William Hughes eats dead bugs
JTEM
Okay, so as far as the arboreal-v-cursorial origins
of flight goes, I too, looking back many years, was
originally convinced that there was no question, that
the answer had to be arboreal.
The way the cursorial model was first presented to
me... animals running and "flapping" their front
limbs... maybe the "flapping" stemming from the
method in which they repeatedly attempted to
grab their prey... Oh, I heard lots of ideas, most of
them striking me as dumb.
It wasn't until I broke down the problem to what was
NECESSARY instead of "what might've been," when
I first began to warm to the cursorial model.
See, it's not necessary that "flight' and "powered
flight" originated at the same time.
Okay, that makes sense, and pretty much every
arboreal "theory" is dependent on such an idea,
with a pre-powered flight gliding stage. And that was
always attractive, I admit it, except the closer you
look the more you notice that "powered flight" is
NOT the logical conclusion to an arboreal glider.
See, a creature adapted to an arboreal environment
is, as a rule, built very differently from a creature
which enjoys powered flight. This is because climbing
up the side of a tree is a very different task than
flying through the air, and requires very different
adaptations. In support of this, one look at nature
reveals lots & lots of gliders, but not a lot of powered
fliers in the animal world. There's birds & bats and...
well, okay that's it. So what we need is a precursor
to powered flight -- "gliding" -- which is a better path
to actual powered flight...
Okay, here's the thing: Lots of birds can get into the
air without power. And, they don't need to be leaping
from trees to do it. And they don't need to run. All they
need to do is stretch out their wings into the wind.
That's it.
I've seen Seagulls do it many times myself, and many
sources claim that the largest birds require this kind
of assistance to get off the ground.
Anyway, so if you're not a very large animals (you're
sparrow sized or so), and you've got something that
looks like flight feathers on something that looks like
a big wing, it very likely is the case where if you
merely splay out your front limbs (as some dinosaurs
are known to do, and a range of motion which would
be useful to raptors clinging on to large prey as they
kicked) you could get airborne. Problem is that,
without powered flight, landing could be something of
an issue...
Here's the thing: It's all about feathers. If feathers
themselves are important, IF they are that significant,
then that should counteract any "Selection" against
the feathers -- "selection" in the form of an unfortunate
landing. And, yes, feathers in birds, at least, appear
to have significance well beyond flight. There's no
"Featherless" birds, for example, though there are more
bird species than mammal species, and there are
bald mammals. And the same is true going the other
way. Feathers -- or "proto-feathers" at least -- keep
getting pushed back further & further in time, suggesting
that they played a role (and had a significance) to
dinosaurs quite independent of any latter day flight.
What this means is....
If feathers plus mutations meant unintended wings and
sudden lift-offs followed by potentially lethal landings,
and selective pressures aren't going to make the feathers
go away, the not just logical but likely outcomes are
either extinction or powered flight.
Oh. And all the existing evidence is consistent with this
model. No, I didn't say that it "Proves" this model, I said
it's consistent with this model. There is no dependence
on evidence which doesn't exist -- like unambiguously
arboreal dinosaurs prior to the arrival of birds, never mind
twisting dinosaurs into bizarre positions without so much
as a lick of support.
Bon appetit!
jillery
<snip>
> ...one look at nature
> reveals lots & lots of gliders, but not a lot of powered
> fliers in the animal world. There's birds & bats and...
> well, okay that's it.
W. Hughes might eat dead bugs, but I bet he ignore flying insects,
just like you do here.
<snip>
William Hughes
> Okay, so as far as the arboreal-v-cursorial origins
> of flight goes,
I am not competent to judge, and I have no
interest in putting in the considerable effort
needed to become competent to judge.
I do not have a stand on the issue
(I realize that this goes against all traditions
of talk.origins)
- William Hughes
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> W. Hughes might eat dead bugs, but I bet he ignore
> flying insects, just like you do here.
Seeing how my "argument" with him has been exclusively
about Birds...
JTEM
William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am not competent to judge,
And yet you have. Repeatedly.
William Hughes
> William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<restore context>
JTEM: Okay, so as far as the arboreal-v-cursorial origins
JTEM: of flight goes,
> > I am not competent to judge,
>
> And yet you have. Repeatedly.
My mind boggles.
Regarding the issue
of aroreal vs. cursorial origin of fligh
I have never, either
for arboreal or against arboreal, made any
judgement or statement that arboreal origin
was more or less likely than cursorial oirigin.
