baby bird caught in amber

[jillery]

Thanks to Jerry Coyne and WhyEvolutionIsTrue:

<https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133981-bird-caught-in-amber-100-million-years-ago-is-best-ever-found/>

<https://tinyurl.com/y7td4j9e>

The article includes photos of a cast in amber of baby bird that lived
about 100mya. Although all once-living tissue has rotted away, there
still remains some pigmentation from the feathers. Very impressive.

What's even more interesting is it's not a representative of the
ancestors of modern birds, but of Enantiornithes, or "opposite bird",
so named because of the reverse nature of its shoulder joint (not sure
how such an arrangement would have evolved).

It appears this particular individual hatched with fully formed flight
feathers, but no down typical of modern hatchlings, which suggests it
was precocial, and perhaps lacked parental care altogether.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:00:36 -0500, jillery wrote:

> Thanks to Jerry Coyne and WhyEvolutionIsTrue:
>
> <https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133981-bird-caught-in-amber-100-
million-years-ago-is-best-ever-found/>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/y7td4j9e>
>
> The article includes photos of a cast in amber of baby bird that lived
> about 100mya. Although all once-living tissue has rotted away, there
> still remains some pigmentation from the feathers. Very impressive.
>
> What's even more interesting is it's not a representative of the
> ancestors of modern birds, but of Enantiornithes, or "opposite bird",
> so named because of the reverse nature of its shoulder joint (not sure
> how such an arrangement would have evolved).
>
> It appears this particular individual hatched with fully formed flight
> feathers, but no down typical of modern hatchlings, which suggests it
> was precocial, and perhaps lacked parental care altogether.

I'd be very interested to hear Harshman's opinion on this.

[John Harshman]

My opinion is that it's pretty cool. What's your opinion?

[jillery]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:00:36 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Thanks to Jerry Coyne and WhyEvolutionIsTrue:
>
><https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133981-bird-caught-in-amber-100-million-years-ago-is-best-ever-found/>
>
><https://tinyurl.com/y7td4j9e>
>
>The article includes photos of a cast in amber of baby bird that lived
>about 100mya. Although all once-living tissue has rotted away, there
>still remains some pigmentation from the feathers. Very impressive.
>
>What's even more interesting is it's not a representative of the
>ancestors of modern birds, but of Enantiornithes, or "opposite bird",
>so named because of the reverse nature of its shoulder joint (not sure
>how such an arrangement would have evolved).
>
>It appears this particular individual hatched with fully formed flight
>feathers, but no down typical of modern hatchlings, which suggests it
>was precocial, and perhaps lacked parental care altogether.

Correction, or at least clarification, or at least a partial
clarification: Apparently it's not the should joint which is described
as backwards. From:

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/15/why-two-tiny-wings-preserved-in-amber-have-palaeontologists-in-a-flap-dinosaurs>

<https://tinyurl.com/j7hfcyc>

****************************************
However, enantiornithines differed from modern birds in significant
ways. The articulation of the shoulder blade with the coracoid, a bone
in the shoulder girdle absent in mammals, is reversed with regard of
the condition seen in modern birds. This configuration led avian
palaeontologist Cyril Walker to describe this group of fossil birds as
Enantiornithes, or ‘opposite birds’.
****************************************

I'm still unclear what "the condition seen in modern birds" actually
is, and how the homologous condition in enantiornithines is "opposite"
to it. Can anybody cite any illustrations which make these phrases
more clear?

[John Harshman]

This might help a bit:

https://www.bou.org.uk/blog-mayr-pectoral-girdle/

In modern birds, the coracoid has a scoop out of it into which a process
of the scapula fits. In enantiornithines, the scapula apparently has a
scoop out of it into which a process of the coracoid fits. I also see,
which I didn't know, that in enantiornithines the furcula doesn't
articulate with coracoid at all, just the scapula.

[T Pagano]

Disappointing. I got that from Jillery.

[John Harshman]

What do you want to know? Whatever it is, little cryptic statements
probably won't get it from me.

[T Pagano]

Is the article correct in its classification of the encased animal and
accurate in reporting that it did not represent an ancestor to modern
birds?

[jillery]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:15:13 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

Accept responsibility for your own disappointing behavior.

[jillery]

That helps a lot. Swapping which bone zigs instead of zags is a lot
more plausible than flipping which bone has the ball and which the
socket.

Also, your article explains why modern birds are so much better flyers
than their ancestors or enantiornithines. Appaerntly early birds
didn't have the ability to raise their wings above their backs. That
would be somewhat like humans trying to swim without being able to
raise their arms out of the water.

[John Harshman]

Yes.

[John Harshman]

Yeah, I don't think that's true. It's just that they had to use
different (and smaller, and less efficient, and less well-positioned
with respect to the center of gravity) muscles than modern birds to do
it. Presumably the trapezius.

> That
> would be somewhat like humans trying to swim without being able to
> raise their arms out of the water.

Still, the breast stroke is OK, if not as efficient as the crawl.

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:40:34 -0800, John Harshman

Ok, but if so, those smaller muscles would tire out more quickly, and
have a smaller range of motion, so the birds would be poorer flyers.

>> That
>> would be somewhat like humans trying to swim without being able to
>> raise their arms out of the water.
>
>Still, the breast stroke is OK, if not as efficient as the crawl.

That's what I said.

[John Harshman]

Well, I don't know if they'd have a smaller range of motion. But they'd
probably make for slower wing beats, and they might tire more quickly.

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:09:52 -0800, John Harshman

A smaller muscle, as in shorter, necessarily has a shorter range of
contraction.

A smaller muscle, as in fewer muscle cells, typically tires more
quickly.

I bet you knew that already.

Also, go back to your cite, where Gerald Mayr wrote:

*******************************
The “urvogel” Archaeopteryx lacks a triosseal canal and an ossified
sternum, and comparisons with crocodilians suggest that its
supracoracoideus muscle most likely originated from the wide coracoid
and mainly protracted (rather than elevated) the humerus (Fig. 3a).
********************************

Finally, just to belabor the point, given the arrangement of their
supracoracoideus muscles, do you think Archaeopteryx or
enantiornithines could have done this:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3LtXnNIto>

When lifting out of the water, their humeri are nearly parallel to
each other over their backs.

>>>> That
>>>> would be somewhat like humans trying to swim without being able to
>>>> raise their arms out of the water.
>>>
>>> Still, the breast stroke is OK, if not as efficient as the crawl.
>>
>> That's what I said.

[John Harshman]

I don't know that the muscle was shorter.

> A smaller muscle, as in fewer muscle cells, typically tires more
> quickly.

Yes, that seems likely.

> I bet you knew that already.
>
> Also, go back to your cite, where Gerald Mayr wrote:
>
> *******************************
> The “urvogel” Archaeopteryx lacks a triosseal canal and an ossified
> sternum, and comparisons with crocodilians suggest that its
> supracoracoideus muscle most likely originated from the wide coracoid
> and mainly protracted (rather than elevated) the humerus (Fig. 3a).
> ********************************

Yes, that's why we would think that the trapezius, not the
supracoracoideus, was the elevator.

> Finally, just to belabor the point, given the arrangement of their
> supracoracoideus muscles, do you think Archaeopteryx or
> enantiornithines could have done this:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3LtXnNIto>
>
> When lifting out of the water, their humeri are nearly parallel to
> each other over their backs.

I don't see why the wings couldn't have reached that position, but I
doubt they could have done so with sufficient power and speed.

[Peter Nyikos]

How do you know? Were there any neornithine birds at the time?

What was the shoulder of Archaeopteryx like? Was it like in
eantiornithines, or neornithines, or neither?


By the way, we've discussed this baby bird last autumn, including
some close-up photos of feather detail in the National Geographic
article that are missing from the New Scientist article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/baby-bird-dinosaur-burmese-amber-fossil/

There is a slide show at the top, with arrowheads 1 to 5 that you can
click on to progress through the series. The closeups are 3 and 5.

In some ways they are too close: lots of detail of barbs and barbules
but you and I had a hard time making out any sign of a rachis. For them, the
"Close up of the wing" in the New Scientist article is still the gold standard.


But now the plot thickens: take a look at the "feathers" in what
may be still be touted as a non-avialan dinosaur tail:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/

What you can see easily in several close-ups are barbs with nicely
attached barbules. And they are hauntingly like what you see in
the closeups 3 and 5 in the New Scientist article. My guess is
that the "dinosaur tail" also belonged to an enantiornithine bird.
What do you think?

It's really hard to find whole feathers in all that "dinosaur tail"
jumble, but you managed to make out a rachis or two. Then one of us
found what might have been the original article, with very clear
whole feathers. And the resemblance to those "gold standard"
feathers is striking. That's another piece of evidence for the hypothesis
that THIS dinosaur was definitely one of the Avialae, and perhaps
an enantiornithine bird.


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

[John Harshman]

It has the various anatomical features of enantiornithines.
Enantiornithines are not ancestral to modern birds.

> Were there any neornithine birds at the time?

There are no known fossils, but molecular studies suggests there may
have been.

> What was the shoulder of Archaeopteryx like? Was it like in
> eantiornithines, or neornithines, or neither?

Looking up the link I gave jillery will help you with this. The answer
is "neither".

> By the way, we've discussed this baby bird last autumn, including
> some close-up photos of feather detail in the National Geographic
> article that are missing from the New Scientist article:
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/baby-bird-dinosaur-burmese-amber-fossil/
>
> There is a slide show at the top, with arrowheads 1 to 5 that you can
> click on to progress through the series. The closeups are 3 and 5.
>
> In some ways they are too close: lots of detail of barbs and barbules
> but you and I had a hard time making out any sign of a rachis. For them, the
> "Close up of the wing" in the New Scientist article is still the gold standard.
>
>
> But now the plot thickens: take a look at the "feathers" in what
> may be still be touted as a non-avialan dinosaur tail:
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/
>
> What you can see easily in several close-ups are barbs with nicely
> attached barbules. And they are hauntingly like what you see in
> the closeups 3 and 5 in the New Scientist article. My guess is
> that the "dinosaur tail" also belonged to an enantiornithine bird.
> What do you think?

Enantiornithines had pygostyles just like modern birds, so no. Also, we
discussed various differences between the dinosaur tail feathers and
modern bird feathers, some of which you could see and some of which you
inexplicably couldn't, if you recall.

> It's really hard to find whole feathers in all that "dinosaur tail"
> jumble, but you managed to make out a rachis or two. Then one of us
> found what might have been the original article, with very clear
> whole feathers. And the resemblance to those "gold standard"
> feathers is striking. That's another piece of evidence for the hypothesis
> that THIS dinosaur was definitely one of the Avialae, and perhaps
> an enantiornithine bird.

Not sure what you mean by "gold standard" feathers.

[jillery]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:41:26 -0800, John Harshman

Come on John, that's exactly what you said, still preservered in the
quoted text above:

*********************************

It's just that they had to use different (and smaller, and less
efficient, and less well-positioned with respect to the center of
gravity) muscles

*********************************

That you raised the point is the only reason I posted any objection to
it.

>> A smaller muscle, as in fewer muscle cells, typically tires more
>> quickly.
>
>Yes, that seems likely.
>
>> I bet you knew that already.
>>
>> Also, go back to your cite, where Gerald Mayr wrote:
>>
>> *******************************
>> The “urvogel” Archaeopteryx lacks a triosseal canal and an ossified
>> sternum, and comparisons with crocodilians suggest that its
>> supracoracoideus muscle most likely originated from the wide coracoid
>> and mainly protracted (rather than elevated) the humerus (Fig. 3a).
>> ********************************
>
>Yes, that's why we would think that the trapezius, not the
>supracoracoideus, was the elevator.

So why didn't Mayr said something about the trapezius, instead of
specifying the limitations of their supracoracoideus?

>> Finally, just to belabor the point, given the arrangement of their
>> supracoracoideus muscles, do you think Archaeopteryx or
>> enantiornithines could have done this:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3LtXnNIto>
>>
>> When lifting out of the water, their humeri are nearly parallel to
>> each other over their backs.
>
>I don't see why the wings couldn't have reached that position, but I
>doubt they could have done so with sufficient power and speed.

For the Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines, that would be something
like modern humans rotating their big toes.

[John Harshman]

Smaller and shorter are not quite the same thing. The power of a muscle
is most closely related to its cross section.

>>> A smaller muscle, as in fewer muscle cells, typically tires more
>>> quickly.
>>
>> Yes, that seems likely.
>>
>>> I bet you knew that already.
>>>
>>> Also, go back to your cite, where Gerald Mayr wrote:
>>>
>>> *******************************
>>> The “urvogel” Archaeopteryx lacks a triosseal canal and an ossified
>>> sternum, and comparisons with crocodilians suggest that its
>>> supracoracoideus muscle most likely originated from the wide coracoid
>>> and mainly protracted (rather than elevated) the humerus (Fig. 3a).
>>> ********************************
>>
>> Yes, that's why we would think that the trapezius, not the
>> supracoracoideus, was the elevator.
>
> So why didn't Mayr said something about the trapezius, instead of
> specifying the limitations of their supracoracoideus?

You would have to ask him.

>>> Finally, just to belabor the point, given the arrangement of their
>>> supracoracoideus muscles, do you think Archaeopteryx or
>>> enantiornithines could have done this:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3LtXnNIto>
>>>
>>> When lifting out of the water, their humeri are nearly parallel to
>>> each other over their backs.
>>
>> I don't see why the wings couldn't have reached that position, but I
>> doubt they could have done so with sufficient power and speed.
>
> For the Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines, that would be something
> like modern humans rotating their big toes.

I don't understand the analogy.

[jillery]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:38:55 -0800, John Harshman

As I previously pointed out. Thanks for the tacit agreement.

>The power of a muscle
>is most closely related to its cross section.

And you previously said their cross-section was "smaller".

>>>> A smaller muscle, as in fewer muscle cells, typically tires more
>>>> quickly.
>>>
>>> Yes, that seems likely.
>>>
>>>> I bet you knew that already.
>>>>
>>>> Also, go back to your cite, where Gerald Mayr wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *******************************
>>>> The “urvogel” Archaeopteryx lacks a triosseal canal and an ossified
>>>> sternum, and comparisons with crocodilians suggest that its
>>>> supracoracoideus muscle most likely originated from the wide coracoid
>>>> and mainly protracted (rather than elevated) the humerus (Fig. 3a).
>>>> ********************************
>>>
>>> Yes, that's why we would think that the trapezius, not the
>>> supracoracoideus, was the elevator.
>>
>> So why didn't Mayr said something about the trapezius, instead of
>> specifying the limitations of their supracoracoideus?
>
>You would have to ask him.

Then you moot your own citation.

