Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups

[Daud Deden]

IMO:

Orthograde bipedal long-legged vegetarian wading birds ... never existed...Wading birds are *all* non-vegetarians... so the [MV@SAP] claim that a long-legged vegetarian Australopithecus must have waded is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.

Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and this habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed... Gliders are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or birds or Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding ancestors is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.

[John Harshman]

On 12/21/18 9:58 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> IMO:
>
> Orthograde bipedal long-legged vegetarian wading birds ... never
> existed...Wading birds are *all* non-vegetarians... so the [MV@SAP]
> claim that a long-legged vegetarian Australopithecus must have waded
> is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.

Who is MV@SAP? What does "orthograde" mean? What about Presbyornis?

> Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and this
> habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed... Gliders
> are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or birds or
> Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding ancestors is
> not based upon common traits but upon imagination.

What about gliding snakes and frogs? What about sugar gliders and
possums? What about flying fish? I think your claim is wrong.

[Daud Deden]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:19:15 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/21/18 9:58 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > IMO:
> >
> > Orthograde bipedal long-legged vegetarian wading birds ... never
> > existed...Wading birds are *all* non-vegetarians... so the [MV@SAP]
> > claim that a long-legged vegetarian Australopithecus must have waded
> > is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
>
> Who is MV@SAP?

Marc Verhaegen, Sci.Anthro.Paleo

What does "orthograde" mean?

Upright (spine) posture [eg. Penguin vs duck], vs pronograde.

What about Presbyornis?
Link?

>
> > Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and this
> > habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed... Gliders
> > are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or birds or
> > Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding ancestors is
> > not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
>
> What about gliding snakes and frogs?

They parachute to soften landings.

What about sugar gliders and
> possums?

Marsupial gliders are vegetarians with some consumption of (non-flying) sweet-associated insects (honeypots), bird eggs (cf vegetarian gorillas). Possums are non-gliding insectivores/omnivores.

> What about flying fish?

What's your point?

> I think your claim is wrong.

Why, how?

I wrote this earlier:

Flying birds, bats & Pterosaurs developed flapping flight from netting flying insects with webbed or filter-feathered hands while arboreal; gliding fauna didn't and remain vegetarian("gliding snakes & treefrogs" parachute rather than glide or fly).


The marsupial possums & gliders of Australasia range from insectivorous non-gliders to vegetarian gliders.

The striped possums (trioks), on the other hand, are thought to have evolved on New Guinea; the sole Australian species (the Striped possum of Cape York) is considered a recent immigrant. All members of this genus are insectivores, and have specialised structures for catching insects: a heel-like structure on the wrist that is thought to be used to tap on wood to locate insect larvae. and an elongated fourth finger to extract them from their burrows

Cf aye aye


characteristic of all species of marsupial gliders is the partially fused (syndactylous) second and third digits on the hind feet.[1][2]

Cf siamang

[Daud Deden]

> What does "orthograde" mean?

Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.

> What about Presbyornis?

Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck, while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.

Wiki:
Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds, reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]

Distribution and habitat
Behaviour and ecology Edit
Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This, coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to domestication..

[John Harshman]

You have managed to redefine both "glider" and "vegetarian" so as to try
to fit your hypothesis. Sugar gliders are omnivorous, and I don't see
the sharp distinction you are trying to make between gliding and
parachuting.

[John Harshman]

On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
>> What does "orthograde" mean?
>
> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
>
>> What about Presbyornis?
>
> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.

What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.

> Wiki:
> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]

You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.

> Distribution and habitat
> Behaviour and ecology Edit
> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
> domestication..

What is the relevance?

[Daud Deden]

No, standard usage, fauna that glide without flapping (soaring includes both).

and "vegetarian"

Nature works in relativity. Sugar gliders consume vegatative products far more than faunal products by all measures, as do deer & gorillas, both of which occasionally consume larvae, eggs, animal products. Hippos have been observed consuming carcasses, but they too are vegetarians.

so as to try
> to fit your hypothesis. Sugar gliders are omnivorous, and I don't see
> the sharp distinction you are trying to make between gliding and
> parachuting.

You have never gone in a glider or a parachute? Big difference.

[Daud Deden]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >> What does "orthograde" mean?
> >
> > Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
> >
> >> What about Presbyornis?
> >
> > Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
> > while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
> > long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.

I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.

>
> > Wiki:
> > Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> > clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> > presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> > is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> > reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>
> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.

And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.

>
> > Distribution and habitat
> > Behaviour and ecology Edit
> > Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
> > typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
> > as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
> > as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
> > predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
> > coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
> > domestication..
> What is the relevance?

Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.

[John Harshman]

On 12/22/18 3:31 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
>>>
>>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
>>>
>>>> What about Presbyornis?
>>>
>>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
>>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
>>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
>> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
>
> I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
> I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.

I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
are you thinking of?

>>> Wiki:
>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>>
>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
>
> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.

Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.

>>> Distribution and habitat
>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
>>> domestication..
>> What is the relevance?
>
> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.

So why go into their ecology? Filling space?

[Daud Deden]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:04:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/22/18 3:31 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
> >>>
> >>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
> >>>
> >>>> What about Presbyornis?
> >>>
> >>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
> >>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
> >>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
> >> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
> >
> > I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
> > I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.
>
> I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
> are you thinking of?

Herons, egrets, bitterns and other of similar traits.

>
> >>> Wiki:
> >>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> >>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> >>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> >>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> >>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
> >>
> >> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
> >> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
> >
> > And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
>
> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.

Oh my, a taipo.

>
> >>> Distribution and habitat
> >>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
> >>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
> >>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
> >>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
> >>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
> >>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
> >>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
> >>> domestication..
> >> What is the relevance?
> >
> > Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
>
> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?

Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"

[John Harshman]

On 12/22/18 7:44 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:04:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 3:31 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What about Presbyornis?
>>>>>
>>>>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
>>>>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
>>>>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
>>>> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
>>>
>>> I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
>>> I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
>> are you thinking of?
>
> Herons, egrets, bitterns and other of similar traits.

But they don't hold their bodies vertically, at least not usually. And
that's just one family.

>>>>> Wiki:
>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>>>>
>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
>>>
>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
>
> Oh my, a taipo.

I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.

>>>>> Distribution and habitat
>>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
>>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
>>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
>>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
>>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
>>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
>>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
>>>>> domestication..
>>>> What is the relevance?
>>>
>>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
>>
>> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
>
> Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"

I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
about what you just cut and pasted.

[Oxyaena]

And yet he, hypocritically, and inaccurately, accuses me of "parroting"
others. What a jackoff.

>
>>>>>>>> Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed...
>>>>>>>> Gliders
>>>>>>>> are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or
>>>>>>>> birds or
>>>>>>>> Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding
>>>>>>>> ancestors is
>>>>>>>> not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about gliding snakes and frogs? What about sugar gliders and
>>>>>>> possums? What about flying fish? I think your claim is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

--
"I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to
face the truth." - Thomas Henry Huxley

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[Daud Deden]

Oh my, the killfile exploded, the zombie awaketh, run for your lives!!!

[Daud Deden]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:26:32 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/22/18 7:44 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:04:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/22/18 3:31 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What about Presbyornis?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
> >>>>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
> >>>>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
> >>>> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
> >>>
> >>> I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
> >>> I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.
> >>
> >> I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
> >> are you thinking of?
> >
> > Herons, egrets, bitterns and other of similar traits.
>
> But they don't hold their bodies vertically, at least not usually. And
> that's just one family.

If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our discussion is irrelevant.

>
> >>>>> Wiki:
> >>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> >>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> >>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> >>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> >>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
> >>>>
> >>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
> >>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
> >>>
> >>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
> >
> > Oh my, a taipo.
>
> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.

See above.

>
> >>>>> Distribution and habitat
> >>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
> >>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
> >>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
> >>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
> >>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
> >>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
> >>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
> >>>>> domestication..
> >>>> What is the relevance?
> >>>
> >>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
> >>
> >> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
> >
> > Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"
>
> I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
> about what you just cut and pasted.

Better to know more than less, no?

[John Harshman]

On 12/23/18 4:23 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:26:32 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 7:44 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:04:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/18 3:31 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about Presbyornis?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
>>>>>>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
>>>>>>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
>>>>>> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
>>>>> I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
>>>> are you thinking of?
>>>
>>> Herons, egrets, bitterns and other of similar traits.
>>
>> But they don't hold their bodies vertically, at least not usually. And
>> that's just one family.
>
> If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly
> horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our
> discussion is irrelevant.

When you say "spine", I presume you're referring to the synsacrum. Is
that correct? If so, what angle are you counting as the limit of
"orthograde"? If not, surely you aren't counting the cervical vertebrae,
are you?

>>>>>>> Wiki:
>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
>>>>>
>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
>>>
>>> Oh my, a taipo.
>>
>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
>
> See above.

Never explained.

>>>>>>> Distribution and habitat
>>>>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
>>>>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
>>>>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
>>>>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
>>>>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
>>>>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
>>>>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
>>>>>>> domestication..
>>>>>> What is the relevance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
>>>>
>>>> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
>>>
>>> Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"
>>
>> I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
>> about what you just cut and pasted.
>
> Better to know more than less, no?

Not if it's irrelevant to what we're discussing. Should I launch into a
disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?

[Daud Deden]

I'm referring to the spinal column within the torso, both typically orient pronograde (ducks except Bali ducks) or orthograde (large wading birds, penguins).

>
> >>>>>>> Wiki:
> >>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> >>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> >>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> >>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> >>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
> >>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
> >>>
> >>> Oh my, a taipo.
> >>
> >> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Never explained.

Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.

>
> >>>>>>> Distribution and habitat
> >>>>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
> >>>>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
> >>>>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
> >>>>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
> >>>>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
> >>>>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
> >>>>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
> >>>>>>> domestication..
> >>>>>> What is the relevance?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
> >>>>
> >>>> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
> >>>
> >>> Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"
> >>
> >> I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
> >> about what you just cut and pasted.
> >
> > Better to know more than less, no?
>
> Not if it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Screamers are descendants and/or closest analogs to presbyornis, hardly irrelevant, as "they swim better than they run". Egrets & herons nest high in tree rookeries, I'd guess presbyornis didn't.

Should I launch into a
> disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?

If they have an orthograde posture, and are vegetarian, certainly.

[John Harshman]

So, the synsacrum, then. What are Bali ducks? What angle of synsacrum to
ground marks the line between pronograde and orthograde? I know of no
birds other than penguins that generally adopt a completely vertical
position, though bitterns will do so when hiding.

>>>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
>>>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
>>>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
>>>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
>>>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
>>>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh my, a taipo.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>> Never explained.
>
> Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.

I mean that the importance of this feature is never explained in what
you have said.

>>>>>>>>> Distribution and habitat
>>>>>>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
>>>>>>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
>>>>>>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
>>>>>>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
>>>>>>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
>>>>>>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
>>>>>>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
>>>>>>>>> domestication..
>>>>>>>> What is the relevance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"
>>>>
>>>> I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
>>>> about what you just cut and pasted.
>>>
>>> Better to know more than less, no?
>>
>> Not if it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.
>
> Screamers are descendants and/or closest analogs to presbyornis,

No, they are neither. Wherever did you get that idea?

> hardly irrelevant, as "they swim better than they run". Egrets &
> herons nest high in tree rookeries, I'd guess presbyornis didn't.

How is that relevant, even if true?

> Should I launch into a
>> disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?
>
> If they have an orthograde posture, and are vegetarian, certainly.

Well, antpittas do have a pretty erect posture, but I don't know what
counts as orthograde. Come to think of it, so do actual pittas. Both are
insectivores. Perhaps they're counterexamples of your claim, whatever it is.

[Oxyaena]

You *do* realize this is Daud you're talking to, right?

>> hardly irrelevant, as "they swim better than they run". Egrets &
>> herons nest high in tree rookeries, I'd guess presbyornis didn't.
> How is that relevant, even if true?
>
>> Should I launch into a
>>> disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?
>>
>> If they have an orthograde posture, and are vegetarian, certainly.
>
> Well, antpittas do have a pretty erect posture, but I don't know what
> counts as orthograde. Come to think of it, so do actual pittas. Both are
> insectivores. Perhaps they're counterexamples of your claim, whatever it
> is.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them
>>>>>>>>>>>> and this
>>>>>>>>>>>> habit developed into true flight in bats ... never
>>>>>>>>>>>> existed... Gliders
>>>>>>>>>>>> are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or
>>>>>>>>>>>> birds or
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding
>>>>>>>>>>>> ancestors is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What about gliding snakes and frogs? What about sugar gliders
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> possums? What about flying fish? I think your claim is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

[erik simpson]

Lots of imagination here, not so much parsimony.

[Daud Deden]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 10:18:23 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/23/18 6:58 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:12:20 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/23/18 4:23 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:26:32 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 12/22/18 7:44 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:04:22 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/22/18 3:31 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What about Presbyornis?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
> >>>>>>>>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
> >>>>>>>>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
> >>>>>>>> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
> >>>>>>> I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
> >>>>>> are you thinking of?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Herons, egrets, bitterns and other of similar traits.
> >>>>
> >>>> But they don't hold their bodies vertically, at least not usually. And
> >>>> that's just one family.

You have repeatedly used the term 'vertical' while I have stressed 'nearly vertical'. Even Picea is not perfectly vertical.

> >>>
> >>> If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly
> >>> horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our
> >>> discussion is irrelevant.
> >> When you say "spine", I presume you're referring to the synsacrum. Is
> >> that correct? If so, what angle are you counting as the limit of
> >> "orthograde"? If not, surely you aren't counting the cervical vertebrae,
> >> are you?
> >
> > I'm referring to the spinal column within the torso, both typically
> > orient pronograde (ducks except Bali ducks) or orthograde (large
> > wading birds, penguins).
> So, the synsacrum, then.

Not my term.

What are Bali ducks?

The Bali duck is an ancient breed of considerable significance. Ducks of upright carriage have been found carved in the stone of the temples of Asia dating back some two thousand years. Most waterfowl authorities believe the Bali duck to be the originator of the Indian Runner. Google it?

What angle of synsacrum to
> ground marks the line between pronograde and orthograde?

Why is that significant? Sheer obviousness should suffice: nearly vertical vs nearly horizontal. Birds aren't built to engineering specs.

I know of no
> birds other than penguins that generally adopt a completely vertical
> position, though bitterns will do so when hiding.

Where do you come up with 'completely vertical'? Oh, your imagination.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> >>>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> >>>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> >>>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> >>>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
> >>>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh my, a taipo.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
> >>>
> >>> See above.
> >>
> >> Never explained.
> >
> > Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.
>
> I mean that the importance of this feature is never explained in what
> you have said.

Posture is everything, at least in charm school. I was comparing upright long-legged prometheus vegetarian and long-legged wading-bird non-vegetarian, and gliding vegetarian and non-gliding non-vegetarian.

> >>>>>>>>> Distribution and habitat
> >>>>>>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
> >>>>>>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
> >>>>>>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
> >>>>>>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
> >>>>>>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
> >>>>>>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
> >>>>>>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
> >>>>>>>>> domestication..
> >>>>>>>> What is the relevance?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
> >>>> about what you just cut and pasted.
> >>>
> >>> Better to know more than less, no?
> >>
> >> Not if it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.
> >
> > Screamers are descendants and/or closest analogs to presbyornis,
>
> No, they are neither. Wherever did you get that idea?

Wikipedia IIRC.

> > hardly irrelevant, as "they swim better than they run". Egrets &
> > herons nest high in tree rookeries, I'd guess presbyornis didn't.
> How is that relevant, even if true?

Arboreal nests and fully webbed feet usually don't jive. (Exc. Wood duck)

>
> > Should I launch into a
> >> disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?
> >
> > If they have an orthograde posture, and are vegetarian, certainly.
>
> Well, antpittas do have a pretty erect posture, but I don't know what
> counts as orthograde. Come to think of it, so do actual pittas. Both are
> insectivores. Perhaps they're counterexamples of your claim, whatever it is.

My claim is solid, you can see that.

[Daud Deden]

[John Harshman]

I've repeatedly asked you for an operational definition. You have
repeatedly ignored that request. How vertical is "nearly vertical"?

>>>>> If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly
>>>>> horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our
>>>>> discussion is irrelevant.
>>>> When you say "spine", I presume you're referring to the synsacrum. Is
>>>> that correct? If so, what angle are you counting as the limit of
>>>> "orthograde"? If not, surely you aren't counting the cervical vertebrae,
>>>> are you?
>>>
>>> I'm referring to the spinal column within the torso, both typically
>>> orient pronograde (ducks except Bali ducks) or orthograde (large
>>> wading birds, penguins).
>> So, the synsacrum, then.
>
> Not my term.

It's the term used by ornithologists, though.

> What are Bali ducks?
>
> The Bali duck is an ancient breed of considerable significance. Ducks
> of upright carriage have been found carved in the stone of the
> temples of Asia dating back some two thousand years. Most waterfowl
> authorities believe the Bali duck to be the originator of the Indian
> Runner. Google it?

It's a breed of mallard. What possible significance could it have here?

> What angle of synsacrum to
>> ground marks the line between pronograde and orthograde?
>
> Why is that significant? Sheer obviousness should suffice: nearly vertical vs nearly horizontal. Birds aren't built to engineering specs.

It's not a clear dichotomy. It's a continuum.

> I know of no
>> birds other than penguins that generally adopt a completely vertical
>> position, though bitterns will do so when hiding.
>
> Where do you come up with 'completely vertical'? Oh, your imagination.

I have nothing to work with here, since you refuse to take a position.

>>>>>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
>>>>>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
>>>>>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
>>>>>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
>>>>>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
>>>>>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh my, a taipo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above.
>>>>
>>>> Never explained.
>>>
>>> Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.
>>
>> I mean that the importance of this feature is never explained in what
>> you have said.
>
> Posture is everything, at least in charm school. I was comparing
> upright long-legged prometheus vegetarian and long-legged wading-bird
> non-vegetarian, and gliding vegetarian and non-gliding
> non-vegetarian.

prometheus?? What??

Anyway, what is the importance of the orthograde posture?

>>>>>>>>>>> Distribution and habitat
>>>>>>>>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
>>>>>>>>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
>>>>>>>>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
>>>>>>>>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
>>>>>>>>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
>>>>>>>>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
>>>>>>>>>>> domestication..
>>>>>>>>>> What is the relevance?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
>>>>>> about what you just cut and pasted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Better to know more than less, no?
>>>>
>>>> Not if it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.
>>>
>>> Screamers are descendants and/or closest analogs to presbyornis,
>>
>> No, they are neither. Wherever did you get that idea?
>
> Wikipedia IIRC.

Perhaps you don't recall correctly. Or if you do, then Wikipedia is just
wrong.

>>> hardly irrelevant, as "they swim better than they run". Egrets &
>>> herons nest high in tree rookeries, I'd guess presbyornis didn't.
>> How is that relevant, even if true?
>
> Arboreal nests and fully webbed feet usually don't jive. (Exc. Wood duck)

I think you mean "gibe". And there are many other exceptions, even
within ducks.

>>> Should I launch into a
>>>> disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?
>>>
>>> If they have an orthograde posture, and are vegetarian, certainly.
>>
>> Well, antpittas do have a pretty erect posture, but I don't know what
>> counts as orthograde. Come to think of it, so do actual pittas. Both are
>> insectivores. Perhaps they're counterexamples of your claim, whatever it is.
>
> My claim is solid, you can see that.

I can't see that. Of course it isn't quite clear what your claim is.

[Daud Deden]

What does "orthograde" mean?

Upright (spine) posture [eg. Penguin vs duck], vs pronograde.

That answer would have sufficed an innocent inquiry.

You have
> repeatedly ignored that request. How vertical is "nearly vertical"?
>
> >>>>> If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly
> >>>>> horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our
> >>>>> discussion is irrelevant.
> >>>> When you say "spine", I presume you're referring to the synsacrum. Is
> >>>> that correct? If so, what angle are you counting as the limit of
> >>>> "orthograde"? If not, surely you aren't counting the cervical vertebrae,
> >>>> are you?
> >>>
> >>> I'm referring to the spinal column within the torso, both typically
> >>> orient pronograde (ducks except Bali ducks) or orthograde (large
> >>> wading birds, penguins).
> >> So, the synsacrum, then.
> >
> > Not my term.
>
> It's the term used by ornithologists, though.

I am not an ornithologist.

>
> > What are Bali ducks?
> >
> > The Bali duck is an ancient breed of considerable significance. Ducks
> > of upright carriage have been found carved in the stone of the
> > temples of Asia dating back some two thousand years. Most waterfowl
> > authorities believe the Bali duck to be the originator of the Indian
> > Runner. Google it?

> It's a breed of mallard.

Yes, an orthograde Mallard breed.

What possible significance could it have here?

It displays an orthograde posture.

> > What angle of synsacrum to
> >> ground marks the line between pronograde and orthograde?
> >
> > Why is that significant? Sheer obviousness should suffice: nearly vertical vs nearly horizontal. Birds aren't built to engineering specs.
>
> It's not a clear dichotomy. It's a continuum.

Right, that's nature for you.

> > I know of no
> >> birds other than penguins that generally adopt a completely vertical
> >> position, though bitterns will do so when hiding.
> >
> > Where do you come up with 'completely vertical'? Oh, your imagination.
>
> I have nothing to work with here, since you refuse to take a position.

There are two positions mentioned, orthograde-upright-nearly vertical and pronograde-prone-nearly horizontal.

You sound like a politician.

> >>>>>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> >>>>>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> >>>>>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> >>>>>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> >>>>>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
> >>>>>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh my, a taipo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See above.
> >>>>
> >>>> Never explained.
> >>>
> >>> Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.
> >>
> >> I mean that the importance of this feature is never explained in what
> >> you have said.
> >
> > Posture is everything, at least in charm school. I was comparing
> > upright long-legged prometheus vegetarian and long-legged wading-bird
> > non-vegetarian, and gliding vegetarian and non-gliding
> > non-vegetarian.

> prometheus?? What??

Referred to earlier.

> Anyway, what is the importance of the orthograde posture?

Height.

Jive/Jambo/jam etc. ~ match

The majority of fully webbed waterfowl do not fly up to their nests.

> >>> Should I launch into a
> >>>> disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?
> >>>
> >>> If they have an orthograde posture, and are vegetarian, certainly.
> >>
> >> Well, antpittas do have a pretty erect posture, but I don't know what
> >> counts as orthograde. Come to think of it, so do actual pittas. Both are
> >> insectivores. Perhaps they're counterexamples of your claim, whatever it is.
> >
> > My claim is solid, you can see that.
>
> I can't see that.

You would not admit seeing it.

Of course it isn't quite clear what your claim is.

Perhaps it is beyond your ken.

[John Harshman]

Nope. Not operational.

> You have
>> repeatedly ignored that request. How vertical is "nearly vertical"?
>>
>>>>>>> If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly
>>>>>>> horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our
>>>>>>> discussion is irrelevant.
>>>>>> When you say "spine", I presume you're referring to the synsacrum. Is
>>>>>> that correct? If so, what angle are you counting as the limit of
>>>>>> "orthograde"? If not, surely you aren't counting the cervical vertebrae,
>>>>>> are you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm referring to the spinal column within the torso, both typically
>>>>> orient pronograde (ducks except Bali ducks) or orthograde (large
>>>>> wading birds, penguins).
>>>> So, the synsacrum, then.
>>>
>>> Not my term.
>>
>> It's the term used by ornithologists, though.
>
> I am not an ornithologist.

Shouldn't you use the terms that ornithologists use when you're talking
about birds?

>>> What are Bali ducks?
>>>
>>> The Bali duck is an ancient breed of considerable significance. Ducks
>>> of upright carriage have been found carved in the stone of the
>>> temples of Asia dating back some two thousand years. Most waterfowl
>>> authorities believe the Bali duck to be the originator of the Indian
>>> Runner. Google it?
>
>> It's a breed of mallard.
>
> Yes, an orthograde Mallard breed.
>
> What possible significance could it have here?
>
> It displays an orthograde posture.

So?

>>> What angle of synsacrum to
>>>> ground marks the line between pronograde and orthograde?
>>>
>>> Why is that significant? Sheer obviousness should suffice: nearly vertical vs nearly horizontal. Birds aren't built to engineering specs.
>>
>> It's not a clear dichotomy. It's a continuum.
>
> Right, that's nature for you.

So where do you divide that continuum?

>>> I know of no
>>>> birds other than penguins that generally adopt a completely vertical
>>>> position, though bitterns will do so when hiding.
>>>
>>> Where do you come up with 'completely vertical'? Oh, your imagination.
>>
>> I have nothing to work with here, since you refuse to take a position.
>
> There are two positions mentioned, orthograde-upright-nearly vertical and pronograde-prone-nearly horizontal.
>
> You sound like a politician.

Hey, you're the one who refuses to take a position.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
>>>>>>>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh my, a taipo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never explained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.
>>>>
>>>> I mean that the importance of this feature is never explained in what
>>>> you have said.
>>>
>>> Posture is everything, at least in charm school. I was comparing
>>> upright long-legged prometheus vegetarian and long-legged wading-bird
>>> non-vegetarian, and gliding vegetarian and non-gliding
>>> non-vegetarian.
>
>> prometheus?? What??
>
> Referred to earlier.

Where? When? How?

>> Anyway, what is the importance of the orthograde posture?
>
> Height.

What is the importance of height?

I'm afraid you are living in your own private world.

[Daud Deden]

> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about Presbyornis?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
> >>>>>>>>>> are you thinking of?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Herons, egrets, bitterns and other of similar traits.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But they don't hold their bodies vertically, at least not usually. And
> >>>>>>>> that's just one family.
> >>>
> >>> You have repeatedly used the term 'vertical' while I have stressed 'nearly vertical'. Even Picea is not perfectly vertical.
> >>
> >> I've repeatedly asked you for an operational definition.
> >
> >
> > What does "orthograde" mean?
> >
> > Upright (spine) posture [eg. Penguin vs duck], vs pronograde.
> >
> > That answer would have sufficed an innocent inquiry.
>
> Nope. Not operational.

Again, a political response.
I suspect you are a computer program.

>
> > You have
> >> repeatedly ignored that request. How vertical is "nearly vertical"?
> >>
> >>>>>>> If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly
> >>>>>>> horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our
> >>>>>>> discussion is irrelevant.
> >>>>>> When you say "spine", I presume you're referring to the synsacrum. Is
> >>>>>> that correct? If so, what angle are you counting as the limit of
> >>>>>> "orthograde"? If not, surely you aren't counting the cervical vertebrae,
> >>>>>> are you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm referring to the spinal column within the torso, both typically
> >>>>> orient pronograde (ducks except Bali ducks) or orthograde (large
> >>>>> wading birds, penguins).
> >>>> So, the synsacrum, then.
> >>>
> >>> Not my term.
> >>
> >> It's the term used by ornithologists, though.
> >
> > I am not an ornithologist.
>
> Shouldn't you use the terms that ornithologists use when you're talking
> about birds?

No, since I'm not an ornithologist, nor am I posing as one.

> >>> What are Bali ducks?
> >>>
> >>> The Bali duck is an ancient breed of considerable significance. Ducks
> >>> of upright carriage have been found carved in the stone of the
> >>> temples of Asia dating back some two thousand years. Most waterfowl
> >>> authorities believe the Bali duck to be the originator of the Indian
> >>> Runner. Google it?
> >
> >> It's a breed of mallard.
> >
> > Yes, an orthograde Mallard breed.
> >
> > What possible significance could it have here?
> >
> > It displays an orthograde posture.
>
> So?

The thread refers to vegetarian orthograde birds & hominins.

>
> >>> What angle of synsacrum to
> >>>> ground marks the line between pronograde and orthograde?
> >>>
> >>> Why is that significant? Sheer obviousness should suffice: nearly vertical vs nearly horizontal. Birds aren't built to engineering specs.
> >>
> >> It's not a clear dichotomy. It's a continuum.
> >
> > Right, that's nature for you.
>
> So where do you divide that continuum?

I don't. "Nearly vertical" suffices for human readers, though computer readers may trip on such minor impediments.

>
> >>> I know of no
> >>>> birds other than penguins that generally adopt a completely vertical
> >>>> position, though bitterns will do so when hiding.
> >>>
> >>> Where do you come up with 'completely vertical'? Oh, your imagination.
> >>
> >> I have nothing to work with here, since you refuse to take a position.
> >
> > There are two positions mentioned, orthograde-upright-nearly vertical and pronograde-prone-nearly horizontal.
> >
> > You sound like a politician.
>
> Hey, you're the one who refuses to take a position.

I'm not a wading bird nor a sitting duck.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh my, a taipo.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> See above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Never explained.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean that the importance of this feature is never explained in what
> >>>> you have said.
> >>>
> >>> Posture is everything, at least in charm school. I was comparing
> >>> upright long-legged prometheus vegetarian and long-legged wading-bird
> >>> non-vegetarian, and gliding vegetarian and non-gliding
> >>> non-vegetarian.
> >
> >> prometheus?? What??
> >
> > Referred to earlier.
>
> Where? When? How?

Start at top post.

> >> Anyway, what is the importance of the orthograde posture?
> >
> > Height.
>
> What is the importance of height?

Distance from Earth.

Why are you afraid? It's Christmas!

[erik simpson]

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:39:49 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/24/18 4:54 PM, Daud Deden wrote:

> ....

DOn't you see, John? Bali ducks are becoming orthogonal, which means they will
soon converge to being omnivorous. Shortly thereafter, they'll move to the
rainforest floor, where they'll weave inverted bowl shields/huts and develop
language and singing. They'll lay their eggs in crystalline streams and
discover the use of fire (that's where Prometheus comes in). It's not a
completely private world; Mario's sometimes there too.

[Oxyaena]

Daud is even more frustrating to deal with than Mario. At least Mario
doesn't start off being a smug prick whenever someone responds to him,
it takes time for him to reach that stage.

[Daud Deden]

Neuronal factors determining high intelligence
Phil Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 371(1685):20150180
doi 10.1098/rstb.2015.0180
Ursula Dicke & Gerhard Roth 2016

Many attempts have been made to correlate degrees of animal & human
intelligence with brain properties.
With respect to mammals, a much-discussed trait concerns absolute &
relative CC, uncorrected or corrected for body size,
but the correlation of both with degrees of intelligence yields large
inconsistencies:
monkeys & apes incl.humans (regarded as the most intelligent mammals) have
neither the abs., nor the rel.largest brains.

The best fit between brain traits & degrees of intelligence among mammals
is reached by a combination of
- the number of cortical neurons,
- neuron packing density,
- inter-neuronal distance &
- axonal conduction velocity,
factors that determine general information processing capacity (IPC) as
reflected by general intelligence.

The highest IPC is found in humans, followed by the great apes, Old & New
World monkeys.

The IPC of cetaceans & elephants is much lower, because of
- a thin cortex,
- low neuron packing density &
- low axonal conduction velocity.

By contrast, corvid & psittacid birds have very small & densely packed
pallial neurons & rel.many neurons,
which (despite very small CCs) might explain their high intelligence.

The evolution of a syntactical & grammatical language in humans most
probably has served as an additional intelligence amplifier,
which may have happened in song-birds & psittacids in a convergent manner.
-

No smug prick here Hoax, just a dedicated research biologist sharing information.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 1:12:59 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 12/25/2018 11:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:


> > DOn't you see, John? Bali ducks are becoming orthogonal, which means they will
> > soon converge to being omnivorous. Shortly thereafter, they'll move to the
> > rainforest floor, where they'll weave inverted bowl shields/huts and develop
> > language and singing. They'll lay their eggs in crystalline streams and
> > discover the use of fire (that's where Prometheus comes in). It's not a
> > completely private world; Mario's sometimes there too.
> >
>
> Daud is even more frustrating to deal with than Mario. At least Mario
> doesn't start off being a smug prick whenever someone responds to him,
> it takes time for him to reach that stage.

In your first reply to me after I returned after almost a month's break,
you started off being a smug prick on a thread where I was discussing
things with Mario, some of them on topic.

It was the first post I've seen from you in 2019, and your first
post to that thread.

I responded here to your unprovoked behavior:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/b-tH5y4oEL8/r96j7TglFAAJ
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <b5abba5c-91cb-46aa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Caves and cliffs of The African Great Rift


And you went on being a smug prick about Homo naledi and Thylacoleo
in reply to the post I've linked just now. Your behavior was
symptomatic of you having jumped into the thread without
knowing anything about it.

There is a word for all this behavior, but there's no point
in saying it: you and Deden know what it is already, while Harshman
and Simpson are most unlikely to be affected by it, seeing as
how it is you who are exhibiting it and not I or Deden or Mario.


Have you belatedly looked at the reply I did to Mario today on that thread,
or at another post to Mario about which you seemed to be oblivious?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Is that what you are, Deden, a dedicated research biologist?

What is your field of research?

Feel free not to answer this question. Harshman certainly has exercised
that freedom where he is concerned.

Peter Nyikos

[Daud Deden]

Reminder: the topic is Parsimony & Imagination.

[Daud Deden]

My research is in Biology: the science of life.

[Oxyaena]

I doubt he has a field of research.

> Feel free not to answer this question. Harshman certainly has exercised
> that freedom where he is concerned.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

--
"Debating creationists is like playing chess with pigeons." - Troy Britain

[Oxyaena]

I see you have yet to respond to my latest response, and yet you feel
free to shit all over the carpet over here, pretending my response
doesn't exist. Try responding to it *before* lecturing me on selective
obliviousness, you prick.

[Daud Deden]

If a field of research is a specialization, then I have many, but I consider them integrated.

My interest in Paleo-etymology (word-prehistory) is just biological communication.

My interest in architecture & spatial geometry just extensions of body covering, etc.

Buckminster Fuller claimed that specialization results in obsolescence and extinction, I agree.

Seen many buggy-whip makers lately?

[Peter Nyikos]

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:40:59 -0500

> and yet you feel
> free to shit all over the carpet over here, pretending my response
> doesn't exist.

I wrote the post to which you are replying BEFORE your response
was posted, specifically:

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:22:58 -0800 (PST)


You are flaming me for not having ESP, specifically
precognition. Have you gone bananas?

Or are you deliberately wasting
my time by pretending you didn't know
that my post was before your reply?

> Try responding to it *before* lecturing me on selective
> obliviousness, you prick.

Get a life.

Maybe Harshman and Simpson will help you get one.

Or maybe they love you just the way you are, because you
make them look good in comparison.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I see. You are a biologist in the same sense that Oxyaena is
a paleontologist. But at least she never claimed to be a
*research* paleontologist, let alone a dedicated one,
whereas you had written,

No smug prick here Hoax, just a dedicated research biologist
sharing information.

On the other hand, the nickname "Hoax" is very well chosen.
Oxyaena not only claimed to be a paleontologist without
ever putting the word "amateur" in front of it, [1] she finally [2]
admitted that she had never even been on an organized fossil hunt.

Far worse: she claimed, simply because she had an MS in biology, [3]
that she of course knew how to handle a huge data matrix to produce
a phylogenetic tree. I could tell she was hoaxing, as you might put it,
because the references she said would "get [me] started" said not
a blessed thing about how the computer programs went.

In fact, they only lectured on things that I had picked up
while participating in a much more robust sci.bio. paleontology
back in 1995- 2000. Oxyaena's linked articles didn't even go
into much detail about the ideas behind the three main ways of
reconstructing trees from data: ML, MP, and NJ.

[1] Oxyaena obviously has a more shallow understanding of paleontology
[not to be confused with rote knowledge or ability to find information on line]
than the self-confessed amateur "Mickey Mortimer". I had a big AHA! moment
when I discovered that Mortimer was quite upfront about being an amateur,
after having seen Harshman call him a "real paleontologist"
without putting "amateur' in front of it.

[2] Stepping way out of character for once, Harshman finally admitted to
suspicions about Oxyaena being rather inexperienced in paleontology.
Oxyaena didn't want to jeopardize her palsy-walsy relationship
with John, so she broke down and confessed that she was only using
her biology degree to have "bragging rights."

[3] Oxyaena never said where it was from; it could have just been from a
diploma mill, or she could have outright lied about having an MS in biology.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Daud Deden]

[John Harshman]

On 1/23/19 7:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:40:58 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:

> Oxyaena's linked articles didn't even go
> into much detail about the ideas behind the three main ways of
> reconstructing trees from data: ML, MP, and NJ.

Point of information: NJ is not one of the main ways of reconstructing
trees. It's used mostly by molecular biologists who are doing
phylogenetic analysis (of a sort) as an afterthought, not by
systematists making a serious attempt.

If you want to add a third method, Bayesian MCMCMC analysis would be the
most likely.

[Oxyaena]

On 1/23/2019 10:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip tattling]

Now we have conclusive evidence that Peter is less mature than a grade
schooler.

BTW, I never admitted to *not* going on an organized fossil hunt, stop
lying.

[Oxyaena]

Says the guy who has nothing better to do than to tattle on others about
their Usenet activities.

>
> Maybe Harshman and Simpson will help you get one.
>
> Or maybe they love you just the way you are, because you
> make them look good in comparison.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 1/23/19 7:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:40:58 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>
> > Oxyaena's linked articles didn't even go
> > into much detail about the ideas behind the three main ways of
> > reconstructing trees from data: ML, MP, and NJ.
>
> Point of information: NJ is not one of the main ways of reconstructing
> trees. It's used mostly by molecular biologists who are doing
> phylogenetic analysis (of a sort) as an afterthought,

What do you mean by "as an afterthought"? What is the main point
of the papers in which they do this?

> not by
> systematists making a serious attempt.

Would you say Mickey Mortimer is making a serious attempt to
construct phylogenetic trees? Or is "serious attempt"
confined to the realm of professional systematists?

> If you want to add a third method, Bayesian MCMCMC analysis would be the
> most likely.

Thanks. It's nice to be sort of back to the subject of Parsimony & Imagination.

Unfortunately, I still have some unfinished business off topic.
But since you have done several off-topic posts in the past involving me and
Oxyaena, I don't expect you to cajole/demand that we get back on topic
today.


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics at
the original USC -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

I see no attempt by you to explain how you had made this "mistake",
or to deny either of the explanations I suggested.

Instead, I see you making a pathetic, perhaps literally insane attempt
below at applying the saying, "the best defense is a good offense."

> > Get a life.
>
> Says the guy who has nothing better to do

You are off in la-la land, ignoring the fact that
you barged into a thread where I was having a nice
discussion with Mario, some of it on topic, and began
a series of posts in which you attempted to nail me
with one wild accusation after another. I also did
a pair of solidly on-topic posts in s.b.p. last week.

As Harshman would say if you accused him of having
"nothing better to do than" under such circumstances,

It's all about you, isn't it?

> than to tattle on others about
> their Usenet activities.

"tattle" is the word frequently used by playground bullies,
for people reporting their bullying to the principal,
and sometimes by school principals abusing their authority
when pupils complain about being bullied. Here in Columbia,
there was an impassioned plea by a father whose son got
into trouble with his principal because he was
"tattling" on kids who had bullied him.

This was at a huge meeting set up by professional
community organizers, and was instrumental in having
"education" voted as one of the two topics on which the
participants would focus during the rest of the year
and into the following year.


The word "tattling" is synonymous with the word "ratting" used by grownups
in the Mafia, etc.

For a mature understanding of what "ratting" is really
all about, see "On the Waterfront."

For a mature understanding of the word "tattling," I could
tell you a revealing story about a student whom I caught taking a
test for another student, and about the student for whom he
substituted. They both got suspended for a semester.

> >
> > Maybe Harshman and Simpson will help you get one.
> >
> > Or maybe they love you just the way you are, because you
> > make them look good in comparison.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

I think you are oblivious to the fact that you ARE making
Harshman and even (gasp!) Simpson look good in comparison
to you. MUCH better, in fact.

When was the last time you saw a psychiatrist, or even
a professional counselor?


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 1/23/19 9:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 1/23/19 7:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:40:58 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>>
>>> Oxyaena's linked articles didn't even go
>>> into much detail about the ideas behind the three main ways of
>>> reconstructing trees from data: ML, MP, and NJ.
>>
>> Point of information: NJ is not one of the main ways of reconstructing
>> trees. It's used mostly by molecular biologists who are doing
>> phylogenetic analysis (of a sort) as an afterthought,
>
> What do you mean by "as an afterthought"? What is the main point
> of the papers in which they do this?

Generally, reporting on some function or structure. And usually the NJ
is of a gene family, not of species.

>> not by
>> systematists making a serious attempt.
>
> Would you say Mickey Mortimer is making a serious attempt to
> construct phylogenetic trees? Or is "serious attempt"
> confined to the realm of professional systematists?

Yes, I would say so. No.

>> If you want to add a third method, Bayesian MCMCMC analysis would be the
>> most likely.
>
> Thanks. It's nice to be sort of back to the subject of Parsimony & Imagination.

No problem.

[erik simpson]

I forget: what is the subject of "Parsimony & Imagination"? Wasn't it
something about birds' postures and leg lengths correlating to vegetarianism?
I have my doubts that phylogenetic methods are going to illuminate this issue.

[Oxyaena]

You realize that what you do is nothing of the sort you describe? More
self-righteousness, typical.

Let me explain, you dishonestly go backbiting me in forums I have never
frequented, in which I have no easy way of defending myself, and then
when called out on it, you double down on your douchebaggery, and then
project that douchebaggery onto me.

Peter, you're not a saint, stop deluding yourself into thinking you're
the victim, you're not.


[snip self-righteous ego stroking]

[Oxyaena]

It's Daud, you are correct to have your doubts.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 1/23/19 9:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 1/23/19 7:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:40:58 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oxyaena's linked articles didn't even go
> >>> into much detail about the ideas behind the three main ways of
> >>> reconstructing trees from data: ML, MP, and NJ.
> >>
> >> Point of information: NJ is not one of the main ways of reconstructing
> >> trees. It's used mostly by molecular biologists who are doing
> >> phylogenetic analysis (of a sort) as an afterthought,
> >
> > What do you mean by "as an afterthought"? What is the main point
> > of the papers in which they do this?
>
> Generally, reporting on some function or structure. And usually the NJ
> is of a gene family, not of species.

Phylogenetic trees of gene families are very much mainstream
biochemistry/molecular biology. Do the people who do articles
focused on them shun NJ? What is their preferred method?

> >> not by
> >> systematists making a serious attempt.
> >
> > Would you say Mickey Mortimer is making a serious attempt to
> > construct phylogenetic trees? Or is "serious attempt"
> > confined to the realm of professional systematists?
>
> Yes, I would say so. No.
>
> >> If you want to add a third method, Bayesian MCMCMC analysis would be the
> >> most likely.
> >
> > Thanks. It's nice to be sort of back to the subject of Parsimony & Imagination.
>
> No problem.

However, I'm not enthused about Deden's take on the subject.
And his "suspicion" that you are a computer program is even
more far out than JTEM's idee fixe that you are posting under
a pseudonym.

Of course, a lot of your laconic replies and questions would
not pass the Turing Test, but one has to take your total
contribution to s.b.p. into account.

Also, it's possible that Deden is displaying YOUR idea of
a sense of humor by claiming to have such suspicions.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Daud Deden]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:58:43 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> IMO:
>
> Orthograde bipedal long-legged vegetarian wading birds ... never existed...Wading birds are *all* non-vegetarians... so the [MV@SAP] claim that a long-legged vegetarian Australopithecus must have waded is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.

So far uncontested...

> Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and this habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed... Gliders are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or birds or Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding ancestors is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.

So far uncontested...

[Oxyaena]

Is there any reason to insult John in such a manner?