- William Hughes
jillery
Then why did you mention bats?
r norman
wrote:
And birds don't eat flying insects???!!!
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
He asked, swiftly...
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then why did you mention bats?
Out of fear of offending your belfry.
JTEM
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> And birds don't eat flying insects???!!!
All of them? the same flying insects? Obviously things
would get very crowded, and they'd starting fighting with
each other.
Think, man, THINK!
William Hughes
> William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have never,
>
I nominate this for the stupidest
quoting out of context ever
seen in talk.origins. Congratulations to
JTEM, this is a very competative field.
- William Hughes
r norman
wrote:
That's a lot to swallow.
r norman
wrote:
>
My first guess is that once one bird eats a specific flying insect, it
is no longer available for another bird to eat. So I don't imagine
that they all eat the same insects.
If you have ever seen a rookery in action, then you know that it
always gets very crowded indeed. Even here in desert Tucson, there
are parks with ponds just absolutely crammed with all sorts of duck.
Further, although the hawks start fighting with each other without any
provocation, the doves seem to avoid that behavior.
Now, just what was it I was supposed to think about? I get easily
confused.
jillery
You offended my hive.
jillery
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:18:54 +1000, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <h58rp55gteh0t62isla8bghu4jn5nu9...@4ax.com>, r norman
> ><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:13:10 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> W. Hughes might eat dead bugs, but I bet he ignore
> >> >> flying insects, just like you do here.
>
> >> >Seeing how my "argument" with him has been exclusively
> >> >about Birds...
>
> >> And birds don't eat flying insects???!!!
>
> >He asked, swiftly...
>
> That's a lot to swallow.
Is that an african swallow?
r norman
Mitchell Coffey
> On Mar 15, 12:38 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have never,
>
> I nominate
Seconded.
Mitchell Coffey
William Morse
John Wilkins
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
Wow, you have a frog mouth, don't you? I suppose you are going to wag
your tail next...
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> W. Hughes might eat dead bugs, but I bet he ignore
> flying insects, just like you do here.
you make an excellent point, in my favor.
Of these two (and I am by no means limiting it to only
two possibilities, merely repeating the two which have
been under discussion), which strikes you as the more
likely scenario for the origins of powered flight in insects:
Arboreal insects first glided from branch to branch, tree
to tree, and through evolutionary refinements responding
to Gawd knows WHAT for pressures developed powered
flight.
Small, light weight insects often couldn't help but become
air born < http://www.jstor.org/pss/1550461 > and powered
flight evolved due to the pressures caused by the obvious
advantages in NOT landing (staying airborne) when the
environment one suddenly finds themselves over is no longer
conducive to ones survival, even when the wind has
ceased completely.
Yes, I would argue that insects do favor the curorial model,
one very similar to the model I propose for birds.
jillery
> you make an excellent point, in my favor.
The Hive Queen notes your dishonest diversions suggests you are
varelse.
aganunitsi
> Arboreal insects first glided from branch to branch, tree
> to tree, and through evolutionary refinements responding
> to Gawd knows WHAT for pressures developed powered
> flight.
> and powered
> flight evolved due to the pressures caused by the obvious
> advantages in NOT landing (staying airborne)
The advantages described in the second scenario also exist in the
first scenario. The second scenario requires busg being blown on the
wind... OK. But reptiles being blown on the wind... I don't think so.
Reptiles that light, without a high altitude shelter to escape to
(tree, cliff) would have been devoured long before they grew wings.
The need to live at height, without wings, applies evolutionary
pressure towards lightness. The lighter the beast, the easier it is
for it to climb.
aganunitsi
OK, I know where you got your idea of lizards blowing on the wind...
Ventura Highway in the sunshine
Where the days are longer
The nights are stronger than moonshine
You're gonna go I know
'Cause the free wind is blowin' through your hair
And the days surround your daylight there
Seasons crying no despair
Alligator lizards in the air,
In the air
jillery
Very good!
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > you make an excellent point, in my favor.
> The Hive Queen notes your dishonest diversions
> suggests you are varelse.
Well, yeah. But am I right?
jillery
Depends. Right about what? And would what I think make any difference?
JTEM
aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The advantages described in the second scenario also
> exist in the first scenario. The second scenario requires
> busg being blown on the wind... OK. But reptiles being
> blown on the wind... I don't think so.
I do.
I mean, why wouldn't they?
#1.
dinosaurs ranged in all sizes, so there were plenty of
them small enough.
#2.
The appearance of "proto-feathers" keeps getting pushed
back further & further, until finally, at this point, it looks as
if they may pre-date the emergence of dinosaurs themselves.