>>>> Finally, just to belabor the point, given the arrangement of their
>>>> supracoracoideus muscles, do you think Archaeopteryx or
>>>> enantiornithines could have done this:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3LtXnNIto>
>>>>
>>>> When lifting out of the water, their humeri are nearly parallel to
>>>> each other over their backs.
>>>
>>> I don't see why the wings couldn't have reached that position, but I
>>> doubt they could have done so with sufficient power and speed.
>>
>> For the Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines, that would be something
>> like modern humans rotating their big toes.
>
>I don't understand the analogy.

Range of motion. If that doesn't work for you, try rotating your
ears.

[John Harshman]

I don't think I did, quite. But if so, that would be why the muscle
would not be as strong, but would not necessarily have a smaller range
of motion.

>>>>> A smaller muscle, as in fewer muscle cells, typically tires more
>>>>> quickly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that seems likely.
>>>>
>>>>> I bet you knew that already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, go back to your cite, where Gerald Mayr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *******************************
>>>>> The “urvogel” Archaeopteryx lacks a triosseal canal and an ossified
>>>>> sternum, and comparisons with crocodilians suggest that its
>>>>> supracoracoideus muscle most likely originated from the wide coracoid
>>>>> and mainly protracted (rather than elevated) the humerus (Fig. 3a).
>>>>> ********************************
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's why we would think that the trapezius, not the
>>>> supracoracoideus, was the elevator.
>>>
>>> So why didn't Mayr said something about the trapezius, instead of
>>> specifying the limitations of their supracoracoideus?
>>
>> You would have to ask him.
>
> Then you moot your own citation.

You asked about bones, which was the point of the citation.

>>>>> Finally, just to belabor the point, given the arrangement of their
>>>>> supracoracoideus muscles, do you think Archaeopteryx or
>>>>> enantiornithines could have done this:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3LtXnNIto>
>>>>>
>>>>> When lifting out of the water, their humeri are nearly parallel to
>>>>> each other over their backs.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why the wings couldn't have reached that position, but I
>>>> doubt they could have done so with sufficient power and speed.
>>>
>>> For the Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines, that would be something
>>> like modern humans rotating their big toes.
>>
>> I don't understand the analogy.
>
>
> Range of motion. If that doesn't work for you, try rotating your
> ears.

I don't see the analogy. All these birds had perfectly good muscles for
the purpose, just not as good as the suprocoracoideus of a modern bird.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:57:23 -0800, John Harshman

For which I again acknowledge my appreciation. Do you disagree that
Mayr implies that Archaeopteryx's supracoracoideus was incapable of
elevating its humerus, and by analogy enantiornithines, since they
both lacked a triosseal canal?

>>>>>> Finally, just to belabor the point, given the arrangement of their
>>>>>> supracoracoideus muscles, do you think Archaeopteryx or
>>>>>> enantiornithines could have done this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3LtXnNIto>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When lifting out of the water, their humeri are nearly parallel to
>>>>>> each other over their backs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see why the wings couldn't have reached that position, but I
>>>>> doubt they could have done so with sufficient power and speed.
>>>>
>>>> For the Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines, that would be something
>>>> like modern humans rotating their big toes.
>>>
>>> I don't understand the analogy.
>>
>>
>> Range of motion. If that doesn't work for you, try rotating your
>> ears.
>
>I don't see the analogy. All these birds had perfectly good muscles for
>the purpose, just not as good as the suprocoracoideus of a modern bird.

The analogy is the attached muscles don't have a connection capable of
allowing it to perform the specified task. In the case of your
trapezius, AFAICT birds don't have one. AFAICT birds don't have
anything attached between the humerii and the back. AFAICT the only
muscle birds have in oppostion to the pectoralis is the
supracoracoideus.

Now I claim no particular expertise on bird anatomy, and I know you
do, so of course I could be wrong with any or all of the above. And
of course, ancient birds like Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines may
have some or all of the things I say modern birds lack. So if I'm
wrong, and/or if there is evdience of some different muscle
attachments with ancient birds, please correct me.

The inablitly to elevate the wing wouldn't be a fatal flaw, but it
would make the downward stroke less effective.

[John Harshman]

No, I agree completely. That's why the elevator of the humerus would
have been the trapezius instead.

Actually, there would need to be a muscle or muscles able to elevate the
humerus in order for any flight at all, or the first downward stroke
would end with no means to return the wing to its prior position for
another downstroke. We could argue about which muscle(s) that would be,
but I don't see a point. Birds do have a trapezius, but it's a small
muscle, as are pretty much all the muscles of the back.

The point is that it's necessary to have some muscle to elevate the
wing, or flight is impossible. And unlike Archaeopteryx,
enantiornithines appear to have been capable fliers.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:21:38 -0800, John Harshman

Don't be absurd. I use "elevate" here in the same sense Mayr did, to
identify a motion which pulled the humerus above the back, as
distinguished from mere protraction, which I understand to include
elevation from below.

>The point is that it's necessary to have some muscle to elevate the
>wing, or flight is impossible. And unlike Archaeopteryx,
>enantiornithines appear to have been capable fliers.

Not the point. My comment, to which you took such pedantic umbrage,
both still preserved in the quoted text above, is that modern birds
are better fliers, as enantiornithines could not raise their wings
above their backs. AFAICT a trapezius can't elevate the humerus,
meaning above the back, which I understand was Mayr's point, with
which I understand you agreed. Can you stop the pedantry and at least
try to respond to the actual point?

[John Harshman]

Elevation from below? There's no such thing. In order to lift the
humerus, you have to apply a force to the top of the humerus. That's
true regardless of what position you want to lift it from. "Protract" in
anatomy means to extend, not to raise.

>> The point is that it's necessary to have some muscle to elevate the
>> wing, or flight is impossible. And unlike Archaeopteryx,
>> enantiornithines appear to have been capable fliers.
>
> Not the point. My comment, to which you took such pedantic umbrage,
> both still preserved in the quoted text above, is that modern birds
> are better fliers, as enantiornithines could not raise their wings
> above their backs.

Who says they couldn't? I don't think that's true, and you are
misreading Mayr. Here's the relevant quote: "Archaeopteryx and other
phylogenetically basal avians were probably not capable of sustained
flapping flight and complicated aerial maneuvers and, until an efficient
supracoracoideus pulley formed, wing flapping must have been assisted by
the dorsal musculature." Now, I used "trapezius" as an example of dorsal
musculature, but I don't in fact know what muscle(s) actually did it,
nor does anyone as far as I can see.

> AFAICT a trapezius can't elevate the humerus,
> meaning above the back, which I understand was Mayr's point, with
> which I understand you agreed. Can you stop the pedantry and at least
> try to respond to the actual point?

That wasn't Mayr's point. His point was that early birds didn't use
their supracoracoideus to elevate the wing and therefore must have use a
different mechanism.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 12:28:29 -0800, John Harshman

<sigh>

From context, one should understand my reply refers to your previous
absurd criticism, that I allegedly described a design which allowed
but a single stroke.

From context, one should understand that the issue under discussion
refers to two distinct ranges of motion of the humerus, from below the
back to level with the back, and another from level with the back to
above the back, and that your confusion about the direction of force
is absurd.

From context, one should understand raising the humerus above the back
is a greater design challenge than raising the humerus from below the
back.

From context, one should understand that Mayr pointed out modern birds
solved that challenge with a triosseal canal, and that at no point did
Mayr suggest ancient birds solved that challenge in any way, with or
without additional muscles. They may have, but Mayr said nothing
about it one way or the other.

From context, one should understand that Mayr made the distinction
between protraction and elevation, both of which are necessary
motions, and that he implied the extension included elevation in the
range from below the back to level with the back, since both could
occur using the same muscle.

>>> The point is that it's necessary to have some muscle to elevate the
>>> wing, or flight is impossible. And unlike Archaeopteryx,
>>> enantiornithines appear to have been capable fliers.
>>
>> Not the point. My comment, to which you took such pedantic umbrage,
>> both still preserved in the quoted text above, is that modern birds
>> are better fliers, as enantiornithines could not raise their wings
>> above their backs.
>
>Who says they couldn't? I don't think that's true, and you are
>misreading Mayr. Here's the relevant quote: "Archaeopteryx and other
>phylogenetically basal avians were probably not capable of sustained
>flapping flight and complicated aerial maneuvers and, until an efficient
>supracoracoideus pulley formed, wing flapping must have been assisted by
>the dorsal musculature." Now, I used "trapezius" as an example of dorsal
>musculature, but I don't in fact know what muscle(s) actually did it,
>nor does anyone as far as I can see.

Since I previously highlighted the exact same quote, and made several
references to it, I fail to see any clarification from you doing so
again here.

Raising the humerus above the back is a significant improvement in
self-powered flight, but it's not necessary. Doing so with a muscle
below the center of gravity is even better.

>> AFAICT a trapezius can't elevate the humerus,
>> meaning above the back, which I understand was Mayr's point, with
>> which I understand you agreed. Can you stop the pedantry and at least
>> try to respond to the actual point?
>
>That wasn't Mayr's point. His point was that early birds didn't use
>their supracoracoideus to elevate the wing and therefore must have use a
>different mechanism.

If Mayr's point was that ancient birds must have used a different
mechanism to raise their humerus above their backs, I would expect him
to have explicitly mentioned something about it, which he did not,
which I pointed out before, which you disregarded with your "ask Mayr"
retort.

Based on past experience, the above is about the best I can expect
from you. Thank you again for your Mayr cite, that was very
informative.

[John Harshman]

You are incorrect about everything you have said above.

> From context, one should understand that Mayr made the distinction
> between protraction and elevation, both of which are necessary
> motions, and that he implied the extension included elevation in the
> range from below the back to level with the back, since both could
> occur using the same muscle.

And this too.

>>>> The point is that it's necessary to have some muscle to elevate the
>>>> wing, or flight is impossible. And unlike Archaeopteryx,
>>>> enantiornithines appear to have been capable fliers.
>>>
>>> Not the point. My comment, to which you took such pedantic umbrage,
>>> both still preserved in the quoted text above, is that modern birds
>>> are better fliers, as enantiornithines could not raise their wings
>>> above their backs.
>>
>> Who says they couldn't? I don't think that's true, and you are
>> misreading Mayr. Here's the relevant quote: "Archaeopteryx and other
>> phylogenetically basal avians were probably not capable of sustained
>> flapping flight and complicated aerial maneuvers and, until an efficient
>> supracoracoideus pulley formed, wing flapping must have been assisted by
>> the dorsal musculature." Now, I used "trapezius" as an example of dorsal
>> musculature, but I don't in fact know what muscle(s) actually did it,
>> nor does anyone as far as I can see.
>
> Since I previously highlighted the exact same quote, and made several
> references to it, I fail to see any clarification from you doing so
> again here.
>
> Raising the humerus above the back is a significant improvement in
> self-powered flight, but it's not necessary. Doing so with a muscle
> below the center of gravity is even better.

This bit about "above the back" is your own invention.

>>> AFAICT a trapezius can't elevate the humerus,
>>> meaning above the back, which I understand was Mayr's point, with
>>> which I understand you agreed. Can you stop the pedantry and at least
>>> try to respond to the actual point?
>>
>> That wasn't Mayr's point. His point was that early birds didn't use
>> their supracoracoideus to elevate the wing and therefore must have use a
>> different mechanism.
>
> If Mayr's point was that ancient birds must have used a different
> mechanism to raise their humerus above their backs, I would expect him
> to have explicitly mentioned something about it, which he did not,
> which I pointed out before, which you disregarded with your "ask Mayr"
> retort.

Again, the distinction between raising the wing and raising it "above
the back" is your own invention, not something Mayr talked about. I'm
not sure what part of "wing flapping must have been assisted by the
dorsal musculature" is unclear here.

> Based on past experience, the above is about the best I can expect
> from you. Thank you again for your Mayr cite, that was very
> informative.

You're welcome.

[John Harshman]

On 2/10/18 2:16 PM, jillery wrote:

Hey, there's an alternative notion. According to Luis Chiappe in various
publications, the enantiornithine supracoracoideus was the main elevator
of the wing, and enantiornithines did possess a triosseal canal. Google
enantiornithine supracoracoideus.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:42:39 -0800, John Harshman

I stand by everything I said above as factually correct. Bald
assertions are as easily refuted, even from you.

>> From context, one should understand that Mayr made the distinction
>> between protraction and elevation, both of which are necessary
>> motions, and that he implied the extension included elevation in the
>> range from below the back to level with the back, since both could
>> occur using the same muscle.
>
>And this too.

Ditto.

>>>>> The point is that it's necessary to have some muscle to elevate the
>>>>> wing, or flight is impossible. And unlike Archaeopteryx,
>>>>> enantiornithines appear to have been capable fliers.
>>>>
>>>> Not the point. My comment, to which you took such pedantic umbrage,
>>>> both still preserved in the quoted text above, is that modern birds
>>>> are better fliers, as enantiornithines could not raise their wings
>>>> above their backs.
>>>
>>> Who says they couldn't? I don't think that's true, and you are
>>> misreading Mayr. Here's the relevant quote: "Archaeopteryx and other
>>> phylogenetically basal avians were probably not capable of sustained
>>> flapping flight and complicated aerial maneuvers and, until an efficient
>>> supracoracoideus pulley formed, wing flapping must have been assisted by
>>> the dorsal musculature." Now, I used "trapezius" as an example of dorsal
>>> musculature, but I don't in fact know what muscle(s) actually did it,
>>> nor does anyone as far as I can see.
>>
>> Since I previously highlighted the exact same quote, and made several
>> references to it, I fail to see any clarification from you doing so
>> again here.
>>
>> Raising the humerus above the back is a significant improvement in
>> self-powered flight, but it's not necessary. Doing so with a muscle
>> below the center of gravity is even better.
>
>This bit about "above the back" is your own invention.

Guilty as charged. Never even implied otherwise.

>>>> AFAICT a trapezius can't elevate the humerus,
>>>> meaning above the back, which I understand was Mayr's point, with
>>>> which I understand you agreed. Can you stop the pedantry and at least
>>>> try to respond to the actual point?
>>>
>>> That wasn't Mayr's point. His point was that early birds didn't use
>>> their supracoracoideus to elevate the wing and therefore must have use a
>>> different mechanism.
>>
>> If Mayr's point was that ancient birds must have used a different
>> mechanism to raise their humerus above their backs, I would expect him
>> to have explicitly mentioned something about it, which he did not,
>> which I pointed out before, which you disregarded with your "ask Mayr"
>> retort.
>
>Again, the distinction between raising the wing and raising it "above
>the back" is your own invention, not something Mayr talked about.

Again, never said otherwise. Too back you don't say why you think
that's so important.

>I'm
>not sure what part of "wing flapping must have been assisted by the
>dorsal musculature" is unclear here.
>
>> Based on past experience, the above is about the best I can expect
>> from you. Thank you again for your Mayr cite, that was very
>> informative.
>
>You're welcome.

[jillery]

I'm not all that interested anymore, for some reason.

[John Harshman]

But wasn't everything you said a bald assertion? You appealed to Mayr
for support, but Mayr didn't say any of those things.

[John Harshman]

On 2/10/18 4:30 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:08:13 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/18 2:16 PM, jillery wrote:
>>
>> Hey, there's an alternative notion. According to Luis Chiappe in various
>> publications, the enantiornithine supracoracoideus was the main elevator
>> of the wing, and enantiornithines did possess a triosseal canal. Google
>> enantiornithine supracoracoideus.
>
>
> I'm not all that interested anymore, for some reason.

Why don't you leave in a huff? If that's too soon, make it a minute and
a huff. Or you could leave in a taxi.

[jillery]

[Uncommented text left in strictly for documentation]


On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:44:06 -0800, John Harshman

Since you asked, no. You're welcome.

> You appealed to Mayr for support, but Mayr didn't say any of those things.

Mayr didn't use the same words, but IMO the comment I appealed to him
about are reasonable inferences and paraphrases of what he said. Since
you disagree, and seem intent on beating this bird to death, you could
at least be more specific than "everything I have said above".

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:56:36 -0800, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 2/10/18 4:30 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:08:13 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/18 2:16 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, there's an alternative notion. According to Luis Chiappe in various
>>> publications, the enantiornithine supracoracoideus was the main elevator
>>> of the wing, and enantiornithines did possess a triosseal canal. Google
>>> enantiornithine supracoracoideus.
>>
>>
>> I'm not all that interested anymore, for some reason.
>
>Why don't you leave in a huff? If that's too soon, make it a minute and
>a huff. Or you could leave in a taxi.

Apparently that's your intent. Go ahead and declare your traditional
victory over straw.

[Peter Nyikos]

That's not saying much beyond your one-word reply. The underlying issue
is this: how do we know the LCA of Enantiornithes was not ancestral
to the LCA of Neornithes?

After all, we don't know how far advanced the bird in amber was
over the LCA of Enantiornithes, do we?

> > Were there any neornithine birds at the time?

I was hoping we could get an easy reason why you said "Yes" by asking this,
but your answer puts paid to that:

> There are no known fossils, but molecular studies suggests there may
> have been.

Molecular dating is not very reliable, hence your "suggests" and
"may have been" is about all the traffic will bear at the present
state of our knowledge.

> > What was the shoulder of Archaeopteryx like? Was it like in
> > eantiornithines, or neornithines, or neither?
>
> Looking up the link I gave jillery will help you with this. The answer
> is "neither".

Do you mean the one by Mayr, the one that says lots about the musculature?
Good solid stuff, thanks.

However, I was mainly curious about the status of that one joint in "Archie,"
the one that has concavity in Enantiornithes where there is convexity in
Neornithes, and vice versa.

Or didn't "Archie" even have a homologous joint there at all?


My next reply to this post will pick up where this one leaves off.

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:00:36 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Thanks to Jerry Coyne and WhyEvolutionIsTrue:

As long as you are at it, could you give us an url for the
Jerry Coyne webpage on this New Scientist article?

> ><https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133981-bird-caught-in-amber-100-million-years-ago-is-best-ever-found/>
> >
> ><https://tinyurl.com/y7td4j9e>
> >
> >The article includes photos of a cast in amber of baby bird that lived
> >about 100mya. Although all once-living tissue has rotted away, there
> >still remains some pigmentation from the feathers. Very impressive.
> >
> >What's even more interesting is it's not a representative of the
> >ancestors of modern birds, but of Enantiornithes, or "opposite bird",
> >so named because of the reverse nature of its shoulder joint (not sure
> >how such an arrangement would have evolved).
> >
> >It appears this particular individual hatched with fully formed flight
> >feathers, but no down typical of modern hatchlings, which suggests it
> >was precocial, and perhaps lacked parental care altogether.
>
>

> Correction, or at least clarification, or at least a partial
> clarification: Apparently it's not the should joint which is described
> as backwards.

I won't do a pun on an obvious typo above -- I don't want to set off
a thread-diluting pun cascade.

> From:
>
> <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/15/why-two-tiny-wings-preserved-in-amber-have-palaeontologists-in-a-flap-dinosaurs>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/j7hfcyc>
>
> ****************************************
> However, enantiornithines differed from modern birds in significant
> ways. The articulation of the shoulder blade with the coracoid, a bone
> in the shoulder girdle absent in mammals, is reversed with regard of
> the condition seen in modern birds. This configuration led avian
> palaeontologist Cyril Walker to describe this group of fossil birds as
> Enantiornithes, or 'opposite birds'.
> ****************************************

There is a substantive error, not affecting the application to birds:

"coracoid, a bone in the shoulder girdle absent in mammals"

should have "therian" in front of "mammals." Monotremes have a very different
shoulder girdle from therian mammals, essentially the primitive state
inherited from their therapsid ancestors.

That's why I could never take the "marsupionta hypothesis" seriously,
the one that claimed monotremes (platypus, echidna) were more closely
related to placental mammals than either was to marsupials.

Article in favor of Marsupionta hypothesis:
http://faculty.chas.uni.edu/~spradlin/SandE/Readings/Matt.pdf
J Mol Evol (2002) 54:71-80 DOI: 10.1007/s00239-001-0019-8
"Phylogenetic Analysis of 18S rRNA and the Mitochondrial Genomes of the
Wombat, Vombatus ursinus, and the Spiny Anteater, Tachyglossus aculeatus:
Increased Support for the Marsupionta Hypothesis," by Axel Janke,
Ola Magnell, Georg Wieczorek, Michael Westerman, and Ulfur Arnason

Just goes to show how bad it is to use tiny fragments of DNA to
support extraordinary claims: once a lot more of the genome
was studied, the Marsupionta hypothesis became dead as a doornail.


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

[John Harshman]

I invite you to look at any phylogenetic analysis on which the branch
connecting enantiornithines to other birds has a length greater than
zereo, then look at the characters supporting that branch. Of course
such an analysis can never be completely certain, but every analysis
I've seen shown enantiornithines as a clade. The articulation between
scapula and coracoid is the character everybody mentions, but there are
others.

>>> Were there any neornithine birds at the time?
>
> I was hoping we could get an easy reason why you said "Yes" by asking this,
> but your answer puts paid to that:
>
>> There are no known fossils, but molecular studies suggests there may
>> have been.
>
> Molecular dating is not very reliable, hence your "suggests" and
> "may have been" is about all the traffic will bear at the present
> state of our knowledge.

Actually, it isn't necssary for there to be neornithines, right? All we
need would be birds closer to neornithines than to enantiornithines. And
there are such birds around that time.

>>> What was the shoulder of Archaeopteryx like? Was it like in
>>> eantiornithines, or neornithines, or neither?
>>
>> Looking up the link I gave jillery will help you with this. The answer
>> is "neither".
>
> Do you mean the one by Mayr, the one that says lots about the musculature?
> Good solid stuff, thanks.

Yes.

> However, I was mainly curious about the status of that one joint in "Archie,"
> the one that has concavity in Enantiornithes where there is convexity in
> Neornithes, and vice versa.
>
> Or didn't "Archie" even have a homologous joint there at all?

Offhand, I don't know. You could try looking these things up yourself,
you know. I'll look. [a bit later] So far I haven't found an answer,
after a few minutes of googling.

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/18 6:16 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Here's one such publication, the first I found:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8141

From the text: "UFRJ-DG 031 Av exhibits the following synapomorphies of
this clade of extinct birds20,23,30,31,32: pygostyle with ventrolateral
processes, coracoid laterally convex, scapulocoracoid articulation with
scapular pit and coracoidal tuber, metacarpal III more distally
projected than metacarpal II, distal tarsals fused to proximal
metatarsus, but remaining portion of metatarsals free and metatarsal I
distal condyles caudally reflected (J-shaped). Derived features of
Euenantiornithes present in UFRJ-DG 031 Av include radius with a
posterior longitudinal groove, posterior femoral trochanter large and
metatarsal IV significantly thinner than metatarsals II and III (ref. 28)."

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 4:40:03 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/9/18 12:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > By the way, we've discussed this baby bird last autumn, including
> > some close-up photos of feather detail in the National Geographic
> > article that are missing from the New Scientist article:
> >
> > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/baby-bird-dinosaur-burmese-amber-fossil/
> >
> > There is a slide show at the top, with arrowheads 1 to 5 that you can
> > click on to progress through the series. The closeups are 3 and 5.
> >
> > In some ways they are too close: lots of detail of barbs and barbules
> > but you and I had a hard time making out any sign of a rachis. For them, the
> > "Close up of the wing" in the New Scientist article is still the gold standard.

By "them," I meant rachises, and hence whole feathers.

> > But now the plot thickens: take a look at the "feathers" in what
> > may be still be touted as a non-avialan dinosaur tail:
> >
> > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/
> >
> > What you can see easily in several close-ups are barbs with nicely
> > attached barbules. And they are hauntingly like what you see in
> > the closeups 3 and 5 in the New Scientist article. My guess is
> > that the "dinosaur tail" also belonged to an enantiornithine bird.
> > What do you think?
>
> Enantiornithines had pygostyles just like modern birds, so no. Also, we
> discussed various differences between the dinosaur tail feathers and
> modern bird feathers,

Yes, you said the rachis is supposed to be a lot thicker in modern birds,
but then I pointed out that the rachis of a typical kiwi feather isn't
much thicker than those shown for the dinosaur feathers.

However, here we are not comparing the "dinosaur tail in amber"
with modern bird feathers, but the feathers of that baby bird,
and I don't see much difference in thickness between the two there
either. Take a look at the "gold standard" closeup and compare.

> some of which you could see and some of which you
> inexplicably couldn't, if you recall.

Unexplained use of "inexplicably" noted. Once you pinpointed where
in that mad jumble you wanted me to look for a rachis, I had
no trouble seeing it, and we were on the same page wrt feathers
from that point on.


However, here is something I've been very curious about but never
got around to asking. The barbules on both kinds of feathers, the
dinosaur tail and the baby bird, are much longer in proportion to
the barbs than I expected. Don't typical modern bird pennacious feathers --
the kiwi excepted -- have barbs many times closer to each other than
the barbs were to each other in 3 and 5 of the baby bird wing in
the National Geographic article.

In fact, the barbules were so long that I'm not sure the people
who did the captions of 3 and 5 realized that there were at most TWO
feathers in these pictures. Perhaps they mistook the many barbs with
attached barbules for separate feathers. Ditto the people doing the
captions for some close-ups in that other National Geographic article
on the "dinosaur tail".

>
> > It's really hard to find whole feathers in all that "dinosaur tail"
> > jumble, but you managed to make out a rachis or two.

See note on "inexplicable" above.

> > Then one of us
> > found what might have been the original article, with very clear
> > whole feathers. And the resemblance to those "gold standard"
> > feathers is striking. That's another piece of evidence for the hypothesis
> > that THIS dinosaur was definitely one of the Avialae, and perhaps
> > an enantiornithine bird.

> Not sure what you mean by "gold standard" feathers.

I meant the gold standard for a photograph of feathers.


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Walter Bushell]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Molecular dating is not very reliable, hence your "suggests" and
>"may have been" is about all the traffic will bear at the present
>state of our knowledge.

I hadn't considered molecular dating before, but there are ionic
and covalent bonds, and in solution everyone is dancing with everyone,
so I suppose it has to happen.

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

--
--
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:25:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:15:13 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:00:51 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/8/18 8:20 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:00:36 -0500, jillery wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks to Jerry Coyne and WhyEvolutionIsTrue:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133981-bird-caught-in-
> >amber-100-
> >>> million-years-ago-is-best-ever-found/>
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://tinyurl.com/y7td4j9e>
> >>>>
> >>>> The article includes photos of a cast in amber of baby bird that lived
> >>>> about 100mya. Although all once-living tissue has rotted away, there
> >>>> still remains some pigmentation from the feathers. Very impressive.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's even more interesting is it's not a representative of the
> >>>> ancestors of modern birds, but of Enantiornithes, or "opposite bird",
> >>>> so named because of the reverse nature of its shoulder joint (not sure
> >>>> how such an arrangement would have evolved).
> >>>>
> >>>> It appears this particular individual hatched with fully formed flight
> >>>> feathers, but no down typical of modern hatchlings, which suggests it
> >>>> was precocial, and perhaps lacked parental care altogether.
> >>>
> >>> I'd be very interested to hear Harshman's opinion on this.
> >>
> >> My opinion is that it's pretty cool. What's your opinion?
> >
> >Disappointing. I got that from Jillery.
>
>

> Accept responsibility for your own disappointing behavior.

I take it you are referring to behavior not to be found on this thread,
such as his stubborn adherence to Tycho Brahe's "improvement" on the
old pre-Copernican Ptolemaic system.

Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was
behaving quite well on this thread. In particular, I take
"I got that from Jillery" to mean,
"I got the message that this is pretty cool already from Jillery."

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

Risking a thread-diluting pun cascade may not be a foolish notion,
but I for one prefer not to do it in a thread so young.

Peter Nyikos

[T Pagano]

At worst Harshman is being glib here and little more.

>
> I take it you are referring to behavior not to be found on this thread,
> such as his stubborn adherence to Tycho Brahe's "improvement" on the old
> pre-Copernican Ptolemaic system.

Here Nyikos gets a small detail wrong. Bessel's observation of parallax
in 1838 rendered Tycho Brahe's model failed. So I've never held Tycho's
Brahe's model. Though I do hold to a minor modification of it. And it's
not really clear that the Copernican Model was a dramatic improvement on
the Ptolemic one.

Is the heliocentric model self evident? Copernicus's book was published
in 1543 yet Michelson-Morley were still searching for scientific proof
that the Earth moved 344 years later. And unsuccessfully I might add.
Einstein had to introduce two new laws of nature *by fiat* to "re-
interpret the Michelson-Morley results. Perhaps Nyikos can prove that
the Sun is at rest relative to the Earth? That would be a worthwhile
addition to the forum.

I have never aimed to prove the falsity of secular-atheist theories; only
that they are not nearly as well-supported and unassailable as is
claimed. Nor are creationist or geocentric models all that easy to
topple.

> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was behaving
> quite well on this thread.

There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as far
as I know, are undisputed:

1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory. Darwin was
hoping that future discoveries would change that fact, but they haven't.

2. In the 1970s Gould and Eldredge both admitted that the defining
characterisic of the fossil record was "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
Some paleontologist doubt this will change and opine that the fossil
record is an adequate sampling of the history of life.


Now these facts might not refute the modern, secular, evolutionary
framework but it tends to show that the theory is far less secure than is
sold to children and portrayed nearly everywhere. Are we interested in
the truth or merely something acceptable to the secular sensibilities?

In particular, I take "I got that from
> Jillery" to mean,
> "I got the message that this is pretty cool already from Jillery."

