5 digits: primitive or derived?

[daud....@gmail.com]

I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.

There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU

[erik simpson]

Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early, but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.

[John Harshman]

Most life forms don't even have limbs, much less digits.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-05-16 18:56:55 +0000, daud....@gmail.com said:

> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction
> of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.

Have you published this in a serious biology journal? Which? When? How
was it received? What qualifications for proposing this do you have?

I know, it's a silly question: the same qualifications that you have
for all the paleoetymology fantasies that you propose at sci.lang.

> There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[jillery]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly>

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[daud....@gmail.com]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04781-3

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:26:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> >
> > There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU
> Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early,

Not really standard, just common.

but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
> fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.

Yes, but those plausibly could have been derived from a pentadactyl ancestor in the midst of transitioning from a marine to terrestrial niche.

Don't confuse my proposal with a belief, I concur with the linked video. I am merely checking if an alternative explanation based on reproductive cell geomorphology might link to digit evolution in some way.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Limbs (extrusive) aren't necessary for digits (extrusive), afaict.
Trees have limbs, some have 5-lobed leaves, some have 5 petal flowers. Just sayin'.

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:41:12 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-05-16 18:56:55 +0000, daud....@gmail.com said:
>
> > I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> > primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction
> > of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> Have you published this in a serious biology journal?

Such journals have limited publication, talk.origins less so.

Which? When? How
> was it received? What qualifications for proposing this do you have?

Curiosity.

> I know, it's a silly question:

No, just irrelevant, like most of your arsey comments.

the same qualifications
You are uniquely qualified to misjudge my qualifications.

that you have
> for all the paleoetymology

What is that? I've never written anything about it.

fantasies that you propose at sci.lang.

I am a scientist researching the biological evolution of the human language.
You are not.
That says it all.

[John Harshman]

So limbs and digits can be anything at all. If there are 5 of them,
they're digits. This is pareidolia, nothing more.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Not by my definition. Digits must be rooted in limbs, but limbs do not necessarily have to extend far beyond the body as they do in humans.

If there are 5 of them,
> they're digits.

If there are 5 of digits of "them", they're pentadactyl.

This is pareidolia, nothing more.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a psychiatrist.

[John Harshman]

On 5/25/22 9:34 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/25/22 8:55 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/22 5:25 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU
>>>>>
>>>>> Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early, but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
>>>>> fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.
>>>>>
>>>> Most life forms don't even have limbs, much less digits.
>>>
>>> Limbs (extrusive) aren't necessary for digits (extrusive), afaict.
>>> Trees have limbs, some have 5-lobed leaves, some have 5 petal flowers. Just sayin'.
>>>
>> So limbs and digits can be anything at all.
> Not by my definition. Digits must be rooted in limbs, but limbs do not necessarily have to extend far beyond the body as they do in humans.

So what's a limb? Is the calyx of a flower considered a limb? If so,
anything can be a limb, and any projection from anything can be a digit.

> If there are 5 of them,
>> they're digits.
> If there are 5 of digits of "them", they're pentadactyl.

That's not just circular, it's knotted.

> This is pareidolia, nothing more.
> I wouldn't know, I'm not a psychiatrist.
>

You might consult one.

[Robert Carnegie]

Are you thinking of how Fibonacci sequence numbers
appear in nature?

Each being the two before added together, and the
ratio of each to the next approaching a particular
proportion.

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, ...

Of course, one of our digits is not like the others,
and some people have six on one or both hands,
an extra one.

Or could we argue that the thumb is the extra one...
(I'm expecting the answer to be no.)

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/25/22 9:34 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/25/22 8:55 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/16/22 5:25 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early, but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
> >>>>> fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Most life forms don't even have limbs, much less digits.
> >>>
> >>> Limbs (extrusive) aren't necessary for digits (extrusive), afaict.
> >>> Trees have limbs, some have 5-lobed leaves, some have 5 petal flowers. Just sayin'.
> >>>
> >> So limbs and digits can be anything at all.
> > Not by my definition. Digits must be rooted in limbs, but limbs do not necessarily have to extend far beyond the body as they do in humans.
> So what's a limb?

Limb 1 noun
from Proto-Germanic *limu- (source also of Old Norse limr "limb," lim "small branch of a tree")

Limb 2 noun
from Latin limbus "ornamental border, hem, fringe, edge," a word of uncertain origin.

Is the calyx of a flower considered a limb?

calyx (n.)
"outer part of the perianth of a flower," 1680s, from Latin calyx, from Greek kalyx "seed pod, husk, outer covering" (of a fruit, flower bud, etc.), from stem of kalyptein "to cover, conceal," from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save." The Latin plural is calyces. Some sources connect the word rather with Greek kylix "drinking cup" (see chalice).

Seems unlikely, but nature does not follow our dictates.

If so,
> anything can be a limb, and any projection from anything can be a digit.

Your claim.

> > If there are 5 of them,
> >> they're digits.

> > If there are 5 digits of "them", they're pentadactyl.

> That's not just circular, it's knotted.

Now corrected.

> > This is pareidolia, nothing more.
> > I wouldn't know, I'm not a psychiatrist.
> >
> You might consult one.

You aren't one either, apparently.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Nature is loaded with patterns and sequences, more are being discovered every day.
My exploration on digits is entirely based on egg cells being spherical and dividing; while comparing this to virus shells, pollen, spores, geodesic spheres & domes and their geomorphological structure.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Now proof that at least one early tetrapod returned to the sea. I have claimed that if 5 digits were more primitive than 7 or 8, that an increased number could be the result of returning to sea habitat, where more digits might be useful in propulsion or benthic locomotion.

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-fossil-four-legged-fishapod-tiktaalik-ventured.html

[John Harshman]

This might help your theory (it wouldn't, but work with me) if Tiktaalik
had 5 digits. But it didn't. Depending on what you count as a digit it
had either 3 or 8.

[daud....@gmail.com]

I didn't specify tiktaalik nor say it had 5 digits per limb, nor does my "theory" depend on that.
Rather, I've conjectured that the common ancestor of tetrapods, with 5 digits, may have had descendants which moved (over multiple generations), for example, to land, then sea, then land, then freshwater, then sea, producing different sets of selective forces upon their limbs, resulting in decreased or increased number of digits.
The cited article shows that at least one lineage did return to the sea.
1 > 0.

[John Harshman]

Why do we have no examples of the supposedly primitive 5-digit state? We
only have derived 5-digit states.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Patience is a virtue. We are barely scratching the surface of ancient tetrapods.
There may or may not be more ancient archaics with 5 digits.

[John Harshman]

Sure. But what we can say is that based on the data we have so far, the
evidence is against your idea.

[daud....@gmail.com]

My idea is a deliberately sought alternative explanation for why five digits are very common amongst animals (and not uncommon amongst plants) today, based on the structure of (seed/cell/pollen/spore/virus...), geodesic domes, platonic regular uniform polyhedra where 12 x 5 shows up (12 pentagons in C60), and extending this to macroscopic life forms like the human body etc.

I think its unwise to consider it false based on such limited available evidence of the few early tetrapod fossils.
Some of the much much older fossils do have some resemblance to geodesic 'pods' or so.

[daud....@gmail.com]

See the C60 molecule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene
It seems plausible that this pure carbon skeletal molecule could, if zapped with something (lightning, UV light, ??) could have mutated into a 'single cell living thing' of a sort, a proto-seed of carbon-based life forms.
A candle burns fossil fuel wax in oxygen producing soot which contains c60.
The original c60 form of 12 x 5 may be retained in all life forms, sometimes expressed externally (5 digits?), sometimes internally (gills?)...

[John Harshman]

Well of course that isn't true. Only tetrapods have digits at all,
though it's true that most of them have 5. Arthropods don't have digits.
Plants don't have digits. They have various projections from the body
wall or stem, but they aren't digits.

>, based on the structure of (seed/cell/pollen/spore/virus...), geodesic domes, platonic regular uniform polyhedra where 12 x 5 shows up (12 pentagons in C60), and extending this to macroscopic life forms like the human body etc.

The human body is so far from the geometry of the zygote that there
seems no point in trying to connect them Digits first arise long after
that spherical geometry could have any influence, and in fact we have
considerable knowledge of what causes them to develop, none of it having
to do with the shape of the one-celled zygote.

> I think its unwise to consider it false based on such limited available evidence of the few early tetrapod fossils.
> Some of the much much older fossils do have some resemblance to geodesic 'pods' or so.

No early tetrapod fossils have any resemblance to "geodesic pods".

[John Harshman]

None of that is in any way plausible, and it makes not the slightest sense.

[Glenn]

Are you beginning to see the light?

[Ernest Major]

On 21/07/2022 20:42, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> My idea is a deliberately sought alternative explanation for why five digits are very common amongst animals (and not uncommon amongst plants) today, based on the structure of (seed/cell/pollen/spore/virus...), geodesic domes, platonic regular uniform polyhedra where 12 x 5 shows up (12 pentagons in C60), and extending this to macroscopic life forms like the human body etc.

Pentapetalous flowers are a derived state in plants. Pentaperturate
pollen is a derived state in plants. Compound and lobed leaves are
derived states in plants.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Not sure. What light did you have in mind?

[Glenn]

Guess not.

[John Harshman]

Is there no question you are willing to answer?

[Glenn]

If I said no, what would that mean to you?

[daud....@gmail.com]

This is talk.origins, it doesn't have to. It is, however, original, and though far from proven, is logically derived.

"I know you believe you understand what you thought I said.
But I don’t think you realize what you heard was not what I meant".

[John Harshman]

It isn't logically derived, though. The only logic, if it can even be
called that, is noticing a rough resemblance in shape between a
buckyball and a spherical cell. Completely useless.

[John Harshman]

It would mean that you're just a troll. A non-troll would just explain
what light he had thought I might be beginning to see. I could guess,
but my guess would be likely to be wrong. So why not just explain?
Unless of course confusion is your goal here.

[Glenn]

Is it the intention of trolls so sow confusion?

Like Holmes said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Scientific, right?

[John Harshman]

A better question: is it your intention?

> Like Holmes said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
>
> Scientific, right?

The problem with that is that the impossible is usually only a small
fraction of hypotheses, and whatever remains is usually a much larger
set. Conan Doyle cheated. So no, that isn't scientific.

Another question: do you have any interest at all in making yourself
understood?

[Glenn]

Why should I? I recall you asking me what else could it have been for Hoatzins to get from Africa to South America. It must have been rafting, they said.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

If you visit sci.lang you will see that Daud Deden frequently uses the
same logic in his linguistic ramblings. You notice that the words kayık
in Turkish and kayak in Inuit (and now English) both mean "boat". Is
this just a coincidence, or does it have a deep significance?

>
>> "I know you believe you understand what you thought I said.
>> But I don’t think you realize what you heard was not what I meant".

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[John Harshman]

I recall you didn't answer the question. If rafting is implausible, we
are in need of alternative hypotheses. Can you come up with one? Do you
have a preferred one?

[Glenn]

Must I have an answer? Must I have a "preference"?
We are not in need of an alternative hypothesis, if rafting is "implausible". Perhaps rafting is what happened. It is hard for me to respond to you as if you have said something intelligent. I'm sure that you're either confused by what I just said, or will read into it what you want to hear.

[John Harshman]

No, but it would help.

> We are not in need of an alternative hypothesis, if rafting is "implausible". Perhaps rafting is what happened. It is hard for me to respond to you as if you have said something intelligent. I'm sure that you're either confused by what I just said, or will read into it what you want to hear.
>

We are always in need of alternative hypotheses. Science works by
comparing the fit of different hypotheses to data. No hypotheses, no
science. Do you have nothing at all?

Here's one: perhaps some of the supposed trans-Atlantic movements
actually passed by a southern route through Antarctica. How close was
Africa to Antarctica at the relevant time? Or could we push that time
back a bit given this hypothesis?

Do you have any ideas?

[Glenn]

Help what, John? Be honest.

> > We are not in need of an alternative hypothesis, if rafting is "implausible". Perhaps rafting is what happened. It is hard for me to respond to you as if you have said something intelligent. I'm sure that you're either confused by what I just said, or will read into it what you want to hear.
> >
> We are always in need of alternative hypotheses. Science works by
> comparing the fit of different hypotheses to data. No hypotheses, no
> science. Do you have nothing at all?

I have you right here demonstrating that I have something, Sherlock.
Hypotheses don't get you science, John. Evidence does.

>
> Here's one: perhaps some of the supposed trans-Atlantic movements
> actually passed by a southern route through Antarctica. How close was
> Africa to Antarctica at the relevant time? Or could we push that time
> back a bit given this hypothesis?
>
> Do you have any ideas?

Yea, push that old time back. What observations provide you with a legitimate reason to make such a hypothesis?

[John Harshman]

It would help me to understand your position.

>>> We are not in need of an alternative hypothesis, if rafting is "implausible". Perhaps rafting is what happened. It is hard for me to respond to you as if you have said something intelligent. I'm sure that you're either confused by what I just said, or will read into it what you want to hear.
>>>
>> We are always in need of alternative hypotheses. Science works by
>> comparing the fit of different hypotheses to data. No hypotheses, no
>> science. Do you have nothing at all?
>
> I have you right here demonstrating that I have something, Sherlock.
> Hypotheses don't get you science, John. Evidence does.
>>
>> Here's one: perhaps some of the supposed trans-Atlantic movements
>> actually passed by a southern route through Antarctica. How close was
>> Africa to Antarctica at the relevant time? Or could we push that time
>> back a bit given this hypothesis?
>>
>> Do you have any ideas?
>
> Yea, push that old time back. What observations provide you with a legitimate reason to make such a hypothesis?

So you don't have any ideas. I have no observations. Hypotheses don't
need observations in order to be hypotheses. Just spitballing here. Now you.

[daud....@gmail.com]

We can disagree. C60 is a stable pure carbon bubble. We are carbon-based life forms.

[daud....@gmail.com]

I actually don't ramble linguistically. I research Paleo-etymology, a subset of biology that covers communication, especially the human language, by examining basal words and their evolution. Fonts, typefaces, grammar-syntax, declensions, etc. are beyond my ken.

[John Harshman]

Yes, of course. Everything containing carbon is therefore related.
Perfect logic. I must send a friendly note to my pencil, welcoming it
into the family.

[Glenn]

Why should I help you with that? You do, as everyone, have a reason for why you want to 'understand". Just saying it would help you is not a specified reason.

> >>> We are not in need of an alternative hypothesis, if rafting is "implausible". Perhaps rafting is what happened. It is hard for me to respond to you as if you have said something intelligent. I'm sure that you're either confused by what I just said, or will read into it what you want to hear.
> >>>
> >> We are always in need of alternative hypotheses. Science works by
> >> comparing the fit of different hypotheses to data. No hypotheses, no
> >> science. Do you have nothing at all?
> >
> > I have you right here demonstrating that I have something, Sherlock.
> > Hypotheses don't get you science, John. Evidence does.
> >>
> >> Here's one: perhaps some of the supposed trans-Atlantic movements
> >> actually passed by a southern route through Antarctica. How close was
> >> Africa to Antarctica at the relevant time? Or could we push that time
> >> back a bit given this hypothesis?
> >>
> >> Do you have any ideas?
> >
> > Yea, push that old time back. What observations provide you with a legitimate reason to make such a hypothesis?
> So you don't have any ideas. I have no observations. Hypotheses don't
> need observations in order to be hypotheses. Just spitballing here. Now you.

Oh I have many ideas, some you undoubtedly infer. But I do so appreciate your spitballing here. It is contrary to the very basics of modern science. Observation is the very first thing done, for good reasons, of which there are more than one.
Now me? What can become of this one topic? Clearly there can be no meaningful interchange of reason between us, since you'll talk your way out of anything, including the most silly claim that hypotheses don't need observations. Perhaps that is what you think I believe or practice, maybe unconsciously, so you throw it at me like a bone. Nothing can come of such interactions, John.

[Ernest Major]

People have speculated that the chirality of biological molecules is
caused by asymmetries in the weak interaction - that something that has
no detectable effect on chemical interactions still has sufficient
impact on reaction rates or molecular stability or something to
determine which stereoisomer wins out. This is vaguely analogous to
panadaptationism in its determinism.

Daud's position seems to be that the existence of 5-fold rings in
fullerene causes organisms to have a tendency to produce parts in fives,
though he goes beyond that in his claim that 5 digits is primitive in
vertebrates (the primitive state in lobe fins seems to be limb skeletal
elements in powers of 2). As far as I can see he has neither proposed a
mechanism linking the proposed cause and effect, nor done a study to
demonstrate that there is any bias towards the number 5. The hypothesis
for chirality in biological molecules is a paragon of rigour in comparison.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

I don't know if I do, since you won't say what your ideas are.

> But I do so appreciate your spitballing here. It is contrary to the very basics of modern science. Observation is the very first thing done, for good reasons, of which there are more than one.

I think you have that backwards. First hypothesis, then observations to
test them. Of course it's what's called "reciprocal illumination".
Hypothesis suggests where to look for data, data suggest what hypotheses
to come up with.

> Now me? What can become of this one topic? Clearly there can be no meaningful interchange of reason between us, since you'll talk your way out of anything, including the most silly claim that hypotheses don't need observations. Perhaps that is what you think I believe or practice, maybe unconsciously, so you throw it at me like a bone. Nothing can come of such interactions, John.

I think we can all agree that nothing can come of trying to interact
with you. That's a well-tested hypothesis.

[Glenn]

Do I need "ideas"?

> > But I do so appreciate your spitballing here. It is contrary to the very basics of modern science. Observation is the very first thing done, for good reasons, of which there are more than one.
> I think you have that backwards. First hypothesis, then observations to
> test them. Of course it's what's called "reciprocal illumination".
> Hypothesis suggests where to look for data, data suggest what hypotheses
> to come up with.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that you talked yourself into believing that.

> > Now me? What can become of this one topic? Clearly there can be no meaningful interchange of reason between us, since you'll talk your way out of anything, including the most silly claim that hypotheses don't need observations. Perhaps that is what you think I believe or practice, maybe unconsciously, so you throw it at me like a bone. Nothing can come of such interactions, John.
> I think we can all agree that nothing can come of trying to interact
> with you. That's a well-tested hypothesis.

So observation not first, eh.

But you are likely right about that, just not how you think you are right.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Graphite, diamond & buckyballs are pure & stable carbon, thus static; life forms are never pure & stable; elsewise dynamic evolution wouldn't occur.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Ok, not my claim.

> Daud's position seems to be that the existence of 5-fold rings in
> fullerene causes organisms to have a tendency to produce parts in fives,
> though he goes beyond that in his claim that 5 digits is primitive in
> vertebrates (the primitive state in lobe fins seems to be limb skeletal
> elements in powers of 2). As far as I can see he has neither proposed a
> mechanism linking the proposed cause and effect, nor done a study to
> demonstrate that there is any bias towards the number 5. The hypothesis
> for chirality in biological molecules is a paragon of rigour in comparison.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

I focus on the spheroidal cage shape, not the '5 fold chirality'. Pentagons can be found in many other polyhedra which are NOT spheroidal thus irrelevant to my claims. The 12 pentagonal junctures in the vertex-truncated icosahedron (C60 buckyball are simply the smallest windows in the otherwise hexagonal spherical cage.

[Glenn]

Seems you think evolution may be predictable. This may interest you;

'But an international team of scientists has found that a particular plant lineage independently evolved three similar leaf types over and over again in mountainous regions scattered throughout the neotropics. "

"The findings provided the first examples in plants of a phenomenon known as "replicated radiation," in which similar forms evolve repeatedly within different regions, suggesting that evolution is not always such a random process but can be predicted."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220720150558.htm

I wonder if John can say 'predictable" without chapping his lips.

[John Harshman]

There's a fine book about this sort of thing: Improbable Destinies by
Jonathan Losos. I recommend it.

[John Harshman]

So in that case buckyballs are irrelevant to evolution. And the fact
that two things have carbon in them is not any sort of reasonable
connection. What you're talking about resembles the origin of life less
than it resembles the origin of the Flash. Have you considered
radioactive spiders?

[jillery]

Not sure why at least one of the many posters who regularly twist
their knickers over other posters' "mindless back and forth" threads
haven't dropped their drawers over this thread.

Presuming the following ... Socratic dialog ... has its genesis in a
separate topic started by Glenn parroting this EvolutionNews article:

<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/07/bizarre-bird-highlights-the-problem-of-biogeography/>

That article refers to this ScienceDaily article:

<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004175929.htm>

which in turn refers to this paywalled original paper:

<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-011-0849-1>

The link above provides this abstract:
*******************************************
We describe the earliest fossils of the enigmatic avian taxon
Opisthocomiformes (hoatzins) from the Oligo-Miocene (22–24 mya) of
Brazil. The bones, a humerus, scapula and coracoid, closely resemble
those of the extant hoatzin, Opisthocomus hoazin. The very similar
osteology of the pectoral girdle in the new Brazilian fossil compared
to the extant O. hoazin, in which it reflects peculiar feeding
adaptations, may indicate that hoatzins had already evolved their
highly specialized feeding behavior by the mid-Cenozoic. We further
show that Namibiavis senutae from the early Miocene of Namibia is
another, previously misclassified representative of Opisthocomiformes,
which documents that the extant Neotropic distribution of hoatzins is
relictual. Because of the weak flight capabilities of hoatzins, their
occurrence on both sides of the South Atlantic is of particular
biogeographic interest. We detail that this distribution pattern is
best explained by dispersal from Africa to South America, and that
Opisthocomiformes provide the first example of transatlantic rafting
among birds.
*********************************************

So the article explicitly identifies a fossil species that is *not*
the extant species, but instead is related and likely shared their
"highly specialized feeding behavior". Both are but two species of a
once much larger and wider-ranged taxonomic family, including those
from Europe and central Africa, and perhaps even North America,
although no fossils of them have been found there.

So what is this specialized feeding behavior? According to Wikipedia:
**************************************
it eats the leaves (and to a lesser degree fruits and flowers) of the
plants that grow in the marshy and riverine habitats where it lives.

...

the species is now known to consume the leaves of more than fifty
species

...

Hoatzins use bacterial fermentation in the front part of the gut to
break down the vegetable material they consume.

...

has an unusually large crop, folded in two chambers, and a large,
multi-chambered lower esophagus.

...

so large as to displace the flight muscles and keel of the sternum,
much to the detriment of their flight capacity.
***************************************

These adaptations are highly derived compared to other birds, which
typically rely on more digestible and higher-energy foods. However,
these adaptations would work well in any environment with an abundance
of vegetation and minimal need for defensive flying, such as found in
central South America where extant hoatzin live.

Such environments were more common during the warmer, wetter Miocene
than today. This suggests to me that Hoatzin-like species were well
distributed all around the Miocene Atlantic, and that such
environments regularly broke off large vegetable mats into the ocean,
as is observed in modern times, and that any hoatzin-like individuals
on those mats would be involuntary prisoners, unable to fly or swim
away, tied to the destinies of their prisons, to either sink and
drown, or to make landfall elsewhere.

The expressed skepticism of the EvolutionNews authors is based on the
large distance between South America and Africa during the Miocene.
Even though the seaworthiness of these vegetable mats is poor, when it
happens often enough, it's almost certain at least one would make
landfall somewhere. And when there are pan-Atlantic hoatzin
populations, it's almost certain at least one of those hoatzin-laden
mats, whether from Africa or elsewhere, would successfully float to
South America. It only had to happen once.


On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 17:35:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Glenn]

Wow, so I stand educated. They prove the first example of transatlantic rafting among birds. Where's the evidence of the raft, though, I wonder. Oh psh, I don't need that.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Sorry, wrong.

And the fact
> that two things have carbon in them is not any sort of reasonable
> connection.

Sorry, wrong.


Snip diversion: What you're talking about resembles the origin of life less

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Why not diamond and charcoal while you're at it? What this exchange
illustrates is Daud's utter cluelessness about the difficulties of
explaining hiw life arose.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 23:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Actually, you do need that in order to make an informed objection to
it. But having no idea what you're talking about never stopped you
from mindlessly trolling.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Bubbles, Bubba, bubbles. Life could not have begun without them.

[J. J. Lodder]

daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of
> the egg cell / seed, spore etc.

So the polycoons shouldn't exist, according to you?

Fact: the polycoons are a breed of the Maine Coon cats.
They evolved over three hundred years as semi-wild farm cats,
they naturally selected themselves, and they breed true.

They may well survive humans, as a (sub)species,

Jan

[daud....@gmail.com]

Naturally selected themselves?

[Glenn]

This is actually a good example of you not knowing what you are talking about. Evidence.

[J. J. Lodder]

Missing sense of humour?

Jan

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 2:50:07 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 7:35:07 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> > > > primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of
> > > > the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> > > So the polycoons shouldn't exist, according to you?
> > >
> > > Fact: the polycoons are a breed of the Maine Coon cats.
> > > They evolved over three hundred years as semi-wild farm cats,
> > > they naturally selected themselves, and they breed true.
> > >
> > > They may well survive humans, as a (sub)species,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Naturally selected themselves?
> Missing sense of humour?
>
> Jan

If that's humour, you can stuff it in your jockstrap/bra.

[J. J. Lodder]

So you avoid the point,

Jan

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 09:06:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

So "example" and "evidence" are two more words you have no idea what
they mean.

[Glenn]

So "actually" and "about" are two more words you have no idea what they mean.

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 06:24:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

So actually you have no idea what you're talking about...

...and are proud of it.

[Glenn]

So actually you have no idea what you're talking about, and are proud of it.

What are you, about 6 years old?

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 12:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>What are you, about 6 years old?

Are you hoping to find someone who thinks you clever? If so, think
even younger. You wouldn't convince an average 6yo.

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 3:40:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2022-07-22 03:12:02 +0000, John Harshman said:
>
> > On 7/21/22 7:57 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:25:05 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 7/21/22 1:09 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 3:45:06 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 3:15:05 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/21/22 9:32 AM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/21/22 7:07 AM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 12:05:05 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/22 7:25 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:41:08 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 6:21:08 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 04:56:06 UTC+1, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/22 5:25 PM, erik simpson wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> If you visit sci.lang you will see that Daud Deden frequently uses the
> same logic in his linguistic ramblings. You notice that the words kayık
> in Turkish and kayak in Inuit (and now English) both mean "boat". Is
> this just a coincidence, or does it have a deep significance?
> >
> >> "I know you believe you understand what you thought I said.
> >> But I don’t think you realize what you heard was not what I meant".

> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Siberia Turkic speaking region
https://images.app.goo.gl/7tT76eRYKp1Kdesq9

Siberia Eskimoan speaking region
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Russia_-_Eskimos_Tchouktches(2008-03).png

[daud....@gmail.com]

Kayaks & dogsled used to trade obsidian 2km
https://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/proof-of-a-2000-kilometre-polar-trade-route-in-volcanic-glass-dating-back-at-least-8000-years/?comm_order=best

[J. J. Lodder]

daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of
> the egg cell / seed, spore etc.

[once again]
So you go on using a lame excuse to avoid a pertinent question:
If five digits is such a primitive trait,
how come polycoons can develop a fully functional
six-toed/six-fingered subspecies in a mere hundred years?

Jan

[daud....@gmail.com]

At sea 6-toed cats were favored by sailing ship captains & crew for their greater stability on storm-tossed decks.
As I said, number of digits could increase or decrease depending on their advantages.

[J. J. Lodder]

daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> > > primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of
> > > the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> > [once again]
> > So you go on using a lame excuse to avoid a pertinent question:
> > If five digits is such a primitive trait,
> > how come polycoons can develop a fully functional
> > six-toed/six-fingered subspecies in a mere hundred years?
> >
> > Jan
>
> At sea 6-toed cats were favored by sailing ship captains & crew for their

> Agreater stability on storm-tossed decks. s I said, number of digits could
> Aincrease or decrease depending on their advantages.

ROTFL. Do you really tink that a cat would venture on deck in a storm?
Another theory:
the bigger paws are an advantge when walking on fresh snow.
(snowshoe effect)
And yet another: more suitable for catching fish. (yes coons do that)
And finally, it may just have happened without a good reason.

Anyway, the variability is good reason for not believing
in 'extremely primitive trait'.

BTW, polydactyly is the most common visible mutation in humans too.
Nowadays the surgeon usually interferes with the visibility,

Jan

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 5:25:04 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > daud....@gmail.com <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> > > > primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of
> > > > the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> > > [once again]
> > > So you go on using a lame excuse to avoid a pertinent question:
> > > If five digits is such a primitive trait,
> > > how come polycoons can develop a fully functional
> > > six-toed/six-fingered subspecies in a mere hundred years?
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > At sea 6-toed cats were favored by sailing ship captains & crew for their
> > Agreater stability on storm-tossed decks. s I said, number of digits could
> > Aincrease or decrease depending on their advantages.
>
> ROTFL. Do you really tink that a cat would venture on deck in a storm?

I haven't sailed any ships. My cat doesn't like being in my swaying hammock.
I really meant to say 'stability on (all) decks in wavey seas'.

> Another theory:
> the bigger paws are an advantge when walking on fresh snow.
> (snowshoe effect)
> And yet another: more suitable for catching fish. (yes coons do that)
> And finally, it may just have happened without a good reason.
>
> Anyway, the variability is good reason for not believing
> in 'extremely primitive trait'.

There are many reasons to believe the common pentadactyle condition is not primitive.
I seek to determine if there is a plausible explanation via geometry of spherical bodies.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Polycylindrihedra: spherical crystalline & digit inorganic and organic forms, geodesic spatial structures Lecture by Joe Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J19eV7Z1x3M

[increase lifespan]

Increase lifespan with Calcium alpha-ketoglutarate (Ca-AKG)!!

https://calcium-alpha-ketoglutarate.blogspot.com/2022/09/calcium-alpha-ketoglutarate-extends.html

Ca-Akg is a simple, safe and effictive way to live longer and healthier.

[Robert Carnegie]

Warning: proven to work on nematode worms and mice.

So if you're infested with either, then just say no.

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:00:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Warning: proven to work on nematode worms and mice.
>
> So if you're infested with either, then just say no.

-

information: James Rawson et al, Early tetrapod cranial evolution is characterised by increased complexity, constraint and an offset from fin-limb evolution, Science Advances (2022). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adc8875. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adc8875

Journal information: Science Advances

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
>

> There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU