Efficient 4-flipper swimming dino

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper

[I Envy JTEM]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper

They weren't dinosaurs, though I am the first to agree that the term, or
at least it's definition, needs a great deal of refining.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661717790248599552

[Pandora]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 22:03:22 -0700 (PDT), I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>> https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper
>
>They weren't dinosaurs, though I am the first to agree that the term, or
>at least it's definition, needs a great deal of refining.

What is the definition of dinosaurs and why does it need refining?

[I Envy JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> What is the definition of dinosaurs and why does it need refining?

This isn't school and I am not anyone's teacher but let's start with endothermic
vs. exothermic and work out from there.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661961237348892672

[Pandora]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT), I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pandora wrote:
>
>> What is the definition of dinosaurs and why does it need refining?
>
>This isn't school and I am not anyone's teacher but let's start with endothermic
>vs. exothermic and work out from there.

The proper biological terms are homeothermic vs poikilothermic.

Birds and mammals are homeothermic, yet mammals are not dinosaurs.

[I Envy JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> The proper biological terms are

Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.

So like you were just saying; some creatures we label dinosaurs are
COLD BLOODED and some appear WARM BLOODED. And that's a
major difference. Think of any differences that separate humans from
other "Apes" and it's orders of magnitude larger, this difference... this
COLD BLOODED vs WARM BLOODED that you speak about.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661968288731004928

[Pandora]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:44:55 -0700 (PDT), I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> The proper biological terms are
>
>Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.

It's just biology, not physics.

>So like you were just saying; some creatures we label dinosaurs are
>COLD BLOODED and some appear WARM BLOODED. And that's a
>major difference. Think of any differences that separate humans from
>other "Apes" and it's orders of magnitude larger, this difference... this
>COLD BLOODED vs WARM BLOODED that you speak about.

Yet such a derived character as homeothermy of a subclade is no reason
to exclude it from a more inclusive clade, and thus to exclude birds
from dinosaurs, just like symbolic language is no reason to exclude
humans from primates.

How do you define dinosaurs?

[I Envy JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> >Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.

> It's just biology, not physics.

*Whoosh*

> Yet such a derived character as homeothermy of a subclade is no reason
> to exclude it from a more inclusive clade

Why? Says who?

> and thus to exclude birds from dinosaurs

That's circular. Your statement is predicated on the view that the position is
immutable, that the argument I mentioned never existed. Yes, that's "Circular."





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661968288731004928

[Pandora]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 17:41:11 -0700 (PDT), I Envy JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> >Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
>
>> It's just biology, not physics.
>
> *Whoosh*

https://www.uvi.net/en/soundfx/whoosh-fx.html

>> Yet such a derived character as homeothermy of a subclade is no reason
>> to exclude it from a more inclusive clade
>
>Why? Says who?

Says nature, in particular its hierarchy of descent with modification.
Once a twig is in a certain position on a certain branch on a certain
tree its identity is determined by that postion, with or without
leaves.

>> and thus to exclude birds from dinosaurs
>
>That's circular. Your statement is predicated on the view that the position is
>immutable, that the argument I mentioned never existed. Yes, that's "Circular."

Not at all, it's just an empirical consequence of the evolutionary
pattern of cladogenesis.

So, here's a definition of Dinosauria: the least inclusive clade that
includes Passer domesticus, Triceratops horridus and Diplodocus
carnegii.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637

And indeed, that excludes plesiosaurs from dinosaurs, without any
reference to homeothermy or poikilothermy.

[I Envy JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> I Envy JTEM
> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Pandora wrote:
> >
> >> >Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.
> >
> >> It's just biology, not physics.

Goog golly God, you pretend to want a discussion when you're just a
typical narcissist trying to destroy that it can't control...

https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU

There. Feynman. You learned something know, despite all your efforts,
though I can't say you can grasp what it means let along place it into
the context of this exchange.

Get it now, narcissist?

Relax. That was a rhetorical question,

But you see this? All this replies, all these words, this efforts because
you're ignorant and lack any interest in knowledge. Feynman is hugely
famous, this and other stories of his made it into numerous lectures,
countless videos, immeasurable quotes... all taught outside of
physics, even within the field of teaching!

But you, well, no clue.

And you could have just Googled it. You had a name. You had A CONTEXT.
You could have just looked. If it mattered. If you were something other than
a goddamn narcissist trying to stop what it can't control.

So waste your circular "Arguments" on someone else. I know what you are
and quite frankly it'll be more useful coming back at your obfuscation than
attempt genuine discourse with you.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/661968288731004928

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 11:44:42 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> https://www.academia.edu/51580907/The_four_flipper_swimming_method_of_plesiosaurs_enabled_efficient_and_effective_locomotion?email_work_card=view-paper

Note Title, dino, not dinosaur.

[I Envy JTEM]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Note Title

*Whoosh!*







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662062844536307712

[Peter Nyikos]

That's cute, but it's my impression that kids treat "dino" as just a shortening of "dinosaur."
My dad certainly suggested that we use the term "dino" in talking to one of my daughters, then barely
two years old; he thought "dinosaur" would be too much for her. We informed him that she already
knew the terms "tyrannosaurus" [1] and "triceratops" and "stegosaurus," and said them with gusto.

In fact, who ever made a distinction between the two before you came along?

And, did you ever propose a definition for "dino" as distinct from "dinosaur"?

[1] Or "tyrannosaur," but only as an abbreviation for "tyrannosaurus," not the way a Live Science
used it as synonymous with "tyrannosauroid," a much more inclusive clade that included some
species much smaller than some allosaurids of the time. The latter were proposed to be "apex predators"
with the "tyrannosaurs" [their word, apparently pitched at the kiddies] suggested as part of their prey.

Explicitly, they wrote,

"The new finding is the first carcharodontosaur dinosaur discovered in Central Asia, the researchers noted. Paleontologists already knew that the tyrannosaur *Timurlengia* lived at the same time and place, but at 13 feet (4 m) in length and about 375 pounds (170 kg) in weight, *Timurlengia* was several times smaller than *U. uzbekistanensis*, suggesting that *U. uzbekistanensis* was the apex predator in that ecosystem, gobbling up horned dinosaurs, long-necked sauropods and ostrich-like dinosaurs in the neighborhood, the team said."

https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/gigantic-shark-toothed-dinosaur-discovered-in-uzbekistan/ar-AAOhazl?ocid=entnewsntp

Methinks that the part from "gobbling up..." on was inspired by "The Land Before Time" cartoon series.
This particular daughter had already seen the first one several times, because we had bought the video
right about the time she was born.


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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 3:09:08 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>
> > I Envy JTEM

And you call Pandora a narcissist? Have you no sense of irony?

> > <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Pandora wrote:
> > >
> > >> >Lol! Typical narcissist... and never heard of Feynman, obviously.

What's Feynman supposed to be doing on a thread that belongs in sci.bio.paleontology
and is an anachronism in sci.anthropology.paleo?

> > >> It's just biology, not physics.

> Goog golly God, you pretend to want a discussion when you're just a
> typical narcissist trying to destroy that it can't control...

Pandora isn't interested in discussing anything that grabs your fancy,
just because you mention it.

Here, would you like to discuss Exodus 21:22? I could talk about
it as long as Feynman is talking in the video you belatedly linked:

> https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
>
> There. Feynman.

I'm well into the video, but I hear nothing about plesiosaurs. And I fully appreciate the
joke of the top commenter:

Feynman gets stopped by a cop.
Cop : why were you speeding ?
Feynman : what do you mean why ?
Half hour later

I know about Feynman diagrams, but they obviously have nothing to do with
plesiosaurs or about sci.anthropology.paleo.

> You learned something know, despite all your efforts,
> though I can't say you can grasp what it means let along place it into
> the context of this exchange.

I didn't learn anything from the video that I didn't already know.
And I don't see why it is so all-fired relevant, any of the seven minutes.

> Get it now, narcissist?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Can you see the relevance of THAT to what you are doing here?

> Relax. That was a rhetorical question,
>
> But you see this? All this replies, all these words, this efforts because
> you're ignorant and lack any interest in knowledge. Feynman is hugely
> famous, this and other stories of his made it into numerous lectures,
> countless videos, immeasurable quotes... all taught outside of
> physics, even within the field of teaching!

How nice. The day you give lectures like that here, on hominids, will be the day I will
treat you with a modicum of respect.

Now go back and play in the box [loosely speaking] where you keep a heap of granules that
are mostly silicon dioxide.


Peter Nyikos

PS I left in the rest of what you wrote below, to give you the satisfaction
of admiring your handiwork, yet again.

[Pandora]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 12:09:07 -0700 (PDT), I Envy JTEM

You're just pissed because you didn't understand the argument. You
think it's the jargon that gets in the way while it's actually your
lack of knowledge and understanding. And, because of their
unreasonably high selfesteem, to a true narcissist that feels like a
personal insult, to which you could only respond with ad hominem and
showing off with a Nobel laureate (and of course I understand the
difference between knowing what something is called and really knowing
what it's about, the difference between jargon/definition and idea).

You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and
in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need
is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
taxa.
In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
(Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii, together
with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
So yeah, the bee hummingbird is the smallest known extant dinosaur.

[Peter Nyikos]

Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?

Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related
to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way?

If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
recognize it as the genus of a bird?

> together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).

What's the point of the qualifier?

