Evolution and turkeys for Thanksgiving

[RonO]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/thanksgiving-turkey-s-history-actually-starts-southern-hemisphere-dinosaurs-ncna1284508

This is a take on where your Thanksgiving Turkey comes from, but it
doesn't get everything quite right. Turkeys are birds and do have dino
ancestors, but genetic evidence indicates that Turkeys are one of the
species (There is a group of related turkey-like species in the
Americas) that they think made it across what was the Atlantic around 40
million years ago along with some other lineages like monkeys. So some
of their dino ancestors may have lived on what is the Americas, but
their more immediate old world avian ancestors likely evolved in Africa
and Asia and crossed over to the Americas after the super continent
broke up.

There were recent posts about fossil evidence supporting the genetic
evidence about when monkeys made it over to South America by around 35
million years ago.

I saw a paper where they were speculating that North American turkeys
were introduced in the the US as domestic animals and went feral. Even
between the regional US subspecies there isn't much genetic variation.
So there seems to have been a pretty limited population that made it
into the US from Mexico and spread out.

Ron Okimoto

[Ernest Major]

On 25/11/2021 13:04, RonO wrote:
> https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/thanksgiving-turkey-s-history-actually-starts-southern-hemisphere-dinosaurs-ncna1284508
>
>
> This is a take on where your Thanksgiving Turkey comes from, but it
> doesn't get everything quite right.  Turkeys are birds and do have dino
> ancestors, but genetic evidence indicates that Turkeys are one of the
> species (There is a group of related turkey-like species in the
> Americas) that they think made it across what was the Atlantic around 40
> million years ago along with some other lineages like monkeys.  So some
> of their dino ancestors may have lived on what is the Americas, but
> their more immediate old world avian ancestors likely evolved in Africa
> and Asia and crossed over to the Americas after the super continent
> broke up.

Do I see them committing the ladder fallacy?

Anyway the cladogram in Wikipedia's article on Phaisanidae has the
turkey basal to the grouse clade, which is a Holarctic group.

>
> There were recent posts about fossil evidence supporting the genetic
> evidence about when monkeys made it over to South America by around 35
> million years ago.
>
> I saw a paper where they were speculating that North American turkeys
> were introduced in the the US as domestic animals and went feral.  Even
> between the regional US subspecies there isn't much genetic variation.
> So there seems to have been a pretty limited population that made it
> into the US from Mexico and spread out.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

On 11/25/2021 8:48 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 13:04, RonO wrote:
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/thanksgiving-turkey-s-history-actually-starts-southern-hemisphere-dinosaurs-ncna1284508
>>
>>
>> This is a take on where your Thanksgiving Turkey comes from, but it
>> doesn't get everything quite right.  Turkeys are birds and do have
>> dino ancestors, but genetic evidence indicates that Turkeys are one of
>> the species (There is a group of related turkey-like species in the
>> Americas) that they think made it across what was the Atlantic around
>> 40 million years ago along with some other lineages like monkeys.  So
>> some of their dino ancestors may have lived on what is the Americas,
>> but their more immediate old world avian ancestors likely evolved in
>> Africa and Asia and crossed over to the Americas after the super
>> continent broke up.
>
> Do I see them committing the ladder fallacy?
>
> Anyway the cladogram in Wikipedia's article on Phaisanidae has the
> turkey basal to the grouse clade, which is a Holarctic group.

A lot of their relatives are in Asia, but the lineage leading to Turkeys
apparently moved down into Africa, and then across to South America.

Harshman likely has a better perspective. Turkeys were placed in
various phylogenetic relationships over the years. I don't know what
the most recent placement is with the whole genome sequences.

Looking at their South American relatives they likely looked more like
guinea fowl when they came from Africa, but had some type of tail useful
for display.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> There were recent posts about fossil evidence supporting the genetic
>> evidence about when monkeys made it over to South America by around 35
>> million years ago.
>>
>> I saw a paper where they were speculating that North American turkeys
>> were introduced in the the US as domestic animals and went feral.
>> Even between the regional US subspecies there isn't much genetic
>> variation. So there seems to have been a pretty limited population
>> that made it into the US from Mexico and spread out.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
>

A

[John Harshman]

On 11/25/21 7:30 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/25/2021 8:48 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 13:04, RonO wrote:
>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/thanksgiving-turkey-s-history-actually-starts-southern-hemisphere-dinosaurs-ncna1284508
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a take on where your Thanksgiving Turkey comes from, but it
>>> doesn't get everything quite right.  Turkeys are birds and do have
>>> dino ancestors, but genetic evidence indicates that Turkeys are one
>>> of the species (There is a group of related turkey-like species in
>>> the Americas) that they think made it across what was the Atlantic
>>> around 40 million years ago along with some other lineages like
>>> monkeys.  So some of their dino ancestors may have lived on what is
>>> the Americas, but their more immediate old world avian ancestors
>>> likely evolved in Africa and Asia and crossed over to the Americas
>>> after the super continent broke up.
>>
>> Do I see them committing the ladder fallacy?
>>
>> Anyway the cladogram in Wikipedia's article on Phaisanidae has the
>> turkey basal to the grouse clade, which is a Holarctic group.
>
> A lot of their relatives are in Asia, but the lineage leading to Turkeys
> apparently moved down into Africa, and then across to South America.

I'm not seeing the evidence for that. Where did you get it? The
execrable science "journalism" article you cite is talking about the
Cretaceous ancestors of all galliforms and, as far as I can see, says
nothing about turkeys moving from Africa to South America. One must
always be cautious about using current distribution to infer past
distribution, but turkeys don't live in South America, where the only
galliforms are cracids and odontophorids, both of them as far from
turkeys as from the rest of the phasianids. Turkeys presumably
originated in Central America, and if we believe phylogeny tells us
anything about it, their ancestors would have come from the north.

> Harshman likely has a better perspective.  Turkeys were placed in
> various phylogenetic relationships over the years.  I don't know what
> the most recent placement is with the whole genome sequences.

You don't really need whole genome sequences. The Wikipedia tree looks
accurate to me.

> Looking at their South American relatives they likely looked more like
> guinea fowl when they came from Africa, but had some type of tail useful
> for display.

Turkeys have no South American relatives except those shared with all
other phasianids. There are no South American phasianids. And I know
nothing about the South American fossil record of galliforms, if there
is one.

>>>
>>> There were recent posts about fossil evidence supporting the genetic
>>> evidence about when monkeys made it over to South America by around
>>> 35 million years ago.

Incidentally, the fossil evidence precedes the genetic evidence.

[RonO]

It was some researcher that estimated the divergence of turkeys from
other gallinaceous fowl of around 40 million years ago. They speculated
that they came over when monkeys came over (same separation estimate).
It may have been a talk that I heard instead of a paper.

>
>> Harshman likely has a better perspective.  Turkeys were placed in
>> various phylogenetic relationships over the years.  I don't know what
>> the most recent placement is with the whole genome sequences.
>
> You don't really need whole genome sequences. The Wikipedia tree looks
> accurate to me.
>
>> Looking at their South American relatives they likely looked more like
>> guinea fowl when they came from Africa, but had some type of tail
>> useful for display.
>
> Turkeys have no South American relatives except those shared with all
> other phasianids. There are no South American phasianids. And I know
> nothing about the South American fossil record of galliforms, if there
> is one.

I didn't know about no South American relatives. Another talk that I
saw more recently looked at the genetics of North American subspecies
and there wasn't much genetic variation found in the US populations
compared to what was in Mexico. She thought that only a small bit of
the population invaded territory as it opened up after the last glacial
period. She mentioned an older notion that Turkeys may have been
introduced into the US as a domestic bird. She didn't endorse the idea
she just noted the narrow genetic base.

Ron Okimoto

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

If you haven't seen it the following article is interesting:

https://ygursey1.blogspot.com/

Our ancestors thought they came from Turkey, but others had other
ideas: the Turks thought they came from India; the Indians thought they
came from Peru...

Yusuf Gürsey posts the information every year at this time.


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

[Glenn]

Suspecting that such a journey may have taken months, even if successful, the monkeys realized that they needed
more reliable means of navigation, and so enlisted the help of the turkeys to substitute for sails. No one knows
whether the turkeys were promised to be returned to their homelands, or what compensation, if any, they expected to
receive for their invaluable help. But is it likely, and very well may be, that the monkeys were aware of the turkey's plight
upon arrival, and to avoid the responsibility and possible criminal liability, sent the turkeys off on a wild goose chase
toward North America via the North Star. Turkeys, as everyone knows, are very poor celestial navigators.

[Glenn]

At least some of Ron's ancestors came from Japan. I doubt they thought they came from Turkey.

[John Harshman]

Not sure what that person was talking about or what was meant by "other
gallinaceous fowl". But the relevant "other galinaceous fowl" would be
the sister group, which would be grouse. Grouse are not African but
Holarctic, as Ernest mentioned. Contrast that with the sister groups of
NW monkeys and hystricomorphs, which are indeed African.

I'm also dubious that the separation between turkeys and grouse could be
as much as 40 million years ago.

>>> Harshman likely has a better perspective.  Turkeys were placed in
>>> various phylogenetic relationships over the years.  I don't know what
>>> the most recent placement is with the whole genome sequences.
>>
>> You don't really need whole genome sequences. The Wikipedia tree looks
>> accurate to me.
>>
>>> Looking at their South American relatives they likely looked more
>>> like guinea fowl when they came from Africa, but had some type of
>>> tail useful for display.
>>
>> Turkeys have no South American relatives except those shared with all
>> other phasianids. There are no South American phasianids. And I know
>> nothing about the South American fossil record of galliforms, if there
>> is one.
>
> I didn't know about no South American relatives.  Another talk that I
> saw more recently looked at the genetics of North American subspecies
> and there wasn't much genetic variation found in the US populations
> compared to what was in Mexico.  She thought that only a small bit of
> the population invaded territory as it opened up after the last glacial
> period.  She mentioned an older notion that Turkeys may have been
> introduced into the US as a domestic bird.  She didn't endorse the idea
> she just noted the narrow genetic base.

Looks as if the few known South American fossil galliforms are all
cracids, the family of guans, curassows, and chachalacas. This is not
conducive to the theory of turkeys from Africa by way of South America.

[RonO]

What is worse than what you claim isn't good enough?

Sad but true, and you have to deal with that fact every time you put up
this type of denial.

Denial isn't anything worth wallowing in when you have to run from the
best that you have ever had.

Top Six of IDiocy:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Gobble gobble.

[Ernest Major]

Older opinion had turkeys in a separate family Meleagrididae (sometimes
Meleagridae), rather than deeply nested within Phaisanidae. That implies
a different opinion as to their sister group. That opinion being
Numididae would fit with Ron's recollections.

Wikipedia tells me that Odontophoridae has two subfamilies - one African
and one New World, so that would be a candidate for an example of
trans-Atlantic dispersal.

--
alias Ernest Major

[GlennS]

There are no examples of trans-Atlantic dispersals.

[John Harshman]

Cattle egrets.

[John Harshman]

Well, there's a problem with attributing such motives to pre-cladistic
taxonomy, since their goal was not to identify clades or sister groups.
Turkeys were given a separate family (as were grouse too: Tetraonidae)
because they were viewed as sufficiently distinct in some way from
pheasants and chickens, not because they were assumed to be sister to
guinea fowl.

> Wikipedia tells me that Odontophoridae has two subfamilies - one African
> and one New World, so that would be a candidate for an example of
> trans-Atlantic dispersal.

That's true, which makes that particular scenario marginally more plausible.

[GlennS]

Everyone knows of course that quail, pheasants and turkeys can fly thousands of miles, but even if you wish to claim ancestors could, where is the example? You have inference, just like with monkeys. Are inferences examples, science boy?

[John Harshman]

They are if they're strong enough, anti-science boy. But I mentioned
cattle egrets because they're a recent example. Are you denying that
their presence in the Americas is a result of trans-Atlantic dispersal?
No, of course you aren't, because you never confirm or deny anything.
You prefer to snipe from the shadows. But seriously, there's no credible
alternative here.

One might also mention various species found in both Africa and South
America. What other possible explanation is there than trans-Atlantic
dispersal for the distribution of comb ducks (Sarkidiornis melanotos) or
white-faced whistling ducks (Dendrocygna viduata) or fulvous whistling
ducks (Dendrocygna bicolor)?

[GlennS]

I consider "trans-Atlantic dispersal" to be by sea. And I've said before on the subject that I have no problem with birds migrating for long distances.

But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.

Are inferences examples?

[RonO]

The saddest thing is this is as good as you get.

What is not as good as your own determination of what is not good
enough? Why go on making such a fool of yourself?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Thanks.

[John Harshman]

Well, if you're going to use a private definition of a term, you
shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.

> But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.
>
> Are inferences examples?

Asked and answered. But I will elaborate. Since everything we know in
science is by inference, yes, inferences are examples. We infer that
cattle egrets crossed the Atlantic because at one time they were only on
the east side and at a later time they were also on the west side. And
this is in fact an example of trans-Atlantic dispersal, one that can be
pinned down to an interval of a few years before 1930.

I'd say that the ducks you snipped are examples too, there being no
reasonable alternative to the inference of trans-Atlantic dispersal.

[Glenn]

"Oceanic dispersal is a type of biological dispersal that occurs when terrestrial organisms transfer from one land mass to another by way of a sea crossing. Island hopping is the crossing of an ocean by a series of shorter journeys between islands, as opposed to a single journey directly to the destination. "

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

Care for some pi?

> > But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.
> >
> > Are inferences examples?
> Asked and answered. But I will elaborate. Since everything we know in
> science is by inference, yes, inferences are examples. We infer that
> cattle egrets crossed the Atlantic because at one time they were only on
> the east side and at a later time they were also on the west side. And
> this is in fact an example of trans-Atlantic dispersal, one that can be
> pinned down to an interval of a few years before 1930.
>
> I'd say that the ducks you snipped are examples too, there being no
> reasonable alternative to the inference of trans-Atlantic dispersal.

I wasn't aware of snipping any ducks, but your idea of what is "reasonable" is questionable, as are most such stories.
But I consider "example" in such context as above, to be "evidence", which is "fact".
You've made this "everything is inference" argument before. It's absurd.
There are monkeys in Africa. That is a fact, and examples can be documented. There are monkeys in South America. That is a fact, and can be documented. Whether and how certain monkeys got to be where they are can be documented, and factual. Stories about how they got where they are without those documented facts, are just that, stories, not "examples".

[John Harshman]

You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.

>>> But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.
>>>
>>> Are inferences examples?
>> Asked and answered. But I will elaborate. Since everything we know in
>> science is by inference, yes, inferences are examples. We infer that
>> cattle egrets crossed the Atlantic because at one time they were only on
>> the east side and at a later time they were also on the west side. And
>> this is in fact an example of trans-Atlantic dispersal, one that can be
>> pinned down to an interval of a few years before 1930.
>>
>> I'd say that the ducks you snipped are examples too, there being no
>> reasonable alternative to the inference of trans-Atlantic dispersal.
>
> I wasn't aware of snipping any ducks, but your idea of what is "reasonable" is questionable, as are most such stories.
> But I consider "example" in such context as above, to be "evidence", which is "fact".
> You've made this "everything is inference" argument before. It's absurd.
> There are monkeys in Africa. That is a fact, and examples can be documented. There are monkeys in South America. That is a fact, and can be documented. Whether and how certain monkeys got to be where they are can be documented, and factual. Stories about how they got where they are without those documented facts, are just that, stories, not "examples".

You appear not to recall a number of things you do. Let me restore the
text: "One might also mention various species found in both Africa and

South America. What other possible explanation is there than
trans-Atlantic dispersal for the distribution of comb ducks
(Sarkidiornis melanotos) or white-faced whistling ducks (Dendrocygna
viduata) or fulvous whistling ducks (Dendrocygna bicolor)?"

It's also a fact that South American monkeys are related by descent to
African monkeys. And it's a fact that monkeys are known from Africa long
before they're known from South America. The unavoidable inference is
that somehow monkeys (and hytricomorph rodents, at the same time) got to
South America from Africa. Can we agree on any of that?

Is there a credible hypothesis of how cattle egrets came to be
distributed as they are today that doesn't involve them crossing the
Atlantic? Ditto for the ducks you snipped and I restored.

[RonO]

Snipping and lying are about all that can be expected out of you.

REPOST:

The saddest thing is this is as good as you get.

What is not as good as your own determination of what is not good
enough? Why go on making such a fool of yourself?

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Are you seriously comparing the ability of cattle egrets to fly with ancestors of turkeys, as evidence of their ability to fly long distances?

> >>>
> >>> I consider "trans-Atlantic dispersal" to be by sea. And I've said before on the subject that I have no problem with birds migrating for long distances.
> >> Well, if you're going to use a private definition of a term, you
> >> shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.
> >
> > "Oceanic dispersal is a type of biological dispersal that occurs when terrestrial organisms transfer from one land mass to another by way of a sea crossing. Island hopping is the crossing of an ocean by a series of shorter journeys between islands, as opposed to a single journey directly to the destination."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal
> >
> > Care for some pi?
> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.

That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.

> >>> But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.
> >>>
> >>> Are inferences examples?
> >> Asked and answered. But I will elaborate. Since everything we know in
> >> science is by inference, yes, inferences are examples. We infer that
> >> cattle egrets crossed the Atlantic because at one time they were only on
> >> the east side and at a later time they were also on the west side. And
> >> this is in fact an example of trans-Atlantic dispersal, one that can be
> >> pinned down to an interval of a few years before 1930.
> >>
> >> I'd say that the ducks you snipped are examples too, there being no
> >> reasonable alternative to the inference of trans-Atlantic dispersal.
> >
> > I wasn't aware of snipping any ducks, but your idea of what is "reasonable" is questionable, as are most such stories.
> > But I consider "example" in such context as above, to be "evidence", which is "fact".
> > You've made this "everything is inference" argument before. It's absurd.
> > There are monkeys in Africa. That is a fact, and examples can be documented. There are monkeys in South America. That is a fact, and can be documented. Whether and how certain monkeys got to be where they are can be documented, and factual. Stories about how they got where they are without those documented facts, are just that, stories, not "examples".
> You appear not to recall a number of things you do.

Support that.

>Let me restore the
> text: "One might also mention various species found in both Africa and
> South America. What other possible explanation is there than
> trans-Atlantic dispersal for the distribution of comb ducks
> (Sarkidiornis melanotos) or white-faced whistling ducks (Dendrocygna
> viduata) or fulvous whistling ducks (Dendrocygna bicolor)?"

Are you not aware that ducks can fly long distances?
Are you aware that turkeys can not?

> It's also a fact that South American monkeys are related by descent to
> African monkeys. And it's a fact that monkeys are known from Africa long
> before they're known from South America. The unavoidable inference is
> that somehow monkeys (and hytricomorph rodents, at the same time) got to
> South America from Africa. Can we agree on any of that?

I haven't disagree in principle with any of that, for purposes of the discussion about how such migrations have and could occur. However I consider such theories and hypotheses to be conditional. For one, I don't consider common descent to be "fact", even in context to your monkey story above.
.

>
> Is there a credible hypothesis of how cattle egrets came to be
> distributed as they are today that doesn't involve them crossing the
> Atlantic? Ditto for the ducks you snipped and I restored.

Again, turkeys are not ducks. And again, there is no evidence that it is at all possible that floating vegetation mats or logs or island hopping could have allowed such long distance travel, by rat, monkey, turkey or evolutionist.

[jillery]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:04:33 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
>
>That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.

You should be aware of the fact that the flying abilities of modern
turkey says nothing about the abilities of their ancestors 30 mya.

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

[John Harshman]

No. That was your fantasy conversation with yourself. Turkeys clearly
didn't disperse across the Atlantic. Their closest relatives are Holarctic.

>>>>> I consider "trans-Atlantic dispersal" to be by sea. And I've said before on the subject that I have no problem with birds migrating for long distances.
>>>> Well, if you're going to use a private definition of a term, you
>>>> shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.
>>>
>>> "Oceanic dispersal is a type of biological dispersal that occurs when terrestrial organisms transfer from one land mass to another by way of a sea crossing. Island hopping is the crossing of an ocean by a series of shorter journeys between islands, as opposed to a single journey directly to the destination."
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal
>>>
>>> Care for some pi?
>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
>
> That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.

Appearances are deceiving, especially when you work hard to be deceived.
Again: turkeys clearly didn't cross the Atlantic.

>>>>> But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are inferences examples?
>>>> Asked and answered. But I will elaborate. Since everything we know in
>>>> science is by inference, yes, inferences are examples. We infer that
>>>> cattle egrets crossed the Atlantic because at one time they were only on
>>>> the east side and at a later time they were also on the west side. And
>>>> this is in fact an example of trans-Atlantic dispersal, one that can be
>>>> pinned down to an interval of a few years before 1930.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say that the ducks you snipped are examples too, there being no
>>>> reasonable alternative to the inference of trans-Atlantic dispersal.
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware of snipping any ducks, but your idea of what is "reasonable" is questionable, as are most such stories.
>>> But I consider "example" in such context as above, to be "evidence", which is "fact".
>>> You've made this "everything is inference" argument before. It's absurd.
>>> There are monkeys in Africa. That is a fact, and examples can be documented. There are monkeys in South America. That is a fact, and can be documented. Whether and how certain monkeys got to be where they are can be documented, and factual. Stories about how they got where they are without those documented facts, are just that, stories, not "examples".
>> You appear not to recall a number of things you do.
>
> Support that.

See below.

>> Let me restore the
>> text: "One might also mention various species found in both Africa and
>> South America. What other possible explanation is there than
>> trans-Atlantic dispersal for the distribution of comb ducks
>> (Sarkidiornis melanotos) or white-faced whistling ducks (Dendrocygna
>> viduata) or fulvous whistling ducks (Dendrocygna bicolor)?"
>
> Are you not aware that ducks can fly long distances?
> Are you aware that turkeys can not?

Well aware. You said that there were no known cases of trans-Atlantic
dispersal. I pointed out several. That's all. Nothing about turkeys, or
relevant to turkeys.

>> It's also a fact that South American monkeys are related by descent to
>> African monkeys. And it's a fact that monkeys are known from Africa long
>> before they're known from South America. The unavoidable inference is
>> that somehow monkeys (and hytricomorph rodents, at the same time) got to
>> South America from Africa. Can we agree on any of that?
>
> I haven't disagree in principle with any of that, for purposes of the discussion about how such migrations have and could occur. However I consider such theories and hypotheses to be conditional. For one, I don't consider common descent to be "fact", even in context to your monkey story above.

That's a problem for you, since the evidence for common descent is
overwhelming. It's a fact. Get used to it.

>> Is there a credible hypothesis of how cattle egrets came to be
>> distributed as they are today that doesn't involve them crossing the
>> Atlantic? Ditto for the ducks you snipped and I restored.
>
> Again, turkeys are not ducks. And again, there is no evidence that it is at all possible that floating vegetation mats or logs or island hopping could have allowed such long distance travel, by rat, monkey, turkey or evolutionist.

You avoided my questions. And once again: turkeys did not cross the
Atlantic.

[John Harshman]

On 11/26/21 12:32 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:04:33 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
>>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
>>
>> That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.
>
>
> You should be aware of the fact that the flying abilities of modern
> turkey says nothing about the abilities of their ancestors 30 mya.
>

But the mapping of flying ability onto a phylogenetic tree does, and no
living galliform is a strong long-distance flier. Thus we infer the same
about the ancestral galliform.

[Glenn]

The problem you have with this attempt is that I said "ancestors of turkeys". I expect such deceit from you , John boy.
And you weren't talking about ancestors of cattle egrets. But you did avoid making claims about the ancestors of turkeys.

> >>>>> I consider "trans-Atlantic dispersal" to be by sea. And I've said before on the subject that I have no problem with birds migrating for long distances.
> >>>> Well, if you're going to use a private definition of a term, you
> >>>> shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.
> >>>
> >>> "Oceanic dispersal is a type of biological dispersal that occurs when terrestrial organisms transfer from one land mass to another by way of a sea crossing. Island hopping is the crossing of an ocean by a series of shorter journeys between islands, as opposed to a single journey directly to the destination."
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal
> >>>
> >>> Care for some pi?
> >> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
> >> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
> >
> > That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.
> Appearances are deceiving, especially when you work hard to be deceived.
> Again: turkeys clearly didn't cross the Atlantic.

Again you seem to have overlooked the words "ancestors of turkeys" in your zeal to make a fool of yourself. And again, you don't actually respond to what I said. perhaps you deceive yourself.

> >>>>> But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are inferences examples?
> >>>> Asked and answered. But I will elaborate. Since everything we know in
> >>>> science is by inference, yes, inferences are examples. We infer that
> >>>> cattle egrets crossed the Atlantic because at one time they were only on
> >>>> the east side and at a later time they were also on the west side. And
> >>>> this is in fact an example of trans-Atlantic dispersal, one that can be
> >>>> pinned down to an interval of a few years before 1930.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd say that the ducks you snipped are examples too, there being no
> >>>> reasonable alternative to the inference of trans-Atlantic dispersal.
> >>>
> >>> I wasn't aware of snipping any ducks, but your idea of what is "reasonable" is questionable, as are most such stories.
> >>> But I consider "example" in such context as above, to be "evidence", which is "fact".
> >>> You've made this "everything is inference" argument before. It's absurd.
> >>> There are monkeys in Africa. That is a fact, and examples can be documented. There are monkeys in South America. That is a fact, and can be documented. Whether and how certain monkeys got to be where they are can be documented, and factual. Stories about how they got where they are without those documented facts, are just that, stories, not "examples".
> >> You appear not to recall a number of things you do.
> >
> > Support that.
> See below.

You bet.

> >> Let me restore the
> >> text: "One might also mention various species found in both Africa and
> >> South America. What other possible explanation is there than
> >> trans-Atlantic dispersal for the distribution of comb ducks
> >> (Sarkidiornis melanotos) or white-faced whistling ducks (Dendrocygna
> >> viduata) or fulvous whistling ducks (Dendrocygna bicolor)?"
> >
> > Are you not aware that ducks can fly long distances?
> > Are you aware that turkeys can not?
> Well aware. You said that there were no known cases of trans-Atlantic
> dispersal. I pointed out several. That's all. Nothing about turkeys, or
> relevant to turkeys.

And nothing about 30 million year old ancestors of ducks either, but you had no problem making them examples, along with other birds.

You also seem to rely heavily on use of the word 'dispersal" and likely hope the word "migration" doesn't pop up.

Have you considered that the ancestors of turkeys could have crossed the Atlantic on rafts?

> >> It's also a fact that South American monkeys are related by descent to
> >> African monkeys. And it's a fact that monkeys are known from Africa long
> >> before they're known from South America. The unavoidable inference is
> >> that somehow monkeys (and hytricomorph rodents, at the same time) got to
> >> South America from Africa. Can we agree on any of that?
> >
> > I haven't disagree in principle with any of that, for purposes of the discussion about how such migrations have and could occur. However I consider such theories and hypotheses to be conditional. For one, I don't consider common descent to be "fact", even in context to your monkey story above.
> That's a problem for you, since the evidence for common descent is
> overwhelming. It's a fact. Get used to it.

If it were a fact, the history of documenting common descent would not be filled with error, or with "correction", neither of which smell like facts.

But you know better. Common Descent is a hypothesis, or theory if you like. Theories are not facts, boy.

> >> Is there a credible hypothesis of how cattle egrets came to be
> >> distributed as they are today that doesn't involve them crossing the
> >> Atlantic? Ditto for the ducks you snipped and I restored.
> >
> > Again, turkeys are not ducks. And again, there is no evidence that it is at all possible that floating vegetation mats or logs or island hopping could have allowed such long distance travel, by rat, monkey, turkey or evolutionist.
> You avoided my questions. And once again: turkeys did not cross the
> Atlantic.

I avoided your question above for reasons you should be aware of, since it is silly, and you've had the answer given to you on a silver platter more than once. Cattle egrets and ducks do migrate, and can fly long distances. This is established fact.

And you know full well that "turkeys" are shorthand for "ancestors of turkeys".

Good to see you back, John.

[Glenn]

So the turkeys can't be regarded as being able to fly long distances. Was that a secret you didn't want me to know?

[erik simpson]

I though you didn't think common descent was a fact. What point is there in telling you about galliforms? Actually, there
doesn't seem to any point to telling you anything. You already know everything you need.

[Glenn]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:30:21 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:00:21 PM UTC-8, Glenn wrote:
> > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:30:26 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 11/26/21 12:32 PM, jillery wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:04:33 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
> > > >>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
> > > >>
> > > >> That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You should be aware of the fact that the flying abilities of modern
> > > > turkey says nothing about the abilities of their ancestors 30 mya.
> > > >
> > > But the mapping of flying ability onto a phylogenetic tree does, and no
> > > living galliform is a strong long-distance flier. Thus we infer the same
> > > about the ancestral galliform.
> > So the turkeys can't be regarded as being able to fly long distances. Was that a secret you didn't want me to know?
> I though you didn't think common descent was a fact.

demonstrated by ""we infer" above.

What point is there in telling you about galliforms?

Science?

>Actually, there
> doesn't seem to any point to telling you anything. You already know everything you need.

I know you are demonstrating the intelligence of a turkey.

[jillery]

30 million years is a long time for evolution. 30 mya there were no
bipedal Hominoids, baleen Cetaceans, or single-toed Equids. It may
have been there were no Galliforms 30 mya, and diversified since then
from a more flight-capable ancestor. So even as I acknowledge in fact
there were Galliforms 30 mya, I hope you recognize that your point is
a distinctly different point from Glenn's point, and my objection to
his point is valid.

[Ernest Major]

On 27/11/2021 08:00, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 21:25:43 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/21 12:32 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:04:33 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
>>>>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
>>>>
>>>> That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.
>>>
>>>
>>> You should be aware of the fact that the flying abilities of modern
>>> turkey says nothing about the abilities of their ancestors 30 mya.
>>>
>> But the mapping of flying ability onto a phylogenetic tree does, and no
>> living galliform is a strong long-distance flier. Thus we infer the same
>> about the ancestral galliform.

It doesn't effect the conclusions of the phylogenetic mapping, but
Coturnix coturnix migrates between northern Europe and the Sahel.

>
>
> 30 million years is a long time for evolution. 30 mya there were no
> bipedal Hominoids, baleen Cetaceans, or single-toed Equids. It may
> have been there were no Galliforms 30 mya, and diversified since then
> from a more flight-capable ancestor. So even as I acknowledge in fact
> there were Galliforms 30 mya, I hope you recognize that your point is
> a distinctly different point from Glenn's point, and my objection to
> his point is valid.
>

The interpretation of the fossils is still debated, but there are taxa
generally reckoned as stem anseriforms and stem galliforms in the late
Cretaceous. Wikipedia tells me that crown galliforms originated at the
latest 45 million years ago.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

Yes, I just read the exact same thing and so posted.

[RonO]

The last I recall Coturnix quail, turkeys, and chickens were all around
40 (35 to 45) million years divergent. Since the Bamboo partiridge
(looks like a larger version of a Coturnix quail and is the closest
relative to chickens besides other junglefowl. (Red, Green, Gray,
Ceylon) my guess is that the common ancestor looked something like a
partridge. Bebe noted that junglefowl would fly several miles to nearby
islands. He didn't see getting the ancestors of Red (G. g. bankiva) and
Green (G. varius) junglefowl to Indonesia as any big problem.

Coturnix quail migrate across the Mediterranean sea.

https://flightforsurvival.org/common-quail/

The common ancestor could have flown fairly well.

https://becomingjessi.com/birds-birds-birds/order-galliformes/family-odontophoridae-quails/

As Ernest pointed out "There are also two ‘Old World’ partridge species
that are actually members of this family (the stone & Nahan’s
partridges, both are found in Africa)."

It could be that New World quail that branched off before the Turkey
chicken split also got across from Africa.

The talk that I recall, the speculation was that there might have been a
chain of islands along the mid-atlantic ridge just as there are still a
few islands today. There may have been a span of islands that crossed
the mid-atlantic ridge at some fracture point that considerably
shortened the island-hopping, over seas migration.

Two lineages of monkeys, Turkeys and New World quail, and there was
something a few years ago where they noted other animals that made it
over with the monkeys. It just seems like around 35 to 40 million years
ago there was something in the Atlantic that facilitated the crossing.

The turtles that migrate thousands of miles to the mid-atlantic ridge
islands to breed, didn't always have to migrate that far when the two
continents were closer, and the islands they originally used for
breeding no longer exist. They have had to adopt new islands as the
original ones eroded away.

Maps of the underwater ridge do show such fracture regions and
underwater mountains that could have been part of a chain of islands
crossing the ridge. My guess is that the only way that you would detect
their existence would be to look at deep sea sediments and look for any
effect on ocean currents that such a chain of islands might have had.
My guess is that they would also leave dry land volcanic erosion
sediments, but you'd likely have to look closely because only the tips
of the volcanos would be dry land.

https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/504/

There is such a transverse fracture stretching from Brazil to North
Africa, and another interesting conglomeration of undersea mountains
linking Brazil to Southern Africa.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

It wasn't a secret at all. If you will look back at the thread, I am not
the person who claimed that turkey ancestors crossed the Atlantic. You
may have your posters confused.

[John Harshman]

On 11/27/21 12:00 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 21:25:43 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/21 12:32 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:04:33 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
>>>>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
>>>>
>>>> That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.
>>>
>>>
>>> You should be aware of the fact that the flying abilities of modern
>>> turkey says nothing about the abilities of their ancestors 30 mya.
>>>
>> But the mapping of flying ability onto a phylogenetic tree does, and no
>> living galliform is a strong long-distance flier. Thus we infer the same
>> about the ancestral galliform.
>
>
> 30 million years is a long time for evolution. 30 mya there were no
> bipedal Hominoids, baleen Cetaceans, or single-toed Equids. It may
> have been there were no Galliforms 30 mya, and diversified since then
> from a more flight-capable ancestor.

Not true, based both on the fossil record and on genetic distances.

> So even as I acknowledge in fact
> there were Galliforms 30 mya, I hope you recognize that your point is
> a distinctly different point from Glenn's point, and my objection to
> his point is valid.

Glenn has a point? What is it? And yes, the flying ability of a modern
turkey, by itself, says nothing about its ancestors 30 million years
ago. But the flying ability of all the extant galliform species, taken
as a whole, certainly does.

[John Harshman]

Your reading comprehension is faulty, and that leads you to fantasy. The
ancestors of turkeys didn't cross the Atlantic either. I have made that
clear several times, but you don't read.

>>>>>>> I consider "trans-Atlantic dispersal" to be by sea. And I've said before on the subject that I have no problem with birds migrating for long distances.
>>>>>> Well, if you're going to use a private definition of a term, you
>>>>>> shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Oceanic dispersal is a type of biological dispersal that occurs when terrestrial organisms transfer from one land mass to another by way of a sea crossing. Island hopping is the crossing of an ocean by a series of shorter journeys between islands, as opposed to a single journey directly to the destination."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal
>>>>>
>>>>> Care for some pi?
>>>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
>>>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
>>>
>>> That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.
>> Appearances are deceiving, especially when you work hard to be deceived.
>> Again: turkeys clearly didn't cross the Atlantic.
>
> Again you seem to have overlooked the words "ancestors of turkeys" in your zeal to make a fool of yourself. And again, you don't actually respond to what I said. perhaps you deceive yourself.

I'm sorry, but you're the one deceiving yourself.

Why are 30 million year old ancestors relevant? These dispersals are
clearly more recent. The cattle egrets made the trip in the 20th Century
(though the earliest known crossing was in 1874). And the ducks in
question can't have been much more than a million years, though nobody
has so far studied their divergence. Still, that the same species is on
both sides of the ocean tells us the dispersal was not too ancient.

> You also seem to rely heavily on use of the word 'dispersal" and likely hope the word "migration" doesn't pop up.

"Migration" means something different. That's an event that happens
twice a year.

> Have you considered that the ancestors of turkeys could have crossed the Atlantic on rafts?

No, because they didn't cross the Atlantic.

>>>> It's also a fact that South American monkeys are related by descent to
>>>> African monkeys. And it's a fact that monkeys are known from Africa long
>>>> before they're known from South America. The unavoidable inference is
>>>> that somehow monkeys (and hytricomorph rodents, at the same time) got to
>>>> South America from Africa. Can we agree on any of that?
>>>
>>> I haven't disagree in principle with any of that, for purposes of the discussion about how such migrations have and could occur. However I consider such theories and hypotheses to be conditional. For one, I don't consider common descent to be "fact", even in context to your monkey story above.
>> That's a problem for you, since the evidence for common descent is
>> overwhelming. It's a fact. Get used to it.
>
> If it were a fact, the history of documenting common descent would not be filled with error, or with "correction", neither of which smell like facts.

That doesn't follow.

> But you know better. Common Descent is a hypothesis, or theory if you like. Theories are not facts, boy.

A fact is a theory that's been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

>>>> Is there a credible hypothesis of how cattle egrets came to be
>>>> distributed as they are today that doesn't involve them crossing the
>>>> Atlantic? Ditto for the ducks you snipped and I restored.
>>>
>>> Again, turkeys are not ducks. And again, there is no evidence that it is at all possible that floating vegetation mats or logs or island hopping could have allowed such long distance travel, by rat, monkey, turkey or evolutionist.
>> You avoided my questions. And once again: turkeys did not cross the
>> Atlantic.
>
> I avoided your question above for reasons you should be aware of, since it is silly, and you've had the answer given to you on a silver platter more than once. Cattle egrets and ducks do migrate, and can fly long distances. This is established fact.

Why is that relevant? Incidentally, the duck species in question do not
migrate, and I don't think African cattle egrets do either.

> And you know full well that "turkeys" are shorthand for "ancestors of turkeys".

If I know that, and you know that, then why did you make such a big
thing, above, about me saying "turkeys" instead of "ancestors of
turkeys"? Let's say it again: neither turkeys nor their ancestors
crossed the Atlantic.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 06:14:09 -0800, John Harshman

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

>On 11/27/21 12:00 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 21:25:43 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/26/21 12:32 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:04:33 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
>>>>>> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That appears to support the suspicion that you regard the ancestors of turkeys to have had the ability to fly long distances. You should be aware of the fact that turkeys now inhabit america does not evidence the ability of the ancestors of turkeys to have the ability to fly long distances.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should be aware of the fact that the flying abilities of modern
>>>> turkey says nothing about the abilities of their ancestors 30 mya.
>>>>
>>> But the mapping of flying ability onto a phylogenetic tree does, and no
>>> living galliform is a strong long-distance flier. Thus we infer the same
>>> about the ancestral galliform.
>>
>>
>> 30 million years is a long time for evolution. 30 mya there were no
>> bipedal Hominoids, baleen Cetaceans, or single-toed Equids. It may
>> have been there were no Galliforms 30 mya, and diversified since then
>> from a more flight-capable ancestor.
>
>Not true, based both on the fossil record and on genetic distances.

I didn't say it was true. In fact, my very next sentence explicitly
aknowledges that it's incorrect. My phrase "it may have been" shows I
describe above a hypothetical given only the evidence of extant
species per Glenn's point.

>> So even as I acknowledge in fact
>> there were Galliforms 30 mya, I hope you recognize that your point is
>> a distinctly different point from Glenn's point, and my objection to
>> his point is valid.
>
>Glenn has a point?

Adjust standard meaning to allow for the source.

>What is it? And yes, the flying ability of a modern
>turkey, by itself, says nothing about its ancestors 30 million years
>ago. But the flying ability of all the extant galliform species, taken
>as a whole, certainly does.

Ok, to pursue that line of reasoning, of inferring a specific
ancestral trait based solely on extant species. My impression is you
speak of the last common ancestor (LCA) of galliforms. What is it
about extant galliforms that supports an inference that their LCA
existed 30 mya, as opposed to more recently? As a comparison, my
impression is extant penguins show similar diversity, and I have read
their LCA existed only 22 mya.

OTOH if you're not speaking of LCA, then what is it about extant
galliforms that support an inference that *no* ancestors were more
capable flyers? As possible contraevdience, there are extant bird
species which have reduced flight, (Hawaiian Nene) or completely lost
flight (Galapagos Cormorant) in just a few millions of years.