Even I didn't presume Harshman to be that thick.

I took the bait Harshman, how about you?

[John Harshman]

What is your point in rehashing all this here, now?

>> some of which you could see and some of which you
>> inexplicably couldn't, if you recall.
>
> Unexplained use of "inexplicably" noted. Once you pinpointed where
> in that mad jumble you wanted me to look for a rachis, I had
> no trouble seeing it, and we were on the same page wrt feathers
> from that point on.

"Inexplicably" because it should have been glaringly obvious from the
photos. For example, the "glide reflection" of the barbs.

> However, here is something I've been very curious about but never
> got around to asking. The barbules on both kinds of feathers, the
> dinosaur tail and the baby bird, are much longer in proportion to
> the barbs than I expected. Don't typical modern bird pennacious feathers --
> the kiwi excepted -- have barbs many times closer to each other than
> the barbs were to each other in 3 and 5 of the baby bird wing in
> the National Geographic article.
>
> In fact, the barbules were so long that I'm not sure the people
> who did the captions of 3 and 5 realized that there were at most TWO
> feathers in these pictures. Perhaps they mistook the many barbs with
> attached barbules for separate feathers. Ditto the people doing the
> captions for some close-ups in that other National Geographic article
> on the "dinosaur tail".

I don't know what photos or captions you're talking about, but it's
certainly just like you to wonder if other people who aren't here
understand things that you understand.

>>> It's really hard to find whole feathers in all that "dinosaur tail"
>>> jumble, but you managed to make out a rachis or two.
>
> See note on "inexplicable" above.
>
>>> Then one of us
>>> found what might have been the original article, with very clear
>>> whole feathers. And the resemblance to those "gold standard"
>>> feathers is striking. That's another piece of evidence for the hypothesis
>>> that THIS dinosaur was definitely one of the Avialae, and perhaps
>>> an enantiornithine bird.
>
>> Not sure what you mean by "gold standard" feathers.
>
> I meant the gold standard for a photograph of feathers.

Why would you say that?

[Peter Nyikos]

I note the revised Subject: line.

The original, for those with threaded newsreaders that start
a new entry in the table of contents with each change of subject
line, was:

Subject: baby bird caught in amber

with OP by Jillery, whom Tony (whom I will be addressing directly below)
consistently confuses with Harshman, starting with the new Subject: line.


By the way, Tony, both Harshman and Jillery criticize me for not
using a threaded newsreader [or whatever the correct term is].

However, this is just one of the drawbacks of the threaded newsreader
that I used for years 1992-1999, "nn". Another is that I couldn't read
the neighboring posts while replying to a post.

You mean Jillery, not Harshman.

> >
> > I take it you are referring to behavior not to be found on this thread,
> > such as his stubborn adherence to Tycho Brahe's "improvement" on the old
> > pre-Copernican Ptolemaic system.
>
>
>
>
> Here Nyikos gets a small detail wrong. Bessel's observation of parallax
> in 1838 rendered Tycho Brahe's model failed. So I've never held Tycho's
> Brahe's model. Though I do hold to a minor modification of it.

So what's the modification?

> And it's
> not really clear that the Copernican Model was a dramatic improvement on
> the Ptolemic one.

It got rid of one epicycle in every planetary orbit (besides that
of the earth, which never was given one). That's an advantage even
from your unusual POV.

>
> Is the heliocentric model self evident? Copernicus's book was published
> in 1543 yet Michelson-Morley were still searching for scientific proof
> that the Earth moved 344 years later. And unsuccessfully I might add.
> Einstein had to introduce two new laws of nature *by fiat* to "re-
> interpret the Michelson-Morley results.

One was the claim that the speed of light is the same for all
observers. Have you ever seen an experiment refuting this?

Special relativity is based on this one new law. Is there really
a new law involved in general relativity, or only a shift in point
of view like that between your model of the universe and the
standard model?

> Perhaps Nyikos can prove that
> the Sun is at rest relative to the Earth? That would be a worthwhile
> addition to the forum.

Perhaps you will prove that the earth is at rest relative to the sun?
That would be a revolutionary addition to any forum.

Since you think it is, how do you escape the parallax paradox [paradoxical
only from you

[John Harshman]

At worst Harshman had no idea what you were asking about.

>> I take it you are referring to behavior not to be found on this thread,
>> such as his stubborn adherence to Tycho Brahe's "improvement" on the old
>> pre-Copernican Ptolemaic system.
>
> Here Nyikos gets a small detail wrong. Bessel's observation of parallax
> in 1838 rendered Tycho Brahe's model failed. So I've never held Tycho's
> Brahe's model. Though I do hold to a minor modification of it. And it's
> not really clear that the Copernican Model was a dramatic improvement on
> the Ptolemic one.
>
> Is the heliocentric model self evident? Copernicus's book was published
> in 1543 yet Michelson-Morley were still searching for scientific proof
> that the Earth moved 344 years later.

No, they weren't. They were searching for evidence of the ether.

> And unsuccessfully I might add.

True. They were unable to find any ether.

> Einstein had to introduce two new laws of nature *by fiat* to "re-
> interpret the Michelson-Morley results. Perhaps Nyikos can prove that
> the Sun is at rest relative to the Earth? That would be a worthwhile
> addition to the forum.
>
> I have never aimed to prove the falsity of secular-atheist theories; only
> that they are not nearly as well-supported and unassailable as is
> claimed. Nor are creationist or geocentric models all that easy to
> topple.

....in your rich fantasy life, though not elsewhere.

>> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was behaving
>> quite well on this thread.
>
> There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as far
> as I know, are undisputed:
>
> 1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
> paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory. Darwin was
> hoping that future discoveries would change that fact, but they haven't.

> 2. In the 1970s Gould and Eldredge both admitted that the defining
> characterisic of the fossil record was "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
> Some paleontologist doubt this will change and opine that the fossil
> record is an adequate sampling of the history of life.

Neither of these is true. You need to stop getting all your information
from creationist web sites.

> Now these facts might not refute the modern, secular, evolutionary
> framework but it tends to show that the theory is far less secure than is
> sold to children and portrayed nearly everywhere. Are we interested in
> the truth or merely something acceptable to the secular sensibilities?

We are interested in quite different things. You are interested in
casting doubt on anything that might conflict with your understanding of
the bible. If you want to call that "truth", I think it's a stretch.

And "these facts" are most definitely not facts.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:11:36 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was behaving
> > quite well on this thread.

>
> There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as far
> as I know, are undisputed:

Not only do you lack basic knowledge of paleontology, you lack crucial
knowledge of the history of paleontology.

> 1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
> paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory.

That depends on how narrowly you define "corroborate" and what
you mean by "his theory."

If what you mean by the latter is the common descent of huge
groups of creatures, as huge as that of the subphylum of vertebrates
or bigger, that has been "corroborated" beyond a reasonable doubt.

If on the other hand you mean Darwin's ideas of WHY and HOW that
descent took place, then you are beating a dead horse. Darwin's
ideas were superseded long ago in what is called the "Modern Synthesis (MS)"
which in turn is a woefully inadequate explanation for anything on
that scale.

The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on MS,
but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread, but they
aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite reasons,
I might add.

> Darwin was
> hoping that future discoveries would change that fact, but they haven't.

The evidence of common descent of vertebrates in Darwin's time
was woefully indirect: comparative anatomy of living taxa and a
very few fossil taxa.

Now we have a great wealth of fossils which give us a very good
idea of WHAT happened; and comparative anatomy itself was given
a tremendous assist by molecular methods of estimating phylogeny;
so much so that now it is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

> 2. In the 1970s Gould and Eldredge both admitted that the defining
> characterisic of the fossil record was "stasis" and "sudden appearance."

...on the species level. The amount of stasis is reduced
the further up the Linnean hierarchy you go. The horse family, Equidae
is one great example illustrating stasis and sudden appearance on
the species level, but anyone who thinks Equidae has been
in stasis since the Eocene is short a few screws.

You wouldn't be one of these people, would you?

> Some paleontologist doubt this will change and opine that the fossil
> record is an adequate sampling of the history of life.

Can you give a single example of such a paleontologist, complete
with a quote that answers the question, "Adequate for WHAT?"
I don't think you can.

The record is great for showing the common descent, not just of
Equidae but of Perissodactyla, but is all too fragmentary
for Chiroptera. The evolution of bats from wingless mammals
is still a mystery as to what intermediates looked like or
even might have looked like. But there was once almost as
great a mystery about the evolution of whales, and now the record
is almost as rich as for horses.

So if you want to make a case for separate creation of the first bat,
go for it, but don't be surprised if the fossil record rises up
and hits you in the face in the next decade or two.

> Now these facts might not refute the modern, secular, evolutionary
> framework but it tends to show that the theory is far less secure than is
> sold to children and portrayed nearly everywhere. Are we interested in
> the truth or merely something acceptable to the secular sensibilities?

Are YOU interested in the truth enough to do some serious reading
in paleontology?

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

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS That parting question was NOT rhetorical. I am giving you the benefit
of the doubt and would be delighted if you answered Yes, unlike Harshman who
assumes that you are not worth explaining things to, the way I have been
explaining them.

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/18 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:11:36 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was behaving
>>> quite well on this thread.
>
>>
>> There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as far
>> as I know, are undisputed:
>
> Not only do you lack basic knowledge of paleontology, you lack crucial
> knowledge of the history of paleontology.
>
>
>> 1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
>> paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory.
>
> That depends on how narrowly you define "corroborate" and what
> you mean by "his theory."
>
> If what you mean by the latter is the common descent of huge
> groups of creatures, as huge as that of the subphylum of vertebrates
> or bigger, that has been "corroborated" beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> If on the other hand you mean Darwin's ideas of WHY and HOW that
> descent took place, then you are beating a dead horse. Darwin's
> ideas were superseded long ago in what is called the "Modern Synthesis (MS)"
> which in turn is a woefully inadequate explanation for anything on
> that scale.
>
> The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on MS,

I would be interested to know what you think the improvements are.

> but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread, but they
> aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite reasons,
> I might add.
>
>
>> Darwin was
>> hoping that future discoveries would change that fact, but they haven't.
>
> The evidence of common descent of vertebrates in Darwin's time
> was woefully indirect: comparative anatomy of living taxa and a
> very few fossil taxa.

Why is the comparative anatomy of living taxa woefully indirect?

> Now we have a great wealth of fossils which give us a very good
> idea of WHAT happened; and comparative anatomy itself was given
> a tremendous assist by molecular methods of estimating phylogeny;
> so much so that now it is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Why do you consider molecular methods to be the tail?

>> 2. In the 1970s Gould and Eldredge both admitted that the defining
>> characterisic of the fossil record was "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
>
> ...on the species level. The amount of stasis is reduced
> the further up the Linnean hierarchy you go. The horse family, Equidae
> is one great example illustrating stasis and sudden appearance on
> the species level, but anyone who thinks Equidae has been
> in stasis since the Eocene is short a few screws.
>
> You wouldn't be one of these people, would you?

Well, he is short a great many screws. But he probably hasn't thought it
through at all. He's just parroting some creationist he saw on the web.

>> Some paleontologist doubt this will change and opine that the fossil
>> record is an adequate sampling of the history of life.
>
> Can you give a single example of such a paleontologist, complete
> with a quote that answers the question, "Adequate for WHAT?"
> I don't think you can.

He probably got this from a paper by Benton. At least that's the common
creationist quote mine. As you note, the operative question is "Adequate
for what?".

> The record is great for showing the common descent, not just of
> Equidae but of Perissodactyla, but is all too fragmentary
> for Chiroptera. The evolution of bats from wingless mammals
> is still a mystery as to what intermediates looked like or
> even might have looked like. But there was once almost as
> great a mystery about the evolution of whales, and now the record
> is almost as rich as for horses.
>
> So if you want to make a case for separate creation of the first bat,
> go for it, but don't be surprised if the fossil record rises up
> and hits you in the face in the next decade or two.
>
>
>> Now these facts might not refute the modern, secular, evolutionary
>> framework but it tends to show that the theory is far less secure than is
>> sold to children and portrayed nearly everywhere. Are we interested in
>> the truth or merely something acceptable to the secular sensibilities?
>
> Are YOU interested in the truth enough to do some serious reading
> in paleontology?

> PS That parting question was NOT rhetorical. I am giving you the benefit
> of the doubt and would be delighted if you answered Yes, unlike Harshman who
> assumes that you are not worth explaining things to, the way I have been
> explaining them.

If it turns out I was right about Tony, can I say "I told you so"?
Because it will.

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:02:48 +0000 (UTC), Walter Bushell
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:

>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>Molecular dating is not very reliable, hence your "suggests" and
>>"may have been" is about all the traffic will bear at the present
>>state of our knowledge.
>
>I hadn't considered molecular dating before, but there are ionic
>and covalent bonds, and in solution everyone is dancing with everyone,
>so I suppose it has to happen.

Some people find ionic bonds a shocking experience.

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:33:02 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

It's worse than that. You're being glib about your own lack of
responsibility. And your reference to me above is completely
gratuitous.

>> I take it you are referring to behavior not to be found on this thread,
>> such as his stubborn adherence to Tycho Brahe's "improvement" on the old
>> pre-Copernican Ptolemaic system.
>
>
>
>
>Here Nyikos gets a small detail wrong. Bessel's observation of parallax
>in 1838 rendered Tycho Brahe's model failed. So I've never held Tycho's
>Brahe's model. Though I do hold to a minor modification of it. And it's
>not really clear that the Copernican Model was a dramatic improvement on
>the Ptolemic one.

When you use generic terms, you can reasonably expect others to
respond generically. If you want to constrain their responses to a
particular model, it's your job to make that explicit.

>Is the heliocentric model self evident? Copernicus's book was published
>in 1543 yet Michelson-Morley were still searching for scientific proof
>that the Earth moved 344 years later.

You *still* need to cite your assertion that M-M was trying to prove
the Earth moved.

>And unsuccessfully I might add.
>Einstein had to introduce two new laws of nature *by fiat*

And cite here.

>to "re-
>interpret the Michelson-Morley results. Perhaps Nyikos can prove that
>the Sun is at rest relative to the Earth? That would be a worthwhile
>addition to the forum.

Yet another irrelevant non-sequitur. Even you admit the Sun and Earth
move relative to each other.

>I have never aimed to prove the falsity of secular-atheist theories; only
>that they are not nearly as well-supported and unassailable as is
>claimed. Nor are creationist or geocentric models all that easy to
>topple.

Yet another irrelevant non-sequitur. Secular atheism has nothing to
do with anything under discussion.

>> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was behaving
>> quite well on this thread.
>
>
>
>There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as far
>as I know, are undisputed:
>
>1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
>paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory. Darwin was
>hoping that future discoveries would change that fact, but they haven't.

And cite here.

>2. In the 1970s Gould and Eldredge both admitted that the defining
>characterisic of the fossil record was "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
>Some paleontologist doubt this will change and opine that the fossil
>record is an adequate sampling of the history of life.

BZZT! G&E claimed stasis and sudden appearance were the defining
characteristics of the fossil record. AIUI most paleontologists
disagree with their claim.

>Now these facts might not refute the modern, secular, evolutionary
>framework but it tends to show that the theory is far less secure than is
>sold to children and portrayed nearly everywhere. Are we interested in
>the truth or merely something acceptable to the secular sensibilities?

Since you're doing the same inane dance above as you do with
geocentrism, it's clear you have no interest in discussing "truth".

>In particular, I take "I got that from
>> Jillery" to mean,
>> "I got the message that this is pretty cool already from Jillery."
>
>
>
>Even I didn't presume Harshman to be that thick.
>
>I took the bait Harshman, how about you?

Accept responsibility for your own disappointing behavior.

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:33:50 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

>By the way, Tony, both Harshman and Jillery criticize me for not
>using a threaded newsreader [or whatever the correct term is].

Of course, Jillery merely comments about your refusal to accept
responsiblity for your own problems. That a characteristic you and
Tony share.

[Burkhard]

jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:02:48 +0000 (UTC), Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Molecular dating is not very reliable, hence your "suggests" and
>>> "may have been" is about all the traffic will bear at the present
>>> state of our knowledge.
>>
>> I hadn't considered molecular dating before, but there are ionic
>> and covalent bonds, and in solution everyone is dancing with everyone,
>> so I suppose it has to happen.
>
>
> Some people find ionic bonds a shocking experience.
>
> --

I can imagine! I'm not that much into the whole bondage thing myself,
but it can be shocking for the newby. But doric bonds are worse.

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:16:06 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Beware Greeks bearing bonds.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on MS,
> but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed
> Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread, but they
> aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite reasons,
> I might add.
>

You haven’t done squat aside from invoking the name of an alleged paradigm
shift. Those things wax and wane.

I actually like Pigliucci and follow his blog from time to time but Larry
points to the problematic:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2018/02/one-philosophers-view-of-random-genetic.html

Hmmmm...

And if this EES is inadequate as necessary replacement what does that leave
us with? Green men in the gaps? I am on to your little game here. I have
been for 20 years.

[*Hemidactylus*]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/12/18 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>

[snip]

>>
>> The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on MS,
>
> I would be interested to know what you think the improvements are.
>

Good luck with that. Now he’s “spoonfeeding” you too. Must be somewhere in
the Pigliucci/Laland promotional literature.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:33:50 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> I note the revised Subject: line.
>
> The original, for those with threaded newsreaders that start a new entry
> in the table of contents with each change of subject line, was:
>
> Subject: baby bird caught in amber
>
> with OP by Jillery, whom Tony (whom I will be addressing directly below)
> consistently confuses with Harshman, starting with the new Subject:
> line.

Since the content has shifted (almost completely) from the original
subject line I see no reason (whatsoever) to retain the subject line. A
threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as reference;
never has (as far as I know). I've used Forte's Agent with Windows and
it maintained threading with subject line changes and I now use Pan with
Linux and it handles threading as well with subject changes.

"They" complain if the ice cream is too cold and I don't care.

>
>
> By the way, Tony, both Harshman and Jillery criticize me for not using a
> threaded newsreader [or whatever the correct term is].

They (likely) criticize me for breathing. I follow the arguments where
they lead and change the subject line to fit the content. It is as simple
as that. My suspicion has always been that a subject line which doesn't
represent the content is cover when things go badly.



snip

>
>
>> > I take it you are referring to behavior not to be found on this
>> > thread, such as his stubborn adherence to Tycho Brahe's "improvement"
>> > on the old pre-Copernican Ptolemaic system.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here Nyikos gets a small detail wrong. Bessel's observation of
>> parallax in 1838 rendered Tycho Brahe's model failed. So I've never
>> held Tycho's Brahe's model. Though I do hold to a minor modification
>> of it.
>
> So what's the modification?

As brilliant as you are I'd think it was obvious. If the star field's
relative motion (as positioned in the Tycho Brahe model) wouldn't result
in parallax observations from Earth what would need to change? I'll
leave that as an exercise in your spare time.

>
>
>> And it's
>> not really clear that the Copernican Model was a dramatic improvement
>> on the Ptolemic one.
>
> It got rid of one epicycle in every planetary orbit (besides that of the
> earth, which never was given one). That's an advantage even from your
> unusual POV.

I wrote that it wasn't a "dramatic" improvement.

The history of science aspects are often necessary to discovering why
scientists proceed as they currently do. However, the fact that the
Copernican Model had a few less epicycles is hardly an indicator of its
truthlikeness. It definitely doesn't prove that the heliocentric model
is either true or self-evidently true.

And we'll see (below) how easy it is to prove that the Sun is at rest
with respect to the Earth.

>>
>> Is the heliocentric model self evident? Copernicus's book was
>> published in 1543 yet Michelson-Morley were still searching for
>> scientific proof that the Earth moved 344 years later. And
>> unsuccessfully I might add. Einstein had to introduce two new laws of
>> nature *by fiat* to "re- interpret the Michelson-Morley results.
>
> One was the claim that the speed of light is the same for all observers.
> Have you ever seen an experiment refuting this?

[Note: This requires some introduction but the shorter answer can be
found beginning at para. 5]

1. People have been misled to believe some romantic notion that Einstein-
the-genius thought up SR and GR while contemplating nature in the duldrums
of his Patent Office. This is rubbish. Einstein instead was
contemplating the serious problems for Copernicanism introduced by the
experiments conducted by Fizeau, Airy and Michelson-Morley 18-50 years
earlier. By the failure of Fresnel's Ether Drag theory to save things and
the one glimmering light offered by Lorentz 10 years earlier (1905 being
the reference year). Now let's proceed.

2. SR included two formal postulates:
Postulate 1: the laws of physics are same in all inertial frames
Postulate 2: the speed of light is the same for all observers

3. However, preceding these postulates Einstein was forced to go along
with the only solution offered to the Michelson-Morley problem----
Lorentz's solution: matter in motion contracts (the famous Lorentz
Transformation). However, Einstein (and Lorentz before him) realized
that if matter contracted then mass and time had to vary as well
(otherwise the equations didn't balance). These were forced elements and
not the genius of Einstein.

4. This left the capstone to the fantasy world created by Einstein.
Since length, mass, and time were forced to vary (with motion) Einstein
needed a fixed, unchangeable yard stick otherwise the fantasy world was
useless as far as a scientist was concerned. Light's speed had to be the
fixed yard stick; it had to be fixed **REGARDLESS** of motion. This was
the next new "law of nature" invented out of necessity.

5. So To answer your question: All of the interferometer experiments
disproved Einstein's second postulate beginning with Michelson-Morley up
to Dayton Miller's. Relativists bring in the Lorentz Transformation to
make the necessary "adjustments" and voila, the disproof is properly
corrected.

6. Unfortunately the relativists ran into a problem with Sagnac. His
rotating apparatus clearly showed that light speed was not a constant.
Relativists couldn't exactly apply the Lorentz correction to Sagnac's
rotating experimental setup and as such Sagnac was ignored by Einstein.
Einstein's followers retorted that Sagnac was not an inertial system. At
the very least Sagnac demonstrated that the Lorentz correction and the
supposed fixed light "yard stick" were not universal laws.

7. So I suspect that there has never been a modern observation
disproving SR's second postulate because (a) non inertial systems are
ignored and (b) Einstein's new law of nature (length contraction enforced
by a mathematical contrivance-Lorentz Transformation) is ensuring that it
won't. It's mathematics (the Lorentz Transformation) triumphing over
reality. Keep in mind that there is no physical theory explaining how any
atomic structure contracts merely by virtue of motion. Lorentz actually
proposed a physical explanation but Einstein found it wanting and tossed
it out when he disposed of a "material" ether.

>
> Special relativity is based on this one new law. Is there really a new
> law involved in general relativity, or only a shift in point of view
> like that between your model of the universe and the standard model?

Read above.

>
>
>> Perhaps Nyikos can prove that the Sun is at rest relative to the Earth?
>> That would be a worthwhile addition to the forum.
>
> Perhaps you will prove that the earth is at rest relative to the sun?
> That would be a revolutionary addition to any forum.

1. As I suspected; saying heliocentricism is self evident isn't nearly
as easy as proving it.

2. Michelson-Morley proved that the Earth was at rest. George Airy's
stellar light experiments demonstrated that it was the stars moving and
the Earth at rest. So disturbing were Airy's results (like that of
Michelson-Morley) that his experiment was dubbed, "Airy's Mistake." This
didn't refer to an error in his apparatus or readings from it. It was a
mistake because it did NOT support heliocentricism. Like Michelson-
Morley, George Airy was a heliocentricist and he was trying to prove the
Earth was moving. But the results showed that it was the Earth at rest.

3. The Lorentz Transformation eventually came to Airy's rescue as well.

4. There is way to resolve the matter. Put a Michelson-Morley
interferometer on the moon or even in a Shuttle in low Earth orbit. If
it measures the correct orbital speed without the Lorentz Transformation
then the original, unadjusted Michelson-Morley results were correct. And
heliocentricism is false. This has been suggested to NASA and other
space agencies. None will consider the experiment. Wonder why?

>
> Since you think it is, how do you escape the parallax paradox
> [paradoxical only from you

The geometry of the "neo" Tychonian model is identical to the
heliocentric and so parallax observations are identical. It's as easy as
that.

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:12:11 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:33:50 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> I note the revised Subject: line.
>>
>> The original, for those with threaded newsreaders that start a new entry
>> in the table of contents with each change of subject line, was:
>>
>> Subject: baby bird caught in amber
>>
>> with OP by Jillery, whom Tony (whom I will be addressing directly below)
>> consistently confuses with Harshman, starting with the new Subject:
>> line.
>
>
>Since the content has shifted (almost completely) from the original
>subject line I see no reason (whatsoever) to retain the subject line. A
>threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as reference;
>never has (as far as I know).

Since a threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as
reference, as you say, then there's no reason for you to change it,
either.

>I've used Forte's Agent with Windows and
>it maintained threading with subject line changes and I now use Pan with
>Linux and it handles threading as well with subject changes.

Since you mention it, I also use Forte Agent with Windows, and it
switches from threaded view to alphabetical view (and other views)
with but a single click.

>"They" complain if the ice cream is too cold and I don't care.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> By the way, Tony, both Harshman and Jillery criticize me for not using a
>> threaded newsreader [or whatever the correct term is].
>
>
>They (likely) criticize me for breathing.

You (really) don't know what you're talking about.


<snip remaining spam PRATTs>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery
took umbrage over what few people in t.o. would consider to be
a slight to be annoyed over.

To see how major that [feigned?] umbrage was, one
need only look at how jillery mangled the attribution
line to me:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:33:50 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
> Is anybody surprised.

Is anybody else surprised by the way jillery makes a
mountain out of a molehill (see below) above? Even *I*
got surprised by it, and I've seen well over a hundred
of the same identically worded "puckered sphincter"
manglings from her.

>
> >By the way, Tony, both Harshman and Jillery criticize me for not
> >using a threaded newsreader [or whatever the correct term is].

jillery, you didn't bother to tell me whether I used the correct term or
not -- this time. On an earlier occasion, you did correct me
when I used the wrong term.

>
> Of course, Jillery merely comments about your refusal to accept
> responsiblity for your own problems.

One of my "own problems" is that threaded newsreaders come with
their own peculiar problems, as I learned in the days when I used
both Deja News (the precursor of Google Groups) and the threaded "nn".

Not only did you do an unmarked snip [1] of my partial account
of those problems, you essentially rephrased your criticism of me,
which I correctly identified above in the part you left in.

> That a characteristic you and
> Tony share.
>

Neither of us considers ourselves constrained to follow your
<ahem> advice, but that is the only truthful kernel of what
you've written just now.

Why don't you do the readership a big favor and let them know
in what way the ones using NGG are shirking their responsibilities by not
using a newsreader that merits your seal of approval?

[1] unmarked snips, done to hide highly relevant context, is a
trait Harshman shares with you. Do you think there is nothing
wrong with THOSE kinds of unmarked snips? Harshman certainly
seems to think there is nothing wrong with them.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:33:50 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > I note the revised Subject: line.
> >
> > The original, for those with threaded newsreaders that start a new entry
> > in the table of contents with each change of subject line, was:
> >
> > Subject: baby bird caught in amber
> >
> > with OP by Jillery, whom Tony (whom I will be addressing directly below)
> > consistently confuses with Harshman, starting with the new Subject:
> > line.

> Since the content has shifted (almost completely) from the original
> subject line I see no reason (whatsoever) to retain the subject line.

You are referring to two different subject lines. The original was
as I said above, the new one which you ALSO did not retain, was the sarcastic

Harshman and I are equally patted on the head and slapped by Nyikos;
how big of him

And you replaced it with one that shows you counted your chickens before
they were hatched:

Several Issues that Nyikos Doesn't Handle Particularly Well;

NEITHER of these gave a clue as to what the content of these
posts was all about.

Is this the way you usually handle these changes, by making personal
digs about people?

I changed your NEW mean-spirited Subject line to one DESCRIPTIVE
of the contents.

> A threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as reference;
> never has (as far as I know).

"nn" did exactly that, and Harshman has verified that GigaNews does
the same for him.

Until this NGG thread, complete with changes of Subject line,
reaches 100 posts, even NGG will display the posts like a threaded newsreader.
But it shows the WHOLE posts, not just a table of contents.

The main reason jillery flames both me and Kleinman for not using the
kind of newsreader she likes, is that she loves to use Message-IDs and ONLY
Message-ID's as "documentation" of claims of hers. Her newsreader
can take her to the right post with just that much information,
but NGG, unlike the old Google Groups, cannot.

Sometimes this is even to her disadvantage: the last time she
raked me over the coals for relying on NGG, she was supposedly
"documenting" lies by Martin Harran. I was unable to recall
any such occasion besides one where Martin merely guessed wrong
about the details of how jillery produced what I've loosely
termed a "forgery".

Jillery did categorize that guess as a lie, but said she had
a different utterance that she called a lie in mind. She documented
it in the form of an url.

A few days after I was subjected to a lengthy tirade (because I requested
other documentation, easy for jillery to obtain in a minute or less)
I recalled how I had witnessed an exchange between jillery and Martin
in which jillery distinctly had the upper hand. But I could recall
no outright lies by Martin, and if they existed, jillery lost a
disinterested witness -- myself -- to them.

> I've used Forte's Agent with Windows and
> it maintained threading with subject line changes and I now use Pan with
> Linux and it handles threading as well with subject changes.

Three questions (1) is either of these free? (2) does either one
allow you to use "Find in page" commands while you are composing
a reply and (3) does either allow you to see neighboring posts in the
same screen where you are composing your reply?

These are three advantages of NGG, and I've never been told of
a threaded newsreader that had all of them.

Remainder deleted, partly to be replied to you on the latest new subject
line YOU chose.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:37:21 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>> irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>>
>> Is anybody surprised.

>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:00:03 PM UTC-5, jillery
>took umbrage over what few people in t.o. would consider to be
>a slight to be annoyed over.

Of course, it's you who showed umbrage over what few people in T.O.
would consider to be a slight to be annoyed over. That's all part of
your repetitive irrelevant spew. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>To see how major that [feigned?] umbrage was, one
>need only look at how jillery mangled the attribution
>line to me:

What you call mangling is merely a way to note your repetitive
irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter. Don't like it? Then
don't post your repetitive irrelevant spew. Even you should be able
to figure that out.

Again, I offer no advice, and based on your replies to me, I have no
expectation you have the intelligence, maturity, or common sense to
heed any I might offer you.

>Why don't you do the readership a big favor and let them know
>in what way the ones using NGG are shirking their responsibilities by not
>using a newsreader that merits your seal of approval?

Of course, there are lots of posters who use NGG, but that isn't the
relevant characteristic here. I bet even you know that.

>[1] unmarked snips, done to hide highly relevant context, is a
>trait Harshman shares with you. Do you think there is nothing
>wrong with THOSE kinds of unmarked snips? Harshman certainly
>seems to think there is nothing wrong with them.

Of course, your notation above presumes there was any relevant context
to hide. In your replies to me, that's almost never the case.

HTH but I doubt it.

[John Harshman]

On 2/13/18 8:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:

>> A threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as reference;
>> never has (as far as I know).
>
> "nn" did exactly that, and Harshman has verified that GigaNews does
> the same for him.

That isn't true. Changing the subject line doesn't change the threading
in any way.

[Peter Nyikos]

We never really came to grips back then about the main issue: is that
really the tail of a non-avialan dinosaur?

And this time, I've added a NEW question designed to shed light on
that issue, and you missed it:

<snip of things to be addressed in separate reply>

> > However, here is something I've been very curious about but never
> > got around to asking. The barbules on both kinds of feathers, the
> > dinosaur tail and the baby bird, are much longer in proportion to
> > the barbs than I expected. Don't typical modern bird pennacious feathers --
> > the kiwi excepted -- have barbs many times closer to each other than
> > the barbs were to each other in 3 and 5 of the baby bird wing in

> > the National Geographic article[?].

I see I should have put that question mark in originally.
Can you answer it now? It should be right down your ornithological alley.

The url for that article again -- the one with the slide show to which
3 and 5 refer:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/baby-bird-dinosaur-burmese-amber-fossil/

> > In fact, the barbules were so long that I'm not sure the people
> > who did the captions of 3 and 5 realized that there were at most TWO
> > feathers in these pictures. Perhaps they mistook the many barbs with
> > attached barbules for separate feathers. Ditto the people doing the
> > captions for some close-ups in that other National Geographic article
> > on the "dinosaur tail".
>
> I don't know what photos or captions you're talking about,

Here is the url for the "dinosaur tail" pictures, also repeated from above:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/

Take a look at all those barbs with attached barbules "waving around"
in the figure with the caption,

The dinosaur feather structure is open, flexible, and similar
to modern ornamental feathers.

And note the resemblance to the barbs and barbules in 3 and 5 of the
baby bird article.

> but it's
> certainly just like you to wonder if other people who aren't here
> understand things that you understand.

Gratuitous across-the-board put-down noted. You have no qualms
about doing far worse things than mere wondering about "other
people who aren't here" like Feduccia and Meyer.

Popularizations are often rife with inaccuracies, both of scientific and
mathematical discoveries. One other thing I might point out is
that the caption for 3 claims the feathers [plural, despite there
being at most two] show that the baby bird was in its first feather molt.

But all I could see is some barbs coming away from their neighbors at the
distal ends. It could easily be an artifact of preservation, like the
mad jumble of "delicate" feathers with barbs+barbules sticking up in one of the
"dinosaur tail" pictures, and in the close-up with the "open structure"
caption.

>
> >>> It's really hard to find whole feathers in all that "dinosaur tail"
> >>> jumble, but you managed to make out a rachis or two.

<snip>

> >>> Then one of us
> >>> found what might have been the original article, with very clear
> >>> whole feathers. And the resemblance to those "gold standard"
> >>> feathers is striking. That's another piece of evidence for the hypothesis
> >>> that THIS dinosaur was definitely one of the Avialae, and perhaps
> >>> an enantiornithine bird.
> >
> >> Not sure what you mean by "gold standard" feathers.
> >
> > I meant the gold standard for a photograph of feathers.
>
> Why would you say that?

For easy reference to the relevant picture, of course.

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

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

[John Harshman]

Yes, we did. Incidentally, the fact that the feathers were attached to a
long tail, with visible vertebrae, is one of those obvious things you
inexplicably couldn't see.

> And this time, I've added a NEW question designed to shed light on
> that issue, and you missed it:

Didn't miss it. I just had little interest in rehashing all that,
finding the photos again, trying to figure out what you're talking about
again, etc.

> <snip of things to be addressed in separate reply>
>
>>> However, here is something I've been very curious about but never
>>> got around to asking. The barbules on both kinds of feathers, the
>>> dinosaur tail and the baby bird, are much longer in proportion to
>>> the barbs than I expected. Don't typical modern bird pennacious feathers --
>>> the kiwi excepted -- have barbs many times closer to each other than
>>> the barbs were to each other in 3 and 5 of the baby bird wing in
>>> the National Geographic article[?].
>
> I see I should have put that question mark in originally.
> Can you answer it now? It should be right down your ornithological alley.

I especially have no interest in discussing this here on TO, where you
are free to be yourself. SBP, perhaps.

<carefully marked snip>

[Peter Nyikos]

But you did verify that it does change the table of contents,
which doesn't show threading between different subjects -- or does it?

Until NGG inaugurated a "glass ceiling" of 1000 posts to an NGG thread,
old GG threads could run to 10,000 posts because nobody bothered to
start a new thread in the other newsreaders, but only the subject line,
often with no clue as to what the old subject line had been.

And so, eventually, nobody had any clue as to what the original topic or thread
-- established YEARS earlier -- was. The subject lines had changed hundreds
of times, and the whole branching tree of new subject lines was all
included in the OGG thread.

Could GigaNews handle that kind of massive tree of "sub-threads"?

Peter Nyikos

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <62692b33-f85a-473e...@googlegroups.com>,

GigaNews is a news *server*, not a news reader.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:31:32 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:16:06 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:02:48 +0000 (UTC), Walter Bushell
>>> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Molecular dating is not very reliable, hence your "suggests" and
>>>>> "may have been" is about all the traffic will bear at the present
>>>>> state of our knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> I hadn't considered molecular dating before, but there are ionic
>>>> and covalent bonds, and in solution everyone is dancing with everyone,
>>>> so I suppose it has to happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people find ionic bonds a shocking experience.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>I can imagine! I'm not that much into the whole bondage thing myself,
>>but it can be shocking for the newby. But doric bonds are worse.
>
>
>Beware Greeks bearing bonds.

Capital idea, I'd say; the pillar (a type of column) of
wisdom.

But don't confuse it with "fine Corinthian leather".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:52:42 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:12:11 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:33:50 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>> I note the revised Subject: line.
>>>
>>> The original, for those with threaded newsreaders that start a new entry
>>> in the table of contents with each change of subject line, was:
>>>
>>> Subject: baby bird caught in amber
>>>
>>> with OP by Jillery, whom Tony (whom I will be addressing directly below)
>>> consistently confuses with Harshman, starting with the new Subject:
>>> line.
>>
>>
>>Since the content has shifted (almost completely) from the original
>>subject line I see no reason (whatsoever) to retain the subject line. A
>>threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as reference;
>>never has (as far as I know).
>
>
>Since a threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as
>reference, as you say, then there's no reason for you to change it,
>either.
>
>
>>I've used Forte's Agent with Windows and
>>it maintained threading with subject line changes and I now use Pan with
>>Linux and it handles threading as well with subject changes.
>
>
>Since you mention it, I also use Forte Agent with Windows, and it
>switches from threaded view to alphabetical view (and other views)
>with but a single click.

I also use Agent, but for some reason I find it more natural
to sort on "Subject:" rather than use the threading feature.
Just a personal quirk, one I'm sure Tony finds delightful
since I might (but don't) miss his "responses", as he calls
his regurgiposts of refuted assertions.

>>"They" complain if the ice cream is too cold and I don't care.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By the way, Tony, both Harshman and Jillery criticize me for not using a
>>> threaded newsreader [or whatever the correct term is].
>>
>>
>>They (likely) criticize me for breathing.
>
>
>You (really) don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
><snip remaining spam PRATTs>
--

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm still curious about the answer to this question, which your
response doesn't touch on, Andre.

> GigaNews is a news *server*, not a news reader.
>
> Andre

Does one have to read the posts elsewhere than where one makes ones
replies/posts?

If not, then I don't see why "newsreader" cannot be an accurate
description of ONE of the functions of GigaNews.

By the way, I've also seen the term "netserver". Is that the
same thing as a news server?

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

If you actually are interested in the "feathered dinosaur tail", why not look at
the actual article, rather than the NatGeo description? It might clarify some
of your concerns.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31193-9

I also would suggest that continuing on-topic discussion would be better carried
out in SBP, away from the distractions of fending off all the attacks you suffer
here.

[Burkhard]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:31:32 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:16:06 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:02:48 +0000 (UTC), Walter Bushell
>>>> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Molecular dating is not very reliable, hence your "suggests" and
>>>>>> "may have been" is about all the traffic will bear at the present
>>>>>> state of our knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hadn't considered molecular dating before, but there are ionic
>>>>> and covalent bonds, and in solution everyone is dancing with everyone,
>>>>> so I suppose it has to happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people find ionic bonds a shocking experience.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I can imagine! I'm not that much into the whole bondage thing myself,
>>> but it can be shocking for the newby. But doric bonds are worse.
>>
>>
>> Beware Greeks bearing bonds.
>
> Capital idea, I'd say; the pillar (a type of column) of
> wisdom.
>
> But don't confuse it with "fine Corinthian leather".
>

Corinthian is fine, but spikin Doric is unca allagrugous, and a richt
vratch

[John Harshman]

On 2/13/18 9:17 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 11:30:03 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/13/18 8:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>>> A threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as reference;
>>>> never has (as far as I know).
>>>
>>> "nn" did exactly that, and Harshman has verified that GigaNews does
>>> the same for him.
>>
>> That isn't true. Changing the subject line doesn't change the threading
>> in any way.
>
> But you did verify that it does change the table of contents,
> which doesn't show threading between different subjects -- or does it?

Table of contents? Not a term I recognize in this context. Please
rephrase, as I don't know how to respond.

> Until NGG inaugurated a "glass ceiling" of 1000 posts to an NGG thread,
> old GG threads could run to 10,000 posts because nobody bothered to
> start a new thread in the other newsreaders, but only the subject line,
> often with no clue as to what the old subject line had been.
>
> And so, eventually, nobody had any clue as to what the original topic or thread
> -- established YEARS earlier -- was. The subject lines had changed hundreds
> of times, and the whole branching tree of new subject lines was all
> included in the OGG thread.
>
> Could GigaNews handle that kind of massive tree of "sub-threads"?

GigaNews isn't the news reader. It's the company that runs my news
server. I use Thunderbird. Sure, it could. But I let posts expire after
a couple months, so I don't see the root of anything that old.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 8:40:05 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on MS,
> > but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed
> > Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread, but they
> > aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite reasons,
> > I might add.

You both think the Theory of Microevolution known as the Modern Synthesis (MS)
is all that evolutionists will ever have. You think it is all that is
needed to be a full fledged Theory of Evolution, while Kleinman thinks it
is so bad that creationism is the only viable game in town.

> You haven't done squat aside from invoking the name of an alleged paradigm
> shift.

This applies to what I have done on THIS thread so far,
and so you are saved from having made a bare-faced lie by
your weasel wording. It would have been an outright lie
if you had added the self-serving falsehood of that being all
I did on the OTHER thread.

> Those things wax and wane.

Straw men, like the one you've knocked down, wax and wane a
lot faster than paradigm shifts.

On the other thread, I gave a link to a voluminous paper
by Muller and told you the most relevant way it is an improvement
over MS -- it contains so much more that it actually aspires to
show WHY and HOW evolution on earth was so spectacular.

I also told Kleinman I had found a fatal weakness that keeps it
from being such a theory, and I even gave the number of the
short section -- hardly longer than your benighted post --
where the weakness could be found. I invited you to read it,
but you went on ranting and raving about an alleged "love affair" between
me and EES.

> I actually like Pigliucci and follow his blog from time to time but Larry
> points to the problematic:
>
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2018/02/one-philosophers-view-of-random-genetic.html

> Hmmmm...

AFAIK, this less-than-half-liner of yours is the only relevance that "problematic" has to anything I've said about EES or MS. Feel free to
prove me wrong.

> And if this EES is inadequate as necessary replacement what does that leave
> us with?

A true Theory of Evolution yet to be formulated, which takes away
the glaring weakness which you kept pretending I had never mentioned
to anyone -- as here.

> Green men in the gaps? I am on to your little game here. I have
> been for 20 years.

I don't think even you are senile enough, or ignorant enough of science,
to believe that what you've written just now.

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

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[*Hemidactylus*]

1. I am on a mobile newsreader NewsTap
2. Changing subject line doesn’t impact threading for me.
3. Giganews isn’t a newsreader.
4. Peter is avoiding elaboration of his cherished EES via digressions such
as these.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 8:40:05 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on MS,
>>> but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed
>>> Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread, but they
>>> aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite reasons,
>>> I might add.
>
> You both think the Theory of Microevolution known as the Modern Synthesis (MS)
> is all that evolutionists will ever have. You think it is all that is
> needed to be a full fledged Theory of Evolution, while Kleinman thinks it
> is so bad that creationism is the only viable game in town.
>

The MS could be dead and buried for all I care. Evolutionists have moved on
since. I just haven’t seen the necessity shown for the hodgepodge presented
as EES to be set as the next great thing.

>
>> You haven't done squat aside from invoking the name of an alleged paradigm
>> shift.
>
> This applies to what I have done on THIS thread so far,
> and so you are saved from having made a bare-faced lie by
> your weasel wording. It would have been an outright lie
> if you had added the self-serving falsehood of that being all
> I did on the OTHER thread.
>

What did you actually do on the other thread that you can’t be bothered to
repeat here?

>
>> Those things wax and wane.
>
> Straw men, like the one you've knocked down, wax and wane a
> lot faster than paradigm shifts.
>

Are you Kuhn now?

>
> On the other thread, I gave a link to a voluminous paper
> by Muller and told you the most relevant way it is an improvement
> over MS -- it contains so much more that it actually aspires to
> show WHY and HOW evolution on earth was so spectacular.
>

Nothing meaty from you yet. Just vague allusions to a paper you read.

>
> I also told Kleinman I had found a fatal weakness that keeps it
> from being such a theory, and I even gave the number of the
> short section -- hardly longer than your benighted post --
> where the weakness could be found. I invited you to read it,
> but you went on ranting and raving about an alleged "love affair" between
> me and EES.
>

Still nothing to see here.

>
>> I actually like Pigliucci and follow his blog from time to time but Larry
>> points to the problematic:
>>
>> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2018/02/one-philosophers-view-of-random-genetic.html
>
>> Hmmmm...
>
> AFAIK, this less-than-half-liner of yours is the only relevance that
> "problematic" has to anything I've said about EES or MS. Feel free to
> prove me wrong.
>

Larry points to problems with Pigliucci’s rendition of genetic drift.
Pigliucci is a huge proponent of the EES.

Larry also points the problematic misunderstanding of the Central Dogma by
Pigliucci and Muller here:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2018/02/one-philosophers-view-of-random-genetic.html

>
>> And if this EES is inadequate as necessary replacement what does that leave
>> us with?
>
> A true Theory of Evolution yet to be formulated, which takes away
> the glaring weakness which you kept pretending I had never mentioned
> to anyone -- as here.
>

So there’s no theory of evolution to be had then? No selection, drift, flow
etc? Or are you knocking knowledge down as straw because you have an
ulterior motive. You see EES and ID as tools you can invoke as needed yet
give a fair and balanced facade.

>
>> Green men in the gaps? I am on to your little game here. I have
>> been for 20 years.
>
> I don't think even you are senile enough, or ignorant enough of science,
> to believe that what you've written just now.
>

I kinda do about you.

Waiting for you to convey EES wisdom to us. Should be interesting.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/12/18 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:11:36 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was behaving
> >>> quite well on this thread.
> >
> >>
> >> There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as far
> >> as I know, are undisputed:
> >

> > Not only do you lack basic knowledge of paleontology, you lack crucial
> > knowledge of the history of paleontology.

> >
> >
> >> 1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
> >> paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory.
> >

> > That depends on how narrowly you define "corroborate" and what
> > you mean by "his theory."
> >
> > If what you mean by the latter is the common descent of huge
> > groups of creatures, as huge as that of the subphylum of vertebrates
> > or bigger, that has been "corroborated" beyond a reasonable doubt.
> >
> > If on the other hand you mean Darwin's ideas of WHY and HOW that
> > descent took place, then you are beating a dead horse. Darwin's
> > ideas were superseded long ago in what is called the "Modern Synthesis (MS)"
> > which in turn is a woefully inadequate explanation for anything on
> > that scale.

> >
> > The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on MS,
>

> I would be interested to know what you think the improvements are.

Follow my back and forth with Hemidactylus, the last back and forth begun
here today, as it expands tomorrow. Judging from your behavior wrt the
baby bird in amber, you would lose interest as soon as it becomes clear that I
want no truck with your gratuitous put-downs, were I to humor you here.

> > but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread, but they
> > aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite reasons,
> > I might add.
> >
> >

> >> Darwin was
> >> hoping that future discoveries would change that fact, but they haven't.
> >

> > The evidence of common descent of vertebrates in Darwin's time
> > was woefully indirect: comparative anatomy of living taxa and a
> > very few fossil taxa.
>
> Why is the comparative anatomy of living taxa woefully indirect?

Because creationists have explanations for it, and you will not
want to reason against them. For one thing, that would acknowledge that they
have a point worth reasoning against.

The same applies to all the really knowledgeable people but me,
judging from the paucity of reasoning against Martinez and Pagano
that I see from your kind.


> > Now we have a great wealth of fossils which give us a very good
> > idea of WHAT happened; and comparative anatomy itself was given
> > a tremendous assist by molecular methods of estimating phylogeny;
> > so much so that now it is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
>
> Why do you consider molecular methods to be the tail?

They started out as the tail, as can be suspected from what I told
jillery about the Marsupionta hypothesis on the 12th.

You should be able to find that in a jiffy with your threaded
news server, since it is a direct reply to a direct reply by
jillery to her own OP, and nobody has replied to it yet.
If the threading is like that on NGG it should be at the very
bottom of the page.

> >> 2. In the 1970s Gould and Eldredge both admitted that the defining
> >> characterisic of the fossil record was "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
> >

> > ...on the species level. The amount of stasis is reduced
> > the further up the Linnean hierarchy you go. The horse family, Equidae
> > is one great example illustrating stasis and sudden appearance on
> > the species level, but anyone who thinks Equidae has been
> > in stasis since the Eocene is short a few screws.
> >
> > You wouldn't be one of these people, would you?
>
> Well, he is short a great many screws. But he probably hasn't thought it
> through at all. He's just parroting some creationist he saw on the web.

>
> >> Some paleontologist doubt this will change and opine that the fossil
> >> record is an adequate sampling of the history of life.
> >

> > Can you give a single example of such a paleontologist, complete
> > with a quote that answers the question, "Adequate for WHAT?"
> > I don't think you can.
>
> He probably got this from a paper by Benton. At least that's the common
> creationist quote mine. As you note, the operative question is "Adequate
> for what?".
>
> > The record is great for showing the common descent, not just of
> > Equidae but of Perissodactyla, but is all too fragmentary
> > for Chiroptera. The evolution of bats from wingless mammals
> > is still a mystery as to what intermediates looked like or
> > even might have looked like. But there was once almost as
> > great a mystery about the evolution of whales, and now the record
> > is almost as rich as for horses.
> >
> > So if you want to make a case for separate creation of the first bat,
> > go for it, but don't be surprised if the fossil record rises up
> > and hits you in the face in the next decade or two.

> >
> >
> >> Now these facts might not refute the modern, secular, evolutionary
> >> framework but it tends to show that the theory is far less secure than is
> >> sold to children and portrayed nearly everywhere. Are we interested in
> >> the truth or merely something acceptable to the secular sensibilities?
> >

> > Are YOU interested in the truth enough to do some serious reading
> > in paleontology?
>
> > PS That parting question was NOT rhetorical. I am giving you the benefit
> > of the doubt and would be delighted if you answered Yes, unlike Harshman who
> > assumes that you are not worth explaining things to, the way I have been
> > explaining them.
>
> If it turns out I was right about Tony, can I say "I told you so"?

Be my guest.

> Because it will.

My new thread title reflects this opinion of yours to the extent that
I know it applies. The title is reinforced by your comments embedded
in the long text above on which I did not comment.

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

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Actually here:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/04/proponents-of-extended-evolutionary.html

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <f433480c-f153-4b25...@googlegroups.com>,

I didn't answer your questions about newsreaders because my newsreader
of choice is MT Newswatcher which is (a) mac only and (b) obsolete (I
have to run it in a virtual machine). I'm not familiar with the PC
newsreaders which were being discussed. But MT Newswatcher has no
problem with threading massive threads and allows you to display as many
different articles on screen as you want.

>
> > GigaNews is a news *server*, not a news reader.
> >
> > Andre
>
> Does one have to read the posts elsewhere than where one makes ones
> replies/posts?
>
> If not, then I don't see why "newsreader" cannot be an accurate
> description of ONE of the functions of GigaNews.

A newsreader must be used in conjunction with a news server. The
newsreader allows you to display and post articles. The news server is
where the newsreader gets the articles and to which new articles are
posted. You don't interact with the server directly -- that's the job of
the newsreader.

Google groups provides a web interface to usenet which gets posts from
google's own internal server, but you don't interact directly with the
server, only with google's (IMHO horrid) web-interface which can be
thought of as a web-based analogue of a newsreader.

It's the same sort of relation as you have between an email program and
an imap/smtp server. The program lets you read and send mail, but
without the server there's no mail to get and nowhere to send mail to.

> By the way, I've also seen the term "netserver". Is that the
> same thing as a news server?

No. AFAIK that's just a general term for a server, generally referring
to a file-sharing service.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>

> Follow my back and forth with Hemidactylus, the last back and forth begun
> here today, as it expands tomorrow. Judging from your behavior wrt the
> baby bird in amber, you would lose interest as soon as it becomes clear that I
> want no truck with your gratuitous put-downs, were I to humor you here.
>

Coming from the guy who has been gaslighting me as unhinged for several
years.

[Peter Nyikos]

[John Harshman]

Is this the post you were trying to point me to? But it doesn't say
anything. What are these supposed advances made by the EES?

[John Harshman]

You mean that you have no truck with gratuitous put-downs unless you're
the donor. Point me at a particular post, and we'll see.

>>> but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread, but they
>>> aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite reasons,
>>> I might add.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Darwin was
>>>> hoping that future discoveries would change that fact, but they haven't.
>>>
>>> The evidence of common descent of vertebrates in Darwin's time
>>> was woefully indirect: comparative anatomy of living taxa and a
>>> very few fossil taxa.
>>
>> Why is the comparative anatomy of living taxa woefully indirect?
>
> Because creationists have explanations for it, and you will not
> want to reason against them. For one thing, that would acknowledge that they
> have a point worth reasoning against.

It seems to me that you're the one acknowledging that they have a point,
just by using the words "woefully indirect". I'd say the evidence is
every bit as good as the fossil evidence. In fact the fossil evidence
differs only in adding taxa to the analysis.

> The same applies to all the really knowledgeable people but me,
> judging from the paucity of reasoning against Martinez and Pagano
> that I see from your kind.

What is "the same" there? And what is "your kind"?

>>> Now we have a great wealth of fossils which give us a very good
>>> idea of WHAT happened; and comparative anatomy itself was given
>>> a tremendous assist by molecular methods of estimating phylogeny;
>>> so much so that now it is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
>>
>> Why do you consider molecular methods to be the tail?
>
> They started out as the tail, as can be suspected from what I told
> jillery about the Marsupionta hypothesis on the 12th.

Ah, another fine example of you being unwilling to tolerate change from
what you were used to at age 12. The fact is that the phylogenetic
information available in the genome is orders of magnitude greater than
that available from morphology. It's only because we didn't have access
to that information until comparatively recently that you are free to
consider it "the tail".

I have no idea what you told jillery and have no interest in searching
for it. If you have a point to make, make it here.

> You should be able to find that in a jiffy with your threaded
> news server, since it is a direct reply to a direct reply by
> jillery to her own OP, and nobody has replied to it yet.
> If the threading is like that on NGG it should be at the very
> bottom of the page.

No, the threading isn't like that.

Let me know when you realize it, then, and I will.

>> Because it will.
>
> My new thread title reflects this opinion of yours to the extent that
> I know it applies. The title is reinforced by your comments embedded
> in the long text above on which I did not comment.

Then can I say "I told you so" yet?

[John Harshman]

Now who can argue with that?

[erik simpson]

Oh come on, Hemi. He just told you; he doesn't believe any of the ToEs so
far presented. But he's a man of faith. He believes in the True Theory of
Evolution that taketh away the misunderstandings of MS and EES. All shall be
revealed.

[erik simpson]

Did I say that?

[John Harshman]

Did you say what?

[erik simpson]

The post you found inarguable led off with an attribution to me, but whatever
I had to say never appeared. It's probably just as well.

[John Harshman]

No, the post was by Peter, and had no new content.

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:12:35 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.


[...]


> The main reason jillery flames both me and Kleinman for not using the
>kind of newsreader she likes, is that she loves to use Message-IDs and ONLY
>Message-ID's as "documentation" of claims of hers. Her newsreader
>can take her to the right post with just that much information,
>but NGG, unlike the old Google Groups, cannot.
>
>Sometimes this is even to her disadvantage: the last time she
>raked me over the coals for relying on NGG, she was supposedly
>"documenting" lies by Martin Harran. I was unable to recall
>any such occasion besides one where Martin merely guessed wrong
>about the details of how jillery produced what I've loosely
>termed a "forgery".
>
>Jillery did categorize that guess as a lie, but said she had
>a different utterance that she called a lie in mind. She documented
>it in the form of an url.
>
>A few days after I was subjected to a lengthy tirade (because I requested
>other documentation, easy for jillery to obtain in a minute or less)
>I recalled how I had witnessed an exchange between jillery and Martin
>in which jillery distinctly had the upper hand. But I could recall
>no outright lies by Martin, and if they existed, jillery lost a
>disinterested witness -- myself -- to them.


Not sure how you think blaming others for your problems makes you look
clever.

Of course, everything you wrote above is completely incorrect. But of
course, it doesn't matter, because it's also completely irrelevant to
anything anybody posted previously to this topic, or to the topic
itself. It's just more of your repetitive irrelevant spew you post
whenever you have no idea what you're talking about.

<snip remaining irrelevant spew from your puckered sphincter>

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

An accurate statement would be to say he would get away from all the
attacks he attracts.

And since you mention it, not sure why any T.O. participants actively
discourage posting relevant topics to T.O.

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:24:15 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Sounds like Greek to me.

[jillery]

Actually you did answer his question, even though you might not be
aware of it. The only reason news servers concern themselves at all
with threads, massive or otherwise, is to add a post's Message-ID to
the end of a list. Giganews has no problem whatsoever doing that. To
the best of my knowledge, GG is the entity acting as a Usenet server
which has that problem. Usenet has been around a long time, and the
methods for handling threads of arbiter length are well-known in the
industry.

>> > GigaNews is a news *server*, not a news reader.
>> >
>> > Andre
>>
>> Does one have to read the posts elsewhere than where one makes ones
>> replies/posts?
>>
>> If not, then I don't see why "newsreader" cannot be an accurate
>> description of ONE of the functions of GigaNews.
>
>A newsreader must be used in conjunction with a news server. The
>newsreader allows you to display and post articles. The news server is
>where the newsreader gets the articles and to which new articles are
>posted. You don't interact with the server directly -- that's the job of
>the newsreader.
>
>Google groups provides a web interface to usenet which gets posts from
>google's own internal server, but you don't interact directly with the
>server, only with google's (IMHO horrid) web-interface which can be
>thought of as a web-based analogue of a newsreader.
>
>It's the same sort of relation as you have between an email program and
>an imap/smtp server. The program lets you read and send mail, but
>without the server there's no mail to get and nowhere to send mail to.
>
>> By the way, I've also seen the term "netserver". Is that the
>> same thing as a news server?
>
>No. AFAIK that's just a general term for a server, generally referring
>to a file-sharing service.

News server is to news reader as email server is to email client. Even
rockhead should be able to understand that.

[erik simpson]

It's not discouragement of TO per se, it's just that he's actually much less
obnoxious over there. It's a "gentleman's" agreement (Ha!)

[*Hemidactylus*]

I doubt he is sophisticated enough to understand the client-server
relation. You may not have been around for the infamous “heme” wars of the
late 90s. He mangles words and tenacious clings to misunderstandings.

[*Hemidactylus*]

>> GigaNews is a news *server*, not a news reader.
>>
>> Andre
>
> Does one have to read the posts elsewhere than where one makes ones
> replies/posts?
>
> If not, then I don't see why "newsreader" cannot be an accurate
> description of ONE of the functions of GigaNews.
>

> By the way, I've also seen the term "netserver". Is that the
> same thing as a news server?
>

Heme all over again. Eternal recurrence.

Harshman subscribes to Giganews which is a server which still requires his
use of Thunderbird software to retrieve posts which are rendered in a
readable manner on his Mac.

When you land using your web browser client on a news site such as Fox,
Drudge, or Infowars you are tapping a webserver which is on a separate
computer from yours gapped by multiple hops between routers on the actual
internet backbone. Do a traceroute sometime. The website is setup up in a
manner that has server software such as Apache and daemons (httpd). Your
browser is client software on your desktop whether it be Firefox or IE.
That software renders the http, css, javacrap and other code in a
meaningful manner so that what the Fox, Alex Jones or Drudge webserver is
providing across the internet can be grokked. Firefox is to Fox/Drudge
sites hosted on servers as Thunderbird is to Giganews.

GG is a bit different in that it has its own servers that feed its crappy
user interface that you log into like webmail and your web-browser renders
the content as a webpage. It is a god damned abomination. As Internet
Exploder ruined the web Google Groups has ruined usenet.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:09:19 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/12/18 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:11:36 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was
>> >>> behaving quite well on this thread.
>> >
>> >
>> >> There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as
>> >> far as I know, are undisputed:
>> >
>> > Not only do you lack basic knowledge of paleontology, you lack
>> > crucial knowledge of the history of paleontology.

By the way: catchy Subject-Line, matched the content and got my
attention; how could anyone have a problem with that? However it brings
up Nyikos's first error: I don't have an evolutionary theory to hatch.
Harshman doesn't make these kinds of mistakes.

>> >
>> >
>> >> 1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
>> >> paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory.
>> >
>> > That depends on how narrowly you define "corroborate" and what you
>> > mean by "his theory."

In the case of fact (1) I'm not doing the interpretation----it was
Darwin. And I suspect that in 1859 virtually every evolutionist agreed
with Darwin about the relationship between Darwinism and paleontology---
uncorroborating but hopeful.

>> >
>> > If what you mean by the latter is the common descent of huge groups
>> > of creatures, as huge as that of the subphylum of vertebrates or
>> > bigger, that has been "corroborated" beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wouldn't think Nyikos would make these many mistakes.

b. "Reasonable doubt" is a legal term not a scientific one and is a
subjective criteria about belief. I couldn't care less what atheists
believe; I'm interested in what is objectively true independent of belief
(consensus being little more than a collectively held belief).

c. Nyikos's unstated assumption is that "similarity" is (more or less)
equivalent to common ancestry. So when the evolutionist discovers
similarity in the fossil record (or in any attribute of living or
deceased creatures) they are confirming the existence of something which,
by definition, is caused by purely naturalistic evolution.

The argument goes something like this:
1. similarity is common descent
2. how do we know common descent is true
3. because we found similarities in the fossil record.
I'll leave as an exercise why this reasoning is not to be trusted.

d. As a result of (c) evolutionists tend to assume that particular
relationships determined by taxonomists were "predicted" by Darwin's
theory. It did nothing of the sort (nor does neoDarwinian theory).
Darwin's contribution was to provide an explanation (in materialist
terms) of how the categories came about. In the end "similarities"
confirm Linnaeus's arbitrary sorting system and not Darwin's mechanism.

>> >
>> > If on the other hand you mean Darwin's ideas of WHY and HOW that
>> > descent took place, then you are beating a dead horse. Darwin's ideas
>> > were superseded long ago in what is called the "Modern Synthesis
>> > (MS)"
>> > which in turn is a woefully inadequate explanation for anything on
>> > that scale.
>> >
>> > The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on
>> > MS,

NeoDarwinism merely fills in the details of some sort of mechanism. The
flawed logic is still there.

>>
>> I would be interested to know what you think the improvements are.
>
> Follow my back and forth with Hemidactylus, the last back and forth
> begun here today, as it expands tomorrow. Judging from your behavior wrt
> the baby bird in amber, you would lose interest as soon as it becomes
> clear that I want no truck with your gratuitous put-downs, were I to
> humor you here.
>
>
>> > but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed
>> > Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread,
>> > but they aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite
>> > reasons,
>> > I might add.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Darwin was hoping that future discoveries would change that fact,
>> >> but they haven't.
>> >
>> > The evidence of common descent of vertebrates in Darwin's time was
>> > woefully indirect: comparative anatomy of living taxa and a very few
>> > fossil taxa.

Which is an admission of my fact (1). Darwin stated most "directly" that
the fossil record did "not" corroborate his theory but that he was
hopeful that it would change with time----it didn't.


snip

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:09:19 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/12/18 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:11:36 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was
>> >>> behaving quite well on this thread.
>> >
>> >
>> >> There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as
>> >> far as I know, are undisputed:
>> >
>> > Not only do you lack basic knowledge of paleontology, you lack
>> > crucial knowledge of the history of paleontology.

By the way: catchy Subject-Line, matched the content and got my
attention; how could anyone have a problem with that? However it brings
up Nyikos's first error: I don't have an evolutionary theory to hatch.
Harshman doesn't make these kinds of mistakes.



>> >
>> >

>> >> 1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
>> >> paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory.
>> >
>> > That depends on how narrowly you define "corroborate" and what you
>> > mean by "his theory."

In the case of fact (1) I'm not doing the interpretation----it was
Darwin. And I suspect that in 1859 virtually every evolutionist agreed
with Darwin about the relationship between Darwinism and paleontology---
uncorroborating but hopeful.





>> >

>> > If what you mean by the latter is the common descent of huge groups
>> > of creatures, as huge as that of the subphylum of vertebrates or
>> > bigger, that has been "corroborated" beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wouldn't think Nyikos would make these many mistakes.

b. "Reasonable doubt" is a legal term not a scientific one and is a
subjective criteria about belief. I couldn't care less what atheists
believe; I'm interested in what is objectively true independent of belief
(consensus being little more than a collectively held belief).

c. Nyikos's unstated assumption is that "similarity" is (more or less)
equivalent to common ancestry. So when the evolutionist discovers
similarity in the fossil record (or in any attribute of living or
deceased creatures) they are confirming the existence of something which,
by definition, is caused by purely naturalistic evolution.

The argument goes something like this:
1. similarity is common descent
2. how do we know common descent is true
3. because we found similarities in the fossil record.
I'll leave as an exercise why this reasoning is not to be trusted.

d. As a result of (c) evolutionists tend to assume that particular
relationships determined by taxonomists were "predicted" by Darwin's
theory. It did nothing of the sort (nor does neoDarwinian theory).
Darwin's contribution was to provide an explanation (in materialist
terms) of how the categories came about. In the end "similarities"
confirm Linnaeus's arbitrary sorting system and not Darwin's mechanism.


>> >

>> > If on the other hand you mean Darwin's ideas of WHY and HOW that
>> > descent took place, then you are beating a dead horse. Darwin's ideas
>> > were superseded long ago in what is called the "Modern Synthesis
>> > (MS)"
>> > which in turn is a woefully inadequate explanation for anything on
>> > that scale.
>> >
>> > The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on
>> > MS,

NeoDarwinism merely fills in the details of some sort of mechanism. The
flawed logic is still there.





>>

>> I would be interested to know what you think the improvements are.
>
> Follow my back and forth with Hemidactylus, the last back and forth
> begun here today, as it expands tomorrow. Judging from your behavior wrt
> the baby bird in amber, you would lose interest as soon as it becomes
> clear that I want no truck with your gratuitous put-downs, were I to
> humor you here.
>
>
>> > but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed
>> > Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread,
>> > but they aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite
>> > reasons,
>> > I might add.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Darwin was hoping that future discoveries would change that fact,
>> >> but they haven't.
>> >
>> > The evidence of common descent of vertebrates in Darwin's time was
>> > woefully indirect: comparative anatomy of living taxa and a very few
>> > fossil taxa.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:41:50 -0500, the following appeared

....or maybe pidgin Klingon...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:10:53 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

<snip>

>...catchy Subject-Line, matched the content and got my
>attention.

If you'd follow the discussions in which your assertions are
refuted you'd get the same effect.

Or should every thread in which you make those refuted
assertions be re-titled "Tony is refuted again"? Seems a bit
confusing to me...

<snip>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:09:19 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/12/18 2:12 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:11:36 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Given his lack of knowledge of paleontology, I think Pagano was
> >> >>> behaving quite well on this thread.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> There are really only two things I know about paleontology which, as
> >> >> far as I know, are undisputed:
> >> >
> >> > Not only do you lack basic knowledge of paleontology, you lack
> >> > crucial knowledge of the history of paleontology.
>
>
>
> By the way: catchy Subject-Line, matched the content and got my
> attention; how could anyone have a problem with that?

You soft-pedaled "is truthful" with your weasel worded
"matched the content".

> However it brings
> up Nyikos's first error: I don't have an evolutionary theory to hatch.
> Harshman doesn't make these kinds of mistakes.

You are spin-doctoring what I wrote. "unhatched evolutionary chickens"
is shorthand for "unhatched chickens crowing unsupported claims about
evolutionary theory"

I dislike long subject lines, don't you?

> >> >> 1. In 1859 Darwin recognized that the observations made by
> >> >> paleontologists of his day did not corroborate his theory.
> >> >
> >> > That depends on how narrowly you define "corroborate" and what you
> >> > mean by "his theory."

> In the case of fact (1) I'm not doing the interpretation----it was
> Darwin.

I see no documentation of Darwin using the word "corroborate" in the
incorrect way you use it:

> And I suspect that in 1859 virtually every evolutionist agreed
> with Darwin about the relationship between Darwinism and paleontology---
> uncorroborating but hopeful.

You are misusing the word "corroborate" and its derivatives. Correct
would be "unconvincingly corroborating" from your POV.

>
> >> >
> >> > If what you mean by the latter is the common descent of huge groups
> >> > of creatures, as huge as that of the subphylum of vertebrates or
> >> > bigger, that has been "corroborated" beyond a reasonable doubt.
>

I think you are insincere in your next comment: I believe you
were planning to accuse me of mistakes no matter WHAT I
wrote in reply:

>
> I wouldn't think Nyikos would make these many mistakes.

Disagreeing with creationism is a "mistake", is it?


You continue to count your chickens before they are hatched below.

> b. "Reasonable doubt" is a legal term not a scientific one and is a
> subjective criteria about belief.

If "reasonable doubt" were not so self-explanatory, I wouldn't have
used it, but courts of law do give some hint of how strictly it
should be applied. For one thing, it does NOT mean "beyond a
shadow of doubt."

> I couldn't care less what atheists
> believe; I'm interested in what is objectively true independent of belief
> (consensus being little more than a collectively held belief).

You really have no clue about how strong the evidence is, and this
comment of yours shows it. I do: I have studied the evidence for
almost 90% of my life. So your prattle about "atheists" and "consensus"
is just plain clueless.

> c. Nyikos's unstated assumption is that "similarity" is (more or less)
> equivalent to common ancestry.

If you hadn't been gone during all the time I've argued with
your kindred spirit Ray Martinez, this would constitute an out
and out lie. As it is, it just reinforces the depth of your
cluelessness about me.

> So when the evolutionist discovers
> similarity in the fossil record (or in any attribute of living or
> deceased creatures) they are confirming the existence of something which,
> by definition, is caused by purely naturalistic evolution.

More cluelessness: if that is your definition of an evolutionist,
then I am not an evolutionist.

>
> The argument goes something like this:
> 1. similarity is common descent

Can you quote any non-creationist saying this in talk.origins?

ANY non-creationist AT ALL?

> 2. how do we know common descent is true
> 3. because we found similarities in the fossil record.
> I'll leave as an exercise why this reasoning is not to be trusted.

Which is why I've never seen anyone in talk.origins use it--
except creationists setting up and knocking down straw men.

And so, if you want to exonerate yourself of the charge
of misrepresenting everyone in talk.origins, you need to
tell us where you got your crap about "reasoning" from.
And it had better be someone other than yourself.

> d. As a result of (c) evolutionists tend to assume that particular
> relationships determined by taxonomists were "predicted" by Darwin's
> theory.

You were active in talk.origins in 1995-2000, weren't you? If so,
how could you have missed all the times I argued against claims
that this and that had been "predicted by evolutionary theory,"
beginning with the ridiculous case of the naked mole rat?

<snip you preaching to the choir while thinking I got something wrong>

"thinking" = "cluelessly asserting in a benighted "Subject" line,

How can Nyikos make so many logical errors about Evolutionary Theory?

If you ever misrepresent me to this degree again, I'll use a much
stronger word than "cluelessly".

> >> >
> >> > If on the other hand you mean Darwin's ideas of WHY and HOW that
> >> > descent took place, then you are beating a dead horse. Darwin's ideas
> >> > were superseded long ago in what is called the "Modern Synthesis
> >> > (MS)"
> >> > which in turn is a woefully inadequate explanation for anything on
> >> > that scale.
> >> >
> >> > The "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)" is a big improvement on
> >> > MS,
>
>
>
> NeoDarwinism merely fills in the details of some sort of mechanism. The
> flawed logic is still there.

Correction: your straw man that passes in your clueless mind for logic, twit.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> I would be interested to know what you think the improvements are.
> >
> > Follow my back and forth with Hemidactylus, the last back and forth
> > begun here today, as it expands tomorrow. Judging from your behavior wrt
> > the baby bird in amber, you would lose interest as soon as it becomes
> > clear that I want no truck with your gratuitous put-downs, were I to
> > humor you here.
> >
> >
> >> > but even it is woefully inadequate. I've been trying to spoon-feed
> >> > Hemidactylus and Kleinman about this inadequacy on another thread,
> >> > but they aren't the least bit interested. For diametrically opposite
> >> > reasons,
> >> > I might add.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Darwin was hoping that future discoveries would change that fact,
> >> >> but they haven't.
> >> >
> >> > The evidence of common descent of vertebrates in Darwin's time was
> >> > woefully indirect: comparative anatomy of living taxa and a very few
> >> > fossil taxa.
>
>
> Which is an admission of my fact (1).

You live in a fool's paradise. See above.

> Darwin stated most "directly" that
> the fossil record did "not" corroborate his theory but that he was
> hopeful that it would change with time----it didn't.

Failure to put "corroborate" into quotes noted.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
Univ. of South Carolina

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