#3.
The appearance of "feathers" keeps getting pushed back
further & further.
#4.
It is widely believed that the feathers don't just pre-date
flight in dinosaurs and their descendants, but they served
a significant purpose entirely unrelated to flight.
And, let's face it, going back to some of the earliest
theropod dinosaurs the same basic bird-like shape was
already evident, except for the tail of course. The body
plan was already there -- in the triassic, including something
that looked like a feather.
Once we had the feather, all that was needed was a range
of motion in the front limbs that allowed it to spread them
out wide, maybe a little extra length to the front limbs, for
a more lift, feathers and a small (very light weight) size. Put
those factors together and lift-off is impossible to avoid.
> Reptiles that light, without a high altitude shelter to
> escape to (tree, cliff) would have been devoured long
> before they grew wings.
Whether they are branched off from reptiles are not is
irrelevant. The question is if ANY animal can inhabit
such a position -- such a niche -- within an ecosystem,
and the obvious answer is yes.
We need look no further than the ecosystems of today's
earth.
> The need to live at height, without wings, applies
> evolutionary pressure towards lightness. The lighter
> the beast, the easier it is for it to climb.
We find the same "lightness" adaptations -- pneumatic
bones, for example -- appear in Crocodiles. Like the
"proto-feather" and the bird shape, they pre-date birds
and appear quite independent of flight or an arboreal
existence.
now it could be that the common ancestor to these
animals was arboreal, or even a flier -- maybe a
flightless Pterosaur (who knows?). But, it's clear that
we don't need to place dinosaurs in trees to account
for any of them.
aganunitsi
> a bunch of crap
Yes, alligator lizards could have eventually been blowin' in the air.
But the same wind that is blowing land beasts would also be blowing on
the arboreal beasts and the cliff dwelling beasts. So with this free
wind blowin' everywhere, which beasts are more likely to be in the
air? Beasts from the ground of the plains or the heights of the trees/
cliffs?
The options provided, arboreal vs cursorial, are not mutually
exclusive if your cursorial explanation is the wind blowing animals
around. Arboreal beasts would be among the beasts blown around on the
wind. Which beasts would be more likely to be light enough to be blown
around on the wind?
And as you've admitted, there is an advantage in not landing. So don't
give me your "GAWD knows" bullshit. Arboreal creatures don't need a
wind to blow them off the tree before they see an advantage to being
extremely light, and to gliding. When falling, there is a distinct
survival advantage to avoiding a hard landing. Eventually the beast
gets to a point where it can throw itself at the ground and completely
miss.
If your going to argue that flight in the big beasts originated from
beasts on the ground, or the sea, your cursorial stressor has to be
something that isn't applicable to the arboreal and cliff dwelling
beasts. Otherwise, the beast that already has the most stressors is
just getting a new stressor towards powered flight.
JTEM
aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > a bunch of crap
>
> I pick my nose & eat it
Yes, I too can invent quotes and attribute them to others,
as you do, but why are we doing this?
I have a position that doesn't require me to sink to such
depths. If you believe you can say the same then why
don't you try it. No, seriously, try it.
All the pieces of the puzzle -- including any & all "light
weight" adaptations -- appear BEFORE birds, before
any evidence for an arboreal dinosaur and in some cases
even before dinosaurs.
aganunitsi
everything.
From the depths of Hell's heart I stab at thee, idiot.
JTEM
aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> If you thought that I thought I was inventing a quote,
I never claimed to read your mind. I did not then nor
will I now dwell on your intentions. The fact is that
you did invent a quote. You represented something
that I did not say as a quote. Whether it was accidental
or not is a question regarding motives, intentions, and
I may only speak with authority on what you did.
Nick Keighley
> Okay, so as far as the arboreal-v-cursorial origins
> of flight goes, I too, looking back many years, was
> originally convinced that there was no question, that
> the answer had to be arboreal.
>
> The way the cursorial model was first presented to
> me... animals running and "flapping" their front
> limbs... maybe the "flapping" stemming from the
> method in which they repeatedly attempted to
> grab their prey... Oh, I heard lots of ideas, most of
> them striking me as dumb.
>
> It wasn't until I broke down the problem to what was
> NECESSARY instead of "what might've been," when
> I first began to warm to the cursorial model.
>
> See, it's not necessary that "flight' and "powered
> flight" originated at the same time.
woopy doop
> Okay, that makes sense, and pretty much every
> arboreal "theory" is dependent on such an idea,
> with a pre-powered flight gliding stage. And that was
> always attractive, I admit it, except the closer you
> look the more you notice that "powered flight" is
> NOT the logical conclusion to an arboreal glider.
>
> See, a creature adapted to an arboreal environment
> is, as a rule, built very differently from a creature
> which enjoys powered flight.
in what way (I'm not arguing, just curious)
> This is because climbing
> up the side of a tree is a very different task than
> flying through the air, and requires very different
> adaptations. In support of this, one look at nature
> reveals lots & lots of gliders, but not a lot of powered
> fliers in the animal world.
aren't there more species of bat than any other mammalian species?
> There's birds & bats and...
> well, okay that's it.
pterodactyl's, insects
> So what we need is a precursor
> to powered flight -- "gliding" -- which is a better path
> to actual powered flight...
>
> Okay, here's the thing: Lots of birds can get into the
> air without power.
some insects have trouble staying on the ground. It's a scale law
thingy.
> And, they don't need to be leaping
> from trees to do it. And they don't need to run. All they
> need to do is stretch out their wings into the wind.
And why would a non-flyer have wings?
> That's it.
>
> I've seen Seagulls do it many times myself, and many
> sources claim that the largest birds require this kind
> of assistance to get off the ground.
so flight adapted animals can fly. Is this a variant on the Anthropic
Principle? The Aviation Principle perhaps?
> Anyway, so if you're not a very large animals (you're
> sparrow sized or so), and you've got something that
> looks like flight feathers on something that looks like
> a big wing, it very likely is the case where if you
> merely splay out your front limbs (as some dinosaurs
> are known to do,
dinosaurs with wings were knwon to do this?
> and a range of motion which would
> be useful to raptors clinging on to large prey as they
> kicked) you could get airborne.
a just picture a flock of velocipators shooting off into the air as
they try to attack something...
> Problem is that,
> without powered flight, landing could be something of
> an issue...
..and coming down with a thump
> Here's the thing: It's all about feathers.
bats. Bats don't have feathers.
> If feathers
> themselves are important, IF they are that significant,
> then that should counteract any "Selection" against
> the feathers -- "selection" in the form of an unfortunate
> landing.
what?
> And, yes, feathers in birds, at least, appear
> to have significance well beyond flight. There's no
> "Featherless" birds, for example, though there are more
> bird species than mammal species, and there are
> bald mammals. And the same is true going the other
> way. Feathers -- or "proto-feathers" at least -- keep
> getting pushed back further & further in time, suggesting
> that they played a role (and had a significance) to
> dinosaurs quite independent of any latter day flight.
I doidn't think this was controversial. There are land dwelling dinos
with feathers. Lots of examples.
> What this means is....
>
> If feathers plus mutations meant unintended wings
what is an unintended wing?
> and
> sudden lift-offs followed by potentially lethal landings,
> and selective pressures aren't going to make the feathers
> go away, the not just logical but likely outcomes are
> either extinction or powered flight.
>
> Oh. And all the existing evidence is consistent with this
> model. No, I didn't say that it "Proves" this model, I said
> it's consistent with this model. There is no dependence
> on evidence which doesn't exist -- like unambiguously
> arboreal dinosaurs prior to the arrival of birds, never mind
> twisting dinosaurs into bizarre positions without so much
> as a lick of support.
IN the High and Far-Off Times the Elephant, O Best Beloved, had no
trunk. He had only a blackish, bulgy nose, as big as a boot, that he
could wriggle about from side to side; but he couldn't pick up things
with it.
--
Nick Keighley
JTEM
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> woopy doop
Well thank you for taking a break from licking your
mother's arm pit long enough to type that.
(I suggest mouth wash)
> > See, a creature adapted to an arboreal environment
> > is, as a rule, built very differently from a creature
> > which enjoys powered flight.
>
> in what way (I'm not arguing, just curious)
One flies up into trees, one climbs up from the ground.
The two solutions couldn't be more different.
As I said...
> > This is because climbing
> > up the side of a tree is a very different task than
> > flying through the air, and requires very different
> > adaptations. In support of this, one look at nature
> > reveals lots & lots of gliders, but not a lot of powered
> > fliers in the animal world.
>
> aren't there more species of bat than any other
> mammalian species?
It makes no difference, they're all bats, they all trace
back to a common ancestor.
> > There's birds & bats and...
> > well, okay that's it.
> pterodactyl's, insects
Insects are animals? You're seeing Pterodactyls?