> So yeah, the bee hummingbird is the smallest known extant dinosaur.

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

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

[Pandora]

Yes, see Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur
relationships and early dinosaur evolution", their Ornithoscelida:

<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637>

See also reply from Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur
family tree":

<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614>

>If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
>Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
>recognize it as the genus of a bird?

It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
motivation.
I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.

And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.

>> together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
>
>What's the point of the qualifier?

To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> What's Feynman supposed to be doing on a thread that belongs in sci.bio.paleontology

Already answered. With a cite. To educated the ignorant.

Now switch handles and pretend you already knew the answer.

> Pandora isn't interested in discussing anything that grabs your fancy,

Then why'd you hit Reply?

Clearly you are not in control of your actions.

Oh. Look. You already had your answer about Feynman's relevance...

> > https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU
> >
> > There. Feynman.

> I'm well into the video, but I hear nothing about plesiosaurs.

You are retarded. Same stupidity, same lack of reading comprehension, same
narcissistic impulses to destroy what it can't control... different sock puppets.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[I Envy JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

[...]

I'll boil it down to incredibly simplistic terms and then later I can chuckle
over your inability to grasp a word of it...

There were a lot of creatures running around during "Dinosaur" days that
weren't dinosaurs. Some of them quite large. You've heard of the
plesiosaur, for example, swimming the ocean. They could be huge, they
were reptilian but they weren't dinosaurs. And in the skies we had
pterosaurs. Again, some of them turning out to be quite large -- HUGE!
And also, btw, nobody calling them dinosaurs. So outside the autistic
world many are already comfortable with the idea that to be around
even in the Jurassic, to be big and to be reptile like doesn't require being
a dinosaur.

IT'S MAGIC!

That's the answer you cling to.

Pterosaurs evolved because the sky is magical, stopping flying dinosaurs,
right up until it didn't. And the oceans, well, we all know the story there
even if we don't. Which leaves us with dry land and WE KNOW if it touched
dry land then DINOSAUR!

Or we can start looking at differences.

One screaming obvious difference so large that people in comas might
have difficulty missing would be what you pointed out: Warm blooded
vs. cold blooded. Some that people call "Dinosaurs" appear to have been
cold blooded, others look like they had to have been warm blooded.

But we don't have to stop there, not on our search for differences. What
we do have to remember, speaking rhetorically, is that we all already know
that not all the big, reptilian like animals living back then were dinosaurs.

We can move on from there.

...because what you think of as "Science" was, for nearly all of its
history, the private playground of the privileged -- the cucumber sandwich
crowd. They've always been obsessed with their own importance, with
authority -- STATUS -- which is why you are still ordered to worship the
fraud that was Darwin, even though he was an ignorant plagiarist whose
one theory (Pangenesis) was pseudo scientific crap.

Oh, that's right, you're not aware of everything from Piltdown Man through
Neanderthal "Different Species" onto savanna nonsense... even though all
of it -- including the Darwin fraud -- continues even today, even now.

"Things are different now, even though they're not."

Yes they got a lot wrong about dinosaurs and they defend all that idiocy
the same way they defend savanna bullshit.

Enjoy!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > What's Feynman supposed to be doing on a thread that belongs in sci.bio.paleontology

> Already answered. With a cite. To educated the ignorant.

How would you like for me to educate the ignorant about Exodus 21:22?
Its interpretation, about which I have vital knowledge shared by perhaps less than
a hundred people on earth is of tremendous relevance to one of the top hot-button
issues of this month, the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law.

> Now switch handles and pretend you already knew the answer.

Now switch handles and pretend you knew the above about Exodus 21:22
before you did an unmarked deletion of it here.

> > Pandora isn't interested in discussing anything that grabs your fancy,

> Then why'd you hit Reply?

Because, in one of your better moments, you made it look like John Harshman
was a troll and you were feeding the troll. So I wanted to see whether
you would behave less like a troll towards me than you did towards Pandora.

Instead, you behaved more like a troll, not less.

Harshman's bosom buddies, Oxyaena and Erik Simpson, pretended
to think that I knew you were a troll, and I told the less trollish
one, Erik, that my experience with the two of you was that he was
more trollish than you are.

That still holds true, but you are closing the gap rapidly.

> Clearly you are not in control of your actions.

You keep closing in on Erik.

> Oh. Look. You already had your answer about Feynman's relevance...
> > > https://youtu.be/px_4TxC2mXU

Wrong, troll. That was not clear at the time I posted, because I
hadn't heard the video all the way through.

> > >
> > > There. Feynman.
>
> > I'm well into the video, but I hear nothing about plesiosaurs.


> You are retarded.

It takes tremendous trollishness to be more trollish than Erik, but if you
behave like this in reply to me, you will probably close the gap.s

> Same stupidity, same lack of reading comprehension, same
> narcissistic impulses to destroy what it can't control... different sock puppets.

You are describing your vandalistic unmarked snip of what I wrote about
Exodus 21:22 last time. Now that I've described its relevance up there, will you
continue to exemplify your description?

Two more replies like this, and you will be within striking distance of Oxyaena.


Peter Nyikos

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> How would you like for me to educate the ignorant about Exodus 21:22?

Dude, I already know that you're an idiot. Honest. You don't have to put so
much work into it.

Seriously, with the context staring you in the face, if you can't see the
relevance of the Feynman quote there's no hope for you.

You're the proverbial one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:58:09 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I'll boil it down to incredibly simplistic terms and then later I can chuckle
> over your inability to grasp a word of it...

If you want some regular here to think anything in the next paragraph isn't old news to Pandora,
then you are continuing to close the troll gap wrt Erik Simpson,
one of the trollish people rooting for Harshman when you made their hero look like a troll.

> There were a lot of creatures running around during "Dinosaur" days that
> weren't dinosaurs. Some of them quite large. You've heard of the
> plesiosaur, for example, swimming the ocean. They could be huge, they
> were reptilian but they weren't dinosaurs. And in the skies we had
> pterosaurs. Again, some of them turning out to be quite large -- HUGE!
> And also, btw, nobody calling them dinosaurs. So outside the autistic
> world many are already comfortable with the idea that to be around
> even in the Jurassic, to be big and to be reptile like doesn't require being
> a dinosaur.
>
> IT'S MAGIC!
>
> That's the answer you cling to.

Continuing to close the troll gap.

> Pterosaurs evolved because the sky is magical, stopping flying dinosaurs,
> right up until it didn't.

If you are referring to birds evolving later than pterosaurs, then that is no
more magical than Mesopotamia evolving ziggurat-builders
before Mesoamerica evolved pyramid builders.

> And the oceans, well, we all know the story there
> even if we don't. Which leaves us with dry land and WE KNOW if it touched
> dry land then DINOSAUR!
>

Gibberish.

Is this the way you explain dinosaurs to eager preschoolers?
If so, you aren't fit to talk to them. Harshman, on the other hand, did
a stint lecturing about dinosaurs to preschoolers, and he at least doesn't
post such gibberish about dinosaurs, so I have some hope that he
didn't screw them up too badly.

He did tell them that birds are dinosaurs, and the kids thought that was "way cool".
Is that your reaction too?

> Or we can start looking at differences.
>
> One screaming obvious difference so large that people in comas might
> have difficulty missing would be what you pointed out: Warm blooded
> vs. cold blooded. Some that people call "Dinosaurs" appear to have been
> cold blooded, others look like they had to have been warm blooded.

Did you know that some birds hibernate to where their body temperature
drops to 9 degrees Celsius? They aren't warm-blooded, they are endotherms.

That's my layman's word, but Pandora used a more technical,
and perhaps more precise term. Can you remembr what it was, Mr. Tumblr?

> But we don't have to stop there, not on our search for differences. What
> we do have to remember, speaking rhetorically, is that we all already know
> that not all the big, reptilian like animals living back then were dinosaurs.

*Yawn*

> We can move on from there.
>
> ...because what you think of as "Science" was, for nearly all of its
> history, the private playground of the privileged -- the cucumber sandwich
> crowd. They've always been obsessed with their own importance, with
> authority -- STATUS -- which is why you are still ordered to worship the
> fraud that was Darwin, even though he was an ignorant plagiarist

He did get scooped on the centerpiece of his theory, natural selection, but then Wallace got scooped too.
Do you think Wallace was a plagiarist too?

By the way, how would you like it if you were accused of plagiarism for
everything you wrote in the first paragraph up there?

I won't go into the second paragraph, because it is impossible to plagiarize
something so stupid, nobody but you could dream it up.

> whose one theory (Pangenesis) was pseudo scientific crap.
>
> Oh, that's right, you're not aware of everything from Piltdown Man through
> Neanderthal "Different Species" onto savanna nonsense... even though all
> of it -- including the Darwin fraud -- continues even today, even now.

Creationists know Piltdown Man was a fraud: Jack Chick made sure of that.

So who do you think does NOT know that Piltdown Man was a fraud?

> "Things are different now, even though they're not."
>
> Yes they got a lot wrong about dinosaurs and they defend all that idiocy
> the same way they defend savanna bullshit.
>
> Enjoy!

> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

I read it.

I hope you are only saying "Vive La France" because you are against coercive
government policies, and not because you think staying unvaccinated is
more healthy than getting vaccinated. Otherwise, you are badly in need of
being educated, and I will educate you if no one else will.

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

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

PS I'll tell Erik Simpson the good news (for him) before long: you are
now even with him in trollishness [a case of quality over quantity],
based on the post to which I am replying and your latest reply to me.

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > I'll boil it down to incredibly simplistic terms and then later I can chuckle
> > over your inability to grasp a word of it...

> If you want some regular here to think anything in the next paragraph isn't old news to Pandora,
> then

Don't tell me, let me guess, I needed to invest a little time into explaining
what "incredibly simplistic" means, so it's my fault you're saying stupid
things now.

REMINDER: A lack of reading comprehension does NOT an argument make.

> > Pterosaurs evolved because the sky is magical, stopping flying dinosaurs,
> > right up until it didn't.

> If you are referring to

I could illustrate my words, ask grade school teachers to re-write them to a
3rd grade level and you'd still never "get it."

Please. You don't seem to comprehend words, much less their meaning.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:10:08 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > > I'll boil it down to incredibly simplistic terms and then later I can chuckle
> > > over your inability to grasp a word of it...
>
> > If you want some regular here to think anything in the next paragraph isn't old news to Pandora,
> > then

> Don't tell me, let me guess, I needed to invest a little time into explaining
> what "incredibly simplistic" means,

100% wrong. You posted your incredibly simplistic paragraph because either:

1. You really thought that Pandora, to whom you were directly replying,
really didn't know a bunch of stuff in the paragraph, OR

2. You thought you'd get a chuckle out of Pandora telling you more or less what I told you,
and then responding to her in exactly the way you are responding to me now.

> so it's my fault you're saying stupid
> things now.

If 2. was your aim, then go ahead and have your chuckle now. Don't mind
the fact that I'm not Pandora -- I'm sure she wouldn't mind.

And, just to save readers the trouble of scrolling up to an earlier post,
I am reposting your incredibly simplistic paragraph, of which you did
an unmarked deletion:

"There were a lot of creatures running around during "Dinosaur" days that
weren't dinosaurs. Some of them quite large. You've heard of the
plesiosaur, for example, swimming the ocean. They could be huge, they
were reptilian but they weren't dinosaurs. And in the skies we had
pterosaurs. Again, some of them turning out to be quite large -- HUGE!
And also, btw, nobody calling them dinosaurs. So outside the autistic
world many are already comfortable with the idea that to be around
even in the Jurassic, to be big and to be reptile like doesn't require being
a dinosaur."

So, which is true? Alternative 1. or alternative 2.? Or do you have a third
alternative that you haven't divulged yet?

>
> REMINDER: A lack of reading comprehension does NOT an argument make.

You fail to realize that there is a difference between reading comprehension
and reading your mind. You thought the mere mention of Feynman would
be enough to make Pandora realize exactly the thing you wanted to convey
to her about Feynman's lectures on the deep understanding of things,
as opposed to his discoveries in physics.

And then, you thought that if Pandora really understood why you wanted
her to look at a video like that, she would write a 1000+ line explanation
of things you gave no hint of wanting her to explain, in the hopes that
she would hit upon the things you really wanted to know about. RIGHT?

Don't tell me, let me guess: you will allege that I've failed reading comprehension,
but without giving me a clue as to what your real intent was.

> > > Pterosaurs evolved because the sky is magical, stopping flying dinosaurs,
> > > right up until it didn't.
>
> > If you are referring to

> I could illustrate my words, ask grade school teachers to re-write them to a
> 3rd grade level and you'd still never "get it."
>
> Please. You don't seem to comprehend words, much less their meaning.

OK, have it your way. Wallow in your belief in magic, or else in your in fantasy that Pandora
believes in magic. Either way, you are making a fool of yourself.

But then, perhaps, you enjoy making a fool of yourself.


Peter Nyikos

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > Don't tell me, let me guess, I needed to invest a little time into explaining
> > what "incredibly simplistic" means,

> 100% wrong. You

I was speaking rhetorically. Even now, even after pointing out your critical
stupidity you won't acknowledge it, what "incredibly simplistic" means,
what it signified within the context of this thread.

> posted your incredibly simplistic paragraph because

Now you think you're a mind reader? Do your delusions know no bounds?

> And, just to save readers the trouble of scrolling up to an earlier post

"NEVER look at source material!"

Wow. Pathetic.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[Peter Nyikos]

I have some good news and some bad news for you, JTEM.

The good news is that, with all the trolling you did below, you have surpassed Erik Simpson in trollishness.

The bad news is that you still have a long way to go before surpassing Oxyaena, and I'm not
giving you more opportunities on this thread. You'll either have to troll someone else here,
or wait for an opportunity to troll me on some other thread.

What I write below in response to your latest trolling is for the benefit of other readers, so they can clearly see
why I wrote what I did about the good news, in the context of what I had already said in earlier replies to you.

Feel free to take what I write below to be "feeding the troll" if it makes you happy.

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:33:04 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > > Don't tell me, let me guess, I needed to invest a little time into explaining
> > > what "incredibly simplistic" means,
>
> > 100% wrong. You
> I was speaking rhetorically.

Meaning what? That you didn't want anyone to take what you spoke literally?
Do you expect everyone to be mind reader?

> Even now, even after pointing out your critical
> stupidity you won't acknowledge it,

Labeling something "stupidity" is something anyone who can do to any statement, no matter how valid it is,
but labels don't produce reality by themselves. Are you under the delusion
that you are a godlike creature who creates reality with labels?

> what "incredibly simplistic" means,
> what it signified within the context of this thread.

I tried to guess why you used the words, but you deleted my guesses.
And proceeded to pretend they never existed, below:

> > posted your incredibly simplistic paragraph because

> Now you think you're a mind reader?

Of course not. I gave two possibilities, then asked you:

"So, which is true? Alternative 1. or alternative 2.? Or do you have a third
alternative that you haven't divulged yet?"

> Do your delusions know no bounds?

Yours evidently do, because you are signaling that I failed to read your
mind, which you evidently expected me to do.

> > And, just to save readers the trouble of scrolling up to an earlier post

> "NEVER look at source material!"

No wonder you falsely accused me of lack of reading comprehension: you
were setting the stage for some really poor reading comprehension yourself,
which this last sentence of yours exhibits, and trying to drag me down to your level.


> Wow. Pathetic.

You took the words out of my mouth.


Goodbye.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:13:50 PM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 08:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:

[To JTEM, who gave himself away by continuing to troll after the following reply]

> >> You thought that a definition of dinosaurs would be complicated,
> >> something typological requiring knowledge about their physiology, and
> >> in need of refining, while it actually is quite simple. All you need
> >> is a decent phylogeny, based on empirical data (taxa and their
> >> characters), from which you can then choose one or more reference
> >> taxa.
> >> In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
> >> (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
> >
> >Why aren't you cutting it down to two: sauriscian and ornithiscian?
> >
> >Is it because you have doubts about whether theropods are more closely related
> >to ornithiscians or to sauropods, and are hedging your bets either way?

> Yes, see Baron et al. 2017, "A new hypothesis of dinosaur
> relationships and early dinosaur evolution", their Ornithoscelida:
>
> <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-hypothesis-of-dinosaur-relationships-and-Baron-Norman/f03f6a706a883b18303e61b4cca6a56d942bf637>

Over in sci.bio.paleontology, John Harshman claimed that this had been superseded: flaws
in the methods were discovered, and better methods confirmed the age-old division.

This was over a year ago, so I can't recall what sources he used.

> See also reply from Langer et al. 2017, "Untangling the dinosaur
> family tree":
>
> <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Untangling-the-dinosaur-family-tree-Langer-Ezcurra/8c8ff01b0526f76d1a98c88c01d1978c9de75614>

Same here. Would you like for me to ask Harshman for the sources?

> >If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
> >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
> >recognize it as the genus of a bird?

> It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
> motivation.

> I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
> species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
> first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.

That, I have no objection to.

>
> And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.
> >> together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
> >
> >What's the point of the qualifier?
> To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.

Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?

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

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

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> The good

Jesus Christ! You're a fucking idiot. For real. Give it a rest. Troll.

What is my position?

Go on. I dare you to spell it out. Paraphrase.

I. Dare. You.

You have no clue. You're just a frightfully little man(?) trying to
blow its way into believing it has a clue.

Again, what is my position?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Pandora wrote:

You're not seriously supposed to be two different people, are you?

You've slid from pathetic to retarded...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662184098294595584

[Pandora]

Langer et al. are critical of Baron et al. and recover the traditional
saurischian–ornithischian dichotomy, but weakly supported.
See brief communication arising for reply by Baron et al:
https://staff.mef.org.ar/images/investigadores/diego_pol/papers/92.pdf

The definition using three specifiers remedies this uncertainty at the
base of the dinosaurian tree.

>> >If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
>> >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
>> >recognize it as the genus of a bird?
>
>> It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
>> motivation.
>
>> I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
>> species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
>> first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
>
>That, I have no objection to.
>
>>
>> And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.
>> >> together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
>> >
>> >What's the point of the qualifier?
>> To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.
>
>Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?

No, Dinosauria as defined by Baron et al. is a node-based clade, not
stem-based:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode#Phylogenetic_nomenclature

[Peter Nyikos]

Harshman has withdrawn his earlier claim.

> Langer et al. are critical of Baron et al. and recover the traditional
> saurischian–ornithischian dichotomy, but weakly supported.
> See brief communication arising for reply by Baron et al:
> https://staff.mef.org.ar/images/investigadores/diego_pol/papers/92.pdf
>
> The definition using three specifiers remedies this uncertainty at the
> base of the dinosaurian tree.

I think "takes into account" is better than "remedies."

Speaking of which, what chance do you think the following 2020 article has
of remedying it, in the sense of removing the uncertainty:

DOI:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0417Corpus ID: 221298572
A paraphyletic ‘Silesauridae' as an alternative hypothesis for the initial radiation of ornithischian dinosaurs
R. T. Müller, Maurício S Garcia

>>> >If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
>>> >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
>>> >recognize it as the genus of a bird?

> >>It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
> >>motivation.

> >> I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
> >> species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
> >> first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
> >
> >That, I have no objection to.
> >
> >>
> >> >> And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.
> >> >> together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
> >> >
> >> >What's the point of the qualifier?
> >> To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.
> >
> >Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?

> No, Dinosauria as defined by Baron et al. is a node-based clade, not
> stem-based:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode#Phylogenetic_nomenclature

It looks like I misunderstood what you were referring to.
I wasn't referring to Dinosauria, but to your use of "theropod" in the sentence,

[reposted from above]

> >> >> In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
> >> >> (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,

I do think these are the most inclusive clades that separate the three species, don't you?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Dinosaur = dinosaur.

[Pandora]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:31:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

It's yet another alternative phylogenetic hypothesis that puts
'Silesauridae' at the base of Ornithischia, and shifts Eoraptor from
the base of Theropoda to the base of Sauropodomorpha, and
Herrerasauridae to a more basal position relative to Sauropomorpha by
interposition of 'theropod' taxa such as Eodromaeus and Tawa (compared
to Baron et al.).

>>>> >If not, why bother giving the most inclusive clade for the common pigeon?
>>>> >Or a clade like avialae, which at least tells what Passer is for those who don't
>>>> >recognize it as the genus of a bird?
>
>> >>It's the definition by Baron et al. See the paper for their
>> >>motivation.
>
>> >> I think it's a good idea that when a higher taxon contains extant
>> >> species one of those should be included as a specifier, preferably
>> >> first named by Linnaeus, for historical reasons.
>> >
>> >That, I have no objection to.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> And to get rid of the idea that dinosaurs are extinct.
>> >> >> together with a qualifier ("the least inclusive clade containing")).
>> >> >
>> >> >What's the point of the qualifier?
>> >> To indicate that it's not just a set of three species.
>> >
>> >Didn't you mean to write "most inclusive clade" rather than "least inclusive clade"?
>
>> No, Dinosauria as defined by Baron et al. is a node-based clade, not
>> stem-based:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode#Phylogenetic_nomenclature
>
>It looks like I misunderstood what you were referring to.
>I wasn't referring to Dinosauria, but to your use of "theropod" in the sentence,
>
>[reposted from above]
>> >> >> In the case of Dinosauria a theropod (Passer domesticus), ornithiscian
>> >> >> (Triceratops horridus) and sauropod (Diplodocus carnegii,
>
>I do think these are the most inclusive clades that separate the three species, don't you?

Yes, see table 1 in Baron et al. Theropoda, Ornithischia, and
Sauropodomorpha are each stem-based clades.

Now, how do we define the human clade?

Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).

Reference phylogeny: Mongle et al. 2019, fig.2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr2.jpg

What are the diagnostic apomorphies?

[Peter Nyikos]

In case anyone is still interested, the article linked in the OP has found
its natural home, sci.bio.paleontology. I decided to take matters in hand,
and started by talking about the actual purpose of the article.

Anyone interested can find the thread here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/m0uQAMGJZwQ
Subject: Fully quadrupedal swimming in plesiosaurs

I keep discussing the topic the much of the time, as do two other participants, unlike here where JTEM
almost derailed the thread. There are digressions into other topics, but they are also on-topic for s.b.p.

And here, with Pandora switching to on-topic comments and questions for s.a.p.,
I follow suit.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 6:09:50 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:

> Now, how do we define the human clade?
>
> Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
> tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
> Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).

I agree. I wouldn't put the split further back, barring new discoveries with
distinctly non-Pan, "progressively human" features.

As you probably know, there is a minority opinion here that
Pan and possibly even Gorilla are descended from Australopithecines,
probably based on the total absence of non-hominina hominids
from the fossil record that go back beyond 1 mya.

It may still be true that the one fossil that goes back that far
is a single tooth attributed to a chimp. So this gives the
heterodox participants [and anthropologists in the big outside world]
a nearly impregnable citadel to defend.

> Reference phylogeny: Mongle et al. 2019, fig.2.
> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
>
> https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr2.jpg
>
> What are the diagnostic apomorphies?