[John Harshman]

Not sure what you mean by "similar diversity". The standard meaning
refers to number of species, which is patently untrue. The origin of
galliforms is commonly dated using molecular data as latest Cretaceous,
around 68ma, though no clear fossils are known. The oldest phasianid
fossils are early Eocene, around 45ma. So much older than 30ma.

> OTOH if you're not speaking of LCA, then what is it about extant
> galliforms that support an inference that *no* ancestors were more
> capable flyers? As possible contraevdience, there are extant bird
> species which have reduced flight, (Hawaiian Nene) or completely lost
> flight (Galapagos Cormorant) in just a few millions of years.

Yes, single species. But the evidence of whole clades would require, for
your scenario, that the ancestor was a long-distance flier but that its
descendants have independently lost this ability a great many times.
This is highly unparsimonious, so the evidence is properly considered as
being against it.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:16:13 -0800, John Harshman

Once again, your claim and my question are about *extant* species.

And you didn't say if your claim refers to LCA.

>> OTOH if you're not speaking of LCA, then what is it about extant
>> galliforms that support an inference that *no* ancestors were more
>> capable flyers? As possible contraevdience, there are extant bird
>> species which have reduced flight, (Hawaiian Nene) or completely lost
>> flight (Galapagos Cormorant) in just a few millions of years.
>
>Yes, single species. But the evidence of whole clades would require, for
>your scenario, that the ancestor was a long-distance flier but that its
>descendants have independently lost this ability a great many times.
>This is highly unparsimonious, so the evidence is properly considered as
>being against it.

There are many ways to lose the ability to fly. The only thing they
have in common is that flight is no longer necessary for survival.

[John Harshman]

This is confusing. Your claim was about the hypothetical ancestors of
extant galliforms, not about extant galliforms. My claim is about the
characters of ancestral galliforms, inferred from phylogeny and the
characters of extant galliforms. Your most immediate question was about
inferences from extant galliforms to the ages of ancestral galliforms.
Sequence data is relevant to that, as are the ages of fossils used to
calibrate trees from sequence data.

>>> OTOH if you're not speaking of LCA, then what is it about extant
>>> galliforms that support an inference that *no* ancestors were more
>>> capable flyers? As possible contraevdience, there are extant bird
>>> species which have reduced flight, (Hawaiian Nene) or completely lost
>>> flight (Galapagos Cormorant) in just a few millions of years.
>>
>> Yes, single species. But the evidence of whole clades would require, for
>> your scenario, that the ancestor was a long-distance flier but that its
>> descendants have independently lost this ability a great many times.
>> This is highly unparsimonious, so the evidence is properly considered as
>> being against it.
>
> There are many ways to lose the ability to fly. The only thing they
> have in common is that flight is no longer necessary for survival.

Let's be clear. Galliforms do fly; there are no extant flightless
species. But there are only two species in one genus (Coturnix) that fly
long distances. The rest fly only for short distances. There is nothing
to suggest that this status was achieved independently by many different
lineages, and it's more reasonably considered an ancestral trait of the
order. The same is true of penguins. On the other hand, there is good
evidence that multiple lineages of paleognaths became flightless
independently, so your scenario is not wrong in the general case, just
the current, specific one.

[Glenn]

What two species, and how far can they fly without stopping to rest?

[John Harshman]

Coturnix coturnix and Coturnix japonica. Feel free to look them up if
you have questions.

[Glenn]

I would not have asked had I not tried to find out. And I had a question, which you didn't answer.
So "feel free" is rather meaningless.

What is the difference between "long distances" and "short distances" in your world?

[erik simpson]

How hard did you try to look it up? I'll answer that: not hard at all. But then what is "hard" and "easy" in your world?

[Glenn]

Come close, I'll pull my pants down and cough for you.

[John Harshman]

Google resolves this quite easily if you just use either species as a
search term. Short distances: a few miles. Long distances: hundreds of
miles.

[Glenn]

Google is a search engine, it doesn't resolve anything. And you're refusing to provide actual references.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=define+long+distances

What does that resolve, science boy?

"Hundreds of miles" can mean eight hundred miles. Are you claiming that some species of quails can fly without
stopping to rest and eat for eight hundred miles?

I asked specifically for "how far can they fly without stopping to rest".

Quails from Japan are said to migrate to the Philippines. But I haven't found the route(s) that they have been observed to take.
I would assume they migrate back though, rather than pick up and leave their hooches in the ville permanently, leaving no bird behind.

If you look on a map, you'll see island chains south of Japan, to Taiwan, mainland China, with the longest stretch a little over 200 miles to the
Philippines. Would 200 miles be about the most such small body birds could manage perhaps 5 hours of flapping?
I'd consult Jonathan Livingston, but he appears to be unavailable. As do you as well.

[John Harshman]

It resolves how far the two species you asked about can (or do, if you
prefer) fly at a time.

> "Hundreds of miles" can mean eight hundred miles. Are you claiming that some species of quails can fly without
> stopping to rest and eat for eight hundred miles?

You would have seen, if you had looked, that C. coturnix flies across
the Mediterranean without stopping from approximately Rome to Tunis,
about 360 miles. But I'll agree it's not the easiest thing to find out.
That's the greatest distance I have found for them so far. And I haven't
found anything comparable for C. japonica.

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 11:18:39 -0800, John Harshman

Incorrect and/or misleading on several counts. Once again, I am
pursuing your expressed line of reasoning. To refresh your convenient
amnesia:

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

>>>>> And yes, the flying ability of a modern
>>>>> turkey, by itself, says nothing about its ancestors 30 million years
>>>>> ago. But the flying ability of all the extant galliform species, taken
>>>>> as a whole, certainly does.

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

I ask here a sincere question in a sincere effort to understand a
point you have made a point to make more than once. Can you give me
that much credit just this once?

>>>> OTOH if you're not speaking of LCA, then what is it about extant
>>>> galliforms that support an inference that *no* ancestors were more
>>>> capable flyers? As possible contraevdience, there are extant bird
>>>> species which have reduced flight, (Hawaiian Nene) or completely lost
>>>> flight (Galapagos Cormorant) in just a few millions of years.
>>>
>>> Yes, single species. But the evidence of whole clades would require, for
>>> your scenario, that the ancestor was a long-distance flier but that its
>>> descendants have independently lost this ability a great many times.
>>> This is highly unparsimonious, so the evidence is properly considered as
>>> being against it.
>>
>> There are many ways to lose the ability to fly. The only thing they
>> have in common is that flight is no longer necessary for survival.
>
>Let's be clear. Galliforms do fly; there are no extant flightless
>species.

<sigh> Nobody suggested otherwise. You objected to my examples. I
responded to your objection. Not sure why you are acting so obtuse.

>But there are only two species in one genus (Coturnix) that fly
>long distances. The rest fly only for short distances. There is nothing
>to suggest that this status was achieved independently by many different
>lineages, and it's more reasonably considered an ancestral trait of the
>order. The same is true of penguins. On the other hand, there is good
>evidence that multiple lineages of paleognaths became flightless
>independently, so your scenario is not wrong in the general case, just
>the current, specific one.

[Glenn]

I found a claim about that, but nothing specific. Such as whether these birds have been observed to fly in a straight line from Rome to Tunis over the
Tyrrhernian Sea, which would be about that distance. Yet without more specifics, your claim about starting from Rome is quite odd. These quail are surely not confined to the Pope's backyard. And a small island in Sicily is named "quail" in ancient Greek.

To Tunis from the southern coast of the Italian peninsula appears to be about one hundred miles. Overwater from Rome itself to Palermo is considerably less than 360 miles, and more in a true southerly/northerly direction. I don't know how they navigate, what stops they might make
during the trip, whether wind current directions are relevant...there are large islands west of Rome that could connect a route that required little more than a hundred miles over water to North Africa.

You claim to have found something, yet for some reason don't want to share it. I wonder why that is.

[Glenn]

He didn't object to your examples, he put them in context to the topic, galliforms.
And existing galliforms do not have in common the lack of need of flying.

[John Harshman]

The source says they cross the Mediterranean in one shot, and the map
shows a line from Rome (approximately) to Tunis, bypassing both Sicily
and Sardinia. But if they do it in one shot, it hardly matters whether
it's all over water.

> You claim to have found something, yet for some reason don't want to share it. I wonder why that is.

I don't know what you mean by that. I just googled "coturnix migration"
and looked at what came up. You can too.

[John Harshman]

I am unable to determine what this question is that you're talking
about. If it's about the age of the galliform common ancestor, I have
answered that quite clearly above. I don't see another question. What is
your question?

>>>>> OTOH if you're not speaking of LCA, then what is it about extant
>>>>> galliforms that support an inference that *no* ancestors were more
>>>>> capable flyers? As possible contraevdience, there are extant bird
>>>>> species which have reduced flight, (Hawaiian Nene) or completely lost
>>>>> flight (Galapagos Cormorant) in just a few millions of years.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, single species. But the evidence of whole clades would require, for
>>>> your scenario, that the ancestor was a long-distance flier but that its
>>>> descendants have independently lost this ability a great many times.
>>>> This is highly unparsimonious, so the evidence is properly considered as
>>>> being against it.
>>>
>>> There are many ways to lose the ability to fly. The only thing they
>>> have in common is that flight is no longer necessary for survival.
>>
>> Let's be clear. Galliforms do fly; there are no extant flightless
>> species.
>
> <sigh> Nobody suggested otherwise. You objected to my examples. I
> responded to your objection. Not sure why you are acting so obtuse.

I don't see your response as being a valid rejoinder. The evidence, once
again, is that the common ancestor of turkeys and their living sister
group (grouse) was not a better flyer than turkeys and grouse are. The
evidence is that the common ancestor of all phasianids was not a better
flyer than living phasianids. The evidence is that the common ancestor
of all galliforms was not a better flyer than living galliforms.

And if we're still talking about turkeys, there's no evidence that their
ancestors arrived in the Americas by going from Africa to South America.
Quite the contrary.

[Glenn]

Yes you do know what I mean. "But I'll agree it's not the easiest thing to find out." That is somehow contradictory to "just google".

The common quail is common all over the region. Surely they didn't all come from the Pope's backyard hideaway.
Now maybe someone tagged a bird and recorded its movement. Keep it all to yourself as you wish. It doesn't matter to me,
since I have no problem with bird migration over long distances. The birds 50 miles south of Rome might not be in the migrating mood, but if so, would need only 310 miles to make the journey. The birds 50 miles north may not be able to make it, so they may have to stop at a McDonalds in Rome. So if 360 miles is your claim to maximum fame, so be it.
I asked how far they could fly.

[Glenn]

If by that you mean there is evidence they didn't do a trans-Atlantic dispersal, you're wrong.
They could have rafted over with the rats and monkeys. Or could they. If there is no evidence
that is possible, is that evidence that they could not? Get your inference cap on.

[Glenn]

Interesting.

"Large fluctuations of Quail populations prevent precise evaluations of the size of nesting populations and migratory flows."

"Migratory breeder and local winter visitor in southern Italy and the islands; there is also a resident population in Sardinia."

http://www.iucn.it/documenti/flora.fauna.italia/3-uccelli-2/files/Galliformes/quaglia/quaglia_gb.htm

Several islands and locations in southern Italy are not much further than 100 miles from North Africa.

I wonder if the birds in Naples fly directly north/south overflying Sicily on their way to Africa, or if they stop to chat, then set a westerly course for the outskirts of Tunis...

[jillery]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 17:57:48 -0800, John Harshman

To quote someone whom you regard so highly, you win.

[John Harshman]

Neither of those is relevant to the question.

[John Harshman]

I really don't know what you mean. And I'm sure you're capable of
finding the information. Just takes a little work.

> The common quail is common all over the region. Surely they didn't all come from the Pope's backyard hideaway.

Actually, that's not where most of the migrating quail live. It's just
where some of them, from all over Europe, head out to sea.

> Now maybe someone tagged a bird and recorded its movement. Keep it all to yourself as you wish. It doesn't matter to me,
> since I have no problem with bird migration over long distances. The birds 50 miles south of Rome might not be in the migrating mood, but if so, would need only 310 miles to make the journey. The birds 50 miles north may not be able to make it, so they may have to stop at a McDonalds in Rome. So if 360 miles is your claim to maximum fame, so be it.
> I asked how far they could fly.

I don't know how far they could fly. What I know is that they cross the
Mediterranean in one shot, according to the literature, so they can fly
at least that far. It may be that they can fly farther, but there's no
information on that. Look at the map showing their migration routes.

[John Harshman]

Yay!

[John Harshman]

"If?" How could anyone possibly interpret it another way? Have you been
reading anything I've said? The evidence has less to do with their
ability to fly long distances and more to do with the geographic
distribution of turkeys and their closest relatives. There are no
phasianids in South America. Turkeys are restricted to Central and North
America and their closest relatives are further north.

[Glenn]

What map, and why is there only one map?

[Glenn]

Yes, but contrary to what you apparently expect of others, I don't take you on your word.

>The evidence has less to do with their
> ability to fly long distances and more to do with the geographic
> distribution of turkeys and their closest relatives. There are no
> phasianids in South America. Turkeys are restricted to Central and North
> America and their closest relatives are further north.

So you claim. Ron seemed to have a different understanding.
But even if there are no phasianids in South America today doesn't mean that
the cousin to the turkey didn't arrive there and move on to northern pastures.
The pheasant clan is all over Africa, except where they are not now.

[John Harshman]

Did you even bother googling? There's one map that I could find. Perhaps
you could find another. Look here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318885611_COMMON_QUAIL_Coturnix_coturnix_European_Union_Management_Plan_2009-2011/figures?lo=1

[John Harshman]

I don't ask you to believe that what I say is true. I merely ask you to
believe that I'm saying what I'm saying.

>> The evidence has less to do with their
>> ability to fly long distances and more to do with the geographic
>> distribution of turkeys and their closest relatives. There are no
>> phasianids in South America. Turkeys are restricted to Central and North
>> America and their closest relatives are further north.
>
> So you claim. Ron seemed to have a different understanding.
> But even if there are no phasianids in South America today doesn't mean that
> the cousin to the turkey didn't arrive there and move on to northern pastures.
> The pheasant clan is all over Africa, except where they are not now.

Ron is wrong. Perhaps he is misremembering some talk he saw once, which
seems to be his source. You can easily look up the distribution of
phasianids if you don't believe me. And it's highly unparsimonious to
suppose that turkeys or their ancestors arrived in South America, left
no trace in fossil or recent distribution, and moved to North America,
especially when their closest relatives do not live in Africa. You
should understand that the "pheasant clan" is a big group, most of it
only distantly related to turkeys.

[Glenn]

"The Common Quail is an
exclusively nocturnal
migrator. Just before
migration, birds undertake a
hyperphagic phase, in which
they eat as much as is possible
in order to build up reserves.
At 42 km/h (the average speed
measured for daytime flights),
a Quail can travel a maximum
distance of 160-50 kms per
night.

The migratory strategy of the
species is to bet on there being
no food resources at the spot
where dawn forces the bird to
land; it therefore rests during
the day in an unplanned place
without feeding much (which
also helps avoid predators); it
leaves at the next twilight. "

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318885611_COMMON_QUAIL_Coturnix_coturnix_European_Union_Management_Plan_2009-2011

Where does that put you on the map? It appears the map is not designed to show specific paths, but general locations of beginning and ending regions. If it is, then I'd suspect it is deceptive.
360 miles is 580 km, John. And no, "160-50 kms" does not mean kilometers per second per night.

[Glenn]

I don't believe you are really Kermit the Frog, if that is what you mean.

> >> The evidence has less to do with their
> >> ability to fly long distances and more to do with the geographic
> >> distribution of turkeys and their closest relatives. There are no
> >> phasianids in South America. Turkeys are restricted to Central and North
> >> America and their closest relatives are further north.
> >
> > So you claim. Ron seemed to have a different understanding.
> > But even if there are no phasianids in South America today doesn't mean that
> > the cousin to the turkey didn't arrive there and move on to northern pastures.
> > The pheasant clan is all over Africa, except where they are not now.
> Ron is wrong. Perhaps he is misremembering some talk he saw once, which
> seems to be his source. You can easily look up the distribution of
> phasianids if you don't believe me. And it's highly unparsimonious to
> suppose that turkeys or their ancestors arrived in South America, left
> no trace in fossil or recent distribution, and moved to North America,
> especially when their closest relatives do not live in Africa. You
> should understand that the "pheasant clan" is a big group, most of it
> only distantly related to turkeys.

So you say. Then again, I wonder how distantly related you are to a turkey.
And I don't think too highly of the concept of parsimony used in science.

[John Harshman]

?

>>>> The evidence has less to do with their
>>>> ability to fly long distances and more to do with the geographic
>>>> distribution of turkeys and their closest relatives. There are no
>>>> phasianids in South America. Turkeys are restricted to Central and North
>>>> America and their closest relatives are further north.
>>>
>>> So you claim. Ron seemed to have a different understanding.
>>> But even if there are no phasianids in South America today doesn't mean that
>>> the cousin to the turkey didn't arrive there and move on to northern pastures.
>>> The pheasant clan is all over Africa, except where they are not now.
>> Ron is wrong. Perhaps he is misremembering some talk he saw once, which
>> seems to be his source. You can easily look up the distribution of
>> phasianids if you don't believe me. And it's highly unparsimonious to
>> suppose that turkeys or their ancestors arrived in South America, left
>> no trace in fossil or recent distribution, and moved to North America,
>> especially when their closest relatives do not live in Africa. You
>> should understand that the "pheasant clan" is a big group, most of it
>> only distantly related to turkeys.
>
>
> So you say. Then again, I wonder how distantly related you are to a turkey.
> And I don't think too highly of the concept of parsimony used in science.

Simple enough. I'm very distantly related to a turkey, tracing back to
ancestral amniotes upwards of 300ma. So how would you propose choosing
among hypotheses? How would you propose learning about the world if you
reject science?

[John Harshman]

I don't think so. It looks as if the bird funnel in to a fairly narrow
path when crossing water.

> 360 miles is 580 km, John. And no, "160-50 kms" does not mean kilometers per second per night.

It appears that quail fly greater distances when crossing open water. I
see another reference in which quail fly from Crete to Alexandria across
the water, close to 400 miles. Seems around 16 hours in the air.

[Glenn]

Yes, it appears so, directly over Corsica and Sardinia. You'll recall my earlier observations concerning those islands west of Rome.
But a problem arises with your dotted line in the ocean. Almost all of Italy is not within that line. Do those birds in Italy not migrate, or do they go north to enter the "funnel" and then reverse course to the south following this imaginary narrow path?

> > 360 miles is 580 km, John. And no, "160-50 kms" does not mean kilometers per second per night.

> It appears that quail fly greater distances when crossing open water.

No, it doesn't appear so at all.

You claimed that you *know* these birds can fly at least 360 miles. You finally coughed up what you considered evidence, and you turned it into a fish story, totally ignoring what your own reference said.

Good to see you back, John.

What troubles me about you is your apparent "no nonsense" appearance, not trollish at all, but rather sincere and authoritative.

[Glenn]

I had in mind something a little more recent than that.

>So how would you propose choosing
> among hypotheses?

Evidence.

>How would you propose learning about the world if you
> reject science?

Parsimony.

[John Harshman]

As I understand it, most birds in Italy either don't migrate or migrate
only a short distance. The birds crossing the sea mostly come from
northern Europe. Not sure what dotted line you're referring to.

>>> 360 miles is 580 km, John. And no, "160-50 kms" does not mean kilometers per second per night.
>
>> It appears that quail fly greater distances when crossing open water.
>
> No, it doesn't appear so at all.

Then we disagree on what the sources say.

> You claimed that you *know* these birds can fly at least 360 miles. You finally coughed up what you considered evidence, and you turned it into a fish story, totally ignoring what your own reference said.

The reference says a few things that apparently contradict each other.
You choose the bits you like.

> Good to see you back, John.
>
> What troubles me about you is your apparent "no nonsense" appearance, not trollish at all, but rather sincere and authoritative.

Why does that trouble you?

[John Harshman]

Then you would be wrong.

>> So how would you propose choosing
>> among hypotheses?
> Evidence.