Looks more like you're grasping at straws...
> > So what we need is a precursor
> > to powered flight -- "gliding" -- which is a better path
> > to actual powered flight...
>
> > Okay, here's the thing: Lots of birds can get into the
> > air without power.
>
> some insects have trouble staying on the ground. It's a
> scale law thingy.
Better known as "Wind."
> > And, they don't need to be leaping
> > from trees to do it. And they don't need to run. All they
> > need to do is stretch out their wings into the wind.
>
> And why would a non-flyer have wings?
There isn't a reason for it. We're discussing evolution, not
creationism.
> > I've seen Seagulls do it many times myself, and many
> > sources claim that the largest birds require this kind
> > of assistance to get off the ground.
>
> so flight adapted animals can fly.
The issue -- and this thread -- was never about "flight." It
was always about "Powered Flight."
...it all comes down to reading comprehension.
> > Anyway, so if you're not a very large animals (you're
> > sparrow sized or so), and you've got something that
> > looks like flight feathers on something that looks like
> > a big wing, it very likely is the case where if you
> > merely splay out your front limbs (as some dinosaurs
> > are known to do,
> dinosaurs with wings were knwon to do this?
Many dinosaurs now known or believed to have feathers
are believed to have used their front limbs for hunting &
for grasping. Even long before the feathers were identified,
raptors were believed to have clung to the side of large
prey, kicking with their sickle claws.
The more spread out the forelimbs, the closer the body
to the prey, the better the grip and the stronger the kick.
As I pointed out...
> > and a range of motion which would
> > be useful to raptors clinging on to large prey as they
> > kicked) you could get airborne.
> a just picture a flock of velocipators shooting off into the
> air as they try to attack something...
That's not as interesting as you seem to believe.
> > Here's the thing: It's all about feathers.
>
> bats. Bats don't have feathers.
By some strange coincidence, I'm not talking about bats!
(again, it's all about the reading comprehension)
UC
Flight had to have started with small, light animals with feathers who
were already in 'trees'. That's my presupposition.
r norman
wrote:
>Insects are animals?
I always suspected you were a total idiot but I didn't have proof
until now.
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
Clearly, they are bugs. Hence, bacteria.
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I always
Ah, as detailed and insightful as you are intelligent.
(it's a wonder you can piss without drowning)
JTEM
John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Clearly, they are bugs. Hence, bacteria.
Not so clearly (to you, anyhow), there is more than
one correct use for most terms.
No, wait. I'm serious.
Yes, this and other facts await your discovery, upon
deflation of your unearned ego.
Good luck with that.
chris thompson
> > > [there are] not a lot of powered
> > > fliers in the animal world.
> > > There's birds & bats and...
chris thompson
I've heard of not rushing to judgment, but this is a bit extreme.
Chris
JTEM
> I've heard
The fact that this represents something of an accomplishment
for you speaks volumes.
aganunitsi
> Ah, as detailed and insightful as you are intelligent.
>
> (it's a wonder you can piss without drowning)
With that one you have regained my respect. You may lack the wit
required to defend your theory of evolution, but you have wit
nonetheless. Honesty and passion accented with a bit of wit, that's
all I ask for.
jillery
Standard usenet exchange rate: 1 scatological reference = 10 incisive
witticisms = 100 informed opinions.
You get what you pay for.
aganunitsi
> Standard usenet exchange rate: 1 scatological reference = 10 incisive
> witticisms = 100 informed opinions.
> You get what you pay for.
Informed opinions are the pennies? I'll have to remember that the next
time I hear "Penny for your thoughts."
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> Flight had to have started with small, light animals with feathers who
> were already in 'trees'. That's my presupposition.
Insect flight verly likely started from skimming over the surface of
water.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mike Lyle
Tangential transdialectal problems department. Long ago, I was
travelling in an Arab country with a Pakistani girl, and we were asked
to lunch by the Australian Consul. He mentioned that he'd just got over
an infection caused, he thought, by "a wog getting into the water tank".
I'm usually plunged to that level of embarrassment only by things I say
myself.
--
Mike.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>> > pterodactyl's, insects
>> Insects are animals?
<boggle...>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mark Isaak
Indeed. Bacillus is a genus of insect.
r norman
You are half right.
chris thompson
You're in a biology-oriented newsgroup, dealing with people who know a
lot about biology in general and taxonomy in particular, and you get
incredulous when people call you on the dimwit, ignoramus error of
equating 'animal' with 'mammal' (which is what I assume you did, since
that's the most common dimwit, ignoramus error, and I cannot see you
rising above the multitude in any fashion)?
Bite the bullet, admit it was a stupid error, and people will shut up
about it. Keep yapping and people will keep poking you with sticks for
the response. Your choice.
Chris
chris thompson
As opposed to your accomplishment of....not knowing insects are
animals? WTF did you think they were- fish or something???
Chris
PS Yes, I know a little more biology than that
chris thompson
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find a bill for the following item:
Irony Meter, Acme, Model 63002
I am requesting you reimburse us for the above-mentioned item because
your recent post to talk.origins seems to have wrecked this essential
piece of defensive equipment. When your post fell on our machines, the
weight of irony was so massive the poor little thing was crushed
beyond repair. We look forward to receiving your remittance.
Sincerely,
The World
(encl.)
Caranx latus
Check the Conditions and Restrictions section of the User Manual for
that model, Chris. No Acme product is warranteed for use in any
newsgroup which contains posts by a poster named 'Roadrunner', made at
any point in time.
Desertphile
<ssyk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 8:24 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah, as detailed and insightful as you are intelligent.
> > (it's a wonder you can piss without drowning)
Funny, but just this morning I pissed on my foot, and all three of
us were surprised.
> With that one you have regained my respect. You may lack the wit
> required to defend your theory of evolution, but you have wit
> nonetheless. Honesty and passion accented with a bit of wit, that's
> all I ask for.
Half a wit is better than no wit.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Desertphile
Are not insects at least as intelligent as humans, but clever
enough to not let us know? I heard about this being sworn to under
oath by a scientist, so it must be true.
r norman
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:47:35 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 12:22 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I've heard
>> >
>> > The fact that this represents something of an accomplishment
>> > for you speaks volumes.
>
>> As opposed to your accomplishment of....not knowing insects are
>> animals? WTF did you think they were- fish or something???
>>
>> Chris
>> PS Yes, I know a little more biology than that
>
>Are not insects at least as intelligent as humans, but clever
>enough to not let us know? I heard about this being sworn to under
>oath by a scientist, so it must be true.
It is common practice for field biologists to swear oaths at insects
so it definitely is true.
Nick Keighley
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[blindingly obvious statement by JTEM]
> > woopy doop
>
> Well thank you for taking a break from licking your
> mother's arm pit long enough to type that.
what a thoughly unpleasant individual you are
<snip>
> > > See, a creature adapted to an arboreal environment
> > > is, as a rule, built very differently from a creature
> > > which enjoys powered flight.
>
> > in what way (I'm not arguing, just curious)
>
> One flies up into trees, one climbs up from the ground.
> The two solutions couldn't be more different.
>
> As I said...
and in what way are they built differently? And you think I can't
read...
> > > This is because climbing
> > > up the side of a tree is a very different task than
> > > flying through the air, and requires very different
> > > adaptations. In support of this, one look at nature
> > > reveals lots & lots of gliders, but not a lot of powered
> > > fliers in the animal world.
>
> > aren't there more species of bat than any other
> > mammalian species?
>
> It makes no difference, they're all bats, they all trace
> back to a common ancestor.
and all mammals come from a CA and all birds and all... Your point
being?
> > > There's birds & bats and...
> > > well, okay that's it.
>
> > pterodactyl's, insects
>
> Insects are animals?
doh! Insects are plants! Thanks!
> You're seeing Pterodactyls?
you seem to be a chrono chauvinist. If your development of flight
explanation is to be any good shouldn't it cover flying reptiles as
well?
[...]
> > > [...] Lots of birds can get into the air without power.
>
> > some insects have trouble staying on the ground. It's a
> > scale law thingy.
>
> Better known as "Wind."
but their small size is important
<snip>
> > > I've seen Seagulls do it many times myself,
my ornithologist friend tells me there is no such thing as a seagull
<snip>
> > > and a range of motion which would
> > > be useful to raptors clinging on to large prey as they
> > > kicked) you could get airborne.
>
> > a just picture a flock of velocipators shooting off into the
> > air as they try to attack something...
>
> That's not as interesting as you seem to believe.
only funny
> > > Here's the thing: It's all about feathers.
>
> > bats. Bats don't have feathers.
>
> By some strange coincidence, I'm not talking about bats!
>
> (again, it's all about the reading comprehension)
so flight isn't all about feathers?
Ognjen
wrote:
> In the category, Oh My God, it must be a flying fungus!
I thought it was closer to the "trilobites are mammals" category, but
this works too.
