Why Harshman is such a dick
JTEM
I said:
> > But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
> > arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
Harshman says:
> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
> The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
> adaptations -- specifically citing
> gliding from tree to tree.
Do you see it? Has it clicked? Well, let me point it out
for you:
Harshman doesn't know the difference between a behavioral
trait and a physical adaptation.
If he does, what's his excuse for the above? He was drunk
again? Trolling for a pissing match? What?
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
Eric Root
Maybe i misremember, but didn't you used to be normal?
Eric Root
John Harshman
>
> I said:
>>> But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
>>> arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
>
> Harshman says:
>> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
>> The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
>> adaptations -- specifically citing
>> gliding from tree to tree.
>
> Do you see it? Has it clicked? Well, let me point it out
> for you:
>
> Harshman doesn't know the difference between a behavioral
> trait and a physical adaptation.
>
> If he does, what's his excuse for the above? He was drunk
> again? Trolling for a pissing match? What?
Well, if I were trolling for a pissing match, you're definitely the fish
I'd be trying to hook. If you want to avoid one, remember that it takes two.
The abstract says this: "A computer simulation of the flight performance
of Microraptor suggests that its biplane wings were adapted for
undulatory 'phugoid' gliding between trees". That is, the wing
configuration itself is said to be an arboreal adaptation. But that's
just an abstract, after all. I can't see the paper itself, which is
paywalled. Have you read it? Perhaps it goes into more detail.
David Iain Greig
> The abstract says this: "A computer simulation of the flight performance
> of Microraptor suggests that its biplane wings were adapted for
> undulatory 'phugoid' gliding between trees". That is, the wing
> configuration itself is said to be an arboreal adaptation. But that's
> just an abstract, after all. I can't see the paper itself, which is
> paywalled. Have you read it? Perhaps it goes into more detail.
Ugh phugoid. Puke city.
--D. 'taking flying lessons'
>
raven1
wrote:
I remember JTEM being an obnoxious prat, mostly. I've had him
killfiled for years over on alt.atheism.
Tom McDonald
Norbert? Is that you?
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Claiming that an abstract describes arboreal
adaptations, the asshole writes:
> The abstract says this: "A computer simulation
> of the flight performance of Microraptor suggests
> that its biplane wings were adapted for
> undulatory 'phugoid' gliding between trees". That
> is, the wing configuration itself is said to be
> an arboreal adaptation.
He's lying. No, he's not mistaken, he's not confused,
he's lying. How do you know that? Because, just a
little bit before, speaking of the so-called
"Wing" configuration the abstract states...
: However, this wing design conflicts with known
: theropod limb joints that entail a parasagittal
: posture of the hindlimb. Here, we offer an
: alternative planform of the hindwing of
: Microraptor that is concordant with its
: feather orientation for producing lift and
: normal theropod hindlimb posture.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
I'll repeat, with emphasis: NORMAL THEROPOD
HINDLIMB POSTURE.
No "adaptation" what so ever. It's a completely
normal theropod limb with feathers.
JTEM
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> Maybe i misremember, but
You're making my original point for me, that
true "Science" is as rare here as a clever
creationists -- that it's personalities and
not facts.
In his need to auto-reject, Harshman said
something that was pretty stupid. Okay, it
was REALLY stupid. And, instead of noting
this fact, you're making out like it's wrong
for me to not endorse his stupidity.
Congratulations.
Friar Broccoli
>
> > > But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
> > > arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
>
> Harshman says:
>
> > By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
> > The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
> > adaptations -- specifically citing
> > gliding from tree to tree.
>
> Do you see it? Has it clicked? Well, let me point it out
> for you:
>
> Harshman doesn't know the difference between a behavioral
> trait and a physical adaptation.
I am really confused here. Is this fundamental distinction
between a behavioral trait and a physical adaptation base on
your observations of roosting sheep?
chris thompson
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Claiming that an abstract describes arboreal
>
> adaptations, the asshole writes:
> > The abstract says this: "A computer simulation
> > of the flight performance of Microraptor suggests
> > that its biplane wings were adapted for
> > undulatory 'phugoid' gliding between trees". That
> > is, the wing configuration itself is said to be
> > an arboreal adaptation.
>
> He's lying. No, he's not mistaken, he's not confused,
> he's lying. How do you know that? Because, just a
> little bit before, speaking of the so-called
> "Wing" configuration the abstract states...
