James's theory on dinosaurs

Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 07, 2012, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 06, 2012, 12:19:36 PM

You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).

Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.

No, it's a dinosaur nest.

It's both.  I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.

Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 07, 2012, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 06, 2012, 12:19:36 PM

You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).

Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.

No, it's a dinosaur nest.

It's both.  I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.

Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?

Quote from: markjo on May 07, 2012, 11:10:33 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 07, 2012, 10:56:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2012, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 06, 2012, 12:19:36 PM

You show me a photograph of a bird in a nest and you tell me dinosaurs build nests (or boats!).

Remember here birds are dinosaurs. So Thork's picture is technically a dinosaur vessel.

No, it's a dinosaur nest.

It's both.  I like to think of it as the dinosaur equivalent of a houseboat.

Have you ever taken a houseboat on a transoceanic voyage?

People have taken far less capable ships on transoceanic voyages.

But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 07, 2012, 11:43:15 AM

But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.

An outstanding contribution to the discussion. Truly, you have deployed a weighty argument.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:17:02 PM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:58:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 06, 2012, 08:35:37 AM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:18:10 AM

Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.

This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.

This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.

Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.

Have you even checked out the definition of clade?

If there is a species that is an ancestor, either extinct or not, of both species you are comparing, they belong to the same clade.

Even wikipedia has this definition nice and simple so you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

And what kind of biologist are you, who does not know that all animals share gene structures? It is by now such common knowledge that the whole tree of evolution of species has been revised based on this scientific evidence. If you want to use the term "clade" with any precision at all you have to mention how far into the tree you want to go looking for that common ancestor. In fact, if you want to go all the way to some time after Abiogenesis, you can consider yourself part of the same clade as a bacteria, a plant or a fungus.

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 06, 2012, 01:17:02 PM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:58:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 06, 2012, 08:35:37 AM

Quote from: trig on May 06, 2012, 08:18:10 AM

Our classification of species does not include a clear "end of the line" for each name, so in a sense we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans. There is no doubt that some ancestor of the humans was rather similar to a modern fish, so you can say "birds are dinosaurs and humans are fish". Is this useful? I don't think so.

This is a completely false analogy. Birds and dinosaurs are not only considered to be part of the same class (as is the case with some of your examples), Reptilia, but more importantly within that class they share the same clade, namely dinosauria. So when we talk about dinosaurs, we are necessarily talking about birds. However, when we talk about humans we are not cladistically-speaking talking about fish, and when we talk about primates we are not necessarily talking about rats.

This is not an analogy. We have a common ancestor with the fish. We are not analogous with the fish, we are both descendants of the same animals. And the birds are not analogous with the T. Rex either. They have a common ancestor.

Having a common ancestor does not magically invite species not preserving genes and structures required of a clade to jump across classifications.

Have you even checked out the definition of clade?

If there is a species that is an ancestor, either extinct or not, of both species you are comparing, they belong to the same clade.

Even wikipedia has this definition nice and simple so you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

And what kind of biologist are you, who does not know that all animals share gene structures? It is by now such common knowledge that the whole tree of evolution of species has been revised based on this scientific evidence. If you want to use the term "clade" with any precision at all you have to mention how far into the tree you want to go looking for that common ancestor. In fact, if you want to go all the way to some time after Abiogenesis, you can consider yourself part of the same clade as a bacteria, a plant or a fungus.

Please stop using faulty examples of clades. I'm happy you can clap your hands are realize some gene sequences are highly conserved (it appears you think this is something new) but do not try and pretend humans can be classified as fish.

My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor

It is not a question of common ancestry. There are many species with whom we share common ancestry, without sharing the same clade. Please at least read the links you so condescendingly present.


Dinosaurs represent a clade, and birds are part of that clade. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Humans and fish, despite distant common ancestry, are nevertheless not the part of the same clade, which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans.

I fail to see why plate tectonics are not compatible with a flat earth. Indeed, the whole idea of Pangea seems to present problems for globularism. Imagine what effect having so much land mass on one side of a spinning, whirling globe would have on it's movement. The wobbling would be alarming. I can't even imagine the stresses on the earth.  Would not the spinning prevent such a lopsided creation to begin with? How did a spinning, accreting globe manage to so unevenly accumulate?

What problems I do have with tectonic theory lie in the details. Again, this is not to say that plate tectonics is not true. I rather think it may be or that something very similar may be. Yet I find the assumptions we make the process ridiculous. It (like so many other things) has become scientific dogma. Scientific Orthodoxy refuses to allow itself to doubt. It must assign an answer to everything and shout down any opposing view. The whole idea is only a few decades old, but the idea is already entrenched. I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist. 

The issue demonstrates everything wrong with Scientific Orthodoxy today, and the struggles of the many proponents of alternative theories or variations of tectonic-action to tectonic orthodoxy mirror that of the flat earth movement.