Excellent. But of course evidence must be understood and interpreted,
and any evidence can fit a host of hypotheses if there is no criterion
by which to gauge superior fit.

>> How would you propose learning about the world if you
>> reject science?
> Parsimony.

You are certainly very parsimonious with sincere replies.

[Glenn]

John, "amniotes" is not a single group that you can regard as an individual or a single breeding pair, as with human family trees.
Your ancestor that left that amniote "family" is not necessarily related to the ancestor of turkeys that left the "family" at the same time.
But then you think it's turkeys all the way down, don't you, since all life is related, humans and turkeys are related to the "LUCA".

[erik simpson]

It's funny in a sad way when you think like this. If you just though a little harder I expect you could see the conceptual mistake.
Why not try it? (A little hint: you don't have to go "all the way down" to LUCA. You'll find the ancestor in question much closer.)

[Glenn]

Too bad you weren't specific, and didn't attempt to refute what I said, but actually appeared to support it. On purpose?

Perhaps you should be aware that John doesn't deal with "the" or "a ancestor", but in clades:

'A cladogram (from Greek clados "branch" and gramma "character") is a diagram used in cladistics to show relations among organisms. A cladogram is not, however, an evolutionary tree because it does not show how ancestors are related to descendants, nor does it show how much they have changed, so many differing evolutionary trees can be consistent with the same cladogram."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladogram#Measuring_homoplasy

[John Harshman]

What you quote is true, but I don't think it means what you think it
means. It's hard to tell, because it isn't clear why you brought it up.

[John Harshman]

That was very confused. Nobody is leaving that amniote family. We're all
still amniotes. We're talking about an ancestral species. Aren't all
members of a species related? Are you, for example, not related to all
other humans? Now at some point that ancestral species did split and the
ancestors of turkeys stopped interbreeding with the ancestors of humans.
But up until that point, still one gene pool.

[Glenn]

Species is an abstract concept, John. And it is not an individual or one gene pool.

[Glenn]

You're having a hard time.

[John Harshman]

Agreed, "species" is an abstract concept, but it's used to approximate
something real, in this case a population whose members form a single
gene pool. What's the problem here? Do you deny that all members of a
species are related, generally along many lines of descent?

[Ernest Major]

On 06/12/2021 05:10, John Harshman wrote:
> Agreed, "species" is an abstract concept, but it's used to approximate
> something real, in this case a population whose members form a single
> gene pool. What's the problem here? Do you deny that all members of a
> species are related, generally along many lines of descent?

As I understand species realism is a debated concept among biologists.
(I would have expected most creationists - young earth hyperevolutionist
might argue that kinds are real and species aren't - to come down firmly
on the species realist side.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

It's more debated among philosophers of science. Of course we don't
quite know what kind of creationist Glenn is, since he's almost
pathologically unwilling to express clearly stated opinions.

[jillery]

It doesn't matter what kind of creationist is Glenn, as all kinds
recognize the existence of biologically isolated sexually reproducing
species. Even YECs recognize the rise of variations within species.
The fundamental distinction, both literally and metaphysically,
between creationism and naturalism is wrt species' creation.

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

[Glenn]

Um, no, you began in response to being related to a turkey by talking about amniotes. If you are still amniotes and turkeys are still amniotes,
then you would consider your claim supported beyond doubt. And so you claim that what I said was very confused, and attempt to direct attention
away from it by this:

>Aren't all
> >> members of a species related? Are you, for example, not related to all
> >> other humans? Now at some point that ancestral species did split and the
> >> ancestors of turkeys stopped interbreeding with the ancestors of humans.
> >> But up until that point, still one gene pool.

So you claim. Your claims are often found to lack support or even stand up to sound reasoning. When and what species were the first sauropsid and synapsid? And what does "up to that point" even mean, John? Is there *ever* "one gene pool", or is that an abstract concept?

> >
> > Species is an abstract concept, John. And it is not an individual or one gene pool.
> >
> Agreed, "species" is an abstract concept, but it's used to approximate
> something real, in this case a population whose members form a single
> gene pool. What's the problem here? Do you deny that all members of a
> species are related, generally along many lines of descent?

So you agree that a species is not an individual or one gene pool. Would you also agree that species consist of multiple populations?
Get real, and don't be "approximate". What "case" are you referring to?

Turkey time for you was a long long time ago, John, not quite as easy to make claims about such as your claim of "knowing" how far extant quails can fly. And you're faced with an incomplete fossil record with no instruction manual, only inferences as to direct ancestry.
You're also faced with different methods of evolution that can create the appearance of similarity or relationships.

So you claim to "know' that you are related to turkeys. Show your work, and stop hinting around and trying to change the subject.

[Glenn]

It appears more like you are pathologically willing to express your clearly stated opinions as being "facts".

[John Harshman]

That too was very confused. I truly don't kmow what you're trying to get
at, if anything.

>> Aren't all
>>>> members of a species related? Are you, for example, not related to all
>>>> other humans? Now at some point that ancestral species did split and the
>>>> ancestors of turkeys stopped interbreeding with the ancestors of humans.
>>>> But up until that point, still one gene pool.
>
> So you claim. Your claims are often found to lack support or even stand up to sound reasoning. When and what species were the first sauropsid and synapsid? And what does "up to that point" even mean, John? Is there *ever* "one gene pool", or is that an abstract concept?

The support for my claim (humans related to turkeys) is found in the
fossil record and in the genomes of extant organisms. I could give you
some citations if you liked. But are you unacquainted with the
literature on this?

Now, what species? We can't know. It's unlikely we have found them as
fossils, and we would have no way to tell if we did. But the important
thing is that that we can be sure they existed based on the evidence we
have.

And yes, there is "one gene pool". Is Homo sapiens one gene pool? You
seem unwilling to answer.

>>> Species is an abstract concept, John. And it is not an individual or one gene pool.
>>>
>> Agreed, "species" is an abstract concept, but it's used to approximate
>> something real, in this case a population whose members form a single
>> gene pool. What's the problem here? Do you deny that all members of a
>> species are related, generally along many lines of descent?
>
> So you agree that a species is not an individual or one gene pool. Would you also agree that species consist of multiple populations?
> Get real, and don't be "approximate". What "case" are you referring to?

A species is not an individual, but a species is one gene pool. Species
consist of multiple populations, but the populations are usually
connected by gene flow in the present, and always connected by gene flow
in the past. The case is what we're talking about, the common ancestor
of humans and turkeys.

> Turkey time for you was a long long time ago, John, not quite as easy to make claims about such as your claim of "knowing" how far extant quails can fly. And you're faced with an incomplete fossil record with no instruction manual, only inferences as to direct ancestry.

You say "inferences" as if the word means "wild-ass guesses". It
doesn't. Hey, you're not falling back on the "Were you there?" defense,
are you?

> You're also faced with different methods of evolution that can create the appearance of similarity or relationships.

There are no methods of evolution. And, all due respect, you know
nothing about what can mislead phylogenetic analyses.

> So you claim to "know' that you are related to turkeys. Show your work, and stop hinting around and trying to change the subject.

This is the first time you've asked for that work. Here you go:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51226451_Multiple_Genome_Alignments_Facilitate_Development_of_NPCL_Markers_A_Case_Study_of_Tetrapod_Phylogeny_Focusing_on_the_Position_of_Turtles

Picked that one because it's genomics, all nice and shiny. But you won't
easily find anything different, certainly no live hypotheses. The last
one was Haematotheria, refuted long ago.

For something on morphology, try Benton's text Vertebrate Paleontology
and references to the trees therein.

[erik simpson]

Stupid word games R Glenn.

[Glenn]

Why does that "appear" to be so? Quail are observed flying from Crete to Northern Libya, specifically to Derma. That's about 150 miles. And you provide no reason why quail fly greater distances when crossing open water. They are documented to have an average airspeed of about 25 miles an hour, not groundspeed. With a 25 mph headwind, they'd take significantly longer than 16 hours to travel 400 miles. But this is just more for you to ignore.

[John Harshman]

Where is that observation? Could you cite the publication? I
unfortunately neglected to cite mine, but it shows a map on which the
migration is a line from eastern Crete straight to Alexandria.

https://flightforsurvival.org/common-quail/

> And you provide no reason why quail fly greater distances when crossing open water.

Because they have to?

> They are documented to have an average airspeed of about 25 miles an hour, not groundspeed. With a 25 mph headwind, they'd take significantly longer than 16 hours to travel 400 miles. But this is just more for you to ignore.

I bet they wouldn't fly across water against such a headwind, and would
wait for better conditions. Many birds do that sort of thing and often
pile up on the coasts waiting.

[Glenn]

Well, I could load a webpage with a line drawn from Crete to Derma if you wish. But yes, I did read it in a publication.
Wait, I'll just use your earlier referenced map:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Main-migration-paths-of-the-Common-Quail-Coturnix-coturnix-to-from-the-West-Palearctic_fig2_318885611

Looks like the ones that head directly for Alexandria go thru Turkey and Cyprus!

> I
> unfortunately neglected to cite mine, but it shows a map on which the
> migration is a line from eastern Crete straight to Alexandria.
>
> https://flightforsurvival.org/common-quail/

Oh Lord, another "scientific" site of yours. Is that a "publication"?

> > And you provide no reason why quail fly greater distances when crossing open water.
> Because they have to?

That appears to be a question, John. The only thing they have to do is die.

> > They are documented to have an average airspeed of about 25 miles an hour, not groundspeed. With a 25 mph headwind, they'd take significantly longer than 16 hours to travel 400 miles. But this is just more for you to ignore.
> I bet they wouldn't fly across water against such a headwind, and would
> wait for better conditions. Many birds do that sort of thing and often
> pile up on the coasts waiting.

I would also make that bet, since they wouldn't get anywhere if they tried, and would likely know that at some time in making flight attempts.
But what better conditions do you offer? Have you looked at wind direction and speed? Or do you you just make claims of fact based on lines drawn by bird activists? You seem to have moved away from your first claim. Your other claim, about quails not migrating along the coast of Italy also seem to be something you just dreamed up, although you could as easily have found similar websites as you offer above that talk about migrating quail along the Italian and Sicilian coastline being killed in nets and such. But you didn't bother, did you.

[John Harshman]

Yes, on that map. But that's not the one I'm referring to now.

>> I
>> unfortunately neglected to cite mine, but it shows a map on which the
>> migration is a line from eastern Crete straight to Alexandria.
>>
>> https://flightforsurvival.org/common-quail/
>
> Oh Lord, another "scientific" site of yours. Is that a "publication"?

Best I can do on the web. Is there a problem?

>>> And you provide no reason why quail fly greater distances when crossing open water.
>> Because they have to?
>
> That appears to be a question, John. The only thing they have to do is die.

That seems counterproductive.

>>> They are documented to have an average airspeed of about 25 miles an hour, not groundspeed. With a 25 mph headwind, they'd take significantly longer than 16 hours to travel 400 miles. But this is just more for you to ignore.
>> I bet they wouldn't fly across water against such a headwind, and would
>> wait for better conditions. Many birds do that sort of thing and often
>> pile up on the coasts waiting.
>
> I would also make that bet, since they wouldn't get anywhere if they tried, and would likely know that at some time in making flight attempts.
> But what better conditions do you offer? Have you looked at wind direction and speed? Or do you you just make claims of fact based on lines drawn by bird activists? You seem to have moved away from your first claim. Your other claim, about quails not migrating along the coast of Italy also seem to be something you just dreamed up, although you could as easily have found similar websites as you offer above that talk about migrating quail along the Italian and Sicilian coastline being killed in nets and such. But you didn't bother, did you.

I don't recall moving away from my first claim, but I don't know what
that claim would have been. Is it not clear that winds change? Many
birds actually do wait for favorable winds before crossing water.
Happens when crossing the Gulf of Mexico in both directions.

I never said quail don't migrate along the coast of Italy, only that the
particular migration route on that map doesn't show those birds. But
please cite your sources, and I'll look at them.

I've forgotten why we're talking about migrating quail. Do you remember?
Does it have anything to do with turkeys?

[Glenn]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/25/21 1:21 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:05:20 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 11/25/21 12:02 PM, GlennS wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:55:20 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 11/25/21 11:42 AM, GlennS wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:25:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/25/21 11:14 AM, GlennS wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 25/11/2021 18:20, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A lot of their relatives are in Asia, but the lineage leading to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Turkeys apparently moved down into Africa, and then across to South
> >>>>>>>>>>>> America.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing the evidence for that. Where did you get it? The
> >>>>>>>>>>> execrable science "journalism" article you cite is talking about the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cretaceous ancestors of all galliforms and, as far as I can see, says
> >>>>>>>>>>> nothing about turkeys moving from Africa to South America. One must
> >>>>>>>>>>> always be cautious about using current distribution to infer past
> >>>>>>>>>>> distribution, but turkeys don't live in South America, where the only
> >>>>>>>>>>> galliforms are cracids and odontophorids, both of them as far from
> >>>>>>>>>>> turkeys as from the rest of the phasianids. Turkeys presumably
> >>>>>>>>>>> originated in Central America, and if we believe phylogeny tells us
> >>>>>>>>>>> anything about it, their ancestors would have come from the north.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It was some researcher that estimated the divergence of turkeys from
> >>>>>>>>>> other gallinaceous fowl of around 40 million years ago. They
> >>>>>>>>>> speculated that they came over when monkeys came over (same separation
> >>>>>>>>>> estimate). It may have been a talk that I heard instead of a paper.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not sure what that person was talking about or what was meant by "other
> >>>>>>>>> gallinaceous fowl". But the relevant "other galinaceous fowl" would be
> >>>>>>>>> the sister group, which would be grouse. Grouse are not African but
> >>>>>>>>> Holarctic, as Ernest mentioned. Contrast that with the sister groups of
> >>>>>>>>> NW monkeys and hystricomorphs, which are indeed African.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm also dubious that the separation between turkeys and grouse could be
> >>>>>>>>> as much as 40 million years ago.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman likely has a better perspective. Turkeys were placed in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> various phylogenetic relationships over the years. I don't know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what the most recent placement is with the whole genome sequences.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't really need whole genome sequences. The Wikipedia tree
> >>>>>>>>>>> looks accurate to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at their South American relatives they likely looked more
> >>>>>>>>>>>> like guinea fowl when they came from Africa, but had some type of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tail useful for display.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Turkeys have no South American relatives except those shared with all
> >>>>>>>>>>> other phasianids. There are no South American phasianids. And I know
> >>>>>>>>>>> nothing about the South American fossil record of galliforms, if
> >>>>>>>>>>> there is one.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't know about no South American relatives. Another talk that I
> >>>>>>>>>> saw more recently looked at the genetics of North American subspecies
> >>>>>>>>>> and there wasn't much genetic variation found in the US populations
> >>>>>>>>>> compared to what was in Mexico. She thought that only a small bit of
> >>>>>>>>>> the population invaded territory as it opened up after the last
> >>>>>>>>>> glacial period. She mentioned an older notion that Turkeys may have
> >>>>>>>>>> been introduced into the US as a domestic bird. She didn't endorse
> >>>>>>>>>> the idea she just noted the narrow genetic base.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Looks as if the few known South American fossil galliforms are all
> >>>>>>>>> cracids, the family of guans, curassows, and chachalacas. This is not
> >>>>>>>>> conducive to the theory of turkeys from Africa by way of South America.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Older opinion had turkeys in a separate family Meleagrididae (sometimes
> >>>>>>>> Meleagridae), rather than deeply nested within Phaisanidae. That implies
> >>>>>>>> a different opinion as to their sister group. That opinion being
> >>>>>>>> Numididae would fit with Ron's recollections.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wikipedia tells me that Odontophoridae has two subfamilies - one African
> >>>>>>>> and one New World, so that would be a candidate for an example of
> >>>>>>>> trans-Atlantic dispersal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There are no examples of trans-Atlantic dispersals.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cattle egrets.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Everyone knows of course that quail, pheasants and turkeys can fly thousands of miles, but even if you wish to claim ancestors could, where is the example? You have inference, just like with monkeys. Are inferences examples, science boy?
> >>>> They are if they're strong enough, anti-science boy. But I mentioned
> >>>> cattle egrets because they're a recent example.
> >>>
> >>> I consider "trans-Atlantic dispersal" to be by sea. And I've said before on the subject that I have no problem with birds migrating for long distances.
> >> Well, if you're going to use a private definition of a term, you
> >> shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.
> >
> > "Oceanic dispersal is a type of biological dispersal that occurs when terrestrial organisms transfer from one land mass to another by way of a sea crossing. Island hopping is the crossing of an ocean by a series of shorter journeys between islands, as opposed to a single journey directly to the destination."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal
> >
> > Care for some pi?

> You assume that trans-Atlantic dispersal is a case of oceanic dispersal.
> We can agree that the Atlantic is an ocean, but that's as far as it goes.

Of course that is always as far as it goes between us. I just provided you with a definition of trans-Atlantic dispersal, which implicitly includes trans-Atlantic dispersal. That simply means "across the Atlantic ocean, not via the Arctic Ocean and northern land masses.
Your claim is that turkeys ancestors came to the Americas via some northern route, not across the Atlantic island hopping. Again I'll ask you for evidence. You know, that sciency stuff?

> >>> But simply claiming "they're a recent example" doesn't evidence anything. I'll ask you again, since you regard yourself as pro-science boy.
> >>>
> >>> Are inferences examples?
> >> Asked and answered. But I will elaborate. Since everything we know in
> >> science is by inference, yes, inferences are examples. We infer that
> >> cattle egrets crossed the Atlantic because at one time they were only on
> >> the east side and at a later time they were also on the west side. And
> >> this is in fact an example of trans-Atlantic dispersal, one that can be
> >> pinned down to an interval of a few years before 1930.
> >>

So wild conjecture chocked up as inference, eh. That all you got?

> >> I'd say that the ducks you snipped are examples too, there being no
> >> reasonable alternative to the inference of trans-Atlantic dispersal.
> >
> > I wasn't aware of snipping any ducks, but your idea of what is "reasonable" is questionable, as are most such stories.
> > But I consider "example" in such context as above, to be "evidence", which is "fact".
> > You've made this "everything is inference" argument before. It's absurd.
> > There are monkeys in Africa. That is a fact, and examples can be documented. There are monkeys in South America. That is a fact, and can be documented. Whether and how certain monkeys got to be where they are can be documented, and factual. Stories about how they got where they are without those documented facts, are just that, stories, not "examples".
> You appear not to recall a number of things you do. Let me restore the
> text: "One might also mention various species found in both Africa and
> South America. What other possible explanation is there than
> trans-Atlantic dispersal for the distribution of comb ducks
> (Sarkidiornis melanotos) or white-faced whistling ducks (Dendrocygna
> viduata) or fulvous whistling ducks (Dendrocygna bicolor)?"
> It's also a fact that South American monkeys are related by descent to
> African monkeys. And it's a fact that monkeys are known from Africa long
> before they're known from South America. The unavoidable inference is
> that somehow monkeys (and hytricomorph rodents, at the same time) got to
> South America from Africa. Can we agree on any of that?
>
> Is there a credible hypothesis of how cattle egrets came to be
> distributed as they are today that doesn't involve them crossing the
> Atlantic? Ditto for the ducks you snipped and I restored.

I don't snip ducks, but I've told you before that I have no problem with birds that can fly thousands of miles crossing vast ocean distances. No mystery with cattle egrets. The mystery, if it can be said to be, is why you offer cattle egrets and ducks as evidence of migration, nor are cattle egrets turkeys.

[Glenn]

I neglected to mention, as did you, that cattle egrets are observed to fly across thousands of miles over ocean. Inference is not needed. But again, turkeys are not, nor are turkeys cattle egrets.

[RonO]

This junk must have been a slow burn. Are you having trouble sleeping
at night? Wny not address Luskin's lies about the ID scam? It is still
recommended for IDiots like yourself.

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

In the category of "Necessity implicity is the mother of necessity"...

>I just provided you with a definition of trans-Atlantic dispersal, which implicitly includes trans-Atlantic dispersal.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the category of "Necessity implicity is the mother of necessity"...
>
>> I just provided you with a definition of trans-Atlantic dispersal, which
>> implicitly includes trans-Atlantic dispersal.
>

And a resurrected zombie thread.