>
> : However, this wing design conflicts with known
> : theropod limb joints that entail a parasagittal
> : posture of the hindlimb. Here, we offer an
> : alternative planform of the hindwing of
> : Microraptor that is concordant with its
> : feather orientation for producing lift and
>
> I'll repeat, with emphasis: �NORMAL THEROPOD
> HINDLIMB POSTURE.
>
> No "adaptation" what so ever. It's a completely
> normal theropod limb with feathers.
Ah. It's a relief to know that a "feather orientation for producing
lift" is not an adaptation for gliding from tree to tree. Thanks for
clearing that up.
Chris
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Claiming that an abstract describes arboreal
> adaptations, the asshole writes:
>
>> The abstract says this: "A computer simulation
>> of the flight performance of Microraptor suggests
>> that its biplane wings were adapted for
>> undulatory 'phugoid' gliding between trees". That
>> is, the wing configuration itself is said to be
>> an arboreal adaptation.
>
> He's lying.
Who's lying? Me? Chatterjee? I'm not. But of course you will think that
I'm lying when I say that.
> No, he's not mistaken, he's not confused,
> he's lying. How do you know that? Because, just a
> little bit before, speaking of the so-called
> "Wing" configuration the abstract states...
>
> : However, this wing design conflicts with known
> : theropod limb joints that entail a parasagittal
> : posture of the hindlimb. Here, we offer an
> : alternative planform of the hindwing of
> : Microraptor that is concordant with its
> : feather orientation for producing lift and
> : normal theropod hindlimb posture.
> http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
>
> I'll repeat, with emphasis: NORMAL THEROPOD
> HINDLIMB POSTURE.
>
> No "adaptation" what so ever. It's a completely
> normal theropod limb with feathers.
I don't understand why feathers are not considered part of morphology,
and why a wing can't be an adaptation. Could you explain?
John Harshman
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe i misremember, but
>
> You're making my original point for me, that
> true "Science" is as rare here as a clever
> creationists -- that it's personalities and
> not facts.
>
> In his need to auto-reject, Harshman said
> something that was pretty stupid. Okay, it
> was REALLY stupid. And, instead of noting
> this fact, you're making out like it's wrong
> for me to not endorse his stupidity.
>
> Congratulations.
Oh, I forgot to thank you for finally learning how to spell my name.
Thank you.
Augray
wrote in
<c6a220bc-72b9-41a2...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> :
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Claiming that an abstract describes arboreal
>adaptations, the asshole
"Apparently ad hominem -- especially when based on fallacy --
is now considered to be 'scientific'...."
> writes:
>
>> The abstract says this: "A computer simulation
>> of the flight performance of Microraptor suggests
>> that its biplane wings were adapted for
>> undulatory 'phugoid' gliding between trees". That
>> is, the wing configuration itself is said to be
>> an arboreal adaptation.
>
>He's lying. No, he's not mistaken, he's not confused,
>he's lying. How do you know that? Because, just a
>little bit before, speaking of the so-called
>"Wing" configuration the abstract states...
>
>: However, this wing design conflicts with known
>: theropod limb joints that entail a parasagittal
>: posture of the hindlimb. Here, we offer an
>: alternative planform of the hindwing of
>: Microraptor that is concordant with its
>: feather orientation for producing lift and
>: normal theropod hindlimb posture.
>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
>
>I'll repeat, with emphasis: NORMAL THEROPOD
>HINDLIMB POSTURE.
So what? Does NORMAL THEROPOD HINDLIMB POSTURE prevent arboreality?
>No "adaptation" what so ever. It's a completely
>normal theropod limb with feathers.
Feathers that would be "hindering terrestrial locomotion", as
Chatterjee & Templin state in the paper. So, unless you've got some
other environment for Microraptor to call home (aerial, aquatic,
fossorial), you've pretty much stuck with it living in the trees.
Dan Luke
"David Iain Greig" wrote:
..
>
> Ugh phugoid. Puke city.
>
> --D. 'taking flying lessons'
"Turns around a point" used to make me green.
Then there's "unusual attitude recovery" when you get to instrument
training. Yack city.
--
Dan
T182T at 4R4
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Oh, I forgot to thank you for finally
> learning how to spell my name.
Believe me, with the crap you spew, it would be
best if people couldn't identify the source...
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Who's lying?
If you managed a little reading comprehension
you wouldn't have to keep asking such stupid
questions.
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah. It's a relief to know that a "feather
> orientation for producing lift" is not an
> adaptation for gliding from tree to tree.
Why tree to tree? Why not rock to rock? And
who says that it glided at all? What rule book
are you reading which says that so-called
"Flight Feathers" came into existence at the
Exact. Same. Time. as flight, not one minute
before or one minute afterwards?
Seriously, can't you see you're inserting
conclusions in there, and then pretending that
they're physical adaptations?
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Claiming that an abstract describes arboreal
> >adaptations, the asshole
>
> "Apparently ad hominem -- especially when based on
> fallacy -- is now considered to be 'scientific'...."
What is your mental illness causing you to
misidentify as a "fallacy"?
He really did say what I said he said (I cut
& pasted his very words), and he really did
leave out the preceding comments which I
quoted (again, cutting & pasting here).
> Does NORMAL THEROPOD HINDLIMB POSTURE prevent
> arboreality?
Speculation plus a nickle nets you exactly
five cents. If you've got any facts you'd like
to submit here for discussion, be my guest.
JTEM
Ron O
Augray
wrote in
<8474ef0e-0ae4-4907...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Claiming that an abstract describes arboreal
>> >adaptations, the asshole
>>
>> "Apparently ad hominem -- especially when based on
>> fallacy -- is now considered to be 'scientific'...."
>
>What is your mental illness causing you to
>misidentify as a "fallacy"?
No mental illness, just pointing out that the "asshole" bit is an ad
hominem, and completely superfluous to your argument. It's almost as
if you didn't think your argument could stand on its own.
>He really did say what I said he said (I cut
>& pasted his very words),
I know, but what he said wasn't surprising, because the abstract
actually describes an arboreal adaptation.
>and he really did
>leave out the preceding comments which I
>quoted (again, cutting & pasting here).
That's hardly something you're in a position to complain about, since
you do it all the time yourself.
>> >: However, this wing design conflicts with known
>> >: theropod limb joints that entail a parasagittal
>> >: posture of the hindlimb. Here, we offer an
>> >: alternative planform of the hindwing of
>> >: Microraptor that is concordant with its
>> >: feather orientation for producing lift and
>> >: normal theropod hindlimb posture.
>> >http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
>> >
>> >I'll repeat, with emphasis: NORMAL THEROPOD
>> >HINDLIMB POSTURE.
>>
>> Does NORMAL THEROPOD HINDLIMB POSTURE prevent
>> arboreality?
>
>Speculation plus a nickle nets you exactly
>five cents. If you've got any facts you'd like
>to submit here for discussion, be my guest.
Fine: NORMAL THEROPOD HINDLIMB POSTURE doesn't prevent arboreality.
How do I know? Because of the *fact* that we have thousands of
examples of arboreal theropods.
I'm off to see the in-laws for a few days, so this will give you lots
of time to come up with a cognizant counter-argument backed up by
references to the scientific literature.
John Harshman
to spell my name.
chris thompson
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah. It's a relief to know that a "feather
> > orientation for producing lift" is not an
> > adaptation for gliding from tree to tree.
>
> Why tree to tree? Why not rock to rock? And
Because its claws would make running about on rocks rather difficult.
> who says that it glided at all? What rule book
> are you reading which says that so-called
> "Flight Feathers" came into existence at the
> Exact. Same. Time. as flight, not one minute
> before or one minute afterwards?
No one said that had to be the case. What does that have to do with
anything?
> Seriously, can't you see you're inserting
> conclusions in there, and then pretending that
> they're physical adaptations?
Seriously, have you never heard of the general principle in biology
that form follows function?
Chris
JTEM
Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pagano? �Is it you?
Why, is "Pagano" Latin for "Someone who doesn't
believe that an anomaly is the rule"?
....assuming he was talking about goats in
trees when he said "Roosting Sheep."
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> No mental illness, just pointing out that
> the "asshole" bit is an ad hominem,
Not really, as there was an actual argument, the
insult did not take the place of an argument.
Yes, I know, some people mistakenly claim that
the mere presence of any insult or snide comment
constitutes "ad hominem," but they're wrong.
> and completely superfluous to your argument.
Not really. More like a possible explanation as
to why someone would say the things he said.
> It's almost as if you didn't think your argument
> could stand on its own.
Ironically, this __Is__ a classic example of
ad hominem, as you have yet to make ANY argument.
Thanks for the irony.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> And while we're here, let me unthank you for
> forgetting once again how to spell my name.
What makes you think that I "Forgot" any more
than you "Accidentally lose" the context of
every thread...
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why tree to tree? Why not rock to rock? And
>
> Because its claws would make running about on
> rocks rather difficult.
I'm not aware of anything that places it's hind
feet outside the range of a normal dromaeosaur.
In fact, what was claimed to be suggestive of
"climbing" was it's front claws. Now this is weird,
because there's not too much difference between
holding on to, say, prey and holding on to a tree.
> > who says that it glided at all? What rule book
> > are you reading which says that so-called
> > "Flight Feathers" came into existence at the
> > Exact. Same. Time. as flight, not one minute
> > before or one minute afterwards?
> No one said that had to be the case.
According to Harshman, feathers are themselves a
physical arboreal adaptation.
> What does that have to do with anything?
You presented some conclusions as if they were
physical evidence. I was pointing out alternative
conclusions. In fact, a lack of imagination is
NEVER evidence.
> > Seriously, can't you see you're inserting
> > conclusions in there, and then pretending that
> > they're physical adaptations?
> Seriously, have you never heard of the general
> principle in biology that form follows function?
Seriously, do you really have problems spotting
a rationalization, even when it's identified by
the people rationalizing?
They don't hide anything. Their goal was to draw
a path of "Evidence" to their pre-existing
conclusion.
It's BAD science, the sort of thing everyone should
be denouncing, and they included some pretty obvious
red flags to help folks spot the crap:
: Leg feathers are present in many fossil dromaeosaurs,
: early birds, and living raptors, and they play an
: important role in flight during catching and carrying
: prey.
They're arguing nonsense in above. Surely you can see
it, no? I mean, even if leg feathers do play an
important role in flight during catching & carrying
prey for living raptors, these same people are arguing
a completely different role in Microraptors!
Remember: These things are supposed to be gliders that
need both the front & rear surfaces glide. The mention
of modern raptors -- and any role that leg feathers
play for them -- goes well beyond extraneous and deep
into misleading....
"The leg feathers on Microraptor play the exact
same role as the leg feathers on modern raptors, only
completely different."
What's more, prior to their work, there wasn't
even a half-ass attempt to explain how a Microraptor
might get into the air... yet that never so much
as slowed down the Harshmans of the world.
Ron O
el cid
Threads with names in the titles call for a naming
contest but sadly I'm feeling short the the
required inspiration.
Scattered thoughts float around the irony in
someone posting a usenet title calling someone
else a dick ... Inability to see oneself ... vampires
not having reflections in mirrors, ....
Burkhard
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why tree to tree? Why not rock to rock? And
>
> > Because its claws would make running about on
> > rocks rather difficult.
>
> I'm not aware of anything that places it's hind
> feet outside the range of a normal dromaeosaur.
> In fact, what was claimed to be suggestive of
> "climbing" was it's front claws. Now this is weird,
> because there's not too much difference between
> holding on to, say, prey and holding on to a tree.
You didn't climb many trees in your youth, did you?
Friar Broccoli
Well, just look at em. Take for a start the sheeps'
tendency to hop about the field on their hind legs.
Easy to spot in the fossil record.
>
> Ron Okimoto
heekster
wrote:
>
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pagano? �Is it you?
>
>Why, is "Pagano" Latin for "Someone who doesn't
>believe that an anomaly is the rule"?
>
Pagano is Latin for "yokel".
Ron O
Are you sure that isn't "yodel?"
Ron Okimoto
JTEM
JTEM
Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> You didn't climb many trees in your youth, did you?
If that's an argument then I'm the Queen of England.
JTEM
el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Threads with names in the titles call for a naming
> contest but sadly I'm feeling short the the
> required inspiration.
'Gotcha covered...
JTEM
Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, just look at em. �Take for a start the sheeps'
> tendency to hop about the field on their hind legs.
Cites!
el cid
> > Scattered thoughts float around the irony in
> > someone posting a usenet title calling someone
> > else a dick ... Inability to see oneself ... vampires
> > not having reflections in mirrors, ....
> 'Gotcha covered...
Oh my, apparently you misunderstand more than
cladistics, evolution and paleontology. Though
I guess that's what you've been advertising with
this series of threads anyway. Have you considered
a crisis hotline instead of posting?
JTEM
el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh my, apparently you misunderstand more than
Your claims without support place you in the
company of some pretty insane creationists.
Anyhow, you now make the sixth post in a row to
fail to identify a single error on my part, or a
single correct point made by the people I was
arguing against.
Dude, there's a reason that this group is filled
with nothing but trolls -- having themselves a
laugh -- and a bunch of wannabees, and it ain't
because you're all too smart for the real world...
Burkhard
Merely an observation, your majesty. Try to climb a tree the way you
would hold a predator, and then report back how high you got.
Woland
Well, I broke all of my teeth and got slivers in my gums. Thanks. Jerk.
John Harshman
>>> who says that it glided at all? What rule book
>>> are you reading which says that so-called
>>> "Flight Feathers" came into existence at the
>>> Exact. Same. Time. as flight, not one minute
>>> before or one minute afterwards?
>
>> No one said that had to be the case.
>
> According to Harshman, feathers are themselves a
> physical arboreal adaptation.
Nope. What I said is that flight feathers are an adaptation to flight.
I don't think that feathers arose with flight. But flight feathers did.
Nor do I think that feathers or even flight feathers are an adaptation
for arboreality. What I think is that the presence of flight feathers on
the hindlimb suggest that the animal with them wasn't cursorial and was
arboreal.
> They don't hide anything. Their goal was to draw
> a path of "Evidence" to their pre-existing
> conclusion.
That seems odd, considering that before Microraptor the majority view
among scientists was that flight had originated from the ground up. This
pre-existing conclusion has overturned a prior belief.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> And while we're here, let me unthank you for
>> forgetting once again how to spell my name.
>
> What makes you think that I "Forgot"
Well, if you're doing it on purpose, that's amazingly petty of you.
John Harshman
Note, however, that they do not so much fly as plummet.
heekster
wrote:
;)
The adjective "paganus" means rural. A Pagano would be a "rube" or a
"yokel".
To yodel would be "Helveticus cantare".
John Wilkins
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
And a pagan is someone who follows the old religions, as practised out
in the countryside.
John Wilkins
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
But consider the enormous commercial opportunities if they succeed!
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
The world has had a long history of city slickers looking down on
country bumpkins.
John Harshman
chris thompson
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> > Maybe i misremember, but
>
> You're making my original point for me, that
> true "Science" is as rare here as a clever
> creationists -- that it's personalities and
> not facts.
>
Yeah. It's so rare. When it appears, though, it seems to be backed up
by journal articles.
Imagine that.
Chris
snip
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Well, if you're doing it on purpose, that's
> amazingly petty of you.
While the way you couldn't admit a simple
error (like when you screwed up the date
on the abstract) isn't petty?
Or how about when you quote-mined that same
abstract (straight out of the I.D. workbook
there) in order to misrepresent it as
supporting you, and then lying your ass off
when I demonstrated what you did?
....you're a lot lower than "Petty," that's
for sure.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > According to Harshman, feathers are themselves a
> > physical arboreal adaptation.
>
> Nope. What I said is that flight feathers are an
> adaptation to flight.
You lie again. Here's what you said:
: I didn't say anything about "birdlike". The question
: is whether it's arboreal. And I don't see any other
: reasonable interpretation of the presence of flight
: feathers on the hindlimb.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d3c5e3bc51d676e0?hl=en&dmode=source
I don't know which is more shameful: The fact that
you make up shit so often, the fact that nobody else
seems to notice or the fact that they seem to endorse
your bullshit when it's pointed out to them...
You're your own worst enemies.
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah. �It's so rare.
Harshman just made up another quote to cover
his stupidity. Nobody but me even noticed.
Congratulations on being so "Fact Based," I guess.
chris thompson
This is all a little confusing you know.
You provided the cite for the PNAS paper. John says *the paper* makes
claims for arboreal adaptations- and it does.
Here is the exchange *you* quoted in the first post of this thread:
*****
JH> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
JH> The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
JH> adaptations -- specifically citing
JH> gliding from tree to tree.
JTEM:Do you see it? Has it clicked? Well, let me point it out
JTEM:for you:
JTEM:Harshman doesn't know the difference between a behavioral
JTEM:trait and a physical adaptation.
*****
Here's the first two sentences from the Abstract:
*****
"Microraptor gui, a four-winged dromaeosaur from the Early Cretaceous
of China, provides strong evidence for an arboreal-gliding
origin of avian flight. It possessed asymmetric flight feathers not
only on the manus but also on the pes."
Clearly they are claiming that the flight feathers on the manus and
pes are adaptations for an arboreal-gliding origin of flight.
John is correct when he says *the paper* makes claims of adaptations.
He's not lying.
Chris
John Harshman
Thanks for posting the quote so everyone (if anyone is in fact reading)
can see the facts. So, was I saying that feathers are themselves a
physical arboreal adaptation? Nope, and that should be obvious if you
actually read the words.
I was saying that the presence of flight feathers on the hindlimb was an
indicator of an arboreal habit. Not just feathers, but the location and
type of feathers. And not an arboreal adaptation, per se, but an
adaptation to flight (or at least gliding) that would get in the way of
a cursorial habit, but not an arboreal one. That suggests that
Microraptor wasn't cursorial, and the sensible alternative was that it
was arboreal.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, if you're doing it on purpose, that's
>> amazingly petty of you.
>
> While the way you couldn't admit a simple
> error (like when you screwed up the date
> on the abstract) isn't petty?
Are you actually using the "Bobby hit me first" defense here? Wow. How
old are you?
Mike Lyle
Even, on one interpretation, on the heath.
--
Mike.
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is all a little confusing you know.
Not really.
> You provided the cite for the PNAS paper. John
> says *the paper* makes claims for arboreal
> adaptations- and it does.
But it didn't. His misunderstanding of a few words
does not an arboreal adaptation make.
> Here is the exchange *you* quoted in the first
> post of this thread:
Okay...
> *****
> JH> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
>
> JH> The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
>
> JH> adaptations -- specifically citing
>
> JH> gliding from tree to tree.
Honestly, can you not see circular argument when it's
screaming in your face?
The "Arboreal adaptation" is the belief that it glided
from one tree to another.
In other words, the belief that it was in a tree in the
first place is being identified as an "arboreal adaptation."
But the "Belief" doesn't belong to any fossil, it belongs
to you, it belongs to Harshman and others...
> JTEM:Do you see it? Has it clicked? Well, let me point it out
>
> JTEM:for you:
>
> JTEM:Harshman doesn't know the difference between a behavioral
>
> JTEM:trait and a physical adaptation.
> *****
Well, this is one of those "Even taking you at face value..."
arguments.
Anyhow, a "Behavioral trait" is pretty much something you
have to witness, while a physical adaption is present even
if the animal is dead.
> *****
> "Microraptor gui, a four-winged dromaeosaur from the Early
> Cretaceous of China, provides strong evidence for an
> arboreal-gliding origin of avian flight.
That's an opinion. You do know that, right? If you want,
you could call it "The conclusion the author's arrived at,"
but it's still just a conclusion.
> It possessed asymmetric flight feathers not
> only on the manus but also on the pes."
Another "conclusion" is that it's secondarily flightless,
and as "Flight feathers" are no more of a bother to a
Microraptor than feathers with aren't "Flight feathers,"
natural selection had no means of removing them other
than random mutations... which hadn't done the trick yet.
> Clearly they are claiming that the flight feathers
> on the manus and pes are adaptations for an
> arboreal-gliding origin of flight.
No.
There's three things the arboreal origins of flight
requires, and they are:
#1. An arboreal dinosaur.
#2. A gliding dinosaur.
#3. A flying dinosaur.
They've long since satisfied themselves with #3,
at least since Archaeopteryx was uncovered. What
they are claiming is that a gliding dinosaur
provides the link between non-flying and flying.
> John is correct when he says *the paper* makes
> claims of adaptations.
You're both wrong. The author's come to conclusions,
but they identify no such "Evidence."
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Thanks for posting the quote so everyone (if
> anyone is in fact reading) can see the facts.
"If you're going to walk on thin ice then you
might as well dance."
Alternatively, you could adopt some integrity...
> So, was I saying that feathers are themselves
> a physical arboreal adaptation?
Absolutely. Here's the quote:
: I didn't say anything about "birdlike". The question
: is whether it's arboreal. And I don't see any other
: reasonable interpretation of the presence of flight
: feathers on the hindlimb.
You say that you don't see any other reasonable
interpretation for flight feathers on the hind
limbs other than it was arboreal.
What you immediately prior to this CLAIMED was that
you had said:
: > What I said is that flight feathers are an
: > adaptation to flight.
This makes no sense at all, as you clearly stated
that the question was regarding whether it was
arboreal!
And THAT was the context. You claimed there were
physical arboreal adaptations, I challenged you
to identify those physical arboreal adaptations,
and you answered that it was the feathers:
: I didn't say anything about "birdlike". The question
: is whether it's arboreal. And I don't see any other
: reasonable interpretation of the presence of flight
: feathers on the hindlimb.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d3c5e3bc51d676e0?hl=en&dmode=source
You're a *Very* bad liar, and utterly morally
bankrupt.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Are you actually
Here's the second blatent lie I caught you in,
so blatent even one of the "Science based"
people here might recognize it:
Harshman dick claims:
: > Nope. What I said is that flight feathers are an
: > adaptation to flight.
But what he actually said:
: I didn't say anything about "birdlike". The question
: is whether it's arboreal. And I don't see any other
: reasonable interpretation of the presence of flight
: feathers on the hindlimb.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d3c5e3bc51d676e0?hl=en&dmode=source
You're shitloads lower than petty, that's for sure...
Friar Broccoli
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Are you actually
>
> Here's the second blatent lie I caught you in,
> so blatent even one of the "Science based"
> people here might recognize it:
>
> Harshman dick claims:
>
> : > Nope. What I said is that flight feathers are an
> : > adaptation to flight.
>
> But what he actually said:
>
> : I didn't say anything about "birdlike". The question
> : is whether it's arboreal. And I don't see any other
> : reasonable interpretation of the presence of flight
>
> You're shitloads lower than petty, that's for sure...
Since GoogleGroups search is working you should have
tried it before posting when you would have found:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2411d684660a5412
near the end you see:
".... Adaptions evolve
along with the behaviors they make possible. Asymmetrical flight
feathers are an adaptation for flight, and secondarily flightless
birds
lose that asymmetry."
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for posting the quote so everyone (if
>> anyone is in fact reading) can see the facts.
>
> "If you're going to walk on thin ice then you
> might as well dance."
>
> Alternatively, you could adopt some integrity...
Just how much integrity is involved in snipping away my entire argument,
followed by a simple repetition of the claim I was responding to? I
doubt your style of "argument" is impressing anyone.
John Harshman
Really, this is the behavior of a 5-year-old. Ask yourself if an adult
would do anything like this.
JTEM
Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> near the end you see:
> ".... Adaptions evolve
> along with the behaviors they make possible. Asymmetrical
> flight feathers are an adaptation for flight, and
> secondarily flightless birds lose that asymmetry."
This isn't addressing what I had just commented
on, at all.
However, there are a number of obvious problems with
the above. The first is that it only really makes
sense if you're arguing that dinosaurs flew FIRST,
and then evolved flight feathers... or at least that
the flight feathers arose at the exact same time as
flight. There's no rule that requires either of
these positions to be true.
....it also requires that flight feathers
immediately vanish, if a dinosaur re-adapts to the
ground.. similarly not required.
(forgetting for the moment that we are discussing
gliding here and not powered flight)
A second huge issue is that, as Harshman said, "the
question is whether it is arboreal." Quite frankly,
the adaptations are the same whether it's gliding
from rock to rock or branch to branch, and the claim
that it was a tree-to-tree glider is a conclusion
of people like Harshman, but not any kind of a fact,
much less an observed physical adaptation.
AGAIN: A lack of imagination is NEVER considered
"evidence."
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Really, this is the behavior of a 5-year-old.
You spew nonsense and then lie and pretend you
said something else. You've got no integrity at
all. None.
This should bother you.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Just how much integrity is involved in
...your posts? None. That's twice now that
you've been caught in a lie so transparent that
even a lot of the people here could spot it, if
they ever bothered to look.
You have no integrity. None. What's more, you
are completely shameless.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
No, seriously. How old are you?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> No, seriously. How old are you?
Well, let's see, first you claimed that you
WERE NOT referencing the Chatterjee &
Templin abstract when you stated the following:
: By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
: The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
: adaptations -- specifically citing gliding from
: tree to tree.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a02501ecd12d9746?hl=en&dmode=source
NOTE: The abstract came to certain conclusions, but
identified no such adaptations.
Later you sunk even lower.
You claim that you stated the following in another
post:
: Nope. What I said is that flight feathers are an
: adaptation to flight.
....when what you really said was:
: I didn't say anything about "birdlike". The question
: is whether it's arboreal. And I don't see any other
: reasonable interpretation of the presence of flight
: feathers on the hindlimb.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d3c5e3bc51d676e0?hl=en&dmode=source
Behavior like yours wouldn't be tolerated in ANY
school, not even a grammar school, much less a
university.
Shame on you. Or, at least there would be if you
were capable of feeling shame.
John Harshman
> Behavior like yours wouldn't be tolerated in ANY
> school, not even a grammar school, much less a
> university.
>
> Shame on you. Or, at least there would be if you
> were capable of feeling shame.
Again, you use the "Bobby hit me first" defense. If indeed I were doing
something wrong, would that mean you were justified in doing something
else wrong?
Augray
wrote in
<fbd73b04-bab6-4801...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> No mental illness, just pointing out that
>> the "asshole" bit is an ad hominem,
>
>Not really, as there was an actual argument, the
>insult did not take the place of an argument.
Yet you seemed to have no difficulty claiming that I'd made an ad
hominem in my post that became the POTM
>Yes, I know, some people mistakenly claim that
>the mere presence of any insult or snide comment
>constitutes "ad hominem," but they're wrong.
True, but that doesn't seem to stop you from claiming ad hominem when
it suits your purposes.
>> and completely superfluous to your argument.
>
>Not really. More like a possible explanation as
>to why someone would say the things he said.
Probably because Harshman thinks he's correct. I know it's hard for
you to imagine that someone might genuinely disagree with you, but it
happens.
>> It's almost as if you didn't think your argument
>> could stand on its own.
>
>Ironically, this __Is__ a classic example of
>ad hominem, as you have yet to make ANY argument.
>
>Thanks for the irony.
Just because you snip out my argument doesn't mean that I didn't make
any. I made one below:
>>Speculation plus a nickle nets you exactly
>>five cents. If you've got any facts you'd like
>>to submit here for discussion, be my guest.
>
>Fine: NORMAL THEROPOD HINDLIMB POSTURE doesn't prevent arboreality.
>How do I know? Because of the *fact* that we have thousands of
>examples of arboreal theropods.
What does snipping out my argument, and then saying that I didn't make
any, say about your honesty?
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Yet you seemed to have no difficulty claiming
Oh, wow, another whole post that amounts to one
big personal attack... are you going to accuse
me of "Ad Hominem" like you did the last time,
ensuring I meet my USDA daily recommended
allowence of Irony?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Again, you use the "Bobby hit me first" defense.
Defense? Wow, you honestly are bankrupt...
So you DEFEND your lying by throwing personal
attacks at me, and now you lie AGAIN by pretending
it was me throwing up the pathetic defense...
Sheesh!
....and even after shattering any hope of
credibility, you *Still* wonder why you couldn't
convince a creationist to leave a burning building...
Augray
wrote in
<3e716283-8162-4841...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Yet you seemed to have no difficulty claiming
>
>Oh, wow, another whole post that amounts to one
>big personal attack...
As opposed to starting an entire thread of personal attacks like you
did? I guess no one would ever construe the thread title "Why Harshman
is such a dick" as a personal attack
>are you going to accuse
>me of "Ad Hominem" like you did the last time,
>ensuring I meet my USDA daily recommended
>allowence of Irony?
The real irony is someone who complains about personal attacks, yet
manages to resort to them at the earliest opportunity, while snipping
out the scientific arguments.
Jack Dominey
<aa175f0f-bc8d-4829...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 8:00 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 9:28 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Pagano? Is it you?
>>
>> > Why, is "Pagano" Latin for "Someone who doesn't
>> > believe that an anomaly is the rule"?
>>
>> > ....assuming he was talking about goats in
>> > trees when he said "Roosting Sheep."
>>
>> Sometimes you just can't tell.
>
>Well, just look at em. Take for a start the sheeps'
>tendency to hop about the field on their hind legs.
>Easy to spot in the fossil record.
It's because of 'arold.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Bill
You're way smarter than this loon, why not let him rant on without
comment?
John Harshman
evolution may be, and if there's any support for them. I'll agree that
the probability of actually doing so is not high.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Threads with names in the titles call for a naming
> contest but sadly I'm feeling short [of] the
> required inspiration.
> Scattered thoughts float around the irony in
> someone posting a usenet title calling someone
> else a dick ... Inability to see oneself ...
> vampires not having reflections in mirrors, ....
A
personal
name
or
nickname
in
a
thread
title
is
grounds
for
a
threadkill.
or Apnoniattigfat, which is at least capable of being
pronounced, as Ap noniat tig fat. Not the prettiest
acronym ever seen, but some are worse.
HTH
xanthian.