No, it's the accepted scientific theory, and damn the evidence that might suggest otherwise.

I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist. 

Quote from: Ski on May 08, 2012, 01:38:03 AM

I'm willing to bet that you and most have gone through your entire scholastic career(s) without encountering any of the evidence against the prevailing plate tectonic theory, subduction, sea floor spreading, paleomagnetism, etc., without the hint that such evidence might even exist. 

I seem especially prescient today...

No, it's the accepted scientific theory, and damn the evidence that might suggest otherwise.

There is plenty of "anomalous" evidence that plate tectonics do not work, or do not work in quite the same way proposed by orthodoxy. As I suspected, you don't even know that such evidence exists because it is swept under the rug.
The discussion really highlights what is wrong with the modern religion of "science". As Zark suggest, all evidence and competing theories now need to "disprove" tectonic plates and are not allowed to stand (or fall) on their own merit. Instead, they must achieve the near insurmountable task of "disproving" a theory that gradually perverts itself while never questioning the presumptions that underlie it.

There is plenty of "anomalous" evidence that plate tectonics do not work, or do not work in quite the same way proposed by orthodoxy. As I suspected, you don't even know that such evidence exists because it is swept under the rug.

The discussion really highlights what is wrong with the modern religion of "science". As Zark suggest, all evidence and competing theories now need to "disprove" tectonic plates and are not allowed to stand (or fall) on their own merit. Instead, they must achieve the near insurmountable task of "disproving" a theory that gradually perverts itself while never questioning the presumptions that underlie it.

Nice rant; facts now.

Why should there be a lie about tectonics?

What I'm saying is that the idea is so entrenched that opposing theories and contradictory evidence is swept under the rug and ignored.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 08, 2012, 12:10:56 PM

Nice rant; facts now.

Why should there be a lie about tectonics?

I don't know that there is a lie, per se, about plate tectonics. There is no problem accommodating the theory with a flat earth, in my opinion. I shouldn't be surprised if something very much like the plate tectonic theory is true. What I'm saying is that the idea is so entrenched that opposing theories and contradictory evidence is swept under the rug and ignored. Doubt must never enter the mind of the modern scientist or heaven forbid the plebian and unwashed public. The problem is the scientific community and the aura of infallibility that has been built around several assumptions. It is very much like in cosmology where instead of examining the underlying assumptions in one's model, orthodoxy has now introduced completely undetectable hypothetical matter in such amounts as to represent 90% of the universe to make the facts fit the model and not the other way around. Heaven forbid someone think that maybe if you have to invent nine times the amount of observed matter in the universe (which according to prevailing opinion is "astronomically" huge, mind you) the problem might be with the model and not the data. If you've delved into tectonic theory beyond your wiki-education, you've no doubt seen the same process at work in plate tectonics.

Quote from: Ski on May 08, 2012, 02:33:30 PM

What I'm saying is that the idea is so entrenched that opposing theories and contradictory evidence is swept under the rug and ignored.

I hate to echo Markjo, but as someone who admittedly did go through his entire scholastic career being taught that plate tectonics was fact and not being told any of the opposing theories or contradictory evidence, I'm very curious to see some examples.

Quote from: trig on May 07, 2012, 05:56:23 PM

My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor

And your 'point' is completely wrong, as I pointed out earlier:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 07, 2012, 07:52:03 AM

It is not a question of common ancestry. There are many species with whom we share common ancestry, without sharing the same clade. Please at least read the links you so condescendingly present.


Dinosaurs represent a clade, and birds are part of that clade. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Humans and fish, despite distant common ancestry, are nevertheless not the part of the same clade, which is why neither we nor fish are considered fishumans.

A clade is a group of taxa consisting only of an ancestor taxon and all of its descendant taxa. In the diagram provided (a cladogram), it is hypothesized that all vertebrates, including ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii), had a common ancestor all of whose descendants were vertebrates, and so form a clade. Within the vertebrates, all tetrapods, including amphibians, mammals, reptiles (as traditionally defined) and birds are hypothesized to have had a common ancestor all of whose descendants were tetrapods, and so also form a clade. The tetrapod ancestor was a descendant of the original vertebrate ancestor, but is not an ancestor of any ray-finned fish living today.

we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans.

You have yet to justify

Quote

we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans.

There are very clear reasons why humans are not considered fish, rats, or orangutans. Having  a common ancestor doesn't change that and it never has.

we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans

Quote

we humans are all fish, and we are all lizards, and we are all rats, and we are all primates, and we are all orangutans

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science.

In the meantime, rest assured that not only are birds really dinosaurs, but that this is much less strange than it sounds when you realize that very many dinosaurs, typically not the ones you see on TV and in movies, were actually very bird-like in some rather unexpected ways.

• Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals — just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct.