Correcting a long standing error
JTEM
but let the record show that a correction was
offered, even if ignored.
The really pathetic thing being, this was actually the
"Post of the Month"...
: Subject: | Why Epidendrosaurus is a Dinosaur
: Date: | 26 Mar 2007
: Message-ID: | 45kf03hktnjsnuagi...@4ax.com
To bring you up to speed here, the issue was on
the origins of flight. It all began, way back when,
when I pointed out that to call birds "dinosaurs" was
to discount the arboreal theory on the origins of
flight as there are no known arboreal dinosaurs.
Simple logic, really. Nothing the least bit earth shattering.
Or, at least that's what you'd think. But, it was a whole
long time afterward before the fur would cease flying.
Anyhow, eventually Augray hit upon Epidendrosaurus,
calling it the arboreal dinosaur -- what was supposed to
have given rise or flight. There were several problems
with this, at least two of which I instantly pointed out:
The first was that the dating was all wrong. Yes, there
was (remains) a dispute over the dating, but even so,
even at our most generous we can not claim that the
dating is universally accepted.
The second issue is that Epidendrosaurus doesn't even
meet the strictest definition for "Dinosaur," lacking a
fully perforated acetabulum.
And, yes, I provided cites to establish both of these
facts, which Augery promptly denied. My response:
: JTEM wrote:
: >>> Wait a minute. Let's not mince words here. You're lying
: >>> and you know you're lying. I cited the relevant posts.
: >>> Responding directly to you, after I pointed out that it may
: >>> not even be a dinosaur, I demonstrated this fact with URLs.
Oh. Here's the URL to a post of mine in which I offered no less
than three (3) cites which included "fully perforated acetabulum"
in their definition for "Dinosaur":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/28813dcf085a3f60?hl=en&dmode=source
Anyhow, Augray's winning Post-of-the-Month, completely
scientific, exemplary of scholarly methods reply was:
Augray wrote:
>> No, you didn't.
It would be one thing if this caliber of post simply went
unnoticed by those who claim to live in a 100% fact-based
world, but this is what the "Science" crowd selected as
Post of the Month!
JTEM then pointed to one of his previous messages at
<http://tinyurl.com/2rwbsw> which included the following:
What do you know, the exact same post I just mentioned!
The guy read it, saw I had backed up by statements with
cites, but denied it because -- now get this -- he disagrees
with the conclusions.
> http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/16-723-741.html
>
> | Dinosauria is diagnosed by 17 apomorphic features,
> | such as: deltopectoral crest distally projected; at
> | least three sacral vertebrae; perforated acetabulum;
> | presence of brevis shelf on ilium; astragalar ascending
> | process inserts beneath the tibia; distal tarsal 4
> | proximodistally depressed.
"Perforated Acetabulum."
> The above isn't a fluke:
>
> http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit310/100.html#Dinosauria
>
> While you're studying, concentrate on question #8:
>
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/courses/v1001/pracmid03_ans.html
Okay, I also stated the following:
> Also: This find seems to have taken the dinosaurs-evolved-from-birds
> arguments that most people are really making.
Now the above is based on a few well established facts, which
Augray is aware of, starting with the following...
> It's primitive AND bird like, more primitive and more bird like
> than archaeopteryx. Not that there was ever any shortage of
> dinosaurs more bird like than archaeopteryx, but it's the
> "primitive" that has got us here.
Archaeopteryx is supposed to be the first bird, but it's less
bird-like than Epidendrosaurus, even as it displays absolutely
no arboreal adaptations. This would make perfect sense if
dinosaurs evolved from birds, but not the other way around.
Here:
[More bird like and primitive] --> [less primitive, more dinosaur
like]
or...
Epidendrosaurus --> Archeopteryx
There is no dispute with both of the above, In other words, all data
claims the above. Augray claims the above. He's arguing that
the more primitive, more bird-like Epidendrosaurus gave rise to
the less primitive, more dinosaur like Archeopteryx, which was
so dinosaur-like that examples without obvious feathers were
routinely identified as a terrestrial dinosaur without so much as
a hint of arboreal adaptations.
A cite I used in the past, and Augray dismissed:
: In fact, he intimated that if it weren't for the fact that
: Archaeopteryx had feathers, it would be easily mistaken
: for a reptile. These were prophetic words, as John
: Ostrom would show a hundred years later when he saw
: that Archaeopteryx was misidentified as a pterodactyl. In
: 1973 and again in 1988, two other specimens of
: Archaeopteryx were discovered hiding under assumed
: names in collections in Germany. Once again,
: Archaeopteryx had been identified as Compsognathus.
: It appears that Huxley was right: Archaeopteryx is a
: feathered dinosaur.
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
> Augray wrote:
:>Christ but you're dense.
Apparently ad hominem -- especially when based on fallacy --
is now considered to be "scientific," or at least here.
> When are you going to get it through your head that making a
> claim is not the same as making an argument?
Remember: He is the one making that claim. He is claiming
that Epidendrosaurus is an arboreal dinosaur and a predecessor
to archeopteryx.
Remember: This came after I provided not one, not two but three
cites demonstrating the point just one point out of many.
> To use a definition whose source will instantly be recognized by
> the regulars here, "An argument is a connected series of
> statements intended to establish a proposition."
Utterly meaningless, yes. Seemingly random, sure. But, not
relevant, not scholarly and not even a legitimate argument.
I'm thinking that irony meters where on the fritz that day...
> Yes, it is.
The usenet equivalent to talking to yourself, though yet
someone representative of a scientific ideal for most of
the folks around here...
> But it's something that you have yet to do regarding the
> non-dinosaurian status of Epidendrosaurus.
Please. It is enough to show that it is not
a universal match to any & all definitions for "Dinosaur."
....that, and it's only a small part of the issue. The others
being that #1. the one firm dating has it too young, and #2.
it advances the dinosaurs-evolved-from-birds nonsense.
There is no model presented anywhere on this planet which
gets us from Epidendrosaurus to Archeopteryx.
> It's obvious that you need to be shown how it's done,
Huh? You're making this up as you go along. All I need do
is demonstrate (which I have) that the case for calling it a
dinosaur is not as clear cut as you would mislead people
to believe, and I easily did that by demonstrating that it
is not universally accepted under the existing definitions for
"Dinosaur."
YOU can't claim that Epidendrosaurus is an arboreal
dinosaur unless YOU establish that it is in fact a dinosaur,
and that it is arboreal.
> so I'll argue the opposing position, demonstrating that
> Epidendrosaurus is indeed a dinosaur.
AND that Epidendrosaurus is arboreal, AND that Epidendrosaurus
is the "Missing Link" between archeopteryx and purely terrestrial
dinosaurs.
> My source for the traits of Epidendrosaurus are Zhang et al. (2002).
The one that was dated to the Cretaceous....
> In addition, I'll refer to the traits of Scansoriopteryx (Czerkas &
> Yuan 2002) as this is considered a junior synonym of
> Epidendrosaurus (Harris 2004; Padian 2004).
The one that is usually placed in the Jurassic...
> 8- Manual digit IV with three or fewer phalanges?
> As Epidendrosaurus completely lacks digit IV, the answer
> is yes (Zhang et al. 2002; Czerkas & Yuan 2002).
This is idiotic, ruling at any relation to birds as birds have
this fourth digit.
See how that works? One -- and only one -- piece of information
is all it takes. I needn't construct a tome, as you stupidly
claim, as the much faster, much easier solution is to zero in
on one critical piece and demonstrate how it simply doesn't
fit.
Birds have the fourth digit. The ancestor of birds had the fourth
digit.
You're welcome.
John Harshman
> Popularity is far more important than facts here,
> but let the record show that a correction was
> offered, even if ignored.
Are you really holding a nearly three year old grudge?
> The really pathetic thing being, this was actually the
> "Post of the Month"...
>
> : Subject: | Why Epidendrosaurus is a Dinosaur
> : Date: | 26 Mar 2007
> : Message-ID: | 45kf03hktnjsnuagi...@4ax.com
>
> To bring you up to speed here, the issue was on
> the origins of flight. It all began, way back when,
> when I pointed out that to call birds "dinosaurs" was
> to discount the arboreal theory on the origins of
> flight as there are no known arboreal dinosaurs.
That's a very silly thing to say. Because if birds are dinosaurs, there
are indeed known arboreal dinosaurs. Further, what about Microraptor?
Clearly a dinosaur, probably a flyer, and probably arboreal.
> Simple logic, really. Nothing the least bit earth shattering.
> Or, at least that's what you'd think. But, it was a whole
> long time afterward before the fur would cease flying.
>
> Anyhow, eventually Augray hit upon Epidendrosaurus,
> calling it the arboreal dinosaur -- what was supposed to
> have given rise or flight. There were several problems
> with this, at least two of which I instantly pointed out:
>
> The first was that the dating was all wrong. Yes, there
> was (remains) a dispute over the dating, but even so,
> even at our most generous we can not claim that the
> dating is universally accepted.
Why should the dating be important? Can't intermediates be younger than
the things they're intermediate between? For example, it seems to me
that chimpanzees are fairly good intermediates between humans and
primitive primates, even though they have no fossil record.
> The second issue is that Epidendrosaurus doesn't even
> meet the strictest definition for "Dinosaur," lacking a
> fully perforated acetabulum.
You are confusing taxa, which are based on phylogeny, with classes,
which are based on diagnostic criteria. It doesn't matter whether
Epedendrosaurus has a perforated acetabulum. What matters is whether
it's descended from the last common ancestor of Ornithischia and
Saurischia. Are you suggesting that it isn't?
> And, yes, I provided cites to establish both of these
> facts, which Augery promptly denied. My response:
>
> : JTEM wrote:
> : >>> Wait a minute. Let's not mince words here. You're lying
> : >>> and you know you're lying. I cited the relevant posts.
> : >>> Responding directly to you, after I pointed out that it may
> : >>> not even be a dinosaur, I demonstrated this fact with URLs.
>
> Oh. Here's the URL to a post of mine in which I offered no less
> than three (3) cites which included "fully perforated acetabulum"
> in their definition for "Dinosaur":
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/28813dcf085a3f60?hl=en&dmode=source
Not a definition. A diagnosis. Diagnoses are nice, but they cannot
constrain taxa. Tetrapods, for example, are diagnosed by having four
limbs. But snakes, most of which lack any remnants of limbs, are still
tetrapods.
> Anyhow, Augray's winning Post-of-the-Month, completely
> scientific, exemplary of scholarly methods reply was:
>
> Augray wrote:
>>> No, you didn't.
He was right. You referenced diagnoses, not definitions. There's a
difference.
[snip remainder, which is repetitive; it's also hard to tell what if
anything is new and what is old]
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Are you really holding a nearly three year old grudge?
That's it, instantly leap to the most negative
conclusion you can think of, and then apply it
to me...
Because, like, it would be *So* uncalled for to
assume that I only recently came across it, or
someone brought it up and reminded me... you know,
explanations which aren't tailored to convince
yourself of your superiority....
Damn, Hartmen, can't you get through even ONE
sentence before you start to fester?
John Harshman
Thanks for deleting all the content. Gets things off to a great start.
Augray
in <2d364eb6-b9f7-4dd2...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
:
>Popularity is far more important than facts here,
An easy claim to make if one lacks facts and popularity.
>but let the record show that a correction was
>offered, even if ignored.
Has this post been stuck in the moderation bot for the last few years?
>The really pathetic thing being, this was actually the
>"Post of the Month"...
Which can be found at
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2007_03.html or
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/aa7b970c02b7f258
>: Subject: | Why Epidendrosaurus is a Dinosaur
>: Date: | 26 Mar 2007
>: Message-ID: | 45kf03hktnjsnuagi...@4ax.com
>
>To bring you up to speed here, the issue was on
>the origins of flight. It all began, way back when,
>when I pointed out that to call birds "dinosaurs" was
>to discount the arboreal theory on the origins of
>flight as there are no known arboreal dinosaurs.
But as I'd pointed out a few months previously in
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/9c652c67a7750c09 there
was at least one known arboreal dinosaur: Microraptor.
And it should also be mentioned that JTEM is assuming his conclusion
by claiming that "there are no known arboreal dinosaurs", as we'll
soon see.
>Simple logic, really. Nothing the least bit earth shattering.
>Or, at least that's what you'd think. But, it was a whole
>long time afterward before the fur would cease flying.
>
>Anyhow, eventually Augray hit upon Epidendrosaurus,
In fact, it was JTEM who brought up Epidendrosaurus, in
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/bc560a348b63448e and
claimed that an argument could be made that it wasn't a dinosaur.
>calling it the arboreal dinosaur -- what was supposed to
>have given rise or flight.
I don't believe I've ever claimed that.
>There were several problems
>with this, at least two of which I instantly pointed out:
>
>The first was that the dating was all wrong. Yes, there
>was (remains) a dispute over the dating, but even so,
>even at our most generous we can not claim that the
>dating is universally accepted.
In fact, while JTEM and I have argued about the dating of the rocks
that Epidendrosaurus was found in, we did that four months previous to
this, in
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8a881433e74c8d4d/
But it's all irrelevant to the subject of the March 2007 POTM.
>The second issue is that Epidendrosaurus doesn't even
>meet the strictest definition for "Dinosaur," lacking a
>fully perforated acetabulum.
But as I pointed out in the POTM:
-----------------------------------
10- Perforate acetabulum?
Much has been made of this trait, and while the pelvis is not present
in the holotype, it is in the referred specimen. Czerkas and Yuan
write that
A cast of a separated sacral rib covers part of the acetabulum,
but the indication from the texture and color extending from the
illium suggests that the hip socket was not as widely perforated
as in theropods or dinosaurs in general. The inner edge of this
reduced perforation in the hip socket can be seen in both
acetabula on the counterslab.
But this is irrelevant to Novas, who states that
The opening of the acetabulum is relatively small in the
saurischians _Staurikosaurus_ and _Herrerasaurus_, and in the
early ornithischians _Lesothosaurus_ and _Pisanosaurus_, but it
is larger in other dinosaurs.
In other words, it's the perforation that counts, and not the size.
Similarly, the perforation of the acetabulum is reduced in Unenlagia,
but no one claims that it's not a dinosaur (Novas & Puerta 1997).
-----------------------------------
Hence a *fully* perforated acetabulum is not a requirement to be a
dinosaur, just a *perforated* one, which Epidendrosaurus has.
>And, yes, I provided cites to establish both of these
>facts, which Augery promptly denied. My response:
>
>: JTEM wrote:
>: >>> Wait a minute. Let's not mince words here. You're lying
>: >>> and you know you're lying. I cited the relevant posts.
>: >>> Responding directly to you, after I pointed out that it may
>: >>> not even be a dinosaur, I demonstrated this fact with URLs.
>
>Oh. Here's the URL to a post of mine in which I offered no less
>than three (3) cites which included "fully perforated acetabulum"
>in their definition for "Dinosaur":
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/28813dcf085a3f60?hl=en&dmode=source
And here they are:
http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/16-723-741.html
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit310/100.html#Dinosauria
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/courses/v1001/pracmid03_ans.html
The first link no longer works, but no doubt referred to Novas (1996),
which I quoted in my post. And surprisingly, the second one states
that the trait in question is "semi-perforate (usually fully
perforated) acetabulum with buttress...". So apparently, a
semi-perforate acetabulum is ok, contrary to JTEM's claim. None of the
links say that a *fully* perforated acetabulum is a required, merely a
*perforated* one. The "completely" bit is something that JTEM is
adding in an attempt to win an old argument.
>Anyhow, Augray's winning Post-of-the-Month, completely
>scientific, exemplary of scholarly methods reply was:
>
>Augray wrote:
>>> No, you didn't.
You seem to have missed the rest of the post.
>It would be one thing if this caliber of post simply went
>unnoticed by those who claim to live in a 100% fact-based
>world, but this is what the "Science" crowd selected as
>Post of the Month!
In reality, I spent the rest of the post explaining *why* you didn't.
>JTEM then pointed to one of his previous messages at
><http://tinyurl.com/2rwbsw> which included the following:
>
>What do you know, the exact same post I just mentioned!
>
>The guy read it, saw I had backed up by statements with
>cites, but denied it because -- now get this -- he disagrees
>with the conclusions.
You should probably mention that I gave reasons for disagreeing with
them, which can be seen in my reply at
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ffa36e400b4feaa3
And I'll also point out that you ran away from that reply.
>> http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/16-723-741.html
>>
>> | Dinosauria is diagnosed by 17 apomorphic features,
>> | such as: deltopectoral crest distally projected; at
>> | least three sacral vertebrae; perforated acetabulum;
See? It doesn't say *completely* perforated acetabulum, merely
perforated. And I also pointed out that Epidendrosaurus has a
perforated acetabulum.
>> | presence of brevis shelf on ilium; astragalar ascending
>> | process inserts beneath the tibia; distal tarsal 4
>> | proximodistally depressed.
>
>"Perforated Acetabulum."
But not *completely*. And Epidendrosaurus has a perforated acetabulum.
Are you getting the message now?
>> The above isn't a fluke:
>>
>> http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit310/100.html#Dinosauria
>>
>> While you're studying, concentrate on question #8:
>>
>> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/courses/v1001/pracmid03_ans.html
>
>Okay, I also stated the following:
>
>> Also: This find seems to have taken the dinosaurs-evolved-from-birds
>> arguments that most people are really making.
>
>Now the above is based on a few well established facts, which
>Augray is aware of, starting with the following...
>
>> It's primitive AND bird like, more primitive and more bird like
>> than archaeopteryx. Not that there was ever any shortage of
>> dinosaurs more bird like than archaeopteryx, but it's the
>> "primitive" that has got us here.
>
>Archaeopteryx is supposed to be the first bird, but it's less
>bird-like than Epidendrosaurus, even as it displays absolutely
>no arboreal adaptations. This would make perfect sense if
>dinosaurs evolved from birds, but not the other way around.
All this is completely irrelevant to the identification of
Epidendrosaurus as a dinosaur.
>Here:
>
>[More bird like and primitive] --> [less primitive, more dinosaur
>like]
>
> or...
>
>Epidendrosaurus --> Archeopteryx
>
>There is no dispute with both of the above, In other words, all data
>claims the above. Augray claims the above. He's arguing that
>the more primitive, more bird-like Epidendrosaurus gave rise to
>the less primitive, more dinosaur like Archeopteryx, which was
>so dinosaur-like that examples without obvious feathers were
>routinely identified as a terrestrial dinosaur without so much as
>a hint of arboreal adaptations.
Unfortunately, JTEM was never able to demonstrate that the "dinosaur"
identification was because of a lack of arboreal adaptations. And
besides, it all irrelevant to the identification of Epidendrosaurus as
a dinosaur, which was the point of my post.
>A cite I used in the past, and Augray dismissed:
>
>: In fact, he intimated that if it weren't for the fact that
>: Archaeopteryx had feathers, it would be easily mistaken
>: for a reptile. These were prophetic words, as John
>: Ostrom would show a hundred years later when he saw
>: that Archaeopteryx was misidentified as a pterodactyl. In
>: 1973 and again in 1988, two other specimens of
>: Archaeopteryx were discovered hiding under assumed
>: names in collections in Germany. Once again,
>: Archaeopteryx had been identified as Compsognathus.
>: It appears that Huxley was right: Archaeopteryx is a
>: feathered dinosaur.
>http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
>
>
>> Augray wrote:
>:>Christ but you're dense.
>
>Apparently ad hominem -- especially when based on fallacy --
>is now considered to be "scientific," or at least here.
I very much doubt that my post was nominated based on that line. But
one should also keep in mind that over the previous month, JTEM had
called me a liar, a moron, a "steaming waste product", a "worthless
dung heap", "shit for brains", a "dishonest twit", and several more
expletives. I'd also been accused of being Harshman's sock puppet.
Complaining about me calling him "dense" really fails to capture the
flavor of the thread up to that point. But apparently ad hominem is
fine when JTEM does it.
>> When are you going to get it through your head that making a
>> claim is not the same as making an argument?
>
>Remember: He is the one making that claim. He is claiming
>that Epidendrosaurus is an arboreal dinosaur
Indeed. It's evidence that your claim that "there are no known
arboreal dinosaurs" is false. And then there's Microraptor to keep in
mind.