Ognjen
> John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > Clearly, they are bugs. Hence, bacteria.
>
> Not so clearly (to you, anyhow), there is more than
> one correct use for most terms.
As if [M]adman wasn't enough, now you're going into backspace
territory?
Walter Bushell
<f9d19ec4-34fd-48d3...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
But legally the word animal is frequently defined as mammal, for
example, cruelty laws for animals may not apply to bird (!?) because
they are not animals.
Definitions. Even though the intelligence of birds and legislators
overlap.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
el cid
> In article
> <f9d19ec4-34fd-48d3-b46e-33acbfad8...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Senator, I served with birds, I knew birds, birds was a friend of
mine.
Senator, you're no birds.
chibiabos
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:30 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Insects are animals?
>
> I always suspected you were a total idiot but I didn't have proof
You misspelled asshole---------------------^^^^^
> until now.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Steven L.
"el cid" <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71664dc3-e3d3-4ecd...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
For those of us who joined this discussion late,
Would someone be so kind as to explain just what the heck you're trying
to discuss?
-- Steven L.
David Hare-Scott
>
> IN the High and Far-Off Times the Elephant, O Best Beloved, had no
> trunk. He had only a blackish, bulgy nose, as big as a boot, that he
> could wriggle about from side to side; but he couldn't pick up things
> with it.
Was that before he went down by the great grey green greasy limpopo river?
David
Nick Keighley
> "el cid" <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
****
> > one look at nature
> > reveals lots & lots of gliders, but not a lot of powered
r norman
And, for those of you joining really late, that last is NOT Nick
Keighley's idea, but rather his reposting what JTEM wrote.
It is JTEM who doubts that insects are animals.
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that this represents something of an
> > accomplishment for you speaks volumes.
>
> As opposed to your accomplishment of....not knowing
> insects are animals?
They're not. You're repeating the same old bullshit where
you're enforcing a single definition where there are none.
It's amazing how ignorant you (and most others here) are,
how you really can't see it: There is a vernacular, despite
your tower of ignorance which shields you from reality.
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're in a biology-oriented newsgroup,
No, shit head. I'm in a newsgroup filled with pathetic
wannabes like you -- people who try to prop up their
egos by "arguing" with creationists.
Amongst the reasons you're all such miserable failures
at changing anyone's mind is precisely because you
try to enforce these word uses.
"Theory" is another example... an extremely common
one.
> dealing with people who know a lot about biology in
> general and taxonomy in particular,
This is a group for debating creationism (I.D.) verses
evolution.
No, wait. I'm serious. And anyone who didn't have brains
enough to figure out even THAT much could have the
best education in the world, and it would still amount to
only so much lipstick on a pig...
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> And, for those of you joining really late, that last is NOT Nick
> Keighley's idea, but rather his reposting what JTEM wrote.
>
> It is JTEM who doubts that insects are animals.
I'll say this AGAIN for the brain trust, and then I'll repeat
it many times in the future:
*I* have not invented any of this. I did define "theory" as a
little more than a guess. I did not define humans as
something quite apart from apes. I did not decide that
animals are one thing and insects are another.
Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and recognize the
fact that the world extends further than your nose.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <ch...@nospam.com>:
>In article <4qn1q5tlut9tuulb9...@4ax.com>, r norman
><r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:30 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Insects are animals?
>>
>> I always suspected you were a total idiot but I didn't have proof
>You misspelled asshole---------------------^^^^^
Not really; his assholeness hasn't been in doubt for years.
>> until now.
Nick Keighley
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
$R indicates snipped rudeness (kind of sad it needs a notation)
> > You're in a biology-oriented newsgroup,
>
> No, [rudeness]. I'm in a newsgroup filled with [rudeness] [people]
> like you -- people who try to prop up their
> egos by "arguing" with creationists.
>
> Amongst the reasons you're all such miserable failures
> at changing anyone's mind is precisely because you
> try to enforce these word uses.
no, its actually very difficult to change anyone's mind about
anything. I only point out flaws in logic or fact or teminology. I
tend to think I'm addressing a circle of invisible reasonable people
who listen carefully to my arguments but don't respond. They may, of
course, be entirely imaginary! The actual creationists are mostly
beyond help.
Agreed terminology is important. If "transitionals" are mentioned you
have to make sure both sides are using the word in the same sense.
> "Theory" is another example... an extremely common one.
whilst I'l l use layman's language "theory" is one I just can't let
go. We don't have another word ("scientific law"?). And if some one
says "evolution is just a theory" there is a terminology problem that
needs to be resolved. Ignoring it or agreeing with them is just to cop
out.
