> All hail the One
>> True Heterodyne!
>
> That girl is a genius!
>

She does have the spark...

[UC]

The question naturally comes to mind, how did the horseshoe crabs make
it but not a single trilobite lineage survives?

[jillery]

There is what I think is a very interesting book, "Extinction: Bad
Genes or Bad Luck". It might have an answer for you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:15:29 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I think the answer to his question can be reduced to "Stuff
happens". His question implies that nature is clockwork,
which is wrong.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:44:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Perhaps it's not as common as it used to be, but ISTM there was a time
when the standard thinking was that extinction was gold standard for
establishing a species lack of fitness.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:04:00 -0500, the following appeared

I believe that's correct, but I also believe that it's now
acknowledged that even the fit sometimes take it in the
neck.

[UC]

Not so fast. How different were trilobites from horseshoe crabs that
something could wipe out the former but not the latter?

[chris thompson]

Just different enough, grasshopper.

Chris

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Monday, March 5, 2012 11:44:57 PM UTC, UC wrote:
> Not so fast. How different were trilobites from horseshoe crabs that
> something could wipe out the former but not the latter?

have you heard about reg squirrels and grey squirrels in Britain?

[John S. Wilkins]

Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Are reg squirrels squirrels that travel on the buses?

[Burkhard]

On Mar 6, 7:12 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org

>
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 5, 2012 11:44:57 PM UTC, UC wrote:
> > > Not so fast. How different were trilobites from horseshoe crabs that
> > > something could wipe out the former but not the latter?
>
> > have you heard about reg squirrels and grey squirrels in Britain?
>
> Are reg squirrels squirrels that travel on the buses?
> --

where they are traded....

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:12:25 AM UTC, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 5, 2012 11:44:57 PM UTC, UC wrote:
> > > Not so fast. How different were trilobites from horseshoe crabs that
> > > something could wipe out the former but not the latter?
> >
> > have you heard about reg squirrels and grey squirrels in Britain?
>
> Are reg squirrels squirrels that travel on the buses?

"I hate you Wilkins!" :-)

I meant red squirrels; but you know how it is...

[jillery]

ISTM your question assumes the degree of difference matters. The
point of the book is that, more often than not, it doesn't.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:09:09 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, that is indeed the point of the book.

Why didn't any eurypterids make it? Where are the ostracoderms now
that we need them? Why did the bivalves survive while the brachiopods
were tremendously reduced? Being outcompeted by "superior" types
doesn't seem to be the answer for any of these situations.

[John Harshman]

How would you tell? Haven't read the book, but one of Raup's main points
in his work is that often you can't. Sometimes you can reject the null
hypothesis (random extinction), usually you can't. But failing to reject
the null hypothesis is not the same as accepting the null hypothesis.

[Richard Norman]

I read the book long ago and don't remember the details. Also failing
to reject the random extinction hypothesis certainly does not
establish that adaptation (bad genes) is an explanation. OK, so the
weak "point" of the book is that there is no reason to argue that
there was something specific different between trilobites and things
that survived to explain why.

In the cases of ostracoderms and brachipods, I did find arguments that
argued that gnathostomes did not simply outcompete the ostracods nor
did bivalves outcompete the brachiopods.

[John Harshman]

Careful, now. "Ostracod" and "ostracoderm" are two quite different taxa.
The former is doing quite well, thank you very much. What are the
arguments? The usual one is the claim that taxon A went extinct before
taxon B diversified, and therefore the latter could not have caused the
former. That seems a fairly safe assumption. However, gnathostomes
diversified before ostracoderms went extinct. Brachiopods are still with
us; they suffered greater extinction than bivalves during the
Permo-Triassic event and never regained their previous diversity. One
can hardly argue that bivalves were responsible for the first, but one
might claim they were responsible for the second.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:50:11 -0800, John Harshman

"Ostracod" was just pure carelessness. I do know the difference and
they do show up in abundance in any pond or lake plankton troll.

The gnathostome-ostracoderm business is described at
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/110707.html

I pulled the brachiopod-bivalve thing from the Wikipedia brachiopod
entry which says: "there is no evidence that bivalves out-competed
brachiopods..." That is admittedly rather a feat of quote mining but
it works for talk.origins!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod

[John Harshman]

Ah, science journalism again. So much not to like there. But let's pick
one: the assumption that the fossil record is an unbiased account of
jawless fish diversity. How interesting that almost all the jawless fish
record is of heavily armored forms which, coincidentally, would have
been the most readily preserved.

> I pulled the brachiopod-bivalve thing from the Wikipedia brachiopod
> entry which says: "there is no evidence that bivalves out-competed
> brachiopods..." That is admittedly rather a feat of quote mining but
> it works for talk.origins!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod
>

You seem to be interpreting "there is no evidence that bivalves
out-competed brachiopods" as equivalent to "there is evidence that
bivalves didn't out-compete brachiopods". I wish you would stop doing that.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:48:31 -0800, John Harshman

Science journalism: I was just too lazy (and still am) to look up a
real paper. And the topic is not worth the effort.

My doing that again: Wikipedia does talk about evidence that
brachiopods were especially sensitive to the Permian-Jurassic
extinction and that reversed the balance between them and the
bivalves.

The point is that shifts in groups once considered really dominant or
major players to extinction or to truly minor roles cannot always be
attributed to adaptationist arguments: bad luck might well be (is
that sufficient weasel-wordy for you?) as important as bad genes. If
I could coin a phrase -- replaying the tape of life is unlikely to
produce the same results (or did I read that somewhere?). This is
just genetic drift played out on the macroevolutionary scale.

[John Harshman]

First off, it's Permian-*Triassic*. Second, the question isn't whether
brachiopods were sensitive to the extinction. The question is why they
didn't come back afterwards, and whether competition with bivalves
explains that.

> The point is that shifts in groups once considered really dominant or
> major players to extinction or to truly minor roles cannot always be
> attributed to adaptationist arguments: bad luck might well be (is
> that sufficient weasel-wordy for you?) as important as bad genes. If
> I could coin a phrase -- replaying the tape of life is unlikely to
> produce the same results (or did I read that somewhere?).

Always hated that metaphor. No matter how often you replay a tape, it
comes out the same. Perhaps you could come up with a better one? And I
think you are conflating several issues here. Inevitability is not
necessarily either a consequence of or a requirement for competitive
extinction. Competition can be contingent as well as can any other
factor in extinctions.

> This is
> just genetic drift played out on the macroevolutionary scale.

To repeat the original question, how can you tell?

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:41:16 -0800, John Harshman

When Rose Mary Woods replayed that tape it produced an 18-1/2 minute
gap, no doubt rather different from the original.

To repeat the original answer, the absence of evidence for the
alternative proves it!

[John Harshman]

I'm assuming that was intended as a joke. But in case it wasn't, what
evidence would we have expected to see if competition had caused extinction?

[jillery]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:17:58 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

There is a tendency to think of extinctions, that is the death of all
the individuals within a species, are related to macroevolution as
individual deaths are related to microevolution, that natural
selection weeds out less fit species just as it weeds out less fit
individuals. In the past this led to the assumption for example that
stodgy lumbering dinosaurs finally succumbed to newer and more fit
mammals. The modern understanding is the exact opposite, that barring
some chance event on the scale of the Chixulub impact, dinosaurs might
still dominate the Earth, just as another chance event eons before
allowed dinosaur ancestors to take the evolutionary lead from
protomammals.

A problem with the above analogy is that the respective units don't
act the same way. First, when confronted with environmental change,
individuals can't adapt genetically, but species as a unit change
their allele distribution over time. Second, while most sexual
individuals have built-in limits to their maximum lifetimes, there is
no known built-in mechanism which limits species' lifetimes.

There are studies which compare the length of species' lifetimes
against the number of extinctions, which show that, for species with
large numbers of individuals, the number of extinctions follow a power
rule, as contrasted to a bell distribution. I'm no expert, but IIUC
the argument is this correlates with the power rule of stochastic
extinction-causing events, and not species competition.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:38:47 -0800, John Harshman

A scoreboard: brachiopods 3, bivalves 7 not only in final score but
inning after inning, in runs, hits, and errors.

[drose...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, January 30, 2012 10:12:50 AM UTC-5, UC wrote:
> That all the trilobites are extinct?

There is some conjecture that most extant arthropods are descended from a trilobite. According to this, the PT extinction just wiped out those trilobites that hadn't evolved into untrilobite forms.
Horse shoe crabs, for instance, have forms extremely reminescent of some trilobites. Like trilobites, the horseshoe crab has no carapace under their bodies. They are exposed to attack from the underside. They also have a body that is very roughly tri-lobed. However, their abdomen is largely underdeveloped compared to most trilobites. They have a highly developed cephalothorax area. Thus, they are not classified as trilobites. But maybe they should be.
Crustaceans are differentiated from trilobites from the fact that their undersides are covered with carapace. They may have evolved from one type of trilobite. One lecturer told me that a crab was like a trilobite with its carpace folded up underneath.
There were many types of trilobites. Some of them are barely recognizable as trilobites. Some fossil trilobites superficially resemble horse shoe crabs to a surprising degree. I have seen trilobite fossils with an overdeveloped cephalothrax region and an underdeveloped abdomen. Of course, there were small differences. There were holes in the cephalothorax region of the carapace, probably
Trilobites declined starting in the Carbonaceous period. The last unambiguous trilobite fossil appears in the late Permian. That is usually interpreted as meaning that the trilobites died off. No animal has yet been discovered that can be unambiguously classified as a trilobite. This means unambiguous trilobites are either extinct or extremely rare.
My opinion is that "pure" trilobites are extinct. If some scientist would find a living trilobite in a deep vent, then I would say that the "pure" trilobite is now extremely rare rather than extinct. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says that one order of animals has to replace the other.
"Microevolution" has been working on just about every "living fossil" that you heard of. I would say with more certainty that all the Paleozoic species of trilobites went extinct. A living trilobite will probably not be the same species as any trilobite found in prehistoric times. It would probably be a different species. Most "living fossils" turn out to be a different species of some family of creatures that lived in the past. The coelocanth of today is not in the precise same species as the trilobite of 55 million years ago. It is in the same order as the ancient coelocanths, not the same species.
It would not shake my "belief" in evolution if a trilobite turns up alive someplace. Organisms in stable, isolated niches tend to remain unchanged. However, after decades of searching in rather isolated niches, no one has found a living trilobite. Therefore, scientists believe that it is highly probable that the "pure trilobite" has gone extinct.
If it makes you feel better, then you can consider the horse shoe crab as a trilobite with an underdeveloped abdomen. The differences between a horse shoe crab and a trilobite are important only to scientists who specialize in the area. There were many types of trilobites. It is a matter of semantics whether the horse shoe crab can be considered a trilobite.

[John Harshman]

I refuse to participate in any baseball metaphors.

[John Harshman]

Nevertheless, there is no reason to think that species selection doesn't
exist, despite your caricature. Differential speciation and extinction
may in fact influence the makeup of the biota.

> A problem with the above analogy is that the respective units don't
> act the same way. First, when confronted with environmental change,
> individuals can't adapt genetically, but species as a unit change
> their allele distribution over time. Second, while most sexual
> individuals have built-in limits to their maximum lifetimes, there is
> no known built-in mechanism which limits species' lifetimes.

The second factor you mention is irrelevant. The first relevant, but the
existence of one process doesn't prevent another process from happening
too. There may be something preventing adaptation, for example
competition with another species. If none of the genetic variation that
occurs results in significantly increased fitness -- either avoidance of
competition or improved ability to compete -- there will be no
selection. But there will be extinction.

> There are studies which compare the length of species' lifetimes
> against the number of extinctions, which show that, for species with
> large numbers of individuals, the number of extinctions follow a power
> rule, as contrasted to a bell distribution. I'm no expert, but IIUC
> the argument is this correlates with the power rule of stochastic
> extinction-causing events, and not species competition.

Can you cite these studies? Problem #1: we really can't get a good
handle on species lifetimes if you're talking about biological species.
Morphological species, perhaps, but that's quite a different entity, and
people commonly conflate the two. Perhaps that isn't an important
problem. I'd like to see the studies.

[Burkhard]

On Mar 8, 7:53 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Richard Norman wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:38:47 -0800, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> Richard Norman wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:41:16 -0800, John Harshman
> >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Richard Norman wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:48:31 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Richard Norman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:50:11 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Richard Norman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:17:58 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard Norman wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:09:09 -0500, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

sorry, could you say this again, I didn't quite catch it.

[Richard Norman]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:01:30 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I balk at that kind of comment.