>
> Also, it's possible that Deden is displaying YOUR idea of
> a sense of humor by claiming to have such suspicions.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>

[Oxyaena]

On 12/25/2018 3:01 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/18 11:42 AM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eg. Bali duck vs Mallard duck posture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about Presbyornis?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Per wiki picture, it had fully webbed toes like a dabbling duck,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while upright wading birds tend to have slight or no webbing between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long toes. Waders don't run off, they fly off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the relevance? You asked for a herbivorous wader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was specific: orthogonal upright (near-vertical spine) wading-birds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm familiar with screamers, they definitely don't match this, but they do make a racket.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with any orthogonal upright wading birds, offhand. What
>>>>>>>>>>>> are you thinking of?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Herons, egrets, bitterns and other of similar traits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But they don't hold their bodies vertically, at least not usually. And
>>>>>>>>>> that's just one family.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have repeatedly used the term 'vertical' while I have stressed 'nearly vertical'. Even Picea is not perfectly vertical.
>>>>
>>>> I've repeatedly asked you for an operational definition.
>>>
>>>
>>> What does "orthograde" mean?
>>>
>>> Upright (spine) posture [eg. Penguin vs duck], vs pronograde.
>>>
>>> That answer would have sufficed an innocent inquiry.
>>
>> Nope. Not operational.
>
> Again, a political response.
> I suspect you are a computer program.
>
>>
>>> You have
>>>> repeatedly ignored that request. How vertical is "nearly vertical"?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't distinguish between pronograde birds (spine nearly
>>>>>>>>> horizontal) and orthograde birds (spine nearly vertical) then our
>>>>>>>>> discussion is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> When you say "spine", I presume you're referring to the synsacrum. Is
>>>>>>>> that correct? If so, what angle are you counting as the limit of
>>>>>>>> "orthograde"? If not, surely you aren't counting the cervical vertebrae,
>>>>>>>> are you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm referring to the spinal column within the torso, both typically
>>>>>>> orient pronograde (ducks except Bali ducks) or orthograde (large
>>>>>>> wading birds, penguins).
>>>>>> So, the synsacrum, then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not my term.
>>>>
>>>> It's the term used by ornithologists, though.
>>>
>>> I am not an ornithologist.
>>
>> Shouldn't you use the terms that ornithologists use when you're talking
>> about birds?
>
> No, since I'm not an ornithologist, nor am I posing as one.
>
>>>>> What are Bali ducks?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bali duck is an ancient breed of considerable significance. Ducks
>>>>> of upright carriage have been found carved in the stone of the
>>>>> temples of Asia dating back some two thousand years. Most waterfowl
>>>>> authorities believe the Bali duck to be the originator of the Indian
>>>>> Runner. Google it?
>>>
>>>> It's a breed of mallard.
>>>
>>> Yes, an orthograde Mallard breed.
>>>
>>> What possible significance could it have here?
>>>
>>> It displays an orthograde posture.
>>
>> So?
>
> The thread refers to vegetarian orthograde birds & hominins.
>
>>
>>>>> What angle of synsacrum to
>>>>>> ground marks the line between pronograde and orthograde?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that significant? Sheer obviousness should suffice: nearly vertical vs nearly horizontal. Birds aren't built to engineering specs.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a clear dichotomy. It's a continuum.
>>>
>>> Right, that's nature for you.
>>
>> So where do you divide that continuum?
>
> I don't. "Nearly vertical" suffices for human readers, though computer readers may trip on such minor impediments.
>

You're high, how else can you come to believe that John is really a bot
in disguise?

>>
>>>>> I know of no
>>>>>> birds other than penguins that generally adopt a completely vertical
>>>>>> position, though bitterns will do so when hiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you come up with 'completely vertical'? Oh, your imagination.
>>>>
>>>> I have nothing to work with here, since you refuse to take a position.
>>>
>>> There are two positions mentioned, orthograde-upright-nearly vertical and pronograde-prone-nearly horizontal.
>>>
>>> You sound like a politician.
>>
>> Hey, you're the one who refuses to take a position.
>
> I'm not a wading bird nor a sitting duck.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anhimids are most similar to presbyornithids, with which they form a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clade to the exclusion of the rest of Anseriformes. Given the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presence of lamelae in the otherwise fowl-like beaks of screamers, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even possible that they evolved from presbyornithid-grade birds,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverting from a filter-feeding lifestyle to an herbivorous one.[5]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that most ducks are largely if not entirely herbivorous,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? And much of their filtering is of plant material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't understand the importance of "orthoganol" to your thesis.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh my, a taipo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand the importance of "orthogonal" either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Never explained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Orthogonal to earth, orthograde to posture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean that the importance of this feature is never explained in what
>>>>>> you have said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Posture is everything, at least in charm school. I was comparing
>>>>> upright long-legged prometheus vegetarian and long-legged wading-bird
>>>>> non-vegetarian, and gliding vegetarian and non-gliding
>>>>> non-vegetarian.
>>>
>>>> prometheus?? What??
>>>
>>> Referred to earlier.
>>
>> Where? When? How?
>
> Start at top post.
>
>>>> Anyway, what is the importance of the orthograde posture?
>>>
>>> Height.
>>
>> What is the importance of height?
>
> Distance from Earth.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Distribution and habitat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Behaviour and ecology Edit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Screamers lay between 2 and 7 white eggs, with four or five being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typical. The young, like those of most Anseriformes, can run as soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as they are hatched. The chicks are usually raised in or near water
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as they can swim better than they can run. This helps them to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predators. Like ducks, screamer chicks imprint early in life. This,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled with their unfussy diet, makes them amenable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domestication..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the relevance?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither Presby. nor screamers would be classed as upright orthogonal wading birds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So why go into their ecology? Filling space?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because you asked "What about presbyornis?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't ask about screamers, or how many eggs anyone lays, or anything
>>>>>>>>>> about what you just cut and pasted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Better to know more than less, no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not if it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Screamers are descendants and/or closest analogs to presbyornis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they are neither. Wherever did you get that idea?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you don't recall correctly. Or if you do, then Wikipedia is just
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>>> hardly irrelevant, as "they swim better than they run". Egrets &
>>>>>>> herons nest high in tree rookeries, I'd guess presbyornis didn't.
>>>>>> How is that relevant, even if true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Arboreal nests and fully webbed feet usually don't jive. (Exc. Wood duck)
>>>>
>>>> I think you mean "gibe". And there are many other exceptions, even
>>>> within ducks.
>>>
>>> Jive/Jambo/jam etc. ~ match
>>>
>>> The majority of fully webbed waterfowl do not fly up to their nests.
>>>
>>>>>>> Should I launch into a
>>>>>>>> disquisition on the diversity of antbirds?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they have an orthograde posture, and are vegetarian, certainly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, antpittas do have a pretty erect posture, but I don't know what
>>>>>> counts as orthograde. Come to think of it, so do actual pittas. Both are
>>>>>> insectivores. Perhaps they're counterexamples of your claim, whatever it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> My claim is solid, you can see that.
>>>>
>>>> I can't see that.
>>>
>>> You would not admit seeing it.
>>>
>>> Of course it isn't quite clear what your claim is.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is beyond your ken.
>>
>> I'm afraid you are living in your own private world.
>
> Why are you afraid? It's Christmas!

>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed... Gliders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or birds or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding ancestors is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about gliding snakes and frogs? What about sugar gliders and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possums? What about flying fish? I think your claim is wrong.

[Daud Deden]

Is John a math-logic-language computer program constructed by Peter?

[John Harshman]

On 1/25/19 11:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 1/23/19 9:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/19 7:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:40:58 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oxyaena's linked articles didn't even go
>>>>> into much detail about the ideas behind the three main ways of
>>>>> reconstructing trees from data: ML, MP, and NJ.
>>>>
>>>> Point of information: NJ is not one of the main ways of reconstructing
>>>> trees. It's used mostly by molecular biologists who are doing
>>>> phylogenetic analysis (of a sort) as an afterthought,
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "as an afterthought"? What is the main point
>>> of the papers in which they do this?
>>
>> Generally, reporting on some function or structure. And usually the NJ
>> is of a gene family, not of species.
>
> Phylogenetic trees of gene families are very much mainstream
> biochemistry/molecular biology. Do the people who do articles
> focused on them shun NJ? What is their preferred method?

This may have changed, but it was very common when I was a grad student
for such analyses to consist just of putting the sequences in to MEGA
and just hitting the NJ button. Takes no skill, gets you a little figure
for your paper.

[Daud Deden]

https://usefulcharts.com/collections/collection-3/products/evolution-classification-of-life#shopify-product-reviews

Useful charts, featuring bio evolution, alternative chemistry periodic table, alphabet evolution, writing systems...

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 9:57:00 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 1/25/19 11:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 1/23/19 9:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 1/23/19 7:22 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:40:58 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Oxyaena's linked articles didn't even go
> >>>>> into much detail about the ideas behind the three main ways of
> >>>>> reconstructing trees from data: ML, MP, and NJ.
> >>>>
> >>>> Point of information: NJ is not one of the main ways of reconstructing
> >>>> trees. It's used mostly by molecular biologists who are doing
> >>>> phylogenetic analysis (of a sort) as an afterthought,
> >>>
> >>> What do you mean by "as an afterthought"? What is the main point
> >>> of the papers in which they do this?
> >>
> >> Generally, reporting on some function or structure. And usually the NJ
> >> is of a gene family, not of species.
> >
> > Phylogenetic trees of gene families are very much mainstream
> > biochemistry/molecular biology. Do the people who do articles
> > focused on them shun NJ? What is their preferred method?
>
> This may have changed, but it was very common when I was a grad student
> for such analyses to consist just of putting the sequences in to MEGA
> and just hitting the NJ button.

How long ago was that?

> Takes no skill, gets you a little figure
> for your paper.

Very interesting. I wonder whether that was true of the
existing phylogenetic trees for gene
families of aa-synthetases and blood clotting factors.

The latter family were shown to have been very likely due to gene
duplication and subsequent divergence, but the former were
only speculated to be that way despite enormous differences
in overall structure. The only basis for that speculation
AFAIK was the mere existence of a "phylogenetic tree."

Trouble is, almost any data about similar phenomena can be shoehorned
into a phylogenetic tree. I keep talking about a "phylogenetic tree" of
mountains from time to time, based on geological and structural
"characters".

Another example would be types of stars (O, B, A, F, G, M).
My first impression of the main sequence in the Herzprung-Russell
diagram was that these were stages in the evolution [1] of individual
stars. Wrong. 100% wrong. The transition of a star from one type to
another takes place OFF the main sequence.


[1] The usual term is "stellar evolution" although "stellar development"
would be closer to biological word usage.

> >>>> not by
> >>>> systematists making a serious attempt.
> >>>
> >>> Would you say Mickey Mortimer is making a serious attempt to
> >>> construct phylogenetic trees? Or is "serious attempt"
> >>> confined to the realm of professional systematists?
> >>
> >> Yes, I would say so. No.
> >>
> >>>> If you want to add a third method, Bayesian MCMCMC analysis would be the
> >>>> most likely.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. It's nice to be sort of back to the subject of Parsimony & Imagination.
> >>
> >> No problem.

NOTE TO READERS: John snipped what followed here, but Oxyaena didn't.

In reply to a bit of the snipped material, Oxyaena did not
explicitly criticize me for what she labeled as "insulting
John." It would have been hypocritical to do so, because of
such juicy examples as the following:

Uh hu. I am interested to hear in why you think so little
of current scientific consensuses. Perhaps due to an irrational
nostalgia for the good old days of the 1950's when it was
okay to lynch blacks and beat wives?
-- Oxyaena, demonstrtrating what a major-league insult looks like,
in:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/b-tH5y4oEL8/L9zTHEO1EwAJ

Subject: Re: Caves and cliffs of The African Great Rift

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 03:00:08 -0500
Message-ID: <q219q9$s6d$4...@news.albasani.net>

This was on the thread where Oxyaena kept behaving like a
"smug prick," beginning with the post linked above. She
accused me of "tattling" for having exposed her double standard
in criticizing Daud Deden for behaving like a "smug prick"
over on this thread.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 1:49:13 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> https://usefulcharts.com/collections/collection-3/products/evolution-classification-of-life#shopify-product-reviews
>
> Useful charts, featuring bio evolution, alternative chemistry periodic table, alphabet evolution, writing systems...

The one on bio evolution is extremely biased towards vertebrates,
which include a bit over half of all biota taxa listed, and especially
towards mammals, which make up a bit over half of all the
vertebrate taxa listed.

Primates make up at least a fourth of all the mammals taxa listed,
Hominoidea about half of all the primate taxa listed, and
Homo + Australopithecus about half of all the Hominoidea listed.

To make matters worse, it is almost impossible to read the chart
online at the highest available magnification, so to get a good look
at the chart, you have to shell out $25.

As a small favor, they will ship it to you free no matter where
in the world you are, but even so...

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[John Harshman]

On 1/28/19 2:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 1:49:13 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>> https://usefulcharts.com/collections/collection-3/products/evolution-classification-of-life#shopify-product-reviews
>>
>> Useful charts, featuring bio evolution, alternative chemistry periodic table, alphabet evolution, writing systems...
>
> The one on bio evolution is extremely biased towards vertebrates,
> which include a bit over half of all biota taxa listed, and especially
> towards mammals, which make up a bit over half of all the
> vertebrate taxa listed.
>
> Primates make up at least a fourth of all the mammals taxa listed,
> Hominoidea about half of all the primate taxa listed, and
> Homo + Australopithecus about half of all the Hominoidea listed.
>
> To make matters worse, it is almost impossible to read the chart
> online at the highest available magnification, so to get a good look
> at the chart, you have to shell out $25.
>
> As a small favor, they will ship it to you free no matter where
> in the world you are, but even so...

Quite a large number of polytomies too, most of them well resolved in
the literature.

[John Harshman]

1990-96.

>> Takes no skill, gets you a little figure
>> for your paper.
>
> Very interesting. I wonder whether that was true of the
> existing phylogenetic trees for gene
> families of aa-synthetases and blood clotting factors.

No idea. You would have to check the literature.

> The latter family were shown to have been very likely due to gene
> duplication and subsequent divergence, but the former were
> only speculated to be that way despite enormous differences
> in overall structure. The only basis for that speculation
> AFAIK was the mere existence of a "phylogenetic tree."
>
> Trouble is, almost any data about similar phenomena can be shoehorned
> into a phylogenetic tree. I keep talking about a "phylogenetic tree" of
> mountains from time to time, based on geological and structural
> "characters".

You keep talking about it, but I don't think you could actually produce
one. Still, if one did create a data set of mountains, composed of
discrete characters however bogus, one would get some kind of tree.

> Another example would be types of stars (O, B, A, F, G, M).
> My first impression of the main sequence in the Herzprung-Russell
> diagram was that these were stages in the evolution [1] of individual
> stars. Wrong. 100% wrong. The transition of a star from one type to
> another takes place OFF the main sequence.

That indeed would not be an example, as there is nothing like a tree of
stars. The main sequence is a set of discrete orderings by mass, and
stars off the main sequence are not assigned those types.

> [1] The usual term is "stellar evolution" although "stellar development"
> would be closer to biological word usage.

Agreed. It's something that happens to individuals, not populations.

[Oxyaena]

Which is still a question you have yet to *honestly* answer BTW. I`m
still waiting.

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/b-tH5y4oEL8/L9zTHEO1EwAJ
> Subject: Re: Caves and cliffs of The African Great Rift
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 03:00:08 -0500
> Message-ID: <q219q9$s6d$4...@news.albasani.net>
>
> This was on the thread where Oxyaena kept behaving like a
> "smug prick," beginning with the post linked above. She
> accused me of "tattling" for having exposed her double standard
> in criticizing Daud Deden for behaving like a "smug prick"
> over on this thread.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>

[Peter Nyikos]

Ah, so you were still a grad student when I started in
talk.origins. Perhaps also in sci.bio.paleontology; I'll
have to check and see when I started over there.

Well, if you outlive me in these newsgroups, I hope you
won't treat your memory of me as badly as you treat JTEM,
or as badly as Simpson treats the memory of Cal King.

> >> Takes no skill, gets you a little figure
> >> for your paper.
> >
> > Very interesting. I wonder whether that was true of the
> > existing phylogenetic trees for gene
> > families of aa-synthetases and blood clotting factors.
>
> No idea. You would have to check the literature.
>
> > The latter family were shown to have been very likely due to gene
> > duplication and subsequent divergence, but the former were
> > only speculated to be that way despite enormous differences
> > in overall structure. The only basis for that speculation
> > AFAIK was the mere existence of a "phylogenetic tree."
> >
> > Trouble is, almost any data about similar phenomena can be shoehorned
> > into a phylogenetic tree. I keep talking about a "phylogenetic tree" of
> > mountains from time to time, based on geological and structural
> > "characters".
>
> You keep talking about it, but I don't think you could actually produce
> one.