>and a predecessor
>to archeopteryx.
More correctly, that it *predates* Archaeopteryx.
>Remember: This came after I provided not one, not two but three
>cites demonstrating the point just one point out of many.
But as we've seen, none of the links you cite supported your claim,
and two of them contradicted it.
>> To use a definition whose source will instantly be recognized by
>> the regulars here, "An argument is a connected series of
>> statements intended to establish a proposition."
>
>Utterly meaningless, yes. Seemingly random, sure. But, not
>relevant, not scholarly and not even a legitimate argument.
But I like to think that it was amusing for those who got the
allusion. And for those who did, it helped to make my point.
>I'm thinking that irony meters where on the fritz that day...
Sorry you missed the allusion.
>> Yes, it is.
>
>The usenet equivalent to talking to yourself,
Or perhaps emphasizing the point.
>though yet
>someone representative of a scientific ideal for most of
>the folks around here...
More likely a comedic ideal.
>> But it's something that you have yet to do regarding the
>> non-dinosaurian status of Epidendrosaurus.
>
>Please. It is enough to show that it is not
>a universal match to any & all definitions for "Dinosaur."
But as Harshman has already pointed out, it doesn't have to be a
universal match. But it matched in all the traits that were available.
> ....that, and it's only a small part of the issue. The others
>being that #1. the one firm dating has it too young,
Which is irrelevant to Epidendrosaurus being identified as a dinosaur.
>and #2.
>it advances the dinosaurs-evolved-from-birds nonsense.
Did you ever get around to explaining your reasoning for this claim?
>There is no model presented anywhere on this planet which
>gets us from Epidendrosaurus to Archeopteryx.
It's called "evolution". Perhaps you've heard of it?
>> It's obvious that you need to be shown how it's done,
>
>Huh? You're making this up as you go along. All I need do
>is demonstrate (which I have) that the case for calling it a
>dinosaur is not as clear cut as you would mislead people
>to believe,
The *only* way you've attempted to do that is by saying that it has to
have a "completely" perforated acetabulum, but none of your cites
agree with you. Besides, you've never explained *how* to recognize a
completely perforated acetabulum.
>and I easily did that by demonstrating that it
>is not universally accepted under the existing definitions for
>"Dinosaur."
Who doesn't accept it as a dinosaur?
>YOU can't claim that Epidendrosaurus is an arboreal
>dinosaur unless YOU establish that it is in fact a dinosaur,
Already done. And now might be the time to point out that you've never
been able to justify what *you* think it is. Amusingly, you once said
that it could be a flightless pterosaur, but you never bothered to
defend that idea. Probably because you knew you couldn't.
>and that it is arboreal.
Here's a hint: The paper that described it was entitled "A juvenile
coelurosaurian theropod from China indicates arboreal habits". Another
went by the title "An Arboreal Maniraptoran from Northeast China". I
suggest you track them down.
>> so I'll argue the opposing position, demonstrating that
>> Epidendrosaurus is indeed a dinosaur.
>
>AND that Epidendrosaurus is arboreal, AND that Epidendrosaurus
>is the "Missing Link" between archeopteryx and purely terrestrial
>dinosaurs.
That wasn't the concern of the post that's gotten you upset. Merely to
demonstrate that Epidendrosaurus was a dinosaur,
>> My source for the traits of Epidendrosaurus are Zhang et al. (2002).
>
>The one that was dated to the Cretaceous....
No, to the Late Jurassic.
>> In addition, I'll refer to the traits of Scansoriopteryx (Czerkas &
>> Yuan 2002) as this is considered a junior synonym of
>> Epidendrosaurus (Harris 2004; Padian 2004).
>
>The one that is usually placed in the Jurassic...
>
>> 8- Manual digit IV with three or fewer phalanges?
>> As Epidendrosaurus completely lacks digit IV, the answer
>> is yes (Zhang et al. 2002; Czerkas & Yuan 2002).
>
>This is idiotic, ruling at any relation to birds as birds have
>this fourth digit.
No, they don't.
>See how that works? One -- and only one -- piece of information
>is all it takes.
But it really helps if that piece is correct. Otherwise, it's probably
not "information".
>I needn't construct a tome, as you stupidly
>claim, as the much faster, much easier solution is to zero in
>on one critical piece and demonstrate how it simply doesn't
>fit.
But I cited six that *do* fit.
>Birds have the fourth digit. The ancestor of birds had the fourth
>digit.
Cite?
>You're welcome.
Why the long wait?
Some references:
Czerkas, S. A. & Yuan C.-X. 2002. An Arboreal Maniraptoran from
Northeast China. In "Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight",
edited by S. J. Czerkas, pp. 63-95. Blanding, Utah: The Dinosaur
Museum.
Novas, F. E. 1996. Dinosaur Monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 16(4):723-741.
Novas, F. E. & P. F. Puerta. 1997. New evidence concerning avian
origins from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Nature 387:390-392.
Zhang F.-C., Zhou Z.-H., Xu X., & Wang X.-L. 2002. A juvenile
coelurosaurian theropod from China indicates arboreal habits.
Naturwissenschaften 89:394-398.
Augray
in <06e97958-16eb-4b57...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
:
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Are you really holding a nearly three year old grudge?
>
>That's it, instantly leap to the most negative
>conclusion you can think of, and then apply it
>to me...
It's probably because you're a negative kind of guy.
>Because, like, it would be *So* uncalled for to
>assume that I only recently came across it,
You replied to it at the time. I invited you to convince others *not*
to vote for it at the time. But now you're back with a rebuttal?
>or
>someone brought it up and reminded me... you know,
>explanations which aren't tailored to convince
>yourself of your superiority....
Almost three years ago, but you cared enough to post now. How nice.
>Damn, Hartmen, can't you get through even ONE
>sentence before you start to fester?
Well, someone's been festering.
John Harshman
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:42:02 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
> in <2d364eb6-b9f7-4dd2...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
Neither is a requirement, unless you believe in typology rather than
evolution. Is it your claim that no dinosaur could evolve an
unperforated acetabulum? Let's not confuse diagnoses (which can change
with the discovery of new species) with definitions (which in the case
of taxa are phylogenetic statements, with no necessary character content).
Characters are guides to phylogeny, not group membership cards.
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<DvydnequL_H...@giganews.com> :
Very true.
>unless you believe in typology rather than
>evolution.
Admittedly, it's sometimes a very hard idea to shake off.
>Is it your claim that no dinosaur could evolve an
>unperforated acetabulum?
No, it's not (although it seems unlikely). The heat of composition
carried me away at that moment. But in my defense, I also mentioned
the following in my post, in response to JTEM's claim that all traits
must be present:
But as Harshman has already pointed out, it doesn't have to be a
universal match. But it matched in all the traits that were
available.
>Let's not confuse diagnoses (which can change
>with the discovery of new species) with definitions (which in the case
>of taxa are phylogenetic statements, with no necessary character content).
I'm reminded of a line from Gauthier & de Queiroz (2001):
To paraphrase Darwin, who was himself paraphrasing Linnaeus, a
canary has feathers because it is a bird, rather than being a
bird because it has feathers.
>Characters are guides to phylogeny, not group membership cards.
And any phylogeny worth its salt will place Epidendrosaurus deep
within Dinosauria.
John Harshman
snipping content again.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Thanks for deleting all the content.
I returned the respect shown to me.
But thanks for demonstrating, once again, that
you operate under the assumption that everything
proves your superiority....
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hence a *fully* perforated acetabulum is not
> a requirement
Ah, the "Exception is the rule" argument...
> And surprisingly, the second one states
> that the trait in question is "semi-perforate
> (usually fully perforated) acetabulum with
> buttress...". So apparently, a semi-perforate
> acetabulum is ok,
The screaming-pink neon sign here, the so-obvious
-even-a-Harshman-should-see-it error here can
be illustrated with the following...
Black skin is normal. Many tens of millions of
people have black skin, therefore the fact that
a person has black skin does not rule out the
possibility that they are full-blooded Scottish.
We're not talking about "Dinosaurs" here, we're
talking about what you maintained as the likely
predecessor of birds.
But, again, you're trying to conceal the forest
behind a tree.
Flight -- hence birds -- originated with unambiguously
arboreal dinosaurs, who took to gliding, which is why
the very first birds (archeopteryx, for example) are
complete indistinguishable from purely terrestrial
dinosaurs when seen without the impressions of feathers.
: In fact, he intimated that if it weren't for the fact that
: Archaeopteryx had feathers, it would be easily mistaken
: for a reptile. These were prophetic words, as John
: Ostrom would show a hundred years later when he saw
: that Archaeopteryx was misidentified as a pterodactyl. In
: 1973 and again in 1988, two other specimens of
: Archaeopteryx were discovered hiding under assumed
: names in collections in Germany. Once again,
: Archaeopteryx had been identified as Compsognathus.
: It appears that Huxley was right: Archaeopteryx is a
: feathered dinosaur.
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
ONCE AGAIN:
You're arguing that dinosaurs evolved from birds. You're
arguing that the END RESULT of this evolution is archeopteryx,
a creature looks like a purely terrestrial dinosaur with
feathers.
> contrary to JTEM's claim. None of the
> links say that a *fully* perforated acetabulum is a
> required,
And what does "Partially Perforated" mean? It's
got a hole but it's filled in? What?
I guess it's like a bridge that only PARTIALLY spans
a river... good way to get wet, huh?
John Harshman
clarified your claims in response to questions.
John Harshman
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hence a *fully* perforated acetabulum is not
>> a requirement
>
> Ah, the "Exception is the rule" argument...
>
>> And surprisingly, the second one states
>> that the trait in question is "semi-perforate
>> (usually fully perforated) acetabulum with
>> buttress...". So apparently, a semi-perforate
>> acetabulum is ok,
>
> The screaming-pink neon sign here, the so-obvious
> -even-a-Harshman-should-see-it error here can
> be illustrated with the following...
>
> Black skin is normal. Many tens of millions of
> people have black skin, therefore the fact that
> a person has black skin does not rule out the
> possibility that they are full-blooded Scottish.
It would be better if you gave an example that had something to do with
evolution. Suppose, for example, that you transplanted a population of
scots to tropical Africa and waited 10 or 20 thousand years. How dark
are they now?
The point is that group membership doesn't depend on characteristics,
but on history. Characteristics are clues. Some clues may be very good,
but they aren't by themselves definitional.
> We're not talking about "Dinosaurs" here, we're
> talking about what you maintained as the likely
> predecessor of birds.
Nobody is claiming that any particular fossil is ancestral to birds, if
that's what you mean. Every fossil will display some primitive
characters and some derived characters, including a number of
autapomorphies. There is no one character that would disqualify any
fossil from being a dinosaur. A dinosaur doesn't have to have a
perforated acetabulum. That's an observation, subject to exception at
any time if we happen to find one.
> But, again, you're trying to conceal the forest
> behind a tree.
>
> Flight -- hence birds -- originated with unambiguously
> arboreal dinosaurs, who took to gliding, which is why
> the very first birds (archeopteryx, for example) are
> complete indistinguishable from purely terrestrial
> dinosaurs when seen without the impressions of feathers.
Well, not completely. There are a few other clues, such as an unusual
degree of elongation of the forelimbs. And complete lack of ambiguity is
hard to come by, but Microraptor sure looks arboreal to me.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with your statement above? I think,
quibbles aside, that it's likely to be true.
> : In fact, he intimated that if it weren't for the fact that
> : Archaeopteryx had feathers, it would be easily mistaken
> : for a reptile. These were prophetic words, as John
> : Ostrom would show a hundred years later when he saw
> : that Archaeopteryx was misidentified as a pterodactyl. In
> : 1973 and again in 1988, two other specimens of
> : Archaeopteryx were discovered hiding under assumed
> : names in collections in Germany. Once again,
> : Archaeopteryx had been identified as Compsognathus.
> : It appears that Huxley was right: Archaeopteryx is a
> : feathered dinosaur.
> http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
>
> ONCE AGAIN:
>
> You're arguing that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
Despite the fact that he has eplicitly denied doing any such thing?
> You're
> arguing that the END RESULT of this evolution is archeopteryx,
> a creature looks like a purely terrestrial dinosaur with
> feathers.
End result? Hardly. Archaeopteryx is one species of many, occupying one
position on the theropod tree. The usual concensus is that it's closer
to modern birds than are most other feathered theropods, but that's
still contentious.
>> contrary to JTEM's claim. None of the
>> links say that a *fully* perforated acetabulum is a
>> required,
>
> And what does "Partially Perforated" mean? It's
> got a hole but it's filled in? What?
>
> I guess it's like a bridge that only PARTIALLY spans
> a river... good way to get wet, huh?
Doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. You appear to be saying that an animal
without a perforated acetabulum can't be a dinosaur, by definition. And
that ignores the fact that group membership in living things is
determined by phylogeny and no other criteria. Characters are merely
clues to phylogeny. If it's your claim that Epidendrosaurus wasn't a
dinosaur, you have to support that with an argument about phylogeny, not
about definitions.
JTEM
We'll try it Harshman's way...
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Perhaps JTEM will eventually clarify his argument. But
> I doubt it. He's snipping content again.
You're a drooling imbecile, no doubt driven to
madness by that requirement that you inform your
neighbors of your conviction.
Anyhow, you're zeroing in on the tree at the
expense of the forest.
John Harshman
What is the forest? Rather than just complain, why not clarify?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> What is the forest?
Oh, I forgot, besides dreaming up a worst case
scenario and applying it to others, you also
believe that the height of intellect requires
you to be constantly (incessantly) informed of
the context.
HINT: That much was provided for you in the
very first post in this thread, starting with
my third sentence.
> Rather than just complain, why not clarify?
Honestly, I will give you 100% of all the
clarification that you've been missing over
the years:
This is a thread. The context isn't invented
anew with every post. In fact, the context
hasn't changed one iota since the first post.
So if I say in the very first post (paraphrasing
myself), "Here's the story..." that would mean
that it's still the very same story.
Augray
in <590c985e-fa66-47cf...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
:
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hence a *fully* perforated acetabulum is not
>> a requirement
>
>Ah, the "Exception is the rule" argument...
Wrong. No one points to a *fully* perforated acetabulum, just a
perforated one. This is one of those cases where size doesn't matter.
>> And surprisingly, the second one states
>> that the trait in question is "semi-perforate
>> (usually fully perforated) acetabulum with
>> buttress...". So apparently, a semi-perforate
>> acetabulum is ok,
>
>The screaming-pink neon sign here, the so-obvious
>-even-a-Harshman-should-see-it error here can
>be illustrated with the following...
>
>Black skin is normal. Many tens of millions of
>people have black skin, therefore the fact that
>a person has black skin does not rule out the
>possibility that they are full-blooded Scottish.
And how does one determine if someone is a full-blooded Scotsman?
>We're not talking about "Dinosaurs" here, we're
>talking about what you maintained as the likely
>predecessor of birds.
No, we're talking about dinosaurs, and whether Epidendrosaurus is a
dinosaur. *That's* what the POTM was about, nothing more. Your silly
attempt to drag in the origin of birds into a post that was only about
*classifying* Epidendrosaurus is just misdirection. I could argue for
a crocodilian origin for birds and still place Epidendrosaurus in the
dinosaurs.
>But, again, you're trying to conceal the forest
>behind a tree.
Rather, the POTM was just interested in a single tree, and you keep
trying to criticize it by pointing to the other trees in the forest.
It's as if I'm saying that a particular tree is an elm, and you're
saying I'm wrong by pointing to other trees that are oaks.
>Flight -- hence birds -- originated with unambiguously
>arboreal dinosaurs, who took to gliding, which is why
>the very first birds (archeopteryx, for example) are
>complete indistinguishable from purely terrestrial
>dinosaurs when seen without the impressions of feathers.
I disagree, but it's all irrelevant to whether or not Epidendrosaurus
as a dinosaur. Completely and utterly irrelevant.
>: In fact, he intimated that if it weren't for the fact that
>: Archaeopteryx had feathers, it would be easily mistaken
>: for a reptile. These were prophetic words, as John
>: Ostrom would show a hundred years later when he saw
>: that Archaeopteryx was misidentified as a pterodactyl. In
>: 1973 and again in 1988, two other specimens of
>: Archaeopteryx were discovered hiding under assumed
>: names in collections in Germany. Once again,
>: Archaeopteryx had been identified as Compsognathus.
>: It appears that Huxley was right: Archaeopteryx is a
>: feathered dinosaur.
>http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
>
>ONCE AGAIN:
>
>You're arguing that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
No, I'm not. But apparently it doesn't matter how many times I say I'm
not, you'll just repeat the same falsehood again and again.
>You're
>arguing that the END RESULT of this evolution is archeopteryx,
>a creature looks like a purely terrestrial dinosaur with
>feathers.
Even if that were true (and it's not), it's completely irrelevant as
to whether Epidendrosaurus is a dinosaur.
>> contrary to JTEM's claim. None of the
>> links say that a *fully* perforated acetabulum is a
>> required,
>
>And what does "Partially Perforated" mean? It's
>got a hole but it's filled in? What?
Why don't you ask the people who created the webpages? Why don't you
ask yourself, since you seemed to agree with those pages at the time?
>I guess it's like a bridge that only PARTIALLY spans
>a river... good way to get wet, huh?
You tell me, since you cited them.
Augray
in <63353646-628d-464a...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
:
>We'll try it Harshman's way...
>
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps JTEM will eventually clarify his argument. But
>> I doubt it. He's snipping content again.
>
>You're a drooling imbecile, no doubt driven to
>madness by that requirement that you inform your
>neighbors of your conviction.
Apparently, you think that ad hominem is "scientific" now.
>Anyhow, you're zeroing in on the tree at the
>expense of the forest.
There's nothing wrong with that when one's interested in a particular
tree.
John Harshman
I replied to the thread. I read all the context. You killed my reply, as
well as all the context. I don't know whether you even read my reply,
but if you did you apparently think I missed the point. That's why I'm
asking what the point was. I should know better than to ask. But here I
am asking again. Now, you apparently have some interest in having other
people understand your point, or you wouldn't have begun the thread. So
what is the point?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> The point is that group membership doesn't
> depend on characteristics, but on history.
Unless something has changed, cranium capacity
is still used to determine if a fossil belongs
with "homo" or not.
> Characteristics are clues. Some clues may be
> very good, but they aren't by themselves
> definitional.
You're spewing nonsense.
I mean, it sounds good, but it's abject crap. In
fact, your whole "history" is completely meaningless
without the focus on physical characteristics.
We don't perform DNA tests on various species of
the Triassic, determining how they are related,
we go entirely by physical characteristics.
We always have. We always will.
"Cladistics" wouldn't exist otherwise.
> but Microraptor sure looks arboreal to me.
Really? Why? Explain.
Here's an artist's rendition of Microraptor
without the feathers:
http://www.ub.uio.no/umn/geol/Endnote/Microraptor%20g%E5ende.jpg
Here's one with some feathers:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/Microraptor.jpg
Nope, sorry, neither one is very bird like. It
seems that without a specific use of the feathers,
Microraptor doesn't look very bird like, doesn't
look very arboreal.
Don't worry though, the web is full of bad
reconstructions...
http://prehistoricsillustrated.com/images_jtc/moonlight_hunt_microraptor.jpg
> > You're arguing that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
>
> Despite the fact that he has eplicitly denied doing
> any such thing?
It's facts that are supposed to matter, not claims.
And the fact is that he is suggesting that the dinosaur
form evolved from a more bird-like, unambiguously
arboreal animal.
> > You're
> > arguing that the END RESULT of this evolution is archeopteryx,
> > a creature looks like a purely terrestrial dinosaur with
> > feathers.
> End result? Hardly. Archaeopteryx is one species of many,
> occupying one position on the theropod tree. The usual
> concensus is that it's closer to modern birds than are
> most other feathered theropods, but that's
> still contentious.
You're ignoring the big picture, again.
The point is that it is virtually indistinguishable from
any purely terrestrial theropod without it's feathers.
That, it has no obvious arboreal traits. This leaves us
with the claim that...
#1. Arboreal dinosaurs evolved.
#2. These arboreal dinosaurs evolved gliding.
#3. These gliders evolved into theropod dinosaurs,
losing all of their arboreal features in the process.
#3a. Some of these theropod dinosaurs (which evolved
from the gliders) evolved powered flight, even as they
lost their arboreal features.
> And that ignores the fact that group membership in
> living things is determined by phylogeny and no
> other criteria. Characters are merely clues to
> phylogeny.
Hardly.
You can only extract DNA "evidence" from living species.
So although you can determine a relationship between,
say, humans & chimps without relying entirely on physical
characteristics, this is not true for humans and
dinosaurs...
"But we can use birds!"
Well, no, not without first basing a relationship between
birds & dinosaurs entirely on (now get this) physical
characteristics.
Seriously, Harshman, this is pretty basic stuff. What's
more, it's not the first time you've recklessly spewed
this nonsense.
The first time was more than two years ago, and I corrected
you THEN.
As per your usual, you leave me flabbergasted. How is
it that someone can say things which are so utterly
in conflict with reality, in a science newsgroup, and
not a single person will call you on it?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> It would be better if you responded to the arguments
> made,
Oh, okay: You're full of shit. Contrary to what
you pretend, physical characteristics are VITAL.
DNA samples more than even a few thousand years
old are quite rare, while life on this earth
stretches back billions of years. As a result, we
can either group by physical characteristics or
not group at all.
Oh, sure, we can compare our own DNA to that of
other living species... or even the DNA of
recently extinct species which was somehow
preserved, but anything & everything beyond that
is based entirely on physical characteristics.
Any "Ancestor" of our's for which we do not have
a viable DNA sample is called our "ancestor"
only on the basis of it's physical characteristics.
You're welcome.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> The point is that group membership doesn't
>> depend on characteristics, but on history.
>
> Unless something has changed, cranium capacity
> is still used to determine if a fossil belongs
> with "homo" or not.
That's never been true. It's used as a clue, but it's not a defining
characteristic. If we discover a fossil species that has a small brain
but is more closely related to us than to H. habilis, it well be
considered Homo, regardless of cranial capacity. In fact, do the
"hobbits" fall into that category?
>> Characteristics are clues. Some clues may be
>> very good, but they aren't by themselves
>> definitional.
>
> You're spewing nonsense.
>
> I mean, it sounds good, but it's abject crap. In
> fact, your whole "history" is completely meaningless
> without the focus on physical characteristics.
>
> We don't perform DNA tests on various species of
> the Triassic, determining how they are related,
> we go entirely by physical characteristics.
>
> We always have. We always will.
>
> "Cladistics" wouldn't exist otherwise.
Agreed. But the characteristics are not directly the determinants. The
phylogeny inferred from the characteristics is. Did you see the example
of tetrapods without legs? It's possible to infer phylogeny, and
therefore group membership, even if every single character that
supposedly diagnoses that group has been lost or transformed in some
member of the group.
>> but Microraptor sure looks arboreal to me.
>
> Really? Why? Explain.
>
> Here's an artist's rendition of Microraptor
> without the feathers:
>
> http://www.ub.uio.no/umn/geol/Endnote/Microraptor%20g%E5ende.jpg
>
> Here's one with some feathers:
>
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/Microraptor.jpg
>
> Nope, sorry, neither one is very bird like. It
> seems that without a specific use of the feathers,
> Microraptor doesn't look very bird like, doesn't
> look very arboreal.
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.
> Don't worry though, the web is full of bad
> reconstructions...
>
> http://prehistoricsillustrated.com/images_jtc/moonlight_hunt_microraptor.jpg
>
>>> You're arguing that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
>> Despite the fact that he has eplicitly denied doing
>> any such thing?
>
> It's facts that are supposed to matter, not claims.
>
> And the fact is that he is suggesting that the dinosaur
> form evolved from a more bird-like, unambiguously
> arboreal animal.
No he isn't. Nobody can understand why you say this. He has never
suggested that. It would be silly to suggest that, since all dinosaur
phylogenies put such primitive theropods as Eoraptor and Herrerasaurus
at the base of the tree.
But I'm getting a possible hint of what you're trying to say. Is it that
Archaeopteryx looks too primitive to you to be descended from an
arboreal animal?
>>> You're
>>> arguing that the END RESULT of this evolution is archeopteryx,
>>> a creature looks like a purely terrestrial dinosaur with
>>> feathers.
>
>> End result? Hardly. Archaeopteryx is one species of many,
>> occupying one position on the theropod tree. The usual
>> concensus is that it's closer to modern birds than are
>> most other feathered theropods, but that's
>> still contentious.
>
> You're ignoring the big picture, again.
>
> The point is that it is virtually indistinguishable from
> any purely terrestrial theropod without it's feathers.
> That, it has no obvious arboreal traits. This leaves us
> with the claim that...
Not quite true. There are characters that suggest possible arboreality,
such as the claw curvature, grasping claws on the wings, and the
presence of flight feathers on the hindlimb. However, I'm not sure
anyone here is actually claiming that Archaeopteryx was arboreal. (At
least not in this argument, nor is that question relevant to this
argument.) It may have been. But the actual claim is that
Epidendrosaurus and Microraptor were arboreal, and that this suggests a
trees-down theory of the evolution of flight. Obviously it's possible
for an arboreal animal to have non-arboreal descendants, right? You are,
after all, presumably such a descendant.
> #1. Arboreal dinosaurs evolved.
>
> #2. These arboreal dinosaurs evolved gliding.
>
> #3. These gliders evolved into theropod dinosaurs,
> losing all of their arboreal features in the process.
No, that's not a claim. They already were theropod dinosaurs. Perhaps
you are trying to say that some of the descendants of these arboreal
theropods became non-arboreal. That shouldn't be surprising.
> #3a. Some of these theropod dinosaurs (which evolved
> from the gliders) evolved powered flight, even as they
> lost their arboreal features.
No, I don't think that's the claim either. I suspect the claim is that
powered flight first appeared in arboreal, gliding theropods.
>> And that ignores the fact that group membership in
>> living things is determined by phylogeny and no
>> other criteria. Characters are merely clues to
>> phylogeny.
>
> Hardly.
>
> You can only extract DNA "evidence" from living species.
> So although you can determine a relationship between,
> say, humans & chimps without relying entirely on physical
> characteristics, this is not true for humans and
> dinosaurs...
Nobody mentioned DNA. For fossils, morphological characters are the only
clues to phylogeny we have. But no character can define a group.
Inferred phylogeny defines groups, and in this case phylogeny is
inferred from those morphological characters. But that's not the same
thing. If a dinosaur evolves a closed acetabulum, does it stop being a
dinosaur? Not according to cladistic classification. So the (supposed)
presence of a closed acetabulum doesn't by itself prevent
Epidendrosaurus from being a dinosaur. By itself, it suggests that E.
isn't a dinosaur (being most parsimoniously interpreted as primitive and
excluding E. from the clade), but if other characters contradict this
assessment, and they do, then we must reinterpret the acetabulum as a
reversal. To belabor the example again, the presence of legs diagnoses
tetrapods, but snakes lack them. On that character alone, we would
suppose that snakes weren't tetrapods. But lots of other characters tell
us that they are legless lizards, and so are tetrapods anyway. Same
thing here.
> "But we can use birds!"
For what?
> Well, no, not without first basing a relationship between
> birds & dinosaurs entirely on (now get this) physical
> characteristics.
Are you claiming that the relationship between birds and dinosaurs is
not well supported?
> Seriously, Harshman, this is pretty basic stuff. What's
> more, it's not the first time you've recklessly spewed
> this nonsense.
>
> The first time was more than two years ago, and I corrected
> you THEN.
I doubt that. You are misunderstanding almost everything I say. Try
reading without being so angry; it may be obscuring your vision.
> As per your usual, you leave me flabbergasted. How is
> it that someone can say things which are so utterly
> in conflict with reality, in a science newsgroup, and
> not a single person will call you on it?
Possibly because you're the only person who thinks I'm saying anything
of the sort. I'm pretty sure you are misconstruing much of what I say.
John Harshman
You completely misunderstand what I was saying. Nothing about DNA, and
nothing about characters not being vital. The point is that quoting a
definition of Dinosauria as requiring a perforated acetabulum is
typology, not phylogeny. One character can't determine phylogeny, at
least not very securely. You need as many characters as you can find.
Even if Epidendrosaurus lacks a perforated acetabulum (if), its other
characters place it securely in Dinosauria (specifically in Theropoda
and Maniraptora). Character reversals are not uncommon in the course of
evolution; homoplasy is indeed possible.
So you say Epidendrosaurus isn't a dinosaur. Fine, but you can't just
mention the acetabulum, case closed. Have you done a phylogenetic
analysis? Others have, and they have placed it as a dinosaur. You are
free to critique those analyses. But until you have done that at least,
you have no grounds to speak.
rmacfarl
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:AK-dnRmQx4z...@giganews.com...
> JTEM wrote:
>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The point is that group membership doesn't
>>> depend on characteristics, but on history.
>>
>> Unless something has changed, cranium capacity
>> is still used to determine if a fossil belongs
>> with "homo" or not.
>
> That's never been true. It's used as a clue, but it's not a
> defining characteristic. If we discover a fossil species that
> has a small brain but is more closely related to us than to H.
> habilis, it well be considered Homo, regardless of cranial
> capacity. In fact, do the "hobbits" fall into that category?
>
Actually it used to be true. From memory a working definition of
Homo through the 1950s was cranial capacity greater than 700 cc.
Louis Leakey overturned that paradigm by declaring the habilis
fossils to be Homo in the early 60s. It was controversial at the
time but there are a lot of fossils that are classed as H habilis
or perhaps H rudolfensis. There's also the Dmanisi, Georgia
diminutive hominds that are dated to between 1.5 & 2 MYA & have
ca. 600 cc brains.
On the other hand, in the last decade White has ascribed simple
tools that are dated to 2.6 MYA to fossils that have been named
Australopithecus garhi (meaning surprise in the local language,
apparently). That would overturn the paradigm that stone tools =
Homo. However such claims are contentious because they're based
on well-established scientific reputations (read: egoes) and very
fragmentary material.
As re the "hobbit", it was described as Homo floresiensis, but
there's still a lot of debate ranging from an evolved
australopithecine, a dwarfed Homo (erectus or sapiens) or a
pathological Homo (e.g. a dieseased individual, such as a
microcephalic). The largest number probably favour the second
option but it's a long way from concensus.
John Harshman
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:AK-dnRmQx4z...@giganews.com...
>> JTEM wrote:
>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point is that group membership doesn't
>>>> depend on characteristics, but on history.
>>> Unless something has changed, cranium capacity
>>> is still used to determine if a fossil belongs
>>> with "homo" or not.
>> That's never been true. It's used as a clue, but it's not a
>> defining characteristic. If we discover a fossil species that
>> has a small brain but is more closely related to us than to H.
>> habilis, it well be considered Homo, regardless of cranial
>> capacity. In fact, do the "hobbits" fall into that category?
>>
>
> Actually it used to be true.
No it didn't, not without an implicit assumption that the human lineage
was a) undivided, i.e. a single population through all history and b) of
constantly increasing (and never decreasing) brain size. With these
assumptions, brain size does correspond to phylogeny. But phylogeny was
always the criterion, however much the operational criterion depended on
an arbitrary character threshold.
rmacfarl
Two things.
One, I was responding to the statement 'cranium capacity is still
used to determine if a fossil belongs with "homo" or not', which
you said was never true, when broadly speaking, cranium capacity
was used as a determinant of whether a fossil was Homo or not.
That's not to say it was scientifically correct, just the
accepted wisdom.
Secondly, for a long time the received wisdom was an implicit
assumption that the human lineage "was a) undivided, i.e. a
single population through all history and b) of constantly
increasing (and never decreasing) brain size." In fact that view
of human prehistory is still around among proponents of the
multi-regional evolutionary hypothesis, such as Milford Wolpoff.
I've read C. L. Brace on some of the palanth groups within the
last decade promoting that very position, which, FWIW, I do not
subscribe to.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> That's never been true. It's used as a clue, but
> it's not a defining characteristic. If we discover
> a fossil species that has a small brain but is
> more closely related to us than to H. habilis,
....going entirely by physical characteristics.
You argue in circles.
Apart from living species and the rare recently
(within a few thousand years) extinct species,
ALL relationships/identities are determined by
physical characteristics.
Please stop arguing nonsense.
Thanks in advance.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> You completely misunderstand what I was saying.
Oh, do tell...
> Nothing about DNA, and nothing about characters not
> being vital. The point is that quoting a definition
> of Dinosauria as requiring a perforated acetabulum
> is
You misunderstood, as you will continue to do so.
....and you are, once again, speaking in generals
in order to artificially create confusion surrounding
specifics.
We're not talking about "dinosaurs" per say. The very
specific animal was upheld the "missing link," the
missing arboreal dinosaur which is required for the
arboreal theory on the origins of flight.
....it's that whole "Big Picture" thing you always
have trouble seeing... "The context."
As I spelled out -- and you ignored -- it all started
out a long time before when I said that anyone who
upholds the "Dinosaurs are Birds" argument must shitcan
the arboreal theory on flight.
So we can quibble forever over your nonsense about how
physical traits aren't that important (when they are),
or you can acknowledge the big picture -- how this
animal fits into the arboreal-origins-of-flight argument.
It doesn't. Yes, I said that the creature doesn't even
meet the standard definition of a dinosaur (and it
doesn't), but even if it, it still has no place in the
larger picture -- the arboreal origins of flight claim.
Why? Because the so-called "Birds" that supposed to have
evolved from such animals HAVE NO SUCH ARBOREAL FEATURES.
HOWEVER, Archeopteryx __IS__ a near perfect match,
physically, to a run of the mill, purely terrestrial
theropod dinosaur.
So...
This leaves us in a position where you're either claiming
that theropod dinosaurs evolved from such early "flyiers,"
or that they are almost certainly unrelated.
chris thompson
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:22:56 -0800, John Harshman
> <DvydnequL_Hs2ITW4p2d...@giganews.com> :> >> in <2d364eb6-b9f7-4dd2-b57a-d75749900...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
I will be looking up the reference you provide, but can you tell me
the source of the Darwin paraphrase please? It's pretty neat.
Thanks,
Chris
chris thompson
> <DvydnequL_Hs2ITW4p2d...@giganews.com> :> >> in <2d364eb6-b9f7-4dd2-b57a-d75749900...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
Never mind, it's in _Origin_. Searchable classics- YES!
Chris
Garamond Lethe
Ok, but any idea where I can find the Linnaen original?
>
> Chris
>
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Wrong. No one points to a *fully* perforated
> acetabulum, just a perforated one.
Describe for us a "partially perforated acetabulum"
for us. How does it differ from a perforated one?
But, again, you're copying Harshman (as per your
usual).
You're ignoring the forest in favor of the trees.
I did say that this animal fails to meet the
standard definition of a dinosaur, and I stand
by that -- undefined "partials" aside -- but what
if that was not the case? What if I didn't &
couldn't make such an argument?
Nothing. Nothing at all. It changes nothing. You
still have absolutely ZERO to stand on. Because,
now get this, your own goddamn cite is a pretty
good argument AGAINST your own position.
You're arguing that theropod dinosaurs evolved from
birds, not the other way around.
You're demonstrating what you believe an arboreal
dinosaur looks like, and it doesn't like a thing
like Archeopteryx. Nope. While Archeopteryx is
virtually indistinguishable from a purely terrestrial
theropod -- without any arboreal adaptations -- your
example is touted as an unambiguously arboreal
dinosaur.
So you're either arguing that the evolutionary path
lead from unambiguously arboreal dinosaur, to an
unambiguously arboreal dinosaur that glides finally
arriving at a "Bird" that looks exactly like any
terrestrial theropod with feathers.
"Theropod dinosaurs evolved from birds"
Or, you're arguing that there's no relation.
Augray
in <5f8e4c54-25c4-414c...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
:
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> The point is that group membership doesn't
>> depend on characteristics, but on history.
>
>Unless something has changed, cranium capacity
>is still used to determine if a fossil belongs
>with "homo" or not.
>
>> Characteristics are clues. Some clues may be
>> very good, but they aren't by themselves
>> definitional.
>
>You're spewing nonsense.
>
>I mean, it sounds good, but it's abject crap. In
>fact, your whole "history" is completely meaningless
>without the focus on physical characteristics.
>
>We don't perform DNA tests on various species of
>the Triassic, determining how they are related,
>we go entirely by physical characteristics.
Not entirely true.
>We always have. We always will.
>
>"Cladistics" wouldn't exist otherwise.
>
>> but Microraptor sure looks arboreal to me.
>
>Really? Why? Explain.
>
>Here's an artist's rendition of Microraptor
>without the feathers:
Reconstructing Microraptor without feathers makes about as much sense
are reconstructing a pigeon without feathers, but let's take a look.
>http://www.ub.uio.no/umn/geol/Endnote/Microraptor%20g%E5ende.jpg
It's pretty silly. The wrists and ankles seem to have an impossible
amount of flexibility, and the proportions of the limbs are completely
out of whack.
>Here's one with some feathers:
>
>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/Microraptor.jpg
That one's even more horrific, since it seems to have had surgery to
remove the arm between the shoulder and the wrist.
>Nope, sorry, neither one is very bird like.
But then, no one said that was important to the argument.
>It
>seems that without a specific use of the feathers,
>Microraptor doesn't look very bird like, doesn't
>look very arboreal.
What would an arboreal dinosaur look like? What traits would it have
to have for you to label it as arboreal?
>Don't worry though, the web is full of bad
>reconstructions...
Which makes one wonder why you rely on them for your arguments.
>http://prehistoricsillustrated.com/images_jtc/moonlight_hunt_microraptor.jpg
Ironically, that's the best one yet. But for a more realistic view of
the proportions of Microraptor, look at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/lift-flash.html
>> > You're arguing that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
>>
>> Despite the fact that he has eplicitly denied doing
>> any such thing?
>
>It's facts that are supposed to matter, not claims.
And it's a fact that two of the three reconstructions you refer to
aren't accurate.
>And the fact is that he is suggesting that the dinosaur
>form evolved from a more bird-like, unambiguously
>arboreal animal.
No, I'm not. How many times do you have to be told this?
>> > You're
>> > arguing that the END RESULT of this evolution is archeopteryx,
>> > a creature looks like a purely terrestrial dinosaur with
>> > feathers.
>
>> End result? Hardly. Archaeopteryx is one species of many,
>> occupying one position on the theropod tree. The usual
>> concensus is that it's closer to modern birds than are
>> most other feathered theropods, but that's
>> still contentious.
>
>You're ignoring the big picture, again.
>
>The point is that it is virtually indistinguishable from
>any purely terrestrial theropod without it's feathers.
Only if you rely on terrible reconstructions.
>That, it has no obvious arboreal traits. This leaves us
>with the claim that...
>
>#1. Arboreal dinosaurs evolved.
>
>#2. These arboreal dinosaurs evolved gliding.
>
>#3. These gliders evolved into theropod dinosaurs,
>losing all of their arboreal features in the process.
>
>#3a. Some of these theropod dinosaurs (which evolved
>from the gliders) evolved powered flight, even as they
>lost their arboreal features.
Wrong again. Here's what I'm arguing:
#1. Terrestrial theropod dinosaurs evolved.
#2. Some of these terrestrial theropod dinosaurs evolved arboreal
forms.
#3. Some of these arboreal theropod dinosaurs evolved gliding.
#4. Some of these gliding arboreal theropod dinosaurs evolved powered
flight.
>> And that ignores the fact that group membership in
>> living things is determined by phylogeny and no
>> other criteria. Characters are merely clues to
>> phylogeny.
>
>Hardly.
>
>You can only extract DNA "evidence" from living species.
>So although you can determine a relationship between,
>say, humans & chimps without relying entirely on physical
>characteristics, this is not true for humans and
>dinosaurs...
But one should also keep in mind that one can determine relationships
without relying on genetics.
>"But we can use birds!"
>
>Well, no, not without first basing a relationship between
>birds & dinosaurs entirely on (now get this) physical
>characteristics.
No, a collagen protein sequence is also available.
>Seriously, Harshman, this is pretty basic stuff. What's
>more, it's not the first time you've recklessly spewed
>this nonsense.
>
>The first time was more than two years ago, and I corrected
>you THEN.
But your supposed "correction" wasn't convincing.
>As per your usual, you leave me flabbergasted. How is
>it that someone can say things which are so utterly
>in conflict with reality, in a science newsgroup, and
>not a single person will call you on it?
Has it occurred to you that you might be the one saying things that
conflict with reality?
Augray
in <4b2c04ef-e233-4112...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
:
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Wrong. No one points to a *fully* perforated
>> acetabulum, just a perforated one.
>
>Describe for us a "partially perforated acetabulum"
>for us. How does it differ from a perforated one?
Unsurprisingly, no one but you uses the adjective "partially" when
describing the perforation of the acetabulum. Your reference at
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit310/100.html#Dinosauria
uses the expression "semi-perforate (usually fully perforated)
acetabulum...", and another of your references (Novas), states that
The opening of the acetabulum is relatively small in the
saurischians _Staurikosaurus_ and _Herrerasaurus_, and in the
early ornithischians _Lesothosaurus_ and _Pisanosaurus_, but it
is larger in other dinosaurs.
A description of Epidendrosaurus (Czerkas & Yuan) outlines the
situation this way:
A cast of a separated sacral rib covers part of the acetabulum,
but the indication from the texture and color extending from the
illium suggests that the hip socket was not as widely perforated
as in theropods or dinosaurs in general. The inner edge of this
reduced perforation in the hip socket can be seen in both
acetabula on the counterslab.
There's nothing about "partially perforated" anywhere. So, for the
thousandth time: It's all about the presence of a perforation, and
size doesn't matter. Do you think you can remember that?
>But, again, you're copying Harshman (as per your
>usual).
Just because two people agree about something doesn't mean that one is
copying the other.
>You're ignoring the forest in favor of the trees.
The only point of the POTM was to demonstrate that Epidendrosaurus was
a dinosaur. That you think I should be paying attention to the forest
when the *entire* *point* of the post was to classify a single tree
shows that a) you don't really understand the purpose of the post, or
b) you're deliberately trying to confuse the situation.
>I did say that this animal fails to meet the
>standard definition of a dinosaur, and I stand
>by that
So, you're ignoring all the other traits as well?
> -- undefined "partials" aside
Since no one else but you uses this term, you might as well keep it
aside, because it's irrelevant.
>-- but what
>if that was not the case? What if I didn't &
>couldn't make such an argument?
Yes, what if you conceded that Epidendrosaurus was a dinosaur? Let's
see:
>Nothing. Nothing at all. It changes nothing. You
>still have absolutely ZERO to stand on.
In other words, if you agreed with me that Epidendrosaurus was a
dinosaur, you'd still disagree with the POTM, the entire purpose of
which was to demonstrate that Epidendrosaurus was a dinosaur.
Wow.
>Because,
>now get this, your own goddamn cite is a pretty
>good argument AGAINST your own position.
Since I cite several papers to justify my position, perhaps you could
specify which one you're referring to?
>You're arguing that theropod dinosaurs evolved from
>birds, not the other way around.
No, I'm not. What is it with you? Is there some problem with your
memory?
>You're demonstrating what you believe an arboreal
>dinosaur looks like,
Me, and the paleontological community.
>and it doesn't like a thing
>like Archeopteryx.
I disagree, but it's irrelevant to the POTM.
>Nope. While Archeopteryx is
>virtually indistinguishable from a purely terrestrial
>theropod -- without any arboreal adaptations
I disagree, as we've gone over before. And as I've mentioned several
times before, it's irrelevant to the POTM.
>-- your
>example is touted as an unambiguously arboreal
>dinosaur.
Yep.
>So you're either arguing that the evolutionary path
>lead from unambiguously arboreal dinosaur, to an
>unambiguously arboreal dinosaur that glides finally
>arriving at a "Bird" that looks exactly like any
>terrestrial theropod with feathers.
>
>"Theropod dinosaurs evolved from birds"
>
>Or, you're arguing that there's no relation.
No, I'm not, because I'm not bound by your uninformed perceptions of
the data.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> You completely misunderstand what I was saying.
>
> Oh, do tell...
>
>> Nothing about DNA, and nothing about characters not
>> being vital. The point is that quoting a definition
>> of Dinosauria as requiring a perforated acetabulum
>> is
>
> You misunderstood, as you will continue to do so.
What did I misunderstand? How? Why?
> ....and you are, once again, speaking in generals
> in order to artificially create confusion surrounding
> specifics.
>
> We're not talking about "dinosaurs" per say. The very
> specific animal was upheld the "missing link," the
> missing arboreal dinosaur which is required for the
> arboreal theory on the origins of flight.
>
> ....it's that whole "Big Picture" thing you always
> have trouble seeing... "The context."
>
> As I spelled out -- and you ignored -- it all started
> out a long time before when I said that anyone who
> upholds the "Dinosaurs are Birds" argument must shitcan
> the arboreal theory on flight.
I recall you saying that, but I don't recall any rational argument for
why that would be true.
> So we can quibble forever over your nonsense about how
> physical traits aren't that important (when they are),
> or you can acknowledge the big picture -- how this
> animal fits into the arboreal-origins-of-flight argument.
You will note that I have never said physical traits aren't that
important. What I said is that physical traits do not define clades. At
most they diagnose clades, but that is subject to change with new
discoveries.
> It doesn't. Yes, I said that the creature doesn't even
> meet the standard definition of a dinosaur (and it
> doesn't), but even if it, it still has no place in the
> larger picture -- the arboreal origins of flight claim.
So do you agree that your complaint about it not meeting the starndard
definition is both irrelevant and wrongheaded?
> Why? Because the so-called "Birds" that supposed to have
> evolved from such animals HAVE NO SUCH ARBOREAL FEATURES.
Actually, they do have some. But what if they didn't? Are you saying
that evolution can't involve change?
> HOWEVER, Archeopteryx __IS__ a near perfect match,
> physically, to a run of the mill, purely terrestrial
> theropod dinosaur.
In some respects, yes. In others, no.
> So...
>
> This leaves us in a position where you're either claiming
> that theropod dinosaurs evolved from such early "flyiers,"
> or that they are almost certainly unrelated.
I deny your premises, and your conclusion doesn't follow from your
premises either. You seem to be making an implicit assumption that
evolution must be linear, i.e. that the direction of transformation must
be constant, so that there must either be a transition from trees to
ground, or from ground to trees. If we follow that logic, then whales
must be descended directly from fish, since there is no way a fish could
become a tetrapod, and a tetrapod then return to the water.
But what's your position? Is Epidendrosaurus not arboreal, or not a
dinosaur? How about Microraptor? What about those characters of
Archaeopteryx that are suggested to be at least remnants of an arboreal
lifestyle? What would prevent an arboreal animal from giving rise to a
non-arboreal one?
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> That's never been true. It's used as a clue, but
>> it's not a defining characteristic. If we discover
>> a fossil species that has a small brain but is
>> more closely related to us than to H. habilis,
>
> ....going entirely by physical characteristics.
>
> You argue in circles.
No, you merely fail to understand my simple point. Characters are used
in modern classification because they're clues to phylogeny. There are
no definitional characters, only diagnostic ones, and diagnoses can
change to reflect new discoveries. If, for example, we had adopted
whiteness as a diagnostic character of swans (Cygnus), and then had
discovered black swans (Cygnus atratus), we would not therefore declare
that black swans were not swans. We would adjust the diagnosis of "swan"
to eliminate whiteness.
> Apart from living species and the rare recently
> (within a few thousand years) extinct species,
> ALL relationships/identities are determined by
> physical characteristics.
True. But irrelevant to my point. Determined by, yes. Defined by, no. Do
you see the difference?
> Please stop arguing nonsense.
>
> Thanks in advance.
I have never been arguing nonsense. You are just so anxious to find me
wrong that you misunderstand much of what I say.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > So we can quibble forever over your nonsense
> > about how physical traits aren't that important
> > (when they are), or you can acknowledge the
> > big picture -- how this animal fits into the
> > arboreal-origins-of-flight argument.
>
> You will note that I have never said physical
> traits aren't that important. What I said is
> that physical traits do not define clades.
Which is utter crap. Seriously, you should be
embarrassed here.
I'm not kidding.
"Clades" are determined by physical traits. Period.
They have to be. There is no other way of doing it.
Why? Because except for existing species, and the
rare case of some (relatively recently) extinct
species, we have NOTHING ELSE.
Can you honestly not grasp this? If so, why are you
here?
> > It doesn't. Yes, I said that the creature doesn't even
> > meet the standard definition of a dinosaur (and it
> > doesn't), but even if it, it still has no place in the
> > larger picture -- the arboreal origins of flight claim.
>
> So do you agree that your complaint about it not meeting
> the starndard definition is both irrelevant and
> wrongheaded?
I admit that it's accurate, and if it was "wrongheaded"
at all it was only "wrongheaded" in the sense that I
grossly underestimated both your stupidity AND your
hunger to zoom in on the pixel level, only so you can
complain about not seeing the picture....
"Hey, you said that this was a picture of a Dandelion,
but this pixel is only a yellow dot!"
> > Why? Because the so-called "Birds" that supposed
> > to have evolved from such animals HAVE NO SUCH
> > ARBOREAL FEATURES.
> Actually, they do have some.
I can tell by your lengthy list & exhaustive explanation.
> Are you saying that evolution can't involve change?
You're flip-flopping here.
You use pure logic to arrive at the arboreal origins
of flight, then abandon that same logic the moment
that became necessary in order to defend your conclusion.
So, yeah, it does make absolutely no sense for an
arboreal animal to evolve powered flight from gliding,
only to then revert to a terrestrial form.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that theropods
evolved from birds, as Augray does, and that some of
these theropods then re-evolved flight... yeah, that
fits your model.
But, as things stand, it makes no sense at all for our
arboreal-adapted animal to de-evolve back to a
terrestrial form.
> > HOWEVER, Archeopteryx �__IS__ a near perfect match,
> > physically, to a run of the mill, purely terrestrial
> > theropod dinosaur.
>
> In some respects, yes. In others, no.
No, honey, as recently as 1988 they were still
"Discovering" archeopteryx remains which were
misidentified, because either the feathers weren't
present or they somehow went unnoticed.
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
> I deny your premises,
Of course you do. Well, when you're not too busy
pretending that the context is created anew with
every post, so I'm being unreasonable when I don't
spell it out for you...
> and your conclusion doesn't follow from your
> premises either.
If that's the argument you want to make, then make
the argument. Thus far, all you've done is spew a
bunch of bullshit....
> You seem to be making an implicit assumption that
> evolution must be linear,
....which is EXACTLY what the arboreal theory on
the origins of flight does.
"First some dinosaurs evolved to adapt to an
arboreal environment. Next, they evolved gliding.
After that, they evolved powered flight."
There you go. Perfectly logical, perfectly linear --
two traits you eagerly reject (even as you cling to
them), depending on whether they are supporting or
refuting your position.
Let me save you some time here...
<Harsham> What do you mean? You don't explain. I
don't know what you're talking about! </Harshman>
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>>> So we can quibble forever over your nonsense
>>> about how physical traits aren't that important
>>> (when they are), or you can acknowledge the
>>> big picture -- how this animal fits into the
>>> arboreal-origins-of-flight argument.
>> You will note that I have never said physical
>> traits aren't that important. What I said is
>> that physical traits do not define clades.
>
> Which is utter crap. Seriously, you should be
> embarrassed here.
>
> I'm not kidding.
>
> "Clades" are determined by physical traits. Period.
> They have to be. There is no other way of doing it.
>
> Why? Because except for existing species, and the
> rare case of some (relatively recently) extinct
> species, we have NOTHING ELSE.
>
> Can you honestly not grasp this? If so, why are you
> here?
"Determined" and "defined" mean two different things.
>>> It doesn't. Yes, I said that the creature doesn't even
>>> meet the standard definition of a dinosaur (and it
>>> doesn't), but even if it, it still has no place in the
>>> larger picture -- the arboreal origins of flight claim.
>> So do you agree that your complaint about it not meeting
>> the starndard definition is both irrelevant and
>> wrongheaded?
>
> I admit that it's accurate, and if it was "wrongheaded"
> at all it was only "wrongheaded" in the sense that I
> grossly underestimated both your stupidity AND your
> hunger to zoom in on the pixel level, only so you can
> complain about not seeing the picture....
>
> "Hey, you said that this was a picture of a Dandelion,
> but this pixel is only a yellow dot!"
Let's try again. Do you agree that an animal that didn't meet the
standard definition of a dinosaur could nevertheless be a dinosaur?
>>> Why? Because the so-called "Birds" that supposed
>>> to have evolved from such animals HAVE NO SUCH
>>> ARBOREAL FEATURES.
>
>> Actually, they do have some.
>
> I can tell by your lengthy list & exhaustive explanation.
It isn't a lengthy list. But it is a list. If you disagree, why?
>> Are you saying that evolution can't involve change?
>
> You're flip-flopping here.
>
> You use pure logic to arrive at the arboreal origins
> of flight, then abandon that same logic the moment
> that became necessary in order to defend your conclusion.
>
> So, yeah, it does make absolutely no sense for an
> arboreal animal to evolve powered flight from gliding,
> only to then revert to a terrestrial form.
So you're of the opinion that flightless birds don't exist?
> On the other hand, if you want to argue that theropods
> evolved from birds, as Augray does, and that some of
> these theropods then re-evolved flight... yeah, that
> fits your model.
Augray argues no such thing.
> But, as things stand, it makes no sense at all for our
> arboreal-adapted animal to de-evolve back to a
> terrestrial form.
Ah, so humans don't exist either. Interesting.
>>> HOWEVER, Archeopteryx __IS__ a near perfect match,
>>> physically, to a run of the mill, purely terrestrial
>>> theropod dinosaur.
>> In some respects, yes. In others, no.
>
> No, honey, as recently as 1988 they were still
> "Discovering" archeopteryx remains which were
> misidentified, because either the feathers weren't
> present or they somehow went unnoticed.
You understand that one of them was misidentified as a pterosaur, right?
How close a look do you think that one got?
> http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
>
>> I deny your premises,
>
> Of course you do. Well, when you're not too busy
> pretending that the context is created anew with
> every post, so I'm being unreasonable when I don't
> spell it out for you...
If you stopped snipping all the content, there would be fewer problems.
>> and your conclusion doesn't follow from your
>> premises either.
>
> If that's the argument you want to make, then make
> the argument. Thus far, all you've done is spew a
> bunch of bullshit....
>
>> You seem to be making an implicit assumption that
>> evolution must be linear,
>
> ....which is EXACTLY what the arboreal theory on
> the origins of flight does.
>
> "First some dinosaurs evolved to adapt to an
> arboreal environment. Next, they evolved gliding.
> After that, they evolved powered flight."
That is the most parsimonious explanation. It isn't necessarily true,
but that's what the evidence seems to say. Your argument against the
idea was originally that there were no arboreal dinosaurs. Microraptor
and Epidendrosaurus would seem to argue against that claim. Now you
claim that Archaeopteryx displays no arboreal adaptations. But even if
that were true, it requires that assumption of irreversible evolution to
make it an objection.
> There you go. Perfectly logical, perfectly linear --
> two traits you eagerly reject (even as you cling to
> them), depending on whether they are supporting or
> refuting your position.
> Let me save you some time here...
>
> <Harsham> What do you mean? You don't explain. I
> don't know what you're talking about! </Harshman>
Please stop snipping my arguments and pretending they don't exist.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> Why? Because the so-called "Birds" that supposed
> >>> to have evolved from such animals HAVE NO SUCH
> >>> ARBOREAL FEATURES.
>
> >> Actually, they do have some.
>
> > I can tell by your lengthy list & exhaustive explanation.
>
> It isn't a lengthy list. But it is a list. If you
> disagree, why?
It's a claim. That's all. You never rose above a claim.
THERE IS NO LIST.
You posted no explanation, much less supporting evidence.
You simply made a claim.
> >> Are you saying that evolution can't involve change?
>
> > You're flip-flopping here.
>
> > You use pure logic to arrive at the arboreal origins
> > of flight, then abandon that same logic the moment
> > that became necessary in order to defend your conclusion.
>
> > So, yeah, it does make absolutely no sense for an
> > arboreal animal to evolve powered flight from gliding,
> > only to then revert to a terrestrial form.
>
> So you're of the opinion that flightless birds don't exist?
We're talking about getting from a situation where there
aren't any such thing as birds, to a situation where there
are birds. This is no way reflects on the question of what
birds are or are not capable of.
> > On the other hand, if you want to argue that theropods
> > evolved from birds, as Augray does, and that some of
> > these theropods then re-evolved flight... yeah, that
> > fits your model.
>
> Augray argues no such thing.
He does. He may not intend to, he may be like you and
not realize it, but he does.
> > But, as things stand, it makes no sense at all for our
> > arboreal-adapted animal to de-evolve back to a
> > terrestrial form.
>
> Ah, so humans don't exist either.
Humans didn't evolve from an arboreal-adapted animal. "Homo"
is separated from the trees by a very long time, and a
number of species.
> Interesting.
Not at all. You're either being intentionally dense -- merely
for the sake of conflict -- or you're an idiot.
> > No, honey, as recently as 1988 they were still
> > "Discovering" archeopteryx remains which were
> > misidentified, because either the feathers weren't
> > present or they somehow went unnoticed.
>
> You understand that one of them was misidentified as
> a pterosaur, right?
Yeah, this one:
http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/images/443bz.JPG
http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/443.html
Compare & contrast it to this, the one most recently
identified as archeopteryx (after first being identified
as a purely terrestrial theropod:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_lithographica_%28Solenhofener_Specimen%29.jpg
No comparison, actually...
> If you stopped snipping all the content,
Pardon me, I assume you know what you said.
> >> You seem to be making an implicit assumption that
> >> evolution must be linear,
>
> > � �....which is EXACTLY what the arboreal theory on
> > the origins of flight does.
>
> > "First some dinosaurs evolved to adapt to an
> > arboreal environment. Next, they evolved gliding.
> > After that, they evolved powered flight."
>
> That is the most parsimonious explanation.
If you mean, "Accurate," you're right.
> It isn't necessarily true,
Meaning, the Cursorial theory on the origins of
flight may be correct...
> but that's what the evidence seems to say.
There's that invisible evidence again...
Actually, the only so-called "Evidence" presented
here appears to refute your claim.
Hint: Archeopteryx has no arboreal adaptations.
> Your argument against the idea was originally that
> there were no arboreal dinosaurs.
Oh, DO go on...
> Microraptor and Epidendrosaurus would seem to argue
> against that claim.
What's missing here is #1 an actual argument and #2
a clue.
Microraptor is claimed by some to be a secondarily
flightless bird. Amongst other reasons, because it's
younger than birds.
Anyhow, Microraptor can't relevant here unless you
first establish that it is arboreal (you haven't),
and then back-date it by many tens of millions of
years.
Epidendrosaurus, as has already been pointed out (going
back years) -- thank you for being so consistent in
your stupidity -- is problematic on so many levels, not
the least of which is that it supports the dinosaurs
evolved from birds theory that you people love so much
(while denying it), but can't support any model for
an arboreal origins of flight.
...hence the lack of any such model.
HINT: Now would be a good time to say that I said
mean things to you, throw up your hands and walk
away... only to later claim that you lavished me
with well thought out arguments complete with supporting
evidence in the form of internet accessible cites.
Augray
in <b5f66482-765e-4faf...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
:
>
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
[snip]
>On the other hand, if you want to argue that theropods
>evolved from birds, as Augray does,
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Christ but you're dense.
How many times to you have to be told that I don't claim that
theropods evolved from birds?
>and that some of
>these theropods then re-evolved flight... yeah, that
>fits your model.
>
>But, as things stand, it makes no sense at all for our
>arboreal-adapted animal to de-evolve back to a
>terrestrial form.
>
>> > HOWEVER, Archeopteryx �__IS__ a near perfect match,
>> > physically, to a run of the mill, purely terrestrial
>> > theropod dinosaur.
>>
>> In some respects, yes. In others, no.
>
>No, honey, as recently as 1988 they were still
>"Discovering" archeopteryx remains which were
>misidentified, because either the feathers weren't
>present or they somehow went unnoticed.
>
>http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html
Ironic that your link spends most of its time describing how an
Archaeopteryx specimen was initial mistaken for a pterosaur, which is
quite a ways from a terrestrial dinosaur. But yes, two specimens were
initially identified as examples of Compsognathus. The Eichst�tt
specimen was misidentified because the feather impressions are
extremely faint, and because it lacks a wishbone. The Solnhofen
specimen was misidentified by an amateur collector after a limited
amount of cleaning and preparation. None of this is evidence that
these specimens didn't have arboreal traits.
[snip]
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
You're not the first retard to argue that dinosaurs
have evolved from birds, and then denied it.
Not too long ago it was common for morons to point
to the bird-like hollow bones in a T-Rex as "Proof"
that birds evolved from dinosaurs... forgetting that
T-Rex is, what, about 90 million years younger than
Archaeoteryx...
Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
and your arguments to the effect that they do:
{Crickets chirping}
There, that was brief.
Oddly enough, there isn't even much of a case for
Microraptor having ANY arboreal adaptations, apart
from the more imaginative artist renditions which
are available online.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I replied to the thread. I read all the context.
That didn't stop you from pretending otherwise.
> I don't know whether you even read my reply,
> but if you did you apparently think I missed
> the point.
I bet this has something to do with the post in
which I state that you missed the point...
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> If, for example, we had adopted
> whiteness as a diagnostic character of
> swans (Cygnus), and then had discovered
> black swans (Cygnus atratus), we would
> not therefore declare that black swans
> were not swans.
So how do you know that the black creature
is a swan, except by it's physical traits?
Again, you're full of shits. The simple fact
is that physical characteristics are used to
to DEFINE and always have.
Synapsid. Diapsid.
> > Apart from living species and the rare recently
> > (within a few thousand years) extinct species,
> > ALL relationships/identities are determined by
> > physical characteristics.
>
> True. But irrelevant to my point. Determined by, yes.
> Defined by, no.
No, honey, defined by.
It's true that there's always a debate concerning
which characteristics are important/defining, and
somebody is always going to argue exceptions, but
you have heard the phrase, "The exception which
proves the rule."
Going back Looooong before there was any DNA to go
by, someone looked at Dolphins & Whales and, based
on physical traits, determined that they were in
fact __Mammals__. Now, the debate over which traits
are defining may have waged for quite some time --
who knows -- but one thing that everyone on this
earth (except you) knows is that there was never
any question if they could make such determinations.
Again, you're spewing nonsense. Please, I'm
asking nicely, stop spewing this bullshit.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Why? Because the so-called "Birds" that supposed
>>>>> to have evolved from such animals HAVE NO SUCH
>>>>> ARBOREAL FEATURES.
>>>> Actually, they do have some.
>>> I can tell by your lengthy list & exhaustive explanation.
>> It isn't a lengthy list. But it is a list. If you
>> disagree, why?
>
> It's a claim. That's all. You never rose above a claim.
>
> THERE IS NO LIST.
>
> You posted no explanation, much less supporting evidence.
> You simply made a claim.
Yes I did. I mentioned three characters that suggest Archaeopteryx may
have been arboreal: highly curved claws, flight feathers on hindlimb,
and grasping claws on the wing. Another possibility is that these are
vestigial remnants of arboreality. And of course a third possibility is
that it wasn't arboreal.
Mind you, an animal that isn't arboreal can easily have evolved from one
that was, so even the third alternative doesn't rule out a arboreal
orign of flight. Right?
>>>> Are you saying that evolution can't involve change?
>>> You're flip-flopping here.
>>> You use pure logic to arrive at the arboreal origins
>>> of flight, then abandon that same logic the moment
>>> that became necessary in order to defend your conclusion.
>>> So, yeah, it does make absolutely no sense for an
>>> arboreal animal to evolve powered flight from gliding,
>>> only to then revert to a terrestrial form.
>> So you're of the opinion that flightless birds don't exist?
>
> We're talking about getting from a situation where there
> aren't any such thing as birds, to a situation where there
> are birds. This is no way reflects on the question of what
> birds are or are not capable of.
The point I was trying to make is that evolution can take a complicated
course. Flightless theropods can evolve into flying theropods and back
into flightless theropods. Similarly, non-arboreal animals can evolve
into arboreal animals and back into non-arboreal animals.
>>> On the other hand, if you want to argue that theropods
>>> evolved from birds, as Augray does, and that some of
>>> these theropods then re-evolved flight... yeah, that
>>> fits your model.
>> Augray argues no such thing.
>
> He does. He may not intend to, he may be like you and
> not realize it, but he does.
No he doesn't. You may think that such a hypothesis follows from
something he said, but you will have to explain why.
>>> But, as things stand, it makes no sense at all for our
>>> arboreal-adapted animal to de-evolve back to a
>>> terrestrial form.
>> Ah, so humans don't exist either.
>
> Humans didn't evolve from an arboreal-adapted animal. "Homo"
> is separated from the trees by a very long time, and a
> number of species.
How is the length of time relevant here? Humans have arboreal ancestors,
right? So if your claim is that Archaeopteryx wasn't arboreal, why, even
if true, would that mean that its ancestors were not?
>> Interesting.
>
> Not at all. You're either being intentionally dense -- merely
> for the sake of conflict -- or you're an idiot.
You will ahve to explain what's wrong with my idea there. You seem to
think that the length of time is crucial. But in fact humans aren't
separated from the trees by more than 10 million years, at most. That
really isn't all that long, certainly enoug time for a theropod do do
something similar.
>>> No, honey, as recently as 1988 they were still
>>> "Discovering" archeopteryx remains which were
>>> misidentified, because either the feathers weren't
>>> present or they somehow went unnoticed.
>> You understand that one of them was misidentified as
>> a pterosaur, right?
>
> Yeah, this one:
>
> http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/images/443bz.JPG
>
> http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/443.html
>
> Compare & contrast it to this, the one most recently
> identified as archeopteryx (after first being identified
> as a purely terrestrial theropod:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_lithographica_%28Solenhofener_Specimen%29.jpg
>
> No comparison, actually...
Well, it is a better specimen. My point is that the assignment of one
specimen to Compsognathus wouldn't be possible if anyone had looked at
it very closely.
>> If you stopped snipping all the content,
>
> Pardon me, I assume you know what you said.
I assume that your ability to cut me off in mid-sentence gives you a
sense of power that is otherwise missing from your life.
>>>> You seem to be making an implicit assumption that
>>>> evolution must be linear,
>>> ....which is EXACTLY what the arboreal theory on
>>> the origins of flight does.
>>> "First some dinosaurs evolved to adapt to an
>>> arboreal environment. Next, they evolved gliding.
>>> After that, they evolved powered flight."
>> That is the most parsimonious explanation.
>
> If you mean, "Accurate," you're right.
I think you're having a little reading provlem here. That was my
explanation. The one you don't believe.
>> It isn't necessarily true,
>
> Meaning, the Cursorial theory on the origins of
> flight may be correct...
>
>> but that's what the evidence seems to say.
>
> There's that invisible evidence again...
>
> Actually, the only so-called "Evidence" presented
> here appears to refute your claim.
>
> Hint: Archeopteryx has no arboreal adaptations.
>
>> Your argument against the idea was originally that
>> there were no arboreal dinosaurs.
>
> Oh, DO go on...
>
>> Microraptor and Epidendrosaurus would seem to argue
>> against that claim.
>
> What's missing here is #1 an actual argument and #2
> a clue.
>
> Microraptor is claimed by some to be a secondarily
> flightless bird. Amongst other reasons, because it's
> younger than birds.
>
> Anyhow, Microraptor can't relevant here unless you
> first establish that it is arboreal (you haven't),
> and then back-date it by many tens of millions of
> years.
Are you really so naive as to raise the so-called "temporal paradox"?
Here, read this: Brochu, C. A., and M. A. Norell. 2000. Temporal
congruence and the origin of birds. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
20:197-200.
As for it being arboreal, that is the general consensus among
paleontologists. Certainly the very long flight feathers on the
hindlimbs would make a cursorial life difficult.
> Epidendrosaurus, as has already been pointed out (going
> back years) -- thank you for being so consistent in
> your stupidity -- is problematic on so many levels, not
> the least of which is that it supports the dinosaurs
> evolved from birds theory that you people love so much
> (while denying it), but can't support any model for
> an arboreal origins of flight.
Why does it support the dinosaurs evolved from birds theory?
And is it a dinosaur? Is it arboreal?
> ...hence the lack of any such model.
>
> HINT: Now would be a good time to say that I said
> mean things to you, throw up your hands and walk
> away... only to later claim that you lavished me
> with well thought out arguments complete with supporting
> evidence in the form of internet accessible cites.
Did a paleontologist run away with your wife, or what?
John Harshman
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
> You're not the first retard to argue that dinosaurs
> have evolved from birds, and then denied it.
Who are the other such retards? I know of "Dino George", and he's not
very clear on jusst what he means. But does he deny anything? Doubt it.
Then there's Greg Paul, but he thinks that birds are fairly derived
theropods, though he also thinks that a lot of known theropods, perhaps
including all maniraptorans, are flightless birds. To my knowledge, he's
never denied that either.
Now Augray denies it because he's never made any such claim, nor does
anyone except you know why anything he's said should be interpreted as
supporting such a claim.
> Not too long ago it was common for morons to point
> to the bird-like hollow bones in a T-Rex as "Proof"
> that birds evolved from dinosaurs... forgetting that
> T-Rex is, what, about 90 million years younger than
> Archaeoteryx...
How is that relevant? What's relevant is the cladogram. Are hollow bones
a character of some group of theorpods that includes both tyrannosaurs
and birds?
> Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
> been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
> and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
> to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
> of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
> and your arguments to the effect that they do:
At the very least, learn to spell my name.
> {Crickets chirping}
>
> There, that was brief.
>
> Oddly enough, there isn't even much of a case for
> Microraptor having ANY arboreal adaptations, apart
> from the more imaginative artist renditions which
> are available online.
A quick check of Google Scholar shows quite a few hits for "arboreal
microraptor". The original description of M. gui actually mentioned some
of those characters. Have you read it?
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> If, for example, we had adopted
>> whiteness as a diagnostic character of
>> swans (Cygnus), and then had discovered
>> black swans (Cygnus atratus), we would
>> not therefore declare that black swans
>> were not swans.
>
> So how do you know that the black creature
> is a swan, except by it's physical traits?
That's exactly how we know. But not a single trait, like whitness. It's
the conclusion we can draw from the distribution of all traits within
Anatidae. There are no defining traits. In fact, there may be no single
trait shared by a clade that could be used to diagnose it. Like with the
snakes, remember?
> Again, you're full of shits. The simple fact
> is that physical characteristics are used to
> to DEFINE and always have.
No. Diagnose. Determine. Not define.
> Synapsid. Diapsid.
Note that lizards, birds, snakes, and turtles (plus plesiosaurs,
nothosaurs, and other sauropterygians) do not have the diapsid
condition. Having two temporal fenestrae is not a defining character of
Diapsida. There are many diapsids that don't have two fenestrae.
>>> Apart from living species and the rare recently
>>> (within a few thousand years) extinct species,
>>> ALL relationships/identities are determined by
>>> physical characteristics.
>> True. But irrelevant to my point. Determined by, yes.
>> Defined by, no.
>
> No, honey, defined by.
>
> It's true that there's always a debate concerning
> which characteristics are important/defining, and
> somebody is always going to argue exceptions, but
> you have heard the phrase, "The exception which
> proves the rule."
>
> Going back Looooong before there was any DNA to go
> by, someone looked at Dolphins & Whales and, based
> on physical traits, determined that they were in
> fact __Mammals__. Now, the debate over which traits
> are defining may have waged for quite some time --
> who knows -- but one thing that everyone on this
> earth (except you) knows is that there was never
> any question if they could make such determinations.
>
> Again, you're spewing nonsense. Please, I'm
> asking nicely, stop spewing this bullshit.
You need a course in remedial systematics. I'm trying to help you. This
has nothing to do with DNA. It has nothing to do with being able to
recognize mammals based on their morphology. It's about the difference
between definitions and determinations.
What is the defining character of Tetrapoda? Do snakes have that
character? Are snakes tetrapods?
Augray
in <1daa992e-b32d-4c5b...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
:
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
>You're not the first retard to argue that dinosaurs
>have evolved from birds, and then denied it.
The problem with your "analysis" is the chronic lack of evidence that
this is actually my position. If you could actually point to a post
where I've explicitly argued this, you might have a case, but all
you've got are posts where you misunderstand my position, and then
creatively fill in the blanks in your comprehension. Consider taking
up this challenge: find a post of mine where I've explicitly argued
that dinosaurs evolved from birds
>Not too long ago it was common for morons to point
>to the bird-like hollow bones in a T-Rex as "Proof"
>that birds evolved from dinosaurs... forgetting that
>T-Rex is, what, about 90 million years younger than
>Archaeoteryx...
That's as vague a claim as you've ever made.
>Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
>been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
>and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
>to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
>of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
>and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>
> {Crickets chirping}
>
>There, that was brief.
Apparently, the virtually identical anatomy doesn't count for
anything.
>Oddly enough, there isn't even much of a case for
>Microraptor having ANY arboreal adaptations, apart
>from the more imaginative artist renditions which
>are available online.
Considering that the extent of your research consists of looking at
the horrible renditions which are available online, how would you
know?
Augray
in <ef819fc8-152f-4053...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
:
[snip]
>Microraptor is claimed by some to be a secondarily
>flightless bird. Amongst other reasons, because it's
>younger than birds.
Who claims this? No one I've ever heard of.
[snip]
John Harshman
Except for the secondarily flightless bit, it fits Feduccia's new
claims. But I don't know of anyone who thinks Microraptor was
flightless. He made that part up.
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<eaKdnarswJY...@giganews.com> :
[snip]
>I mentioned three characters that suggest Archaeopteryx may
>have been arboreal: highly curved claws, flight feathers on hindlimb,
>and grasping claws on the wing.
There's also Hopson's work on pedal phalangeal proportions that
suggests that Archaeopteryx was "equally at home on the ground or in
the trees". He had a paper on it in the Ostrom Symposium volume.
>Another possibility is that these are
>vestigial remnants of arboreality. And of course a third possibility is
>that it wasn't arboreal.
>
>Mind you, an animal that isn't arboreal can easily have evolved from one
>that was, so even the third alternative doesn't rule out a arboreal
>orign of flight. Right?
[snip]
John Harshman
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:59:34 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
> <eaKdnarswJY...@giganews.com> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> I mentioned three characters that suggest Archaeopteryx may
>> have been arboreal: highly curved claws, flight feathers on hindlimb,
>> and grasping claws on the wing.
>
> There's also Hopson's work on pedal phalangeal proportions that
> suggests that Archaeopteryx was "equally at home on the ground or in
> the trees". He had a paper on it in the Ostrom Symposium volume.
I hesitate to mention Larry Martin's reconstruction of Archaeopteryx as
a sort of archosaur monkey. But I remember it from the symposium. And
who knows what JTEM would accept as evidence?
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<94qdnT-yEKP...@giganews.com> :
>Augray wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:59:34 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
>> <eaKdnarswJY...@giganews.com> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I mentioned three characters that suggest Archaeopteryx may
>>> have been arboreal: highly curved claws, flight feathers on hindlimb,
>>> and grasping claws on the wing.
>>
>> There's also Hopson's work on pedal phalangeal proportions that
>> suggests that Archaeopteryx was "equally at home on the ground or in
>> the trees". He had a paper on it in the Ostrom Symposium volume.
>
>I hesitate to mention Larry Martin's reconstruction of Archaeopteryx as
>a sort of archosaur monkey.
I can't blame you..
>But I remember it from the symposium.
He brought that to the symposium??? Why wasn't something about it
included in the resulting volume of proceedings?
>And
>who knows what JTEM would accept as evidence?
It might be amusing to see him try to deal with it.
John Harshman
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:02:05 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
> <94qdnT-yEKP...@giganews.com> :
>
>> Augray wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:59:34 -0800, John Harshman
>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
>>> <eaKdnarswJY...@giganews.com> :
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I mentioned three characters that suggest Archaeopteryx may
>>>> have been arboreal: highly curved claws, flight feathers on hindlimb,
>>>> and grasping claws on the wing.
>>> There's also Hopson's work on pedal phalangeal proportions that
>>> suggests that Archaeopteryx was "equally at home on the ground or in
>>> the trees". He had a paper on it in the Ostrom Symposium volume.
>> I hesitate to mention Larry Martin's reconstruction of Archaeopteryx as
>> a sort of archosaur monkey.
>
> I can't blame you..
>
>
>> But I remember it from the symposium.
>
> He brought that to the symposium??? Why wasn't something about it
> included in the resulting volume of proceedings?
You would have to ask Larry. He also waved around (literally -- he waved
a sheet of paper, once) his own cladogram showing that birds are not
dinosaurs, though he never discussed the actual characters that
determined that cladogram, and as far as I know that was never published
either. He used it mostly to compare himself to the real speakers who
presented real trees based on real data.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Now Augray denies it because he's
You're supposed to be science-based. Naked
denials are supposed to be meaningless to
you.... supposed to be. Clearly they are not.
Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
have evolved from birds. Then the relationships
make sense.
Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
claims you've been waving for years...
It's right about here where an intelligent,
science-based man like you claim to be would
map out that relationship, employing web
accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
have NEVER done before.
> > Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
> > been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
> > and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
> > to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
> > of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
> > and your arguments to the effect that they do:
> At the very least, learn to spell my name.
It's pretty clear at this point that you would rather
focus in on ANYTHING other than what's relevant.
> > Oddly enough, there isn't even much of a case for
> > Microraptor having ANY arboreal adaptations, apart
> > from the more imaginative artist renditions which
> > are available online.
>
> A quick check of Google Scholar shows quite a few
> hits for "arboreal microraptor".
Okay. So you're saying it's about high time that you
made your case...
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
Augray
in <703d0996-4b1d-4a87...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
:
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Now Augray denies it because he's
>
>You're supposed to be science-based. Naked
>denials are supposed to be meaningless to
>you.... supposed to be.
So, you're looking for evidence that I *don't* claim that dinosaurs
are descended from birds? How about this: I don't claim that dinosaurs
are descended from birds. Is that evidence-based enough for you?
>Clearly they are not.
>
>Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
>not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
>have evolved from birds.
So, after criticizing Harshman about making naked denials, JTEM makes
a naked denial about relationships. Is there a double-standard in
play?
>Then the relationships
>make sense.
According to who?
>Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
>that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
>uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
>claims you've been waving for years...
>
>It's right about here where an intelligent,
>science-based man like you claim to be would
>map out that relationship, employing web
>accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
>be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
>have NEVER done before.
http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
>> > Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
>> > been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
>> > and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
>> > to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
>> > of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
>> > and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>
>> At the very least, learn to spell my name.
>
>It's pretty clear at this point that you would rather
>focus in on ANYTHING other than what's relevant.
Does this explain why I was accused of being Harshman's sock puppet?
>> > Oddly enough, there isn't even much of a case for
>> > Microraptor having ANY arboreal adaptations, apart
>> > from the more imaginative artist renditions which
>> > are available online.
>>
>> A quick check of Google Scholar shows quite a few
>> hits for "arboreal microraptor".
>
>Okay. So you're saying it's about high time that you
>made your case...
I suspect the situation is closer to a hint that you should read some
papers, rather than look at horrible reconstructions on the web.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Now Augray denies it because he's
>
> You're supposed to be science-based. Naked
> denials are supposed to be meaningless to
> you.... supposed to be. Clearly they are not.
>
> Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
> not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
> have evolved from birds. Then the relationships
> make sense.
You must explain why that's true. What relationships, and why do they
imply that dinosaurs (all of them?) evolved from birds?
> Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
> that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
> uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
> claims you've been waving for years...
I'm really not sure what claims you mean here.
> It's right about here where an intelligent,
> science-based man like you claim to be would
> map out that relationship, employing web
> accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
> be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
> have NEVER done before.
What relationship are you talking about?
>>> Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
>>> been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
>>> and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
>>> to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
>>> of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
>>> and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>
>> At the very least, learn to spell my name.
>
> It's pretty clear at this point that you would rather
> focus in on ANYTHING other than what's relevant.
No, I would just like you to devote the small effort necessary to spell
my name correctly. It's elementary courtesy, if that means anything to you.
>>> Oddly enough, there isn't even much of a case for
>>> Microraptor having ANY arboreal adaptations, apart
>>> from the more imaginative artist renditions which
>>> are available online.
>> A quick check of Google Scholar shows quite a few
>> hits for "arboreal microraptor".
>
> Okay. So you're saying it's about high time that you
> made your case...
I have made a case several times. Have you ever looked at any of the
scientific literature on Microraptor?
John Harshman
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:02:08 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
> in <703d0996-4b1d-4a87...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
> :
>
>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Now Augray denies it because he's
>> You're supposed to be science-based. Naked
>> denials are supposed to be meaningless to
>> you.... supposed to be.
>
> So, you're looking for evidence that I *don't* claim that dinosaurs
> are descended from birds? How about this: I don't claim that dinosaurs
> are descended from birds. Is that evidence-based enough for you?
No. Despite what he says, he really isn't claiming that you say
dinosaurs are descended from birds. He's claiming that it's an
unavoidable inference from what you do say. However, since he has no
interest in communication, he also has no interest in clarifying the
point. Not only won't he correct his statement, he won't say what leads
him to his belief in this implication.
>> Clearly they are not.
>>
>> Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
>> not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
>> have evolved from birds.
>
> So, after criticizing Harshman about making naked denials, JTEM makes
> a naked denial about relationships. Is there a double-standard in
> play?
We don't even know what relationships he's talking about, as far as I
can tell.
>> Then the relationships
>> make sense.
>
> According to who?
>
>
>> Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
>> that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
>> uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
>> claims you've been waving for years...
>>
>> It's right about here where an intelligent,
>> science-based man like you claim to be would
>> map out that relationship, employing web
>> accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
>> be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
>> have NEVER done before.
>
> http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
> http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
It would be good not to link to a pdf unless you explain beforehand just
what it is; that way we avoid unnecessary downloads. Is one of these Xu,
X., Z. Zhou, X. Wang, X. Kuang, F. Zhang, and X. Du. 2003. Four-winged
dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340?
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<7uSdncpK2og...@giganews.com> :
>Augray wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:02:08 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <703d0996-4b1d-4a87...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
>> :
>>
>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now Augray denies it because he's
>>> You're supposed to be science-based. Naked
>>> denials are supposed to be meaningless to
>>> you.... supposed to be.
>>
>> So, you're looking for evidence that I *don't* claim that dinosaurs
>> are descended from birds? How about this: I don't claim that dinosaurs
>> are descended from birds. Is that evidence-based enough for you?
>
>No. Despite what he says, he really isn't claiming that you say
>dinosaurs are descended from birds. He's claiming that it's an
>unavoidable inference from what you do say.
I don't know about that. In
news:b5f66482-765e-4faf...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com
he writes:
On the other hand, if you want to argue that theropods evolved
from birds, as Augray does, and that some of these theropods then
re-evolved flight... yeah, that fits your model.
He seems to think that I explicitly claim that dinosaurs descend from
birds.
>However, since he has no
>interest in communication, he also has no interest in clarifying the
>point.
Because if he did that, he'd have to defend it.
>Not only won't he correct his statement, he won't say what leads
>him to his belief in this implication.
Lack of imagination?
>>> Clearly they are not.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
>>> not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
>>> have evolved from birds.
>>
>> So, after criticizing Harshman about making naked denials, JTEM makes
>> a naked denial about relationships. Is there a double-standard in
>> play?
>
>We don't even know what relationships he's talking about, as far as I
>can tell.
Apparently, he's talking about the relationships I supposedly claim,
"which can not be mapped". I figure any exposition on that ethereal
topic would be useful in discovering what my supposed position
actually is.
>>> Then the relationships
>>> make sense.
>>
>> According to who?
>>
>>
>>> Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
>>> that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
>>> uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
>>> claims you've been waving for years...
>>>
>>> It's right about here where an intelligent,
>>> science-based man like you claim to be would
>>> map out that relationship, employing web
>>> accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
>>> be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
>>> have NEVER done before.
>>
>> http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
>> http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
>
>It would be good not to link to a pdf unless you explain beforehand just
>what it is; that way we avoid unnecessary downloads. Is one of these Xu,
>X., Z. Zhou, X. Wang, X. Kuang, F. Zhang, and X. Du. 2003. Four-winged
>dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340?
The first one, yes. The other is "New Specimens of _Microraptor
zhaoianus_..." which has a cladogram establishing the relationship
between Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, amongst other species.
>>>>> Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
>>>>> been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
>>>>> and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
>>>>> to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
>>>>> of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
>>>>> and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>>>> At the very least, learn to spell my name.
>>> It's pretty clear at this point that you would rather
>>> focus in on ANYTHING other than what's relevant.
>>
>> Does this explain why I was accused of being Harshman's sock puppet?
>
>?
Just pointing out that he's quite willing to focus on things that
aren't relevant when it suits his purpose.
John Harshman
Yes, but I think that's because he wants to make you look as ridiculous
as he can, and doesn't care about expressing himself clearly. That would
explain why he doesn't consider a denial to be evidence.
>> However, since he has no
>> interest in communication, he also has no interest in clarifying the
>> point.
>
> Because if he did that, he'd have to defend it.
I think it's less than that. It's not a strategic decision. It's just
the way he is.
>> Not only won't he correct his statement, he won't say what leads
>> him to his belief in this implication.
>
> Lack of imagination?
Hard to tell, since he won't say.
>>>> Clearly they are not.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
>>>> not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
>>>> have evolved from birds.
>>> So, after criticizing Harshman about making naked denials, JTEM makes
>>> a naked denial about relationships. Is there a double-standard in
>>> play?
>> We don't even know what relationships he's talking about, as far as I
>> can tell.
>
> Apparently, he's talking about the relationships I supposedly claim,
> "which can not be mapped". I figure any exposition on that ethereal
> topic would be useful in discovering what my supposed position
> actually is.
Don't hold your breath. He is unlikely to explain. And his idea of
explanation is to repeat the same thing he said before, in roughly the
same words.
>>>> Then the relationships
>>>> make sense.
>>> According to who?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
>>>> that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
>>>> uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
>>>> claims you've been waving for years...
>>>>
>>>> It's right about here where an intelligent,
>>>> science-based man like you claim to be would
>>>> map out that relationship, employing web
>>>> accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
>>>> be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
>>>> have NEVER done before.
>>> http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
>>> http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
>> It would be good not to link to a pdf unless you explain beforehand just
>> what it is; that way we avoid unnecessary downloads. Is one of these Xu,
>> X., Z. Zhou, X. Wang, X. Kuang, F. Zhang, and X. Du. 2003. Four-winged
>> dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340?
>
> The first one, yes. The other is "New Specimens of _Microraptor
> zhaoianus_..." which has a cladogram establishing the relationship
> between Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, amongst other species.
Note that the second explicitly takes no position on the origin of
flight, or even whether Microraptor was arboreal. So its relevance to
the issue at hand (if I even know what that issue is) will have to be
explained separately.
>>>>>> Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
>>>>>> been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
>>>>>> and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
>>>>>> to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
>>>>>> of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
>>>>>> and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>>>>> At the very least, learn to spell my name.
>>>> It's pretty clear at this point that you would rather
>>>> focus in on ANYTHING other than what's relevant.
>>> Does this explain why I was accused of being Harshman's sock puppet?
>> ?
>
> Just pointing out that he's quite willing to focus on things that
> aren't relevant when it suits his purpose.
Oh. Does he have a purpose? He just likes to vent, and he's very angry
with somebody about something, whatever it may be.
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<gNKdnSvMlIc...@giganews.com> :
I guess I'm just puzzled how his claims about my ideas, in spite of my
explicit denial and his inability to produce *evidence* for my
supposed position, makes *me* look ridiculous.
>>> However, since he has no
>>> interest in communication, he also has no interest in clarifying the
>>> point.
>>
>> Because if he did that, he'd have to defend it.
>
>I think it's less than that. It's not a strategic decision. It's just
>the way he is.
...
Ok, I can see that.
>>> Not only won't he correct his statement, he won't say what leads
>>> him to his belief in this implication.
>>
>> Lack of imagination?
>
>Hard to tell, since he won't say.
>
>>>>> Clearly they are not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
>>>>> not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
>>>>> have evolved from birds.
>>>> So, after criticizing Harshman about making naked denials, JTEM makes
>>>> a naked denial about relationships. Is there a double-standard in
>>>> play?
>>> We don't even know what relationships he's talking about, as far as I
>>> can tell.
>>
>> Apparently, he's talking about the relationships I supposedly claim,
>> "which can not be mapped". I figure any exposition on that ethereal
>> topic would be useful in discovering what my supposed position
>> actually is.
>
>Don't hold your breath. He is unlikely to explain. And his idea of
>explanation is to repeat the same thing he said before, in roughly the
>same words.
Possibly.
I was thinking of his statement in
news:1daa992e-b32d-4c5b...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
:
Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have been upheld as
arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you, and one by Hartman. Neither
suggests a clear path to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or
any kind of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
and your arguments to the effect that they do:
I think the cladogram in the latter paper demonstrates a pretty clear
path.
>>>>>>> Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have
>>>>>>> been upheld as arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you,
>>>>>>> and one by Hartman. Neither suggests a clear path
>>>>>>> to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or any kind
>>>>>>> of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
>>>>>>> and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>>>>>> At the very least, learn to spell my name.
>>>>> It's pretty clear at this point that you would rather
>>>>> focus in on ANYTHING other than what's relevant.
>>>> Does this explain why I was accused of being Harshman's sock puppet?
>>> ?
>>
>> Just pointing out that he's quite willing to focus on things that
>> aren't relevant when it suits his purpose.
>
>Oh. Does he have a purpose? He just likes to vent, and he's very angry
>with somebody about something, whatever it may be.
I think his purpose is to vent.
[snip]
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So, you're looking for evidence that I *don't*
That's right, I forgot: You're retarded.
Here, let me spell it out for you, again, so you
can have another opportunity to say something
idiotic instead of responding.
I want you to map out for us -- employing web
accessible citations to support you position --
how we got from something like Epidendrosaurus
("unambiguously arboreal")to Archaeopteryx.
Please pay particular attention to the loss of
the "unamiguously arboreal" features.
If you want specifics, you may ask yourself
what you meant by "arboreal," when you identified
Epidendrosaurus as an arboreal dinosaur.
> >Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
> >not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
> >have evolved from birds.
>
> So, after
See above.
> >Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
> >that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
> >uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
> >claims you've been waving for years...
>
> >It's right about here where an intelligent,
> >science-based man like you claim to be would
> >map out that relationship, employing web
> >accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
> >be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
> >have NEVER done before.
>
> http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
You do know that this was superseded. What's interesting
to note, the authors of this 2005 paper pretty much
admit that, before their theory, there was no scientific
way to get Microraptor to even glide, never mind fly.
Yet, that never so much as flowed down you feather-brained
people...
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
Oh, I know: "It's okay. We got lucky this time. Someone
doing __Real__ science eventually hit upon an idea to
support our pre existing conclusion... the ones we lept
to the moment we saw the feathers."
But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
So we have an unambiguous example of conclusion-driven
science ("These things HAD to fly, what would allow
that to happen?) that fails to so much as acknowledge
the basic question:
What arboreal features?
> http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
I don't know what the above link is supposed to
establish. A keyword search, and a cursory viewing
spotted nothing of relevance.
Perhaps you could make your case by, you know,
actually making a case, and tell us what specifically
supports your claims.
Oh, I know, that's a tall order...
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
> >http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
>
> It would be good not to link to a pdf unless you
> explain beforehand just what it is;
Odd that you skip the "communication" rant...
Anyhow, Hartman, both PDFs are useless. The first
has been long since superseded, and neither makes
any case for these invisible "Arboreal features"
that I know of.
though you crave conflict and not discourse, I will
give you some examples of what's missing...
An "Arboreal" glider is either going from tree to
tree, or tree to ground.... only to climb back up
the tree.
Now, gliding from tree to tree requires a great
deal more than an apparent "Perching" capability,
it requires the animal to grasp hold of it's
destination tree with forces equivalent to several
times it's own weight.
....otherwise it would a) plummet to the ground
after having b) ripped it's claws out of it's
fingers.
Try this experiment as see what I mean:
Grasp hold of a tree limb, pole, jungle gym or
similarly elevated horizontal surface. Next, raise
your feet off the ground, supporting yourself with
just your hands.
Assuming you weight less than 300 pounds, you'll
have no issues with the above.
Okay, next stand on a surface about 10 feet higher
than the tree limb/pole/etc, and maybe 10 or more
feet way. Leap down & across to the limb/pole/etc,
catching it with your hands and supporting your
entire body weight above ground.
Big difference.
The tree-to-ground model is similarly complicated in
that you must demonstrate adaptations (separate from
it's purely terrestrial counterparts) which likely
supported tree climbing.
Lastly, bringing us full circle, map out for us this
evolutionary model of yours where these arboreal
adaptations vanish, leaving what is, by all
appearances, a dead ringer for a purely terrestrial
dinosaur with flight feathers (Archaeopteryx).
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> He seems to think that I explicitly claim that
> dinosaurs descend from birds.
You have.
Here, let me explain, though we both know that
you won't get it...
This is supposed to be a science based group. You're
supposed to be science based people.
EXAMPLE:
The object is in a box. The box is not square. The
box is not white.
Now, there are three boxes in front of you, two of
them are rectangular in shape, and one is square.
Naturally, you (well, not "You," of course, I'm
speaking rhetorically) rule out the square box,
leaving the two rectangular boxes.
One of the rectangular boxes is green, the other is
white. Naturally, our science-based person who isn't
quite as dense as you or Hartmen rules out the white
rectagular box, and concludes the object is contained
with the green rectangular box.
Now, an intelligent person might argue that I did in
fact SAY it was in the green box, not using quotes,
making it clear that they are conveying the message
and not the words, while drooling imbeciles like you
and & Harpmen there would (as you are now) jump up
and down screaming that I did no such thing...
threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue.
You are most welcome.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
> > not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
> > have evolved from birds. Then the relationships
> > make sense.
>
> You must explain why that's true.
I have. Several time. I'll gladly quote those past
explanations -- together with a URL to the original
article on the Google archive -- as soon as you
map out for us (employing web accessible "cites"
for support) how we go from something like
Epidendrosaurus to something like Archeopteryx.
You're welcome.
> > Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
> > that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
> > uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
> > claims you've been waving for years...
>
> I'm really not sure what claims you mean here.
The ones you've made in this tread, for starters.
Now you can keep playing retard (assuming, of course,
that you are only playing), or you can step up and
finally -- FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER -- answer a
challenge.
John Harshman
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:48:11 -0800, John Harshman
>>> He seems to think that I explicitly claim that dinosaurs descend from
>>> birds.
>> Yes, but I think that's because he wants to make you look as ridiculous
>> as he can, and doesn't care about expressing himself clearly. That would
>> explain why he doesn't consider a denial to be evidence.
>
> I guess I'm just puzzled how his claims about my ideas, in spite of my
> explicit denial and his inability to produce *evidence* for my
> supposed position, makes *me* look ridiculous.
Hey, you're the one claiming that dinosaurs evolved from birds. You and
George Olshevsky.
> I was thinking of his statement in
> news:1daa992e-b32d-4c5b...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
> :
> Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have been upheld as
> arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you, and one by Hartman. Neither
> suggests a clear path to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or
> any kind of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
> and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>
> I think the cladogram in the latter paper demonstrates a pretty clear
> path.
I'm not sure he's up to considering cladograms or to mapping characters
onto them. But we'll see.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>>> Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
>>> not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
>>> have evolved from birds. Then the relationships
>>> make sense.
>> You must explain why that's true.
>
> I have. Several time.
But not in a way that is understandable, i.e. one that makes sense to
others. If you want anyone to understand you, you have to communicate
with them. If you don't want anyone to understand you, why are you posting?
> I'll gladly quote those past
> explanations -- together with a URL to the original
> article on the Google archive -- as soon as you
> map out for us (employing web accessible "cites"
> for support) how we go from something like
> Epidendrosaurus to something like Archeopteryx.
It seems to me that Augray's second linked paper, the one with the
cladogram, does that well enough. Did you look at it? Now the cladogram
doesn't have Epidendrosaurus, but it does have lots of relevant
feathered theropods including Microraptor, so should serve. The
implication is that theropods first grew feathers for some other
purpose, then some small theropods adapted them for flight. Whether
those theropods were arboreal is ambiguous from the cladogram, but a few
characters (like those flight feathers on the hindlimb) do map to the
base of the dromaeosaur-avialan clade. Another inference from the
cladogram is that all the flightless dromaeosaurs had at least gliding
ancestors.
> You're welcome.
No, you're welcome.
>>> Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
>>> that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
>>> uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
>>> claims you've been waving for years...
>> I'm really not sure what claims you mean here.
>
> The ones you've made in this tread, for starters.
Be specific. Which claims are "linear", and why?
> Now you can keep playing retard (assuming, of course,
> that you are only playing), or you can step up and
> finally -- FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER -- answer a
> challenge.
What challenge, exactly? Did Hwang et al. answer that challenge?
In case you have lost the URL, it can be found here:
Jack Dominey
<de4b142f-bce1-4651...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, gliding from tree to tree requires a great
>deal more than an apparent "Perching" capability,
>it requires the animal to grasp hold of it's
>destination tree with forces equivalent to several
>times it's own weight.
>
> ....otherwise it would a) plummet to the ground
>after having b) ripped it's claws out of it's
>fingers.
>
>Try this experiment as see what I mean:
>
>Grasp hold of a tree limb, pole, jungle gym or
>similarly elevated horizontal surface. Next, raise
>your feet off the ground, supporting yourself with
>just your hands.
>
>Assuming you weight less than 300 pounds, you'll
>have no issues with the above.
>
>Okay, next stand on a surface about 10 feet higher
>than the tree limb/pole/etc, and maybe 10 or more
>feet way. Leap down & across to the limb/pole/etc,
>catching it with your hands and supporting your
>entire body weight above ground.
This would be a good example, if humans had any perceptible gliding
capability. And if our mass were not 50-100 times greater than your
typical arboreal gliders.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that a small (100-200g) feathered critter
is capable of generating enough force to "rip its claws out of its
fingers" whether gliding or falling. Flying squirrels, sugar gliders,
colugos, and assorted other small gliders don't seem to have this
problem, even without feathers.
Your basic assertion, that landing after a glide requires more
strength than perching, is correct. But I expect that it's still well
within tolerances for small arboreal animals.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
>>> http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
>> It would be good not to link to a pdf unless you
>> explain beforehand just what it is;
>
> Odd that you skip the "communication" rant...
>
> Anyhow, Hartman, both PDFs are useless. The first
> has been long since superseded, and neither makes
> any case for these invisible "Arboreal features"
> that I know of.
Actually, the first does make such a case. Why do you say it was
superseded? The second was there for other purposes.
> though you crave conflict and not discourse, I will
> give you some examples of what's missing...
>
> An "Arboreal" glider is either going from tree to
> tree, or tree to ground.... only to climb back up
> the tree.
>
> Now, gliding from tree to tree requires a great
> deal more than an apparent "Perching" capability,
> it requires the animal to grasp hold of it's
> destination tree with forces equivalent to several
> times it's own weight.
>
> ....otherwise it would a) plummet to the ground
> after having b) ripped it's claws out of it's
> fingers.
That's nonsense. Modern gliders do no such thing. When approaching a
tree, they stall out, thus reducing their speed to near zero on landing.
Do flying squirrels and colugos fit your requirements here?
Further, small animals have much less difficulty with such forces than
large ones would.
> Try this experiment as see what I mean:
>
> Grasp hold of a tree limb, pole, jungle gym or
> similarly elevated horizontal surface. Next, raise
> your feet off the ground, supporting yourself with
> just your hands.
>
> Assuming you weight less than 300 pounds, you'll
> have no issues with the above.
>
> Okay, next stand on a surface about 10 feet higher
> than the tree limb/pole/etc, and maybe 10 or more
> feet way. Leap down & across to the limb/pole/etc,
> catching it with your hands and supporting your
> entire body weight above ground.
>
> Big difference.
> The tree-to-ground model is similarly complicated in
> that you must demonstrate adaptations (separate from
> it's purely terrestrial counterparts) which likely
> supported tree climbing.
What special adaptations would you expect to see in such an animal? Are
you rejecting wing-assisted incline running (WAIR) as a model? I will
point out that terrestrial birds can do that, even young ones that are
unable to fly.
> Lastly, bringing us full circle, map out for us this
> evolutionary model of yours where these arboreal
> adaptations vanish, leaving what is, by all
> appearances, a dead ringer for a purely terrestrial
> dinosaur with flight feathers (Archaeopteryx).
Ah, so you're looking for a just-so story. In modern science, a
demonstration that something did happen is considered better than a
story claiming that it couldn't happen. Since phylogenetic analysis
shows birds evolving from small, probably arboreal theropods (e.g. Hwang
et al.), arguments about why this would be impossible lack much force.
But do you support the cursorial model? Or are you just saying that one
model is impossible, but have no alternative?
John Harshman
When? How?
> What's interesting
> to note, the authors of this 2005 paper pretty much
> admit that, before their theory, there was no scientific
> way to get Microraptor to even glide, never mind fly.
2003. I see you read it very closely. I missed the admission that
Microraptor couldn't glide. But if that's true, whatever could it have
been doing with all those flight feathers?
> Yet, that never so much as flowed down you feather-brained
> people...
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
>
> Oh, I know: "It's okay. We got lucky this time. Someone
> doing __Real__ science eventually hit upon an idea to
> support our pre existing conclusion... the ones we lept
> to the moment we saw the feathers."
>
> But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
> arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin. The abstract
certainly makes claims for arboreal adaptations -- specifically citing
gliding from tree to tree. Have you read the full paper? Xu et al make a
case too, and cite other papers that make cases too. Have you looked at
any of them?
> So we have an unambiguous example of conclusion-driven
> science ("These things HAD to fly, what would allow
> that to happen?) that fails to so much as acknowledge
> the basic question:
>
> What arboreal features?
What would you be looking for. Obviously the arboreal features we've
mentioned already aren't satisfactory. Could you give an indication of
what an acceptable arboreal feature might be?
>> http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
>
> I don't know what the above link is supposed to
> establish. A keyword search, and a cursory viewing
> spotted nothing of relevance.
It was the phylogenetic analysis, showing Microraptor and Archaeopteryx
on two separated branches, suggesting that the ancestral dromaeosaur was
a small, flying or gliding animal. And perhaps arboreal too.
> Perhaps you could make your case by, you know,
> actually making a case, and tell us what specifically
> supports your claims.
>
> Oh, I know, that's a tall order...
What is your alternative scenario? Do you have one? You seem to be
implying that birds arose from cursorial theropods, but you also claim
to doubt that birds are dinosaurs at all. Perhaps your position is
completely agnostic?
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<wvSdnXBtzd_...@giganews.com> :
>Augray wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:48:11 -0800, John Harshman
>
>>>> He seems to think that I explicitly claim that dinosaurs descend from
>>>> birds.
>>> Yes, but I think that's because he wants to make you look as ridiculous
>>> as he can, and doesn't care about expressing himself clearly. That would
>>> explain why he doesn't consider a denial to be evidence.
>>
>> I guess I'm just puzzled how his claims about my ideas, in spite of my
>> explicit denial and his inability to produce *evidence* for my
>> supposed position, makes *me* look ridiculous.
>
>Hey, you're the one claiming that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
I see that he's gotten to you. Snap out of it man!
>You and
>George Olshevsky.
Olshevsky's been reduced to changing the labels in order to
demonstrate it.
>> I was thinking of his statement in
>> news:1daa992e-b32d-4c5b...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
>> :
>> Anyhow, you twisted psycho, two animals here have been upheld as
>> arboreal dinosaurs -- one by you, and one by Hartman. Neither
>> suggests a clear path to an archaeopteryx, nor a cloudy path or
>> any kind of path at all. And to prove it, I offer Hartmen's
>> and your arguments to the effect that they do:
>>
>> I think the cladogram in the latter paper demonstrates a pretty clear
>> path.
>
>I'm not sure he's up to considering cladograms or to mapping characters
>onto them. But we'll see.
Indeed we will.
Augray
in <d2d284d7-c23f-43c6...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
:
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> He seems to think that I explicitly claim that
>> dinosaurs descend from birds.
>
>You have.
Yet unsurprisingly, you can't point to where I did so. You obviously
have no idea what "explicitly" means in this context. Perhaps I wasn't
explicit enough for you?
A more accurate example would be if you were to claim that my object
is in the green rectangular box, in spite of my objections what it
wasn't. Yet you can't seem to find my object in the green rectangular
box, but continue to insist that it's in there *someplace*.
Similarly, you say that I claimed that dinosaurs descend from birds,
in spite of my objections that I didn't. But you can't seem to find
the post where I made the claim you attribute to me.
You're looking in the wrong box. The fact that it's empty doesn't seem
to faze you.
Augray
in <e44a2f78-ab52-41fe...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
:
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> So, you're looking for evidence that I *don't*
>
>That's right, I forgot: You're retarded.
>
>Here, let me spell it out for you, again, so you
>can have another opportunity to say something
>idiotic instead of responding.
>
>I want you to map out for us -- employing web
>accessible citations to support you position --
You mean, what you *think* my position is. Sorry, but I'll outline
what it *really* is.
>how we got from something like Epidendrosaurus
>("unambiguously arboreal")to Archaeopteryx.
How about this?: Flight feathers appear on the front legs. Gee, that
was easy!
>Please pay particular attention to the loss of
>the "unamiguously arboreal" features.
Why would I assume a loss of arboreal features when I don't advocate
such a position?
>If you want specifics, you may ask yourself
>what you meant by "arboreal," when you identified
>Epidendrosaurus as an arboreal dinosaur.
*I* didn't identify it as an arboreal dinosaur, the paleontological
community did. I just happen to agree with them.
Perhaps you're the one who should outline what he means by "arboreal"?
>> >Anyhow, Augray claims relationships which can
>> >not be mapped, unless it's the Dinosaurs who
>> >have evolved from birds.
>>
>> So, after criticizing Harshman about making naked denials, JTEM makes
>> a naked denial about relationships. Is there a double-standard in
>> play?
>
>See above.
It would seem that a naked denial about relationships is OK when JTEM
does it.
>> criticizing Harshman about making naked denials, JTEM makes
>> a naked denial about relationships. Is there a double-standard in
>> play?
Apparently there is.
>> >Then the relationships
>> >make sense.
>>
>> According to who?
No answer?
>> >Oh, I know, tell me that evolution isn't "Logical,"
>> >that it isn't "Linear," then go right ahead and
>> >uphold the same, perfectly logical, perfectly linear
>> >claims you've been waving for years...
>>
>> >It's right about here where an intelligent,
>> >science-based man like you claim to be would
>> >map out that relationship, employing web
>> >accessible to back up any claim that has yet to
>> >be established as fact. You know, exactly as you
>> >have NEVER done before.
>>
>> http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
>
>You do know that this was superseded. What's interesting
>to note, the authors of this 2005 paper
The paper you're referring to is from 2003. Can you at least *pretend*
to pay attention?
>pretty much
>admit that, before their theory, there was no scientific
>way to get Microraptor to even glide, never mind fly.
Even if true, why is that relevant to the presence of arboreal
adaptations? This is what I meant when I suggested that you pay
attention.
>Yet, that never so much as flowed down you feather-brained
>people...
You're off on a tangent again. Whether or not Microraptor could fly is
irrelevant. That's right: irrelevant. Again: pay attention.
>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
>
>Oh, I know: "It's okay. We got lucky this time. Someone
>doing __Real__ science eventually hit upon an idea to
>support our pre existing conclusion... the ones we lept
>to the moment we saw the feathers."
You think only arboreal animals have feathers? Someone tell the
squirrels, lemurs, colugos, monkeys, chameleons, tarsiers, koalas, and
raccoons.
>But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
>arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
Perhaps you should (you guessed it) pay attention. Unless you're
claiming that "feet showing features comparable to those of arboreal
birds" doesn't make a case for arboreal adaptations. Or don't arboreal
birds have arboreal adaptations? This is why you should outline what
"arboreal" means to you.
>So we have an unambiguous example of conclusion-driven
>science ("These things HAD to fly, what would allow
>that to happen?) that fails to so much as acknowledge
>the basic question:
>
>What arboreal features?
Here's some more from another paper:
The nearly completely articulated foot shows features, such as
distally positioned digit I, slender and recurved pedal claws,
and elongated penultimate phalanges, that are comparable to those
of arboreal birds.
All of the pedal unguals are sharp and strongly recurved, similar
to those of trunk-climbing birds.
Some pedal features of Microraptor are consistent with an
arboreal habit. Pedal digit I is relatively distal in position,
as indicated by its first phalanx extending distally almost to
the distal end of metatarsal III. This is similar to the
situation in Archaeopteryx (see ref. 24), Confuciusornis (IVPP,
V 11370) and arboreal birds, but is different from that of most
non-avian theropods and ground birds in which pedal digit I is
more proximally positioned. All pedal unguals of Microraptor are
slender, with a curvature of more than 155 degrees (calculated by
the method of ref. 6) and a prominent flexor tubercle (Fig. 3c,
d). They are different from all known non-avian theropods, but
comparable to those of climbing birds (see Supplementary
Information). The penultimate pedal phalanges of Microraptor and,
to a lesser degree, other dromaeosaurids are elongated relative
to those of most cursorial theropods (see Supplementary
Information). The ratios of pedal phalanx II-2/II-1 are larger
than 1 in dromaeosaurids and early birds but smaller than 1 in
other non-avian maniraptorans. The elongation of the distal pedal
phalanges has been suggested to be indicative of an arboreal
habit.
All of the above is from:
Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., & Wang X.-L. 2000. The smallest known non-avian
theropod dinosaur. Nature 408:705-708. Available at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/full/408705a0.html
>> http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/microraptor%20zhaoianus.pdf
>
>I don't know what the above link is supposed to
>establish. A keyword search, and a cursory viewing
>spotted nothing of relevance.
>
>Perhaps you could make your case by, you know,
>actually making a case, and tell us what specifically
>supports your claims.
I would think that the person who asked someone to "map out that
relationship" would have noticed the cladogram on page 31.
>Oh, I know, that's a tall order...
Asking you to read a paper? Yes, that sounds familiar.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Yet unsurprisingly, you can't point to
> where I did so.
Yet unsurprisingly, I have done so many
times.
Here, I'll give you a hint which will pass
by you unnoticed:
You have the purely terrestrial dinosaur form
(archaeopteryx) following -- evolving from --
an arboreal form (Epidendrosaurus).
YOU claim that this arboreal form is what lead
to flight -- hence your defense of the arboreal
origins of flight -- and then LATER, following
this form we get Archaeopteryx without any clear
arboreal adaptations.
You're welcome, crank.
JTEM
Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> This would be a good example, if humans had
> any perceptible gliding capability.
You mean if the shape of our bodies weren't an
impediment to traveling through the air, then
it would be easier to stop... us... from
traveling... through the air...
Actually, you might want to re-think your position.
You seem to be saying that my case is STRONGER --
not weaker -- than I implied.
Is that what you intended?
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Anyhow, Hartman, both PDFs are useless. The first
> > has been long since superseded, and neither makes
> > any case for these invisible "Arboreal features"
> > that I know of.
> Actually, the first does make such a case.
Something you could have easily supported with a
simple cut & paste job -- if it had been true --
but, once again, you do NOTHING but issue worthless
proclamations.
Seriously, if you're not capable of actually supporting
what you spew, given the way you insist on spewing pure
nonsense most of the time maybe creationism is more
your speed.
John Harshman
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Yet unsurprisingly, you can't point to
>> where I did so.
>
> Yet unsurprisingly, I have done so many
> times.
>
> Here, I'll give you a hint which will pass
> by you unnoticed:
>
> You have the purely terrestrial dinosaur form
> (archaeopteryx) following -- evolving from --
> an arboreal form (Epidendrosaurus).
>
> YOU claim that this arboreal form is what lead
> to flight -- hence your defense of the arboreal
> origins of flight -- and then LATER, following
> this form we get Archaeopteryx without any clear
> arboreal adaptations.
>
> You're welcome, crank.
But that isn't a claim that dinosaurs evolved from birds. It's a claim
that one particular dinosaur (Archaeopteryx), also a bird, by the way,
evolved from an arboreal dinosaur (unknown, as all ancestors must be,
there being no way to tell), which may in some respects have resembled
Epidendrosaurus. That's pretty far away from what you're saying.
Note also that nobody says Archaeopteryx evolved from Epidendrosaurus. I
also suspect (well, I know) that Augray would contest one of your
subsidiary premises: that Archaeopteryx was purely terrestrial.
It should be obvious how this is possible, by the way. There are plenty
of terrestrial birds whose presumed ancestors were arboreal; ground
hornbills, for example. Evolution is perfectly capable of handling a
change from arboreal habit to terrestrial habit, and vice versa.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> When? How?
Already answered, of course...
> > What's interesting
> > to note, the authors of this 2005 paper pretty much
> > admit that, before their theory, there was no scientific
> > way to get Microraptor to even glide, never mind fly.
>
> 2003. I see you read it very closely.
Cut & pasted from the cite:
: Communicated by Lynn Margulis, University of
: Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, November 17, 2006
: (received for review October 24, 2005)
Come on, shit for brains, TRY to say something worth
saying...
> I missed the admission that Microraptor couldn't
> glide.
Oops, I keep forgetting about your lack of reading
comprehension...
Anyhow, until this 2005 paper, not one human being
on this planet had formulated any means of getting
a Microraptor in the air. Put another way: As far
as all the data was concerned, as far as everyone
believed, there was no way Microraptor could even
manage to glide.
> But if that's true, whatever could it have
> been doing with all those flight feathers?
Irrelevant.
Your limited vocabulary and even more limited
imagination do not an argument make.
Hint: "Secondarily Flightless."
Hint, hint: What law are you reading that claims
so-called "Flight feathers" had to evolve AFTER
flight, or at least at the exact same time?
> > But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
> > arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
>
> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
> The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
> adaptations -- specifically citing
> gliding from tree to tree.
Um. Well. Oh, boy. Stupidity on this scale is just
so hard to cope with...
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> Anyhow, Hartman, both PDFs are useless. The first
>>> has been long since superseded, and neither makes
>>> any case for these invisible "Arboreal features"
>>> that I know of.
>
>> Actually, the first does make such a case.
>
> Something you could have easily supported with a
> simple cut & paste job -- if it had been true --
> but, once again, you do NOTHING but issue worthless
> proclamations.
I thought about it. But you have been given the url to the actual paper.
Wouldn't it just be simple for you to take a look at it? So you don't
have to read the whole thing, I suggest searching on the word
"arboreal". If that's beyond you, it's the last paragraph of the main
text (right before "notes on the specimen). Don't forget to look at Xu
et al. 2003, not Xu et al. 2005, if the latter even exists.
> Seriously, if you're not capable of actually supporting
> what you spew, given the way you insist on spewing pure
> nonsense most of the time maybe creationism is more
> your speed.
Seriously, you shouldn't start facetious sentences with seriously.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> When? How?
>
> Already answered, of course...
>
>>> What's interesting
>>> to note, the authors of this 2005 paper pretty much
>>> admit that, before their theory, there was no scientific
>>> way to get Microraptor to even glide, never mind fly.
>> 2003. I see you read it very closely.
>
> Cut & pasted from the cite:
>
> : Communicated by Lynn Margulis, University of
> : Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, November 17, 2006
> : (received for review October 24, 2005)
>
> Come on, shit for brains, TRY to say something worth
> saying...
We're talking about two different papers here. When you said "this", I
thought you were talking about the link before, not the link after. But
now that we're clear on that, you have entirely misinterpreted
Chatterjee & Templin.
>> I missed the admission that Microraptor couldn't
>> glide.
>
> Oops, I keep forgetting about your lack of reading
> comprehension...
>
> Anyhow, until this 2005 paper, not one human being
> on this planet had formulated any means of getting
> a Microraptor in the air. Put another way: As far
> as all the data was concerned, as far as everyone
> believed, there was no way Microraptor could even
> manage to glide.
Actually, what they say is that the flight configuration imagined by Xu
et al. requires an unlikely anatomical reconstruction. Which is quite
different.
>> But if that's true, whatever could it have
>> been doing with all those flight feathers?
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> Your limited vocabulary and even more limited
> imagination do not an argument make.
>
> Hint: "Secondarily Flightless."
Not with such big wings. You should note that secondarily flightless
birds can be identified by reduced wings.
> Hint, hint: What law are you reading that claims
> so-called "Flight feathers" had to evolve AFTER
> flight, or at least at the exact same time?
After, obviously not. At the same time, certainly. Adaptions evolve
along with the behaviors they make possible. Asymmetrical flight
feathers are an adaptation for flight, and secondarily flightless birds
lose that asymmetry.
>>> But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
>>> arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
>> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
>> The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
>> adaptations -- specifically citing
>> gliding from tree to tree.
>
> Um. Well. Oh, boy. Stupidity on this scale is just
> so hard to cope with...
You certainly don't make it easy to tell what you mean.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> But that isn't a claim that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
It is. It's a claim that the basic theropod dinosaur
form evolved from an arboreal adapted form.
Accept the fact and move on.
Please, no more of this abject nonsense:
> It's a claim that one particular dinosaur
> (Archaeopteryx), also a bird, by the way,
> evolved from an arboreal dinosaur
No. You're either a bigger scatter brain than I gave
you credit for, or a very bad liar. Because, the claim
was regarding the arboreal origins of flight. So, it
was never limited to Archaeopteryx. The claim applied to
all birds and all gliders, such as Microraptor (which
similarly lacks arboreal adaptations).
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Something you could have easily supported with a
> > simple cut & paste job -- if it had been true --
> > but, once again, you do NOTHING but issue worthless
> > proclamations.
>
> I thought about it. But you have
TRANSLATION: You're embarrassed. You realize your
enormous lack of reading comprehension has caused
you to miss the fact that the abstract, rather than
claiming arboreal adaptations, instead insists upon
normal theropod hindlimbs with feathers.
Here, I'll quote, seeing how you don't have the balls
to admit your mistake (so much for science, chump):
: 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
Jack Dominey
<ada78c81-9633-43f4...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This would be a good example, if humans had
>> any perceptible gliding capability.
>
>You mean if the shape of our bodies weren't an
>impediment to traveling through the air, then
>it would be easier to stop... us... from
>traveling... through the air...
>
>Actually, you might want to re-think your position.
>You seem to be saying that my case is STRONGER --
>not weaker -- than I implied.
>
>Is that what you intended?
I was intending to reply to this assertion:
>>Now, gliding from tree to tree requires a great
>>deal more than an apparent "Perching" capability,
>>it requires the animal to grasp hold of it's
>>destination tree with forces equivalent to several
>>times it's own weight.
>>
>> ....otherwise it would a) plummet to the ground
>>after having b) ripped it's claws out of it's
>>fingers.
The key seems to be 'forces equivalent to several times its own
weight'. While I admit my grasp of physics is negligible, it seems to
me that for small animals, the actual forces involved in landing are
unlikely to greatly exceed the musculo-skeletal tolerances of a body
adapted to perching.
I apologize if I misunderstood your point or your argument.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Cut & pasted from the cite:
>
> > : Communicated by Lynn Margulis, University of
> > : Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, November 17, 2006
> > : (received for review October 24, 2005)
>
> > Come on, shit for brains, TRY to say something worth
> > saying...
>
> We're talking about two different papers here.
No. We're not. The above is the one YOU referenced. Here,
I'll quote you:
: > By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
There. "Chatterjee & Templin are the authors of the above
cited abstract. We were both speaking of the exact same
abstract. You're either lying, again, or completely
melting down into a stupidity puddle...
Here's the link so if by some miracle anyone here is
interested in facts (instead of your usual flatulence)
they can see for themselves what the truth is:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
You're welcome.
Augray
in <c5f16de4-6ba1-4d3b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
:
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:19:28 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>>in <d2d284d7-c23f-43c6...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> He seems to think that I explicitly claim that
>> >> dinosaurs descend from birds.
>> >
>> >You have.
>> >
>> Yet unsurprisingly, you can't point to
>> where I did so.
>
>Yet unsurprisingly, I have done so many
>times.
Yet unsurprisingly, you can't seem to do it now. You always seem to be
*much* more informative in the past, and never in the present.
>Here, I'll give you a hint which will pass
>by you unnoticed:
>
>You have the purely terrestrial dinosaur form
>(archaeopteryx)
And there's one of your problems right there: I disagree with the
statement that Archaeopteryx was a "purely terrestrial dinosaur form",
and I've told you that many many times. But for some reason, you just
ignore it.
>following -- evolving from --
>an arboreal form (Epidendrosaurus).
>
>YOU claim that this arboreal form is what lead
>to flight -- hence your defense of the arboreal
>origins of flight -- and then LATER, following
>this form we get Archaeopteryx without any clear
>arboreal adaptations.
The phalangeal proportions of the foot are *quite* clear:
Hopson, J. A. 2001. Ecomorphology of avian and nonavian theropod
phalangeal proportions: Implications for the arboreal versus
terrestrial origin of bird flight. In "New perspectives on the Origin
and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International
Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven,
Connecticut", edited by J. Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 211-235. New
Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University.
>You're welcome, crank.
"Apparently ad hominem -- especially when based on fallacy --
is now considered to be 'scientific,' or at least here."
Augray
in <f3e6384b-6b08-4668...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
:
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> When? How?
>
>Already answered, of course...
>
>> > What's interesting
>> > to note, the authors of this 2005 paper pretty much
>> > admit that, before their theory, there was no scientific
>> > way to get Microraptor to even glide, never mind fly.
>>
>> 2003. I see you read it very closely.
>
>Cut & pasted from the cite:
>
>: Communicated by Lynn Margulis, University of
>: Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, November 17, 2006
>: (received for review October 24, 2005)
>
>Come on, shit for brains, TRY to say something worth
>saying...
No one cares went it was received for review, it's when it was
*published* that matters. Cut & pasted from the cite at
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract :
Published online before print January 22, 2007, doi:
10.1073/pnas.0609975104
PNAS January 30, 2007 vol. 104 no. 5 1576-1580
Because when you're trying to track down a paper, it helps to know
when it was, you know, *printed*.
>> I missed the admission that Microraptor couldn't
>> glide.
>
>Oops, I keep forgetting about your lack of reading
>comprehension...
>
>Anyhow, until this 2005 paper, not one human being
>on this planet had formulated any means of getting
>a Microraptor in the air.
Wow, talk about "lack of reading comprehension":
The forelimb and the leg feathers would make a perfect aerofoil
together, analogous to the patagium in bats or gliding animals.
- Xu et al. 2003
>Put another way: As far
>as all the data was concerned, as far as everyone
>believed, there was no way Microraptor could even
>manage to glide.
"Everyone" seem to disagree with you.
>> But if that's true, whatever could it have
>> been doing with all those flight feathers?
>
>Irrelevant.
Apparently, morphology is irrelevant.
>Your limited vocabulary and even more limited
>imagination do not an argument make.
And another irony meter bites the dust.
>Hint: "Secondarily Flightless."
So, you disagree with the conclusions of Chatterjee & Templin?
>Hint, hint: What law are you reading that claims
>so-called "Flight feathers" had to evolve AFTER
>flight, or at least at the exact same time?
If you'd like to propose another advantageous use for them, go right
ahead.
>> > But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
>> > arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
>>
>> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
>> The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
>> adaptations -- specifically citing
>> gliding from tree to tree.
>
>Um. Well. Oh, boy. Stupidity on this scale is just
>so hard to cope with...
And it's so much more stupid to cite a paper that doesn't support your
claims:
_Microraptor_ gui, a four-winged dromaeosaur from the Early
Cretaceous of China, provides strong evidence for an
arboreal-gliding origin of avian flight.
- Chatterjee & Templin 2007
Augray
wrote in
<480eab42-bcf1-484c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> :
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>> > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Anyhow, Hartman, both PDFs are useless. The first
>> >>> has been long since superseded, and neither makes
>> >>> any case for these invisible "Arboreal features"
>> >>> that I know of.
>> >
>> >> Actually, the first does make such a case.
>> >
>> > Something you could have easily supported with a
>> > simple cut & paste job -- if it had been true --
>> > but, once again, you do NOTHING but issue worthless
>> > proclamations.
>>
>> I thought about it. But you have been given the url to the actual paper.
>> Wouldn't it just be simple for you to take a look at it? So you don't
>> have to read the whole thing, I suggest searching on the word
>> "arboreal". If that's beyond you, it's the last paragraph of the main
>> text (right before "notes on the specimen). Don't forget to look at Xu
>> et al. 2003, not Xu et al. 2005, if the latter even exists.
>
>TRANSLATION: You're embarrassed. You realize your
>enormous lack of reading comprehension has caused
>you to miss the fact that the abstract, rather than
>claiming arboreal adaptations, instead insists upon
>normal theropod hindlimbs with feathers.
>
>Here, I'll quote, seeing how you don't have the balls
>to admit your mistake (so much for science, chump):
>
>: 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
That's not the paper he's talking about, you silly person. He's
talking about Xu et al. 2003. You know, the one at
http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf ?
The least you can do is try to *understand* what the other person is
saying.
And here's another hint: the flying abilities, or lack thereof, or
Microraptor are irrelevant to its arboreal status.
Augray
wrote in
<2455ccd9-2407-43cf...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> :
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> JTEM wrote:
>> >John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf
>> >> >
>> >> > You do know that this was superseded.
>> >>
>> >> When? How?
>> >
>> >Already answered, of course...
>>
>> >> >What's interesting
>> >> >to note, the authors of this 2005 paper pretty much
>> >> >admit that, before their theory, there was no scientific
>> >> >way to get Microraptor to even glide, never mind fly.
>> >>
>> >> 2003. I see you read it very closely.
>> >
>> >Cut & pasted from the cite:
>> >
>> >: Communicated by Lynn Margulis, University of
>> >: Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, November 17, 2006
>> >: (received for review October 24, 2005)
>> >
>> >Come on, shit for brains, TRY to say something worth
>> >saying...
>>
>> We're talking about two different papers here.
>
>
>No. We're not.
Yes, you are, and if you weren't so zealous about removing context
you'd know that. I've restored it so you can see your error.
>The above is the one YOU referenced. Here,
>I'll quote you:
>
>: > By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
>
>There. "Chatterjee & Templin are the authors of the above
>cited abstract.
Actually, the Harshman quote you're refering to occurred further down
the post. I'll point to it when we get down that far.
>We were both speaking of the exact same
>abstract. You're either lying, again, or completely
>melting down into a stupidity puddle...
It would seem that someone's melting down, but not Harshman.
>Here's the link so if by some miracle anyone here is
>interested in facts (instead of your usual flatulence)
>they can see for themselves what the truth is:
>
>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
>
>You're welcome.
>
>
>> >> > Yet, that never so much as flowed down you feather-brained
>> >> > people...
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, I know: "It's okay. We got lucky this time. Someone
>> >> > doing __Real__ science eventually hit upon an idea to
>> >> > support our pre existing conclusion... the ones we lept
>> >> > to the moment we saw the feathers."
>> >> >
>> >> > But there's a problem here. He makes no case for
>> >> > arboreal adaptations. None. Neither cite does.
>> >>
>> >> By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin. The abstract
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're welcome.
>> >> certainly makes claims for arboreal adaptations -- specifically citing
>> >> gliding from tree to tree.
>> >
>> >Um. Well. Oh, boy. Stupidity on this scale is just
>> >so hard to cope with...
>>
>> You certainly don't make it easy to tell what you mean.
Amen to that.
Augray
wrote in
<bcd15f9a-a46a-46b8...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
>
>John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > Here, I'll give you a hint which will pass
>> > by you unnoticed:
>> >
>> > You have the purely terrestrial dinosaur form
>> > (archaeopteryx) following -- evolving from --
>> > an arboreal form (Epidendrosaurus).
>> >
>> > YOU claim that this arboreal form is what lead
>> > to flight -- hence your defense of the arboreal
>> > origins of flight -- and then LATER, following
>> > this form we get Archaeopteryx without any clear
>> > arboreal adaptations.
>> >
>> > You're welcome, crank.
>>
>> But that isn't a claim that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
>
>It is. It's a claim that the basic theropod dinosaur
>form evolved from an arboreal adapted form.
No, it isn't. And perhaps you should spell out why reversals can
happen, what you think the "basic theropod dinosaur form" actually
*is*, and why it would radically change to adapt to an arboreal
existence.
>Accept the fact and move on.
Why should anyone accept your misconceptions?
>Please, no more of this abject nonsense:
>
>> It's a claim that one particular dinosaur
>> (Archaeopteryx), also a bird, by the way,
>> evolved from an arboreal dinosaur
>
>No. You're either a bigger scatter brain than I gave
>you credit for, or a very bad liar. Because, the claim
>was regarding the arboreal origins of flight.
And here I thought this thread was started to contest my
identification of Epidendrosaurus as a dinosaur.
>So, it
>was never limited to Archaeopteryx. The claim applied to
>all birds
Apparently, no one can imagine that terrestrial birds might exist.
>and all gliders, such as Microraptor (which
>similarly lacks arboreal adaptations).
Absolutely false:
All of the above from:
John Harshman
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:14:22 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> wrote in
> <bcd15f9a-a46a-46b8...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
>
>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Here, I'll give you a hint which will pass
>>>> by you unnoticed:
>>>>
>>>> You have the purely terrestrial dinosaur form
>>>> (archaeopteryx) following -- evolving from --
>>>> an arboreal form (Epidendrosaurus).
>>>>
>>>> YOU claim that this arboreal form is what lead
>>>> to flight -- hence your defense of the arboreal
>>>> origins of flight -- and then LATER, following
>>>> this form we get Archaeopteryx without any clear
>>>> arboreal adaptations.
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome, crank.
>>> But that isn't a claim that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
>> It is. It's a claim that the basic theropod dinosaur
>> form evolved from an arboreal adapted form.
>
> No, it isn't. And perhaps you should spell out why reversals can
> happen,
You mean "can't happen".
> what you think the "basic theropod dinosaur form" actually
> *is*, and why it would radically change to adapt to an arboreal
> existence.
I'm wondering if he assumes all arboreal animals must be quadrupeds. Of
course the only models we have for arboreal bipeds are tree kangaroos
and...birds. But is he perhaps asking why no theropod looks like a squirrel?
There are more references for arboreal features of Microraptor in Xu et
al. 2003.
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<msCdnSDuO6d...@giganews.com> :
>Augray wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:14:22 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <bcd15f9a-a46a-46b8...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Here, I'll give you a hint which will pass
>>>>> by you unnoticed:
>>>>>
>>>>> You have the purely terrestrial dinosaur form
>>>>> (archaeopteryx) following -- evolving from --
>>>>> an arboreal form (Epidendrosaurus).
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU claim that this arboreal form is what lead
>>>>> to flight -- hence your defense of the arboreal
>>>>> origins of flight -- and then LATER, following
>>>>> this form we get Archaeopteryx without any clear
>>>>> arboreal adaptations.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're welcome, crank.
>>>> But that isn't a claim that dinosaurs evolved from birds.
>>> It is. It's a claim that the basic theropod dinosaur
>>> form evolved from an arboreal adapted form.
>>
>> No, it isn't. And perhaps you should spell out why reversals can
>> happen,
>
>You mean "can't happen".
Yes, that's true.
>> what you think the "basic theropod dinosaur form" actually
>> *is*, and why it would radically change to adapt to an arboreal
>> existence.
>
>I'm wondering if he assumes all arboreal animals must be quadrupeds. Of
>course the only models we have for arboreal bipeds are tree kangaroos
>and...birds.
There was an Ostrom paper where he outlined why he believed that the
ancestors of birds must have been bipedal. It boiled down to the
separate functions of forelimbs and hindlimbs in birds. Unfortunately,
I can't remember which paper it was.
>But is he perhaps asking why no theropod looks like a squirrel?
Who knows? Clarity doesn't seem to be high on his list of things to
cultivate.
Unfortunately, most of those references don't actually discuss
Microraptor. Personally, I like Xu et al. (2000) in this instance
because the authors were unaware of Microraptor's possible flying
behaviors, and only talk about its arboreal traits.
John Harshman
That point has certainly been made many times in the literature. I'm
presuming, however, that JTEM would agree with that particular claim.
I'm saying his reasoning may run to this:
arboreal animals are quadrupeds
no theropod shows evidence of being a quadruped
therefore no theropod shows evidence of arboreal adaptations
>> But is he perhaps asking why no theropod looks like a squirrel?
>
> Who knows? Clarity doesn't seem to be high on his list of things to
> cultivate.
I believe he has one important message: you're an idiot. And that, at
least, he has managed to communicate clearly, by consistently staying on
message.
[snip]
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<CpKdnfD-ftg...@giganews.com> :
I would tend to doubt that. Obviously he thinks the idea of dinosaurs
being descended from birds is silly, but I suspect that has more to do
with the "temporal paradox" idea than anything else.
>>> But is he perhaps asking why no theropod looks like a squirrel?
>>
>> Who knows? Clarity doesn't seem to be high on his list of things to
>> cultivate.
>
>I believe he has one important message: you're an idiot. And that, at
>least, he has managed to communicate clearly, by consistently staying on
>message.
I think you're being modest by omission. A strong case could be made
that he thinks you're an idiot as well. Although I have to acknowledge
that his opinion of me is vehement enough to induce him to resurrect a
two and a half year old dispute. Try and beat *that* Harshman!
>[snip]
John Harshman
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:56:47 -0800, John Harshman
>> I'm saying his reasoning may run to this:
>>
>> arboreal animals are quadrupeds
>> no theropod shows evidence of being a quadruped
>> therefore no theropod shows evidence of arboreal adaptations
>
> I would tend to doubt that. Obviously he thinks the idea of dinosaurs
> being descended from birds is silly, but I suspect that has more to do
> with the "temporal paradox" idea than anything else.
The temporal paradox plays a part, but I don't think it's the primary
factor. Admittedly, my theory is speculative. And I doubt there is any
way to test either of these theories unless he becomes more forthcoming.
>>>> But is he perhaps asking why no theropod looks like a squirrel?
>>> Who knows? Clarity doesn't seem to be high on his list of things to
>>> cultivate.
>> I believe he has one important message: you're an idiot. And that, at
>> least, he has managed to communicate clearly, by consistently staying on
>> message.
>
> I think you're being modest by omission. A strong case could be made
> that he thinks you're an idiot as well. Although I have to acknowledge
> that his opinion of me is vehement enough to induce him to resurrect a
> two and a half year old dispute. Try and beat *that* Harshman!
I meant "you're an idiot" in the generic sense that "you" refers to
everyone who isn't JTEM.
Augray
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<OoCdnZfCs5E...@giganews.com> :
>Augray wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:56:47 -0800, John Harshman
>
>>> I'm saying his reasoning may run to this:
>>>
>>> arboreal animals are quadrupeds
>>> no theropod shows evidence of being a quadruped
>>> therefore no theropod shows evidence of arboreal adaptations
>>
>> I would tend to doubt that. Obviously he thinks the idea of dinosaurs
>> being descended from birds is silly, but I suspect that has more to do
>> with the "temporal paradox" idea than anything else.
>
>The temporal paradox plays a part, but I don't think it's the primary
>factor. Admittedly, my theory is speculative. And I doubt there is any
>way to test either of these theories unless he becomes more forthcoming.
I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>> But is he perhaps asking why no theropod looks like a squirrel?
>>>> Who knows? Clarity doesn't seem to be high on his list of things to
>>>> cultivate.
>>> I believe he has one important message: you're an idiot. And that, at
>>> least, he has managed to communicate clearly, by consistently staying on
>>> message.
>>
>> I think you're being modest by omission. A strong case could be made
>> that he thinks you're an idiot as well. Although I have to acknowledge
>> that his opinion of me is vehement enough to induce him to resurrect a
>> two and a half year old dispute. Try and beat *that* Harshman!
>
>I meant "you're an idiot" in the generic sense that "you" refers to
>everyone who isn't JTEM.
Oops. And here I thought I was special.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> >It is. It's a claim that the basic theropod dinosaur
> >form evolved from an arboreal adapted form.
>
> No, it isn't.
No matter how low my opinion of you sinks, you need
only type a few words and it sinks lower still...
> And perhaps you should
Get a clue.
As I spelled out:
> > No. You're either a bigger scatter brain than I
> > gave you credit for, or a very bad liar. Because,
> > the claim was regarding the arboreal origins of
> > flight.
> And here I thought this thread was started to contest my
> identification of Epidendrosaurus as a dinosaur.
What can I say? You are a retard...
> > So, it
> > was never limited to Archaeopteryx. The claim
> > applied to all birds
> Apparently, no one can imagine that terrestrial
> birds might exist.
Why, are you saying that they evolved from a
different ancestor? Seriously?
Damn, you honestly are an imbecile...
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> arboreal animals are quadrupeds
Now I know that you labor under the assumption that
your every tangent & mistake draws you ever closer
to a Nobel Prize, but on this planet the prevailing
claim is that birds evolved from Theropod dinosaurs.
So unless you believe that you've identified any
quadrupedal Theropods that are likely ancestors to
birds, you are -- ONCE AGAIN -- spewing random
nonsense.
Now, we have "Birds" like Archeopteryx which supposedly
evolved flight through an entirely logical, completely
linear process where these theropods gave up the ground
for an arboreal environment, first evolving the ability
to glide and eventually evolving powered flight...
culminating in a form that's virtually indistinguishable
from what it looked like BEFORE it ever left for the
trees.
That's YOUR position. Whether you will eventually agree
with Augray's view that Theropod dinosaurs evolved from
birds is a mystery I care not to explore right now...
You're welcome.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>(PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> >TRANSLATION: �You're embarrassed. You realize your
> >enormous lack of reading comprehension has caused
> >you to miss the fact that the abstract, rather than
> >claiming arboreal adaptations, instead insists upon
> >normal theropod hindlimbs with feathers.
>
> >Here, I'll quote, seeing how you don't have the balls
> >to admit your mistake (so much for science, chump):
>
> >: 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
>
> That's not the paper he's talking about,
You're either a liar or a retard (I'll accept "Both")
and he clearly identified it as the paper he was
speaking of with these words:
: By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
Here's the URL to Harshman's article:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a02501ecd12d9746?hl=en&dmode=source
Nice try, shit for brains, but Harshman already
tried THE EXCACT SAME CLAIM and I had already
disproven him.
Like him, you won't have the balls the admit the
truth.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Yes, you are, and if you weren't so
You're morally bankrupt, as well as retarded.
No surprise there...
I'll prove it, though not a single regular here
has the integrity to swat down you & Harshman...
Here's the abstract I referenced:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/5/1576.abstract
If you click on it (assuming you figured out how)
you'll note the names of the authors: Chatterjee &
Templin.
Anyhow, to quote Harshman:
: By "he" I'm supposing you mean Chatterjee & Templin.
: The abstract certainly makes claims for arboreal
: adaptations -- specifically citing gliding from
: tree to tree.
There. Harshman was unquestionably referencing the
exact same abstract. Harshman either intentionally
misrepresented what the abstract said, or he honestly
is a frigging moron without reading comprehension,
as instead of identifying "Arboreal adaptations" it's
reconstruction is based on a normal theropod hind leg
posture.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > �John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> You must explain why that's true.
>
> > I have. Several time.
>
> But not in a way that is understandable, i.e.
> one that
You over-play that retard card, and I'm not
interesting in joining your game.
> > I'll gladly quote those past
> > explanations -- together with a URL to the original
> > article on the Google archive -- as soon as you
> > map out for us (employing web accessible "cites"
> > for support) how we go from something like
> > Epidendrosaurus to something like Archeopteryx.
>
> It seems to me that Augray's second linked paper, the
> one with the cladogram, does that well enough.
So what you're saying is that somebody else did all
the work for you, and you __STILL__ couldn't answer
the challenge... you're that useless... that stupid.
Congratulations, I guess.
John Wilkins
killfile, permanently.