<snip>
--
there is nothing as practical as a good theory
when someone says "theoretically" they usually mean "not really"
JTEM
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Amongst the reasons you're all such miserable
> > failures at changing anyone's mind is precisely
> > because you try to enforce these word uses.
>
> no, its actually very difficult to change anyone's
> mind about anything.
No, because as difficult as it normally is to change
someone's mind, it's even more difficult if you
require that other person to first invest time &
effort into learning what you mean.
Let me put it another way...
I'm in, say, France. I'm lost. I need help to find
my way back to the hotel. So I stop someone and
demand that they learn English, just so I can ask
them for directions back to the hotel.
(NOTE: This is not a good idea)
In the very same sense, if I am trying to convince
someone, if *I* want to do that, if *I* view that
as a goal, I've got to do it in THEIR (not my)
language. I've got to communicate in their language,
both using words that they understand AND they way
they use them.
Anything less isn't failure, it's ignorance.
> Agreed terminology is important. If "transitionals"
> are mentioned you have to make sure both sides are
> using the word in the same sense.
Ah, but the onus is on you. If you want to convince
them, you have to speak their language.
> > "Theory" is another example... an extremely
> > common one.
>
> whilst I'l l use layman's language "theory" is one I
> just can't let go. We don't have another word
> ("scientific law"?).
It's an obstacle. You either have to figure out a way
to let it go, or find a way to get around it.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with explaining
precisely what you mean...
"...and when I say 'theory' I want it understood
that I am not using it in the vernacular, that I
do not mean 'idea' or 'guess'. When I say 'theory'
I am referring to the rigidly defined scientific
use of the word, as found at the following URL..."
Sure, thanks to the A.D.D. you'd be filtering out
most of the "Scientific" people here, let alone the
trolls and creationists, but you've got to do what
you've got to do...
Walter Bushell
<512169b3-8832-4dd1...@l12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
aganunitsi <ssyk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The advantages described in the second scenario also exist in the
> first scenario. The second scenario requires busg being blown on the
> wind...
"The ants are my friends; they're blowing in the wind; the ants are
blowing in the wind."
Steven L.
"aganunitsi" <ssyk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a7bdce14-9a2d-495b...@v34g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 16, 5:30 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > a bunch of crap
>
> Yes, alligator lizards could have eventually been blowin' in the air.
>
> But the same wind that is blowing land beasts would also be blowing on
> the arboreal beasts and the cliff dwelling beasts. So with this free
> wind blowin' everywhere, which beasts are more likely to be in the
> air? Beasts from the ground of the plains or the heights of the trees/
> cliffs?
Somehow, pterosaurs evolved to get off the ground. And they didn't
even have feathers.
> The options provided, arboreal vs cursorial, are not mutually
> exclusive if your cursorial explanation is the wind blowing animals
> around. Arboreal beasts would be among the beasts blown around on the
> wind. Which beasts would be more likely to be light enough to be blown
> around on the wind?
The bone structure of a pterosaur is very light for its size.
-- Steven L.
Darwin123
> Okay, so as far as the arboreal-v-cursorial origins
> of flight goes, I too, looking back many years, was
> originally convinced that there was no question, that
> the answer had to be arboreal.
>
> The way the cursorial model was first presented to
> me... animals running and "flapping" their front
> limbs... maybe the "flapping" stemming from the
> method in which they repeatedly attempted to
> grab their prey... Oh, I heard lots of ideas, most of
> them striking me as dumb.
One currently popular model for the development of flight in
insects has them lifting off from the water. Crustacea have feather
like gills that could have been the precursors of insect wings. Some
water gliding insects have appendages that are broad. The muscles are
needed for steering the water gliding insect.
Start with a large water gliding insect. Consider the effect of a
weak wind on the insect. Now, presume that a change in environmental
conditions makes smaller insects more fit than the large insects. The
average weight of the insect in this population shrinks. The effect of
the wind on the insect increases.
The smaller insect sometimes lifts off the ground. It already has
muscles in its limbs developed for water gliding. Off it goes! Now
there is a selection pressure for better control of flight.
Note that the most primitive winged insects (may flies,
mosquitos) have larval stages that live in the water.
Darwin123
wrote:
> On Mar 17, 12:22 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As opposed to your accomplishment of....not knowing insects are
> animals? WTF did you think they were- fish or something???
>
I thinks hinsects be turtles |:-)