I could, given enough knowledge of geology. The characters
would include the chemical composition of rocks, the way
they were laid down and metamorphosed, which portion of
the mountain was weather resistant to what extent, etc.

> Still, if one did create a data set of mountains, composed of
> discrete characters however bogus,

Stow the "however bogus," matey. They be as legitimate
as a lot of homologies of theropod manuses, if not more so.

> one would get some kind of tree.

As with biota and genes.

>
> > Another example would be types of stars (O, B, A, F, G, M).
> > My first impression of the main sequence in the Herzprung-Russell
> > diagram was that these were stages in the evolution [1] of individual
> > stars. Wrong. 100% wrong. The transition of a star from one type to
> > another takes place OFF the main sequence.
>
> That indeed would not be an example, as there is nothing like a tree of
> stars.

Keep in mind that the ability to reproduce is NOT part
of the character matrix of any organism. Drones and workers
are just as fair game for phylogenetic trees as queens.

> The main sequence is a set of discrete orderings by mass, and
> stars off the main sequence are not assigned those types.

Oh, yes, they are. Can't fault you for not knowing this:
I was mightily surprised to learn that Betelgeuse and Antares
are both M stars.

>
> > [1] The usual term is "stellar evolution" although "stellar development"
> > would be closer to biological word usage.
>
> Agreed. It's something that happens to individuals, not populations.
>
> >>>>>> not by
> >>>>>> systematists making a serious attempt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would you say Mickey Mortimer is making a serious attempt to
> >>>>> construct phylogenetic trees? Or is "serious attempt"
> >>>>> confined to the realm of professional systematists?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I would say so. No.

Seems like we've re-opened the question of whether systematists
of gene families make/made serious attempts using NJ in their
peer-reviewed papers.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.

U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer --
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 3:13:25 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 6:39:13 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 1/28/19 2:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 9:57:00 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:


>
> >
> > > Another example would be types of stars (O, B, A, F, G, M).
> > > My first impression of the main sequence in the Herzprung-Russell
> > > diagram was that these were stages in the evolution [1] of individual
> > > stars. Wrong. 100% wrong. The transition of a star from one type to
> > > another takes place OFF the main sequence.
> >
> > That indeed would not be an example, as there is nothing like a tree of
> > stars.
>
> Keep in mind that the ability to reproduce is NOT part
> of the character matrix of any organism. Drones and workers
> are just as fair game for phylogenetic trees as queens.
>
>
> > The main sequence is a set of discrete orderings by mass, and
> > stars off the main sequence are not assigned those types.
>
> Oh, yes, they are. Can't fault you for not knowing this:
> I was mightily surprised to learn that Betelgeuse and Antares
> are both M stars.
>

To be pedantic, stars are generally described not just by "spectral type"
(O,B,A, etc), but also by "luminosity class" (roman numerals I - V, some with
subclasses). Saying a star is an M star conveys very little information about
its nature except photospheric temperature.

[John Harshman]

If you're fishing for a compliment, I will agree that you aren't nearly
as bad as JTEM or Cal King.

>>>> Takes no skill, gets you a little figure
>>>> for your paper.
>>>
>>> Very interesting. I wonder whether that was true of the
>>> existing phylogenetic trees for gene
>>> families of aa-synthetases and blood clotting factors.
>>
>> No idea. You would have to check the literature.
>>
>>> The latter family were shown to have been very likely due to gene
>>> duplication and subsequent divergence, but the former were
>>> only speculated to be that way despite enormous differences
>>> in overall structure. The only basis for that speculation
>>> AFAIK was the mere existence of a "phylogenetic tree."
>>>
>>> Trouble is, almost any data about similar phenomena can be shoehorned
>>> into a phylogenetic tree. I keep talking about a "phylogenetic tree" of
>>> mountains from time to time, based on geological and structural
>>> "characters".
>>
>> You keep talking about it, but I don't think you could actually produce
>> one.
>
> I could, given enough knowledge of geology. The characters
> would include the chemical composition of rocks, the way
> they were laid down and metamorphosed, which portion of
> the mountain was weather resistant to what extent, etc.

Yeah, you couldn't. You only imagine you could because you don't know
enough of both geology and character coding. It would require more
shoehorning, on several levels, than you suppose.

>> Still, if one did create a data set of mountains, composed of
>> discrete characters however bogus,
>
> Stow the "however bogus," matey. They be as legitimate
> as a lot of homologies of theropod manuses, if not more so.

That's your lack of knowledge talking. Species do have actual
homologies. Mountains do not.

>> one would get some kind of tree.
>
> As with biota and genes.

Yes, but of course those trees would reflect the actual structure of the
data. They would be robust to tests of significance and hierarchical
structure. They would be the products of an actual tree of relationships.

>>> Another example would be types of stars (O, B, A, F, G, M).
>>> My first impression of the main sequence in the Herzprung-Russell
>>> diagram was that these were stages in the evolution [1] of individual
>>> stars. Wrong. 100% wrong. The transition of a star from one type to
>>> another takes place OFF the main sequence.
>>
>> That indeed would not be an example, as there is nothing like a tree of
>> stars.
>
> Keep in mind that the ability to reproduce is NOT part
> of the character matrix of any organism. Drones and workers
> are just as fair game for phylogenetic trees as queens.

Keep in mind that the character matrix does not have the characteristics
of organisms, and that reproduction is essential to formation of a
nested hierarchy. Workers don't reproduce, though of course drones do,
and they are part of a reproducing population. Whatever point that was
intended to make, it careened off a cliff.

>> The main sequence is a set of discrete orderings by mass, and
>> stars off the main sequence are not assigned those types.
>
> Oh, yes, they are. Can't fault you for not knowing this:
> I was mightily surprised to learn that Betelgeuse and Antares
> are both M stars.

Now I'm surprised. I guess that just refers to their spectral peak, not
anything else about their structure.

>>> [1] The usual term is "stellar evolution" although "stellar development"
>>> would be closer to biological word usage.
>>
>> Agreed. It's something that happens to individuals, not populations.
>>
>>>>>>>> not by
>>>>>>>> systematists making a serious attempt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you say Mickey Mortimer is making a serious attempt to
>>>>>>> construct phylogenetic trees? Or is "serious attempt"
>>>>>>> confined to the realm of professional systematists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I would say so. No.
>
> Seems like we've re-opened the question of whether systematists
> of gene families make/made serious attempts using NJ in their
> peer-reviewed papers.

There is no such thing as "systematists of gene families". My suspicion
is that the people who just presented the NJ trees didn't think the
phylogenetic analysis in their papers was very important, or at least
the details weren't important, which is why they didn't trouble to learn
how do do one. We will probably never know whether my suspicion is correct.

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm really curious as to why you say that about Cal King.


Btw, you aren't nearly as bad a Erik, who isn't nearly
as bad as Oxyaena in her present state of mind.

> >>>> Takes no skill, gets you a little figure
> >>>> for your paper.
> >>>
> >>> Very interesting. I wonder whether that was true of the
> >>> existing phylogenetic trees for gene
> >>> families of aa-synthetases and blood clotting factors.
> >>
> >> No idea. You would have to check the literature.
> >>
> >>> The latter family were shown to have been very likely due to gene
> >>> duplication and subsequent divergence, but the former were
> >>> only speculated to be that way despite enormous differences
> >>> in overall structure. The only basis for that speculation
> >>> AFAIK was the mere existence of a "phylogenetic tree."
> >>>
> >>> Trouble is, almost any data about similar phenomena can be shoehorned
> >>> into a phylogenetic tree. I keep talking about a "phylogenetic tree" of
> >>> mountains from time to time, based on geological and structural
> >>> "characters".
> >>
> >> You keep talking about it, but I don't think you could actually produce
> >> one.
> >
> > I could, given enough knowledge of geology. The characters
> > would include the chemical composition of rocks, the way
> > they were laid down and metamorphosed, which portion of
> > the mountain was weather resistant to what extent, etc.
>
> Yeah, you couldn't. You only imagine you could because you don't know
> enough of both geology and character coding. It would require more
> shoehorning, on several levels, than you suppose.

So you allege. But you haven't given me a single reason
why what you say is true.

>
> >> Still, if one did create a data set of mountains, composed of
> >> discrete characters however bogus,
> >
> > Stow the "however bogus," matey. They be as legitimate
> > as a lot of homologies of theropod manuses, if not more so.
>
> That's your lack of knowledge talking.

Not in this case.

> Species do have actual
> homologies. Mountains do not.

You are smuggling in the concept of descent. Phylogenetic
trees do not show descent (or ancestry, same thing).
So-called homologies are shorn of any biological meaning.
They are inferred from trees themselves, being synonymous
with synapomorphy.

> >> one would get some kind of tree.
> >
> > As with biota and genes.
>
> Yes, but of course those trees would reflect the actual structure of the
> data. They would be robust to tests of significance and hierarchical
> structure. They would be the products of an actual tree of relationships.

Relationships are inferred from trees and are utterly
different from human relationships. Mitochondrial
Eve was more closely related to your mother than she was to
her own mother, by way of those "actual relationships"
*sensu* cladistic classification.

A matrilineal phylogenetic tree of humans would show Eve off on
a side branch from the (purely fictitious!)
LCA of your mother and herself.
And she would be in a clade separate from her mother,
but including your mother; her mother branches off
with that clade as her sister group.


Students of systematics are given this kind of artificial
thinking in their courses, take it or leave it. And since
they want to pass the course, they take it. But that doesn't
mean they like it.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, probably only
tomorrow or Friday.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[John Harshman]

He was a fanatic.

> Btw, you aren't nearly as bad a Erik, who isn't nearly
> as bad as Oxyaena in her present state of mind.

I truly don't see a problem with Erik.

So try it. None of what you mention could be coded as discrete
characters of the sort that make up phylogenetic data sets. Chemical
composition, for example, is a continuous, multidimensional variable.
Arbitrary divisions of a continuum do not make for good systematics.
Further, you will find that there is no consistency among characters,
unless you force it by coding the same thing several times.

>>>> Still, if one did create a data set of mountains, composed of
>>>> discrete characters however bogus,
>>>
>>> Stow the "however bogus," matey. They be as legitimate
>>> as a lot of homologies of theropod manuses, if not more so.
>>
>> That's your lack of knowledge talking.
>
> Not in this case.

On that we disagree.

>> Species do have actual
>> homologies. Mountains do not.
>
> You are smuggling in the concept of descent. Phylogenetic
> trees do not show descent (or ancestry, same thing).
> So-called homologies are shorn of any biological meaning.
> They are inferred from trees themselves, being synonymous
> with synapomorphy.

I don't understand how those sentences go together. How am I smuggling?
Pylogenetic trees show cladistic relationships, which depend on descent.
Homology depends on descent. I'm not sure what you mean by "shorn of any
biological meaning". Homology is indeed synonymous with synapomorphy,
and yes, their validity is inferred from trees. But how else? Any
character without such validation is a candidate homology. What else?
And what does any of this have to do with mountain phylogenies?

>>>> one would get some kind of tree.
>>>
>>> As with biota and genes.
>>
>> Yes, but of course those trees would reflect the actual structure of the
>> data. They would be robust to tests of significance and hierarchical
>> structure. They would be the products of an actual tree of relationships.
>
> Relationships are inferred from trees and are utterly
> different from human relationships. Mitochondrial
> Eve was more closely related to your mother than she was to
> her own mother, by way of those "actual relationships"
> *sensu* cladistic classification.

So there are two different meanings of "relationship". How is that a
problem?

> A matrilineal phylogenetic tree of humans would show Eve off on
> a side branch from the (purely fictitious!)
> LCA of your mother and herself.

How is that a problem?

> And she would be in a clade separate from her mother,
> but including your mother; her mother branches off
> with that clade as her sister group.

How is that a problem?

> Students of systematics are given this kind of artificial
> thinking in their courses, take it or leave it. And since
> they want to pass the course, they take it. But that doesn't
> mean they like it.

How do you know they don't like it? And it isn't artificial at all. It's
just acknowledgment of what we can and can't know. I know you don't like
it, but don't project your dislike onto students.

[Oxyaena]

Pointless, irrelevant insult noted.

Ha!

>
>> Species do have actual
>> homologies. Mountains do not.
>
> You are smuggling in the concept of descent. Phylogenetic
> trees do not show descent (or ancestry, same thing).
> So-called homologies are shorn of any biological meaning.
> They are inferred from trees themselves, being synonymous
> with synapomorphy.
>
>
>>>> one would get some kind of tree.
>>>
>>> As with biota and genes.
>>
>> Yes, but of course those trees would reflect the actual structure of the
>> data. They would be robust to tests of significance and hierarchical
>> structure. They would be the products of an actual tree of relationships.
>
> Relationships are inferred from trees and are utterly
> different from human relationships. Mitochondrial
> Eve was more closely related to your mother than she was to
> her own mother, by way of those "actual relationships"
> *sensu* cladistic classification.
>
> A matrilineal phylogenetic tree of humans would show Eve off on
> a side branch from the (purely fictitious!)
> LCA of your mother and herself.
> And she would be in a clade separate from her mother,
> but including your mother; her mother branches off
> with that clade as her sister group.
>

Worthless analogy noted. Phylogeny solely concerns itself with
*populations*, dipshit, not *individuals*, and that is a mere extension
of the truism that evolution operates on populations rather than
individuals as well.

>
> Students of systematics are given this kind of artificial
> thinking in their courses, take it or leave it. And since
> they want to pass the course, they take it. But that doesn't
> mean they like it.
>
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, probably only
> tomorrow or Friday.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>

--
"I'd rather be the son of two apes than be descended from a man who's
afraid to face the truth." - TH Huxley

http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:19:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 1/30/19 10:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 7:08:29 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> >> [Phylogenetic trees of biota are] the products of an actual tree of relationships.

> >
> > Relationships are inferred from trees and are utterly
> > different from human relationships. Mitochondrial
> > Eve was more closely related to your mother than she was to
> > her own mother, by way of those "actual relationships"
> > *sensu* cladistic classification.
>
> So there are two different meanings of "relationship". How is that a
> problem?
>
> > A matrilineal phylogenetic tree of humans would show Eve off on
> > a side branch from the (purely fictitious!)
> > LCA of your mother and herself.
>
> How is that a problem?
>
> > And she would be in a clade separate from her mother,
> > but including your mother; her mother branches off
> > with that clade as her sister group.
>
> How is that a problem?
>
> > Students of systematics are given this kind of artificial
> > thinking in their courses, take it or leave it. And since
> > they want to pass the course, they take it. But that doesn't
> > mean they like it.
>
> How do you know they don't like it?

> I know you don't like
> it, but don't project your dislike onto students.

Please show all of the above to your wife, making sure
that she understands what those symbols in the left
hand margin do.

No need to report back on her reaction; I just want
you to experience it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS This is the only the second I've made this kind of request
on the internet. The other time was much more pleasant: I asked
someone to relay my heartfelt congratulations to his daughter
on the birth of her first child.

[erik simpson]

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

[John Harshman]

It's a worse failure than you think. The post to which you reply above
has not appeared on my server, and I haven't seen it.

Beyond that, do you have any idea what Peter is getting at here? I don't.

[erik simpson]

It sounds like your server is bunged. I noticed you missed one of Someone's
deathless posts too. And beyond that, I have no idea where Peter is these
days. He sounds very erratic.

[Oxyaena]

On 2/1/2019 7:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:19:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 1/30/19 10:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 7:08:29 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>> [Phylogenetic trees of biota are] the products of an actual tree of relationships.
>>>
>>> Relationships are inferred from trees and are utterly
>>> different from human relationships. Mitochondrial
>>> Eve was more closely related to your mother than she was to
>>> her own mother, by way of those "actual relationships"
>>> *sensu* cladistic classification.
>>
>> So there are two different meanings of "relationship". How is that a
>> problem?

[crickets]

>>
>>> A matrilineal phylogenetic tree of humans would show Eve off on
>>> a side branch from the (purely fictitious!)
>>> LCA of your mother and herself.
>>
>> How is that a problem?

[crickets]

>>
>>> And she would be in a clade separate from her mother,
>>> but including your mother; her mother branches off
>>> with that clade as her sister group.
>>
>> How is that a problem?

[crickets[

>>
>>> Students of systematics are given this kind of artificial
>>> thinking in their courses, take it or leave it. And since
>>> they want to pass the course, they take it. But that doesn't
>>> mean they like it.
>>
>> How do you know they don't like it?
>> I know you don't like
>> it, but don't project your dislike onto students.
>
> Please show all of the above to your wife, making sure
> that she understands what those symbols in the left
> hand margin do.
>
> No need to report back on her reaction; I just want
> you to experience it.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
> PS This is the only the second I've made this kind of request
> on the internet. The other time was much more pleasant: I asked
> someone to relay my heartfelt congratulations to his daughter
> on the birth of her first child.
>
>

Pathetic attempt at evasion noted.

[Oxyaena]

[crickets]

Dull surprise.

[John Harshman]

On 2/2/19 7:51 AM, Oxyaena wrote:

>> Worthless analogy noted. Phylogeny solely concerns itself with
>> *populations*, dipshit, not *individuals*, and that is a mere
>> extension of the truism that evolution operates on populations rather
>> than individuals as well.
>
> [crickets]
>
> Dull surprise.

Please stop being insulting, even to Peter. In this case it even happens
that the fault is yours. Mitochondrial phylogenies of individuals are
certainly possible and are in fact common in the literature. And in any
molecular phylogeny, the terminal taxa are individuals used as exemplars
of higher taxa, and there may be multiple individuals per taxon in a
data set. The fact that populations, not individuals, evolve is
irrelevant to this discussion.

[erik simpson]

Peter still does seem to have some strange ideas about mitochondrial trees.

[Peter] *****

> >>>> Relationships are inferred from trees and are utterly
> >>>> different from human relationships. Mitochondrial
> >>>> Eve was more closely related to your mother than she was to
> >>>> her own mother, by way of those "actual relationships"
> >>>> *sensu* cladistic classification.

> >>>> A matrilineal phylogenetic tree of humans would show Eve off on
> >>>> a side branch from the (purely fictitious!)
> >>>> LCA of your mother and herself.

*****

Am I mistaken that mtEve is by definition the (matriarchal) LCA of every living
person? So there is no "side branch" on which she resides. "more related to
your mother than she is to her own mother" doesn't make any sense to me. Her
mother (of course) was also ancestral to all living people, albeit slightly more
distantly.

One aspect of collapsed "family tree" diagrams that isn't usually dealt with
in evolutionary cladograms is the recombination of "clades" that routinely
occurrs in family trees. Hence the historical wrangling over who has the most
direct relation to a previous king (or queen) is actually an argument over which
"clade" you claim membership in, when you could claim perhaps several.

[John Harshman]

No, that would be the case. In almost every method of phylogenetic
analysis, no real sequences lie at the internal nodes. All the data is
at terminal nodes. If the analysis were perfect, mtEve would be
separated from the ancestral node on a branch of zero length.

> "more related to
> your mother than she is to her own mother" doesn't make any sense to me. Her
> mother (of course) was also ancestral to all living people, albeit slightly more
> distantly.

What Peter means is "more related" in the sense of cladistic
relationships. Your common ancestor with Eve (which is Eve herself) is
more recent than her common ancestor with her mother (which is her
mother). Peter thinks that's weird, but it's just the definition of
cladistic relationships. He doesn't like cladistic relationships.

> One aspect of collapsed "family tree" diagrams that isn't usually dealt with
> in evolutionary cladograms is the recombination of "clades" that routinely
> occurrs in family trees. Hence the historical wrangling over who has the most
> direct relation to a previous king (or queen) is actually an argument over which
> "clade" you claim membership in, when you could claim perhaps several.

That doesn't enter into mitochondrial phylogenies.

[erik simpson]

Thanks. That clears up some the misconceptions I have had about mitochondrial
phylogenies. I appreciate more what Peter is complaining about. "Relatedness"
is obviously the bone of his contention.

[Peter Nyikos]

I merely dislike attaching the word "relationship" to describe a
concept which, though of undeniable usefulness, is
so utterly different from what we call relationships in everyday life.

You didn't even have the guts to say anything one way or the
other about my request to show "all of the above" to your wife.
Something I wrote in talk.origins about a very similar incident
that occurred years ago should have made you realize that you
were behaving in much the same way in this thread wrt "relationships".

You said back then that you were looking forward to the day
that children would routinely think of themselves as "fish"
and be amazed that anyone would think they were NOT fish.

I suspected you of Asperger's then and I suspect you of it now
[and your wife, by your admission, sometimes accuses you of it].
You seem to have minimal understanding of the connotations
of words to the general populace.

Consider the term "family resemblance". Ordinary people are often struck,
upon meeting not too distant relatives, by many physical and behavioral
features that these second cousins, etc. share with members of their
immediate family but with hardly anyone in the public at large.

To such people, seeing a family tree of Stegocephalia -- including
ourselves, "of course" -- would easily be struck by the "family
resemblance" between Elginerpeton and Elpistostege.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elpistostegalia

The former is supposed to be more closely related to *Homo*
than it is to the latter, even though it would be ridiculous to claim it has a family resemblance to us.

Now for the punch line: you have rejected the term "Linnean family"
because it is an "arbitrary" term, and yet if Hennig had perished
during WWII, Elpistostege and Elginerpeton would almost certainly
be in the same Linnean family because their "family resemblance"
and NOT just similarity.

"Similarity" is the word cladophiles love to use in order to
blur the distinction between naive phenetics and the sophisticated
Linnean classification still honored by a standard 2012
textbook for courses on comparative vertebrate anatomy.

In this one respect, your kind are "kissing cousins" with creationists.

>
> > One aspect of collapsed "family tree" diagrams that isn't usually dealt with
> > in evolutionary cladograms is the recombination of "clades" that routinely
> > occurrs in family trees. Hence the historical wrangling over who has the most
> > direct relation to a previous king (or queen) is actually an argument over which
> > "clade" you claim membership in, when you could claim perhaps several.
>
> That doesn't enter into mitochondrial phylogenies.

Right, those clades cannot recombine. OTOH separate species
of sexually reproducing animals can "recombine"
if they experience hardships that break down barriers to
reproduction between separate populations that have been
assigned to different species due to reproductive isolation.

Do systematists have a set way of handling these situations? It wreaks
havoc with the structure of phylogenetic trees where branches that are
never supposed to come together then DO come together.


Inquiring minds want to know.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu

PS Catch you Monday -- maybe here, maybe there in talk.origins,
maybe both places.

[John Harshman]

So it's purely a semantic quibble. I hope you realize that your
objection is futile.

> You didn't even have the guts to say anything one way or the
> other about my request to show "all of the above" to your wife.
> Something I wrote in talk.origins about a very similar incident
> that occurred years ago should have made you realize that you
> were behaving in much the same way in this thread wrt "relationships".
>
> You said back then that you were looking forward to the day
> that children would routinely think of themselves as "fish"
> and be amazed that anyone would think they were NOT fish.
>
> I suspected you of Asperger's then and I suspect you of it now
> [and your wife, by your admission, sometimes accuses you of it].
> You seem to have minimal understanding of the connotations
> of words to the general populace.

Yeah, so does Neil Shubin.

> Consider the term "family resemblance". Ordinary people are often struck,
> upon meeting not too distant relatives, by many physical and behavioral
> features that these second cousins, etc. share with members of their
> immediate family but with hardly anyone in the public at large.

> To such people, seeing a family tree of Stegocephalia -- including
> ourselves, "of course" -- would easily be struck by the "family
> resemblance" between Elginerpeton and Elpistostege.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elpistostegalia
>
> The former is supposed to be more closely related to *Homo*
> than it is to the latter, even though it would be ridiculous to claim it has a family resemblance to us.
>
> Now for the punch line: you have rejected the term "Linnean family"
> because it is an "arbitrary" term, and yet if Hennig had perished
> during WWII, Elpistostege and Elginerpeton would almost certainly
> be in the same Linnean family because their "family resemblance"
> and NOT just similarity.

I assume you object to the co-option of the word "family" by
systematists, who use it in a way quite different from ordinary
language. Even a "Linnean family".

Now I don't actually object to taxonomic families. What I object to is
paraphyletic families.

> "Similarity" is the word cladophiles love to use in order to
> blur the distinction between naive phenetics and the sophisticated
> Linnean classification still honored by a standard 2012
> textbook for courses on comparative vertebrate anatomy.

No, systematists ("cladophile" is of course your attempt at a pejorative
term, and is thus insulting) note that these "sophisticated"
classifications are vain attempts to combine two incompatible criteria:
cladistic relationships and similarity.

> In this one respect, your kind are "kissing cousins" with creationists.

Whatever do you mean by that?

>>> One aspect of collapsed "family tree" diagrams that isn't usually dealt with
>>> in evolutionary cladograms is the recombination of "clades" that routinely
>>> occurrs in family trees. Hence the historical wrangling over who has the most
>>> direct relation to a previous king (or queen) is actually an argument over which
>>> "clade" you claim membership in, when you could claim perhaps several.
>>
>> That doesn't enter into mitochondrial phylogenies.
>
> Right, those clades cannot recombine. OTOH separate species
> of sexually reproducing animals can "recombine"
> if they experience hardships that break down barriers to
> reproduction between separate populations that have been
> assigned to different species due to reproductive isolation.

True.

> Do systematists have a set way of handling these situations? It wreaks
> havoc with the structure of phylogenetic trees where branches that are
> never supposed to come together then DO come together.

It's rare enough -- in fact I know of no completed case -- that there is
no protocol for it. At least not in the way you mean here. On the other
hand, hybrid species are not all that rare in plants, which would be
similar. They're considered new species, but I don't know how they're
handled otherwise. If the hybrid is between two species in different
genera, I suspect that they just erect a new genus for the hybrid.

[Peter Nyikos]

You don't believe this yourself, otherwise you would
not be raising a stink about my use of "cladophile"
below.

> > You didn't even have the guts to say anything one way or the
> > other about my request to show "all of the above" to your wife.
> > Something I wrote in talk.origins about a very similar incident
> > that occurred years ago should have made you realize that you
> > were behaving in much the same way in this thread wrt "relationships".
> >
> > You said back then that you were looking forward to the day
> > that children would routinely think of themselves as "fish"
> > and be amazed that anyone would think they were NOT fish.
> >
> > I suspected you of Asperger's then and I suspect you of it now
> > [and your wife, by your admission, sometimes accuses you of it].
> > You seem to have minimal understanding of the connotations
> > of words to the general populace.
>
> Yeah, so does Neil Shubin.

Utterly false, from what I have seen from him. He talks
metaphorically about our "inner fish" the way Carl Sagan
did about a lot of our behavior, but I've never seen
him claim flat-out that we are fish.

The fact that you are unable to draw such elementary
distinctions only reinforces my suspicion that you
have Asperger's syndrome.

> > Consider the term "family resemblance". Ordinary people are often struck,
> > upon meeting not too distant relatives, by many physical and behavioral
> > features that these second cousins, etc. share with members of their
> > immediate family but with hardly anyone in the public at large.
>
> > To such people, seeing a family tree of Stegocephalia -- including
> > ourselves, "of course" -- would easily be struck by the "family
> > resemblance" between Elginerpeton and Elpistostege.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elpistostegalia
> >
> > The former is supposed to be more closely related to *Homo*
> > than it is to the latter, even though it would be ridiculous to claim it has a family resemblance to us.
> >
> > Now for the punch line: you have rejected the term "Linnean family"
> > because it is an "arbitrary" term, and yet if Hennig had perished
> > during WWII, Elpistostege and Elginerpeton would almost certainly
> > be in the same Linnean family because their "family resemblance"
> > and NOT just similarity.
>
> I assume you object to the co-option of the word "family" by
> systematists, who use it in a way quite different from ordinary
> language. Even a "Linnean family".

There is a world of difference between the "organic"
evolution of the concept of "family" to an analogous
concept, and the radical redefinition of "relatedness"
to denote something that does not even pretend to
have anything to do with the usual use of the word.

Are you unable to see this? If so, I can try to
explain the difference.

> Now I don't actually object to taxonomic families. What I object to is
> paraphyletic families.

You DO object to the claim that a taxonomic family
has any objective meaning. Is this not an objection
to the use of "family" in systematics?

Some systematists are hard at work trying to establish
a system where suffixes like "oidea" "idae" and "inae"
no longer have any connection with whether two
species are in the same family or not. Are you a
promoter of this movement?

>
> > "Similarity" is the word cladophiles love to use in order to
> > blur the distinction between naive phenetics and the sophisticated
> > Linnean classification still honored by a standard 2012
> > textbook for courses on comparative vertebrate anatomy.
>
> No, systematists ("cladophile" is of course your attempt at a pejorative
> term, and is thus insulting)

You aren't making sense here. Unlike "cladomaniac," which
is pejorative, "cladophile" is a word with no negative
connotations, and the actual meaning I attach to it
is an attitude of which your are PROUD.

And so, this parenthetical comment of yours does
nothing except reveal just how much semantic
quibbles mean to you -- and maybe to reveal a depth of
of animosity of you towards me that you are only
dimly aware of.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later,

and only after this reply posts. I've been having
trouble getting posts to show up in talk.origins today.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.

[erik simpson]

"Utterly false" is surely too strong. How you actually read "Your Inner Fish"?
The closing chapter ("The meaning of it all") isn't "metaphorical" in any sense.
In fact, it's full-bore "cladophilia" (maybe even "cladomania") in your private
vocabulary. Where would you propose to draw the line in your own ancestral
tree? (Shubin actually discusses that question.) You must agree that you are
an ape, a primate,..., a mammal,..., a synapsid, and so on? If so, why not
a fish? Or do you subscribe to Leo Szilard's suggestions that Hungary is a
front for aliens from Mars?

[John Harshman]

You have a penchant for drawing bad inferences from slight data. I do
believe it, and that has nothing to do with "cladophile".

>>> You didn't even have the guts to say anything one way or the
>>> other about my request to show "all of the above" to your wife.
>>> Something I wrote in talk.origins about a very similar incident
>>> that occurred years ago should have made you realize that you
>>> were behaving in much the same way in this thread wrt "relationships".
>>>
>>> You said back then that you were looking forward to the day
>>> that children would routinely think of themselves as "fish"
>>> and be amazed that anyone would think they were NOT fish.
>>>
>>> I suspected you of Asperger's then and I suspect you of it now
>>> [and your wife, by your admission, sometimes accuses you of it].
>>> You seem to have minimal understanding of the connotations
>>> of words to the general populace.
>>
>> Yeah, so does Neil Shubin.
>
> Utterly false, from what I have seen from him. He talks
> metaphorically about our "inner fish" the way Carl Sagan
> did about a lot of our behavior, but I've never seen
> him claim flat-out that we are fish.
>
> The fact that you are unable to draw such elementary
> distinctions only reinforces my suspicion that you
> have Asperger's syndrome.

This is nothing more than your current insult of choice. My wish is for
children to understand phylogenetics. How is that a problem? Your
obsession with an ancient and mostly forgotten movie is just odd.

I am definitely unable to see it.

>> Now I don't actually object to taxonomic families. What I object to is
>> paraphyletic families.
>
> You DO object to the claim that a taxonomic family
> has any objective meaning. Is this not an objection
> to the use of "family" in systematics?

No. Do you claim what a taxonomic family has objective meaning? If so,
what is it?

> Some systematists are hard at work trying to establish
> a system where suffixes like "oidea" "idae" and "inae"
> no longer have any connection with whether two
> species are in the same family or not. Are you a
> promoter of this movement?

No, and I think you mistake what some systematists are doing.

>>> "Similarity" is the word cladophiles love to use in order to
>>> blur the distinction between naive phenetics and the sophisticated
>>> Linnean classification still honored by a standard 2012
>>> textbook for courses on comparative vertebrate anatomy.
>>
>> No, systematists ("cladophile" is of course your attempt at a pejorative
>> term, and is thus insulting)
>
> You aren't making sense here. Unlike "cladomaniac," which
> is pejorative, "cladophile" is a word with no negative
> connotations, and the actual meaning I attach to it
> is an attitude of which your are PROUD.

Nonsense. You use it as a pejorative constantly.

> And so, this parenthetical comment of yours does
> nothing except reveal just how much semantic
> quibbles mean to you -- and maybe to reveal a depth of
> of animosity of you towards me that you are only
> dimly aware of.

No, I'm quite aware of my depth of animosity toward you. I find you
quite annoying, petty, unobservant, unselfconscious, and paranoid. At
least that's your usenet persona.

[Peter Nyikos]

You are utterly bereft of support for "almost surely."

I see no statement by Shubin claiming that we are fish,
and your trolling below makes no attempt to state that he ever
made one.

> How you actually read "Your Inner Fish"?
> The closing chapter ("The meaning of it all") isn't "metaphorical" in any sense.
> In fact, it's full-bore "cladophilia" (maybe even "cladomania")

You are acting as though you know what cladophile means above, but
now you switch to acting as though you do NOT know what it means:

> in your private
> vocabulary.

It isn't private, you troll. I've stated the definition of cladphile countless times, and you are doing Harshman no favors by acting as though it were a secret. I'm pretty sure you privately know that it ACCURATELY
describes something that Harsman and you are proud of, but also that
it is NOT the fact that you are proud to call yourselves fish.

What it ACCURATELY describes is an intolerance for paraphyletic
taxa, and for systems that incorporate them.

But "fish" isn't a taxon: like "bird", it is a word in the
public domain, and you are doing violence to it.

> Where would you propose to draw the line in your own ancestral
> tree? (Shubin actually discusses that question.)

Yes, but probably in ways like I discuss it below.

> You must agree that you are
> an ape, a primate,..., a mammal,..., a synapsid, and so on?

All but the first, and I am descended from apes and from fish.
There is a professional paleontologist, John Hawks, who specializes in
Hominini, and who publicly prefers "we are descended from apes"
to "we are apes."

And I know of none who prefers the opposite usage. And I don't
think either you or Harshman know of one.

On the other hand, as Harshman informed you, you and he are committed
to a system where ALL fish are off on side branches to the line
leading to synapsids, mammals, primates, and apes.

You are committed to it by your trolling, all through this post.
And the upshot of it is that no phylogenetic tree will support
the claim that you are a fish, or even descended from one.

> If so, why not
> a fish? Or do you subscribe to Leo Szilard's suggestions that Hungary is a
> front for aliens from Mars?

That was a joke, and you are a joke.

In other words, a troll.

And you apparently don't care who knows it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu

PS A cladomaniac is someone who frequently indulges in deceit to promote
cladophilia. And I suspect your trolling is designed to get me
to call you one, so that you can turn around and pretend that
it is an honor to be called one, at those times when the definition
is out of plain sight.

[Peter Nyikos]

No, I have a penchant for being a reasoner, while you
have a penchant for being a polemicist.

> I believe it, and that has nothing to do with "cladophile".

It has everything to do with your distaste for "cladophile."
Also your distaste for the all too appropriate nickname,
"DontWanna HearAboutIt" which describes the way you not
only play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
about Oxyaena and Erik, but you snip all evidence of wrongdoing
by them and make it clear you aren't interested in it.

Actions speak louder than words. Your protestation "I believe it."
only makes you look unobservant, unreflective, and unselfconscious.

> >>> You didn't even have the guts to say anything one way or the
> >>> other about my request to show "all of the above" to your wife.
> >>> Something I wrote in talk.origins about a very similar incident
> >>> that occurred years ago should have made you realize that you
> >>> were behaving in much the same way in this thread wrt "relationships".
> >>>
> >>> You said back then that you were looking forward to the day
> >>> that children would routinely think of themselves as "fish"
> >>> and be amazed that anyone would think they were NOT fish.

And now, it appears that Erik is also wholeheartedly looking
forward to that day, even more than you are. See my reply to him
less than an hour ago.

> >>> I suspected you of Asperger's then and I suspect you of it now
> >>> [and your wife, by your admission, sometimes accuses you of it].
> >>> You seem to have minimal understanding of the connotations
> >>> of words to the general populace.
> >>
> >> Yeah, so does Neil Shubin.
> >
> > Utterly false, from what I have seen from him. He talks
> > metaphorically about our "inner fish" the way Carl Sagan
> > did about a lot of our behavior, but I've never seen
> > him claim flat-out that we are fish.

Evidently neither you nor Erik is able to show anything
different. And so you are shown to be drawing WRONG
conclusions from SUFFICIENT data.

And here's more: John Hawks, who has far more right to say such things
than you have to say the opposite, is against saying
"we are apes" and for saying "we are descended from apes."

> > The fact that you are unable to draw such elementary
> > distinctions only reinforces my suspicion that you
> > have Asperger's syndrome.
>
> This is nothing more than your current insult of choice.

Then your wife insults you every time she suspects you of it.
Are you claiming it is wrong for her to insult you in that way?

No, I think you are using the pejorative word "insult" to
describe legitimate suspicions. And it is no disgrace to
have Asperger's, all your innuendo to the contrary notwithstanding.

> My wish is for
> children to understand phylogenetics. How is that a problem?

It is a problem if "understand phylogenetics" includes going
around telling everyone they are fish. And with your
disngenuous question, it appears that you do want them
to do that, but are afraid to say it openly.


<snip of things to be dealt with in a future post>

> >>> "Similarity" is the word cladophiles love to use in order to
> >>> blur the distinction between naive phenetics and the sophisticated
> >>> Linnean classification still honored by a standard 2012
> >>> textbook for courses on comparative vertebrate anatomy.
> >>
> >> No, systematists ("cladophile" is of course your attempt at a pejorative
> >> term, and is thus insulting)
> >
> > You aren't making sense here. Unlike "cladomaniac," which
> > is pejorative, "cladophile" is a word with no negative
> > connotations, and the actual meaning I attach to it
> > is an attitude of which your are PROUD.
>
> Nonsense. You use it as a pejorative constantly.

It is you who are indulging in nonsense here. You
carefully avoid giving examples, and even avoid defining
the concept "use as a pejorative." Until you do,
your sentence is not only devoid of credibility, it
is essentially meaningless.

> > And so, this parenthetical comment of yours does
> > nothing except reveal just how much semantic
> > quibbles mean to you -- and maybe to reveal a depth of
> > of animosity of you towards me that you are only
> > dimly aware of.
>
> No, I'm quite aware of my depth of animosity toward you. I find you

Your "findings" have no evidential basis, unlike mine at the
beginning of this post. [Keywords: Actions speak louder than words.]

> quite annoying, petty, unobservant, unselfconscious, and paranoid. At
> least that's your usenet persona.

You are uttering falsehoods about my usenet persona. You cannot
back them up in any meaningful way, and aren't even pretending to
try. And so you are actually lending credence to what I wrote
about deep-seated animosity that you are only dimly aware of.

IOW, this is the hypothesis that your subconscious mind feeds
you the illusion that your insulting comments are accurate,
and you are thereby kept in the dark as to how much subconscious
animosity is behind your false claims.


Peter Nyikos

PS I am only signing my name here because this was an off topic
post, in reply to an off topic (and petty, and highly insulting)
post by you.

[erik simpson]

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 6:06:57 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
<snip hopelessness>

Bye.

[Oxyaena]

On 2/11/2019 9:06 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip shrieking]

>
>> in your private
>> vocabulary.
>
> It isn't private, you troll. I've stated the definition of cladphile countless times, and you are doing Harshman no favors by acting as though it were a secret. I'm pretty sure you privately know that it ACCURATELY
> describes something that Harsman and you are proud of, but also that
> it is NOT the fact that you are proud to call yourselves fish.
>

Name *one* instance where the word "cladophile" or "cladomaniac" has
been used by someone other than you, asshole.

> What it ACCURATELY describes is an intolerance for paraphyletic
> taxa, and for systems that incorporate them.

And how is that bad? You've never given us a straight answer on this.

>
> But "fish" isn't a taxon: like "bird", it is a word in the
> public domain, and you are doing violence to it.
>
>
>> Where would you propose to draw the line in your own ancestral
>> tree? (Shubin actually discusses that question.)
>
> Yes, but probably in ways like I discuss it below.
>
>
>> You must agree that you are
>> an ape, a primate,..., a mammal,..., a synapsid, and so on?
>
> All but the first, and I am descended from apes and from fish.
> There is a professional paleontologist, John Hawks, who specializes in
> Hominini, and who publicly prefers "we are descended from apes"
> to "we are apes."

Why don't you agree you are an ape? Surely is is arbitrary to exclude
humans from the category of "ape" but include chimps, is it not?

[snip wheezing]

[Oxyaena]

On 2/11/2019 9:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip hypocritical bitching and moaning]

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall..."

[John Harshman]

On 2/11/19 6:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> It is a problem if "understand phylogenetics" includes going
> around telling everyone they are fish.

Why?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:11:22 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:58:43 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> > IMO:
> >
> > Orthograde bipedal long-legged vegetarian wading birds ... never existed...Wading birds are *all* non-vegetarians... so the [MV@SAP] claim that a long-legged vegetarian Australopithecus must have waded is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
>
> So far uncontested...

...except in the case of what I call "vertical ducks." Do you think
you have satisfactorily disposed of them? and of Harshman's observation
that the "Orthograde" wrt most wading birds really only
applies to the neck and legs?

Can you name one, besides a penguin, that is more orthograde than what
I call a "vertical duck"? Don't forget, you wrote, "ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds."


> > Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and this habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed... Gliders are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or birds or Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding ancestors is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
>
> So far uncontested...

Very interesting, this uncontested assertion, especially
now that a full month has passed.

I've checked back over this thread, and I can't even find
the usual trio of Deden-disparagers touching this issue
for a month now.


As for myself, I've been very busy fending off attacks by
the trio on another thread, and also in talk.origins.
And they are continuing to intensify and attract new
perpetrators of injustice, so I might not
get back to this thread for the rest of this week.

However, you may rest assured that I will return to it
next week if not this week.

You've slightly misconstrued ["must have"] what I have written about pterosaurs
and birds and bats in the past. It's just that a gliding ancestor would
at least have provided a lot of ventral surface that could be
"exapted" for powered flight, according to the conventional wisdom
for bats and pterosaurs, and about half the professional theorists for birds.
And so, presumably, they have a smaller bridge to gap than purely
terrestrial ancestors.


I've never been as dogmatic about these issues
as you are with your "never existed". Or your dogmatic
claim that ALL gliders are vegetarians, which you
had to significantly modify under cross-examination.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:15:34 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/11/2019 9:06 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip shrieking]

Liar.

> >> in your private
> >> vocabulary.
> >
> > It isn't private, you troll. I've stated the definition of cladphile countless times, and you are doing Harshman no favors by acting as though it were a secret. I'm pretty sure you privately know that it ACCURATELY
> > describes something that Harsman and you are proud of, but also that
> > it is NOT the fact that you are proud to call yourselves fish.
> >
>
> Name *one* instance where the word "cladophile" or "cladomaniac" has
> been used by someone other than you, asshole.

Disingenuous question noted. The words are my own
coinage, but Erik was feigning ignorance about
how I define them.

The real reason for your dishonest snip was so this
would not become obvious to readers, wasn't it?

>
> > What it ACCURATELY describes is an intolerance for paraphyletic
> > taxa, and for systems that incorporate them.
>
> And how is that bad? You've never given us a straight answer on this.

Nobody asked me for one IIRC. It is bad in part because
it tends to turn systematics into a "science"
dominated by computer nerds who code characters
like "semilunate carpal", "double-pulleyed astragalus,"
ad infinitum, without knowing or caring what they
really denote.

I have more weighty reasons, but I'd rather give
them to John Harshman than to a toady of him
and Simpson like yourself.

>
> >
> > But "fish" isn't a taxon: like "bird", it is a word in the
> > public domain, and you are doing violence to it.
> >
> >
> >> Where would you propose to draw the line in your own ancestral
> >> tree? (Shubin actually discusses that question.)
> >
> > Yes, but probably in ways like I discuss it below.
> >
> >
> >> You must agree that you are
> >> an ape, a primate,..., a mammal,..., a synapsid, and so on?
> >
> > All but the first, and I am descended from apes and from fish.
> > There is a professional paleontologist, John Hawks, who specializes in
> > Hominini, and who publicly prefers "we are descended from apes"
> > to "we are apes."
>
>
> Why don't you agree you are an ape?

Because I respect John Hawks far more than I
do the troika of Harshman, Simpson and yourself.

> Surely is is arbitrary to exclude
> humans from the category of "ape" but include chimps, is it not?

Ask John Hawks, and get back to me if he ever
replies.

>
> [snip wheezing]

Do you really expect people to believe that you
do not hate me? Just go back and re-read what
you snipped here, and with your hateful "snip shrieking".

[Oxyaena]

On 2/25/2019 3:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:15:34 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 2/11/2019 9:06 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [snip shrieking]
>
> Liar.

That evidently got your panties twisted in a bunch.

>
>>>> in your private
>>>> vocabulary.
>>>
>>> It isn't private, you troll. I've stated the definition of cladphile countless times, and you are doing Harshman no favors by acting as though it were a secret. I'm pretty sure you privately know that it ACCURATELY
>>> describes something that Harsman and you are proud of, but also that
>>> it is NOT the fact that you are proud to call yourselves fish.
>>>
>>
>> Name *one* instance where the word "cladophile" or "cladomaniac" has
>> been used by someone other than you, asshole.
>
> Disingenuous question noted. The words are my own
> coinage, but Erik was feigning ignorance about
> how I define them.

Hence they are not impartial labels.

>
> The real reason for your dishonest snip was so this
> would not become obvious to readers, wasn't it?
>
>>
>>> What it ACCURATELY describes is an intolerance for paraphyletic
>>> taxa, and for systems that incorporate them.
>>
>> And how is that bad? You've never given us a straight answer on this.
>
> Nobody asked me for one IIRC. It is bad in part because
> it tends to turn systematics into a "science"
> dominated by computer nerds who code characters
> like "semilunate carpal", "double-pulleyed astragalus,"
> ad infinitum, without knowing or caring what they
> really denote.

I have asked you *multiple* times. The power of willful blindness is
astonishing, isn't it?

>
> I have more weighty reasons, but I'd rather give
> them to John Harshman than to a toady of him
> and Simpson like yourself.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> But "fish" isn't a taxon: like "bird", it is a word in the
>>> public domain, and you are doing violence to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Where would you propose to draw the line in your own ancestral
>>>> tree? (Shubin actually discusses that question.)
>>>
>>> Yes, but probably in ways like I discuss it below.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You must agree that you are
>>>> an ape, a primate,..., a mammal,..., a synapsid, and so on?
>>>
>>> All but the first, and I am descended from apes and from fish.
>>> There is a professional paleontologist, John Hawks, who specializes in
>>> Hominini, and who publicly prefers "we are descended from apes"
>>> to "we are apes."
>>
>>
>> Why don't you agree you are an ape?
>
> Because I respect John Hawks far more than I
> do the troika of Harshman, Simpson and yourself.

Non-sequitur noted.

>
>
>> Surely is is arbitrary to exclude
>> humans from the category of "ape" but include chimps, is it not?
>
> Ask John Hawks, and get back to me if he ever
> replies.

Cowardly evasion noted.

[snip moaning and groaning]


--
"Step back and smell the ashes." - Unknown

http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/

[Daud Deden]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 10:29:50 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:11:22 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:58:43 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > IMO:
> > >
> > > Orthograde bipedal long-legged vegetarian wading birds ... never existed...Wading birds are *all* non-vegetarians... so the [MV@SAP] claim that a long-legged vegetarian Australopithecus must have waded is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
> >
> > So far uncontested...
>
> ...except in the case of what I call "vertical ducks."

I already covered Bali ducks & Indian runner ducks, which aren't waders and have short legs.

Do you think
> you have satisfactorily disposed of them? and of Harshman's observation
> that the "Orthograde" wrt most wading birds really only
> applies to the neck and legs?

Wrong, orthograde heron, bittern, egret, not pronograde flamingo which btw tilts its head to eat.

>
> Can you name one, besides a penguin, that is more orthograde than what
> I call a "vertical duck"? Don't forget, you wrote, "ducks are not orthoganol upright wading birds."
>
>
> > > Proto-bats gliding into swarms of flying insects to eat them and this habit developed into true flight in bats ... never existed... Gliders are *all* vegetarians... so the [PN@SBP] claim that bats (or birds or Pterosaurs) must have gained flapping flight via gliding ancestors is not based upon common traits but upon imagination.
> >
> > So far uncontested...
>
> Very interesting, this uncontested assertion, especially
> now that a full month has passed.
>
> I've checked back over this thread, and I can't even find
> the usual trio of Deden-disparagers touching this issue
> for a month now.
>
>
> As for myself, I've been very busy fending off attacks by
> the trio on another thread, and also in talk.origins.
> And they are continuing to intensify and attract new
> perpetrators of injustice, so I might not
> get back to this thread for the rest of this week.
>
> However, you may rest assured that I will return to it
> next week if not this week.
>
> You've slightly misconstrued ["must have"] what I have written about pterosaurs
> and birds and bats in the past. It's just that a gliding ancestor would
> at least have provided a lot of ventral surface that could be
> "exapted" for powered flight,

Cf helicopter?

according to the conventional wisdom
> for bats and pterosaurs, and about half the professional theorists for birds.
> And so, presumably, they have a smaller bridge to gap than purely
> terrestrial ancestors.

Surely you mean arboreal ancestors.

>
>
> I've never been as dogmatic about these issues
> as you are with your "never existed".

You are welcome to provide a counter-example.

Or your dogmatic
> claim that ALL gliders are vegetarians,

True.

which you
> had to significantly modify under cross-examination.

Parachutitists vs gliders vs flappers.

[Peter Nyikos]

I've been awfully busy in talk.origins, with only a week's
respite when 'beagle' went down; but even that was partly
offset with new s.b.p. threads on the progress of that posting
software, along with unjustified insults about me by
a handful of people who had come to s.b.p. for temporary
"shelter".

Also, you've been heaping insults on me on the thread
"Crackpottery"; so it is only now that I have a bit of
spare time to deal with this post again:

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:19:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> He was a fanatic.

I never saw any sign of fanaticism in him. What, if anything,
do you remember about his behavior?

>
> > Btw, you aren't nearly as bad a Erik, who isn't nearly
> > as bad as Oxyaena in her present state of mind.
>

> I truly don't see a problem with Erik.

That's because you (or at least your posting persona)
carefully avoid(s) reading posts where it is obvious.

Unfortunately, since I wrote the above, Erik has seriously
devolved in Oxyaena's direction. Right now he is using
his twisted mind to escape all responsibility for having abetted Oxyaena
on Oxyaena's implication that Wegener indulged
in crackpottery.

This is taking place right now in talk.origins on
the "Irrelevant" thread, along with a spectacular
Black Knight performance by Oxyaena, devoid of any
argument that she did NOT make that implication.

Are you at all curious about this? or do you plan
to avoid those posts like the plague, so that you
can go on with your blissfully ignorant comment,

I truly don't see a problem with Erik.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to another day.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

You truly distort what has been said. The now tedious repeating of these
distortions needs to be corrected. "Diode" Deden started the thread on
"Crackpotteries" citing an article where the original reactions to important
discoveries (Wegener's included) were ridiculed. Oxyaena comments that the
principle ridicule was based on the unphysical mechanisms proposed for
"continental drift". I agreed, not that Wegener was a crackpot (which Oxy
*didn't* suggest), but that this was probably the main reason that some
geologists in the past *did* suggest. Whether or not that was the principle
reason could be argued, but you didn't contest that.

You morphed this into libeling Oxyaena for saying that Wegener was a crackpot,
and me for supporting that suggestion. You have been disabused of this notion
several times now, but you continue to repeat it. That's LYING, Peter, without
any further qualifications.

[Oxyaena]

On 2/27/2019 1:30 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip libel]

Point me to where I stated that Wegener was a crackpot. I stated that he
was ridiculed for not proposing a mechanism, then you started libeling
me by stating I had called him a crackpot. Stop lying and admit to your
fault, or are you too immature to do even *that*?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:01:38 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:19:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> > > I truly don't see a problem with Erik.
> >
> > That's because you (or at least your posting persona)
> > carefully avoid(s) reading posts where it is obvious.
> >
> > Unfortunately, since I wrote the above, Erik has seriously
> > devolved in Oxyaena's direction. Right now he is using
> > his twisted mind to escape all responsibility for having abetted Oxyaena
> > on Oxyaena's implication that Wegener indulged
> > in crackpottery.
> >
> > This is taking place right now in talk.origins on
> > the "Irrelevant" thread, along with a spectacular
> > Black Knight performance by Oxyaena, devoid of any
> > argument that she did NOT make that implication.
> >
> > Are you at all curious about this? or do you plan
> > to avoid those posts like the plague, so that you
> > can go on with your blissfully ignorant comment,
> >
> > I truly don't see a problem with Erik.
> >
> >
> > Remainder deleted, to be replied to another day.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> You truly distort what has been said.

Wrong.

> The now tedious repeating of these
> distortions needs to be corrected.

Your bogus "correction" starts out with a demeaning nickname:

> "Diode" Deden started the thread on
> "Crackpotteries" citing an article where the original reactions to important
> discoveries (Wegener's included) were ridiculed. Oxyaena comments that the
> principle ridicule

WHITEWASH! Here are Oxyaena's actual words:

No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have occurred by.

> was based on the unphysical mechanisms proposed for
> "continental drift".

DISTORTION! see the actual words above.

> I agreed, not that Wegener was a crackpot (which Oxy
> *didn't* suggest),

In your Oxyaena-doting mind.

My reaction to the ACTUAL text was:

Now Oxyaena says, in effect, that Wegener WAS a crackpot for
a *scientific* reason that she attributes to
professional geologists

> but that this was probably the main reason that some
> geologists in the past *did* suggest.

Did suggest WHAT, you dishonest spin-doctor?

> Whether or not that was the principle
> reason could be argued, but you didn't contest that.
>
> You morphed this into libeling Oxyaena for saying

IMPLYING, you incorrigible spin doctor. And "this"
refers to your shameless whitewash "ridicule" rather
than the correct "crackpot".

> that Wegener was a crackpot,
> and me for supporting that suggestion. You have been disabused of this notion
> several times now,

This is your dishonest, overbearing term for "You have been hit
several times with undocumented Truth by Blatant
Assertion that you were wrong to claim this."

And you STILL avoided actual documentation. As
I put it during my reply to a long, raving, vicious,
baseless attack by Oxyaena:

Note how actual refutation is the furthest thing from the mind
of Black Knight Oxyaena -- and, for that matter, her fellow
Black Knight Erik Simpson, in his own separate treatment of this issue.
To document what they actually wrote would be to incriminate themselves.

Note especially that last line.

> but you continue to repeat it. That's LYING, Peter, without
> any further qualifications.

False. Besides, you have nothing against lying when
it is done by people you are fond of, including yourself.


On the other hand, you are regularly up in arms against accurate
descriptions of behavior unflattering to the same people.

I commented on this highly subjective system of morality
of yours last year, and Harshman was so concerned about
how spot-on it was that he pinch-hit for you in
a way that revealed what a shameless hypocrite he is
about being on-topic.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.

Univ. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer --
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:51:49 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/27/2019 1:30 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip libel]

Almost all snips by you have such bogus (and in this case, libelous)
claims attached to them. As I wrote in
reply to you over in talk.origins:

Oxyaena, like Harshman, can't bear to look at herself in a metaphoric
mirror, just as the "God" character in "Steambath" couldn't bear to look at
himself in a real one.

> Point me to where I stated that Wegener was a crackpot.

"stated" is a dishonest straw-man word. Read my reply
to Erik, whose lead you are blindly following.

> I stated that he
> was ridiculed

Still blindly following Erik's spin-doctoring.

> for not proposing a mechanism,

At least you got THAT part right. Erik was too deep into

spin-doctoring, so he instead wrote:

> was based on the unphysical mechanisms proposed for
> "continental drift".

> then you started libeling
> me by stating I had called him a crackpot.

"called him" is your libelous distortion of what
I actually wrote.

> Stop lying and admit to your
> fault, or are you too immature to do even *that*?

I am mature enough not to emulate the people who "confessed" to crimes they did not commit in the Moscow Show Trials.

Your agenda-driven words are a scam, pressing me to
do something that would confirm your libel against me.


Do you REALLY think you don't hate me?


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 1:30:01 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
<snip distortions>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/JIJP-TOeGQAJ

<Peter>

The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
a professional geologist.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/s90yzwWfGQAJ

<Oxyaena>

No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have

occurred by. Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three decades
after his death.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/rReiJnClGQAJ

<erik simpson>

Exactly. The notion of granitic continents plowing their way through basaltic
ocean basins IS absurd. The discovery of tectonic plates resoved the difficulty.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/rh7h4rCqGQAJ

<Peter>

You are indulging in speculation here. I seriously doubt that this was
the MAIN reason he was called a crackpot. If it WAS, then the
mainstream geologists were ignoramuses where the wider world of
science was concerned.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/OOdtzFy0GQAJ

<Peter>

Now Oxyaena says, in effect, that Wegener WAS a crackpot for

a *scientific* reason that she attributes to professional geologists:

<Oxyaena>

> >>>> No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
> >>>> provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
> >>>> occurred by.

I thoroughly refuted this sophomoric notion of Oxyaena's under
the assumption that the geologists of the day knew that mechanisms
are not a necessary condition for a scientific hypothesis being valid.

Of course, I also broached the possibility that the geologists of the
day were mostly ignorant about the basic things I pointed out
about Newton and gravity.

There's the lie, Peter. Weasel all you want about what your interjection of
"in effect" might mean, but Oxyaena (and myself) have repeatedly denied the
words you pulled out of thin air.

Subjective morality indeed.

[John Harshman]

Not much on specifics, but he was a fanatical anti-cladist. More so than
you.

>>> Btw, you aren't nearly as bad a Erik, who isn't nearly
>>> as bad as Oxyaena in her present state of mind.
>>
>> I truly don't see a problem with Erik.
>
> That's because you (or at least your posting persona)
> carefully avoid(s) reading posts where it is obvious.

You make much out of nothing. I do tend to read Erik's posts, because he
sometimes says something interesting. I tend to read your responses to
him too. I tend not to read Oxyaena's posts or your responses; not much
content. Your perception is highly unreliable.

[Oxyaena]

On 2/27/2019 4:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:51:49 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 2/27/2019 1:30 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [snip libel]
>
> Almost all snips by you have such bogus (and in this case, libelous)
> claims attached to them. As I wrote in
> reply to you over in talk.origins:
>
> Oxyaena, like Harshman, can't bear to look at herself in a metaphoric
> mirror, just as the "God" character in "Steambath" couldn't bear to look at
> himself in a real one.
>
>
>> Point me to where I stated that Wegener was a crackpot.
>
> "stated" is a dishonest straw-man word. Read my reply
> to Erik, whose lead you are blindly following.

Maybe if you didn't have your lying head shoved so far up your ass you
could actually see daylight.

>
>
>> I stated that he
>> was ridiculed
>
> Still blindly following Erik's spin-doctoring.

Spin-doctoring? Here's a repost of the events, kindly provided by Erik:

>> for not proposing a mechanism,
>
> At least you got THAT part right. Erik was too deep into
> spin-doctoring, so he instead wrote:
>
> > was based on the unphysical mechanisms proposed for
> > "continental drift".
>
>
>> then you started libeling
>> me by stating I had called him a crackpot.
>
> "called him" is your libelous distortion of what
> I actually wrote.

"Now Oxyaena says, in effect, that Wegener WAS a crackpot for
a *scientific* reason that she attributes to professional geologists:"

Lying fucker, I should report you to your university, actually I will.
This has gone on *far* too long.

>
>
>
>> Stop lying and admit to your
>> fault, or are you too immature to do even *that*?
>
> I am mature enough not to emulate the people who "confessed" to crimes they did not commit in the Moscow Show Trials.

You're not the victim here, you lying sack of shit, I AM.


[snip libel]

[Oxyaena]

You used to read my posts, but I guess times change, huh?

[John Harshman]

I should have said that I tend not to read your posts that involve
arguing with Peter. I do often read the posts when you start a new
thread with actual science content. But once you start back and forth
with Peter the content generally goes away quickly.