That, I do not know. Have you tried contacting the authors about it?

Amateur though I am outside mathematics, I have had a fair chance
of success contacting authors of research articles by email.


Peter Nyikos

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

PS Due to the lateness of my reply, I might not get a response to this.
If I don't get one by Monday, I'll start a thread with a facsimile of this post.

[Pandora]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 06:15:02 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And here, with Pandora switching to on-topic comments and questions for s.a.p.,
>I follow suit.
>
>On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 6:09:50 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
>
>> Now, how do we define the human clade?
>>
>> Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
>> tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
>> Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).
>
>I agree. I wouldn't put the split further back, barring new discoveries with
>distinctly non-Pan, "progressively human" features.
>
>As you probably know, there is a minority opinion here that
>Pan and possibly even Gorilla are descended from Australopithecines,
>probably based on the total absence of non-hominina hominids
>from the fossil record that go back beyond 1 mya.
>
>It may still be true that the one fossil that goes back that far
>is a single tooth attributed to a chimp. So this gives the
>heterodox participants [and anthropologists in the big outside world]
>a nearly impregnable citadel to defend.
>
>
>> Reference phylogeny: Mongle et al. 2019, fig.2.
>> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
>>
>> https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr2.jpg
>>
>> What are the diagnostic apomorphies?
>
>That, I do not know. Have you tried contacting the authors about it?

I already knew, but was wondering if anyone else did.

Craniodental: a more anteriorly positioned and horizontally oriented
foramen magnum, a more horizontally oriented nuchal plane, reduced
canines, more centrally positioned postcanine tooth cusps.

Postcranial: possibly femoral characters mentioned in:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-69453/v1

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> I keep discussing the topic the much of the time, as do two other participants, unlike here where JTEM
> almost derailed the thread.

Oh, seriously, get help.

I pointed out that they're not dinosaurs, which they are not. You lost bladder
control because i also said that I agree that the term -- dinosaur -- needs some
refining.

> > Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
> > tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
> > Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).

> I agree. I wouldn't put the split further back, barring new discoveries with
> distinctly non-Pan, "progressively human" features.

You already put it too far back. The split with Pan was much more recent
than Sahelanthropus

The oldest Pan fossil is, what, HALF a million years old.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/663685628146434048

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 9:02:13 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

...about where the actual theme of the article that Daud posted the bare url for is being discussed, on topic:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/m0uQAMGJZwQ
Subject: Fully quadrupedal swimming in plesiosaurs

> > I keep discussing the topic the much of the time, as do two other participants, unlike here where JTEM

> > almost derailed the thread. There are digressions into other topics, but they are also on-topic for s.b.p.

> I pointed out that they're not dinosaurs,

...and Daud, availing himself of the Humpty Dumpty Prerogative, "countered"
that with "Note Title, dino, not dinosaur."

But then, Daud showed himself to be less like an adult than Humpty Dumpty, who at
least spelled out what he meant by "glory" in the Lewis Carroll classic.
In fact, Daud disappeared from the thread for a while when you aptly wrote "*Whoosh!*" and
I pressed him to tell us what he meant by "dino."

Then he resurfaced in reply to some serious discussion between me and Pandora
with the inane one-liner "Dinosaur = dinosaur." Over in sci.lang someone said he looks upon
Daud as a "nutcase" and this behavior does fit the mold.

> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 6:09:50 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:

> > > Hominina: the most inclusive clade that contains Sahelanthropus
> > > tchadensis Brunet et al. 2002 and Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, but not
> > > Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).
>
> > I agree. I wouldn't put the split further back, barring new discoveries with
> > distinctly non-Pan, "progressively human" features.

> You already put it too far back. The split with Pan was much more recent
> than Sahelanthropus

As I remarked to Pandora, but without naming you or Verhaegen, she and I
are in disagreement about your dating. However, Verhaegen and I are having a friendly
discussion on the thread, "Bioko nonsense," and I am keeping a very open
mind on this issue.

>
> The oldest Pan fossil is, what, HALF a million years old.

I wrote about the dearth of Pan fossils last week in reply to Pandora, and this week
in reply to you on the "Bioko nonsense" thread, but you haven't responded there yet:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/CUB6rHgew9E/m/8lYVyiGVAQAJ
Re: Bioko nonsense
Oct 4, 2021, 6:31:07 PM (3 days ago)

But Verhaegen did respond the next day, with a wealth of information that I'm still
trying to absorb. Did you see it?

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

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[I Envy JTEM]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> ...and Daud, availing himself of the Humpty Dumpty Prerogative, "countered"
> that with "Note Title, dino, not dinosaur."

There's no useful distinction between "dino" and "dinosaur."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/664349103659139073