James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 375767 Views
?

Thork

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1770 on: May 07, 2012, 11:17:55 AM »
In the news today ...
Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792
Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.

I wonder if this may also have been a form of propulsion for their boats?

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1771 on: May 07, 2012, 11:32:51 AM »
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?

No.  But I'm not saying that a dinosaur would be able to sail across the ocean on a simple nest like that.  They may have collaborated to build larger vessels - larger nests, if you will - for that purpose.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1772 on: May 07, 2012, 11:34:14 AM »
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.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1773 on: May 07, 2012, 11:43:15 AM »
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.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1774 on: May 07, 2012, 11:44:47 AM »
But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.


An outstanding contribution to the discussion. Truly, you have deployed a weighty argument. ::)
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1775 on: May 07, 2012, 12:45:17 PM »
But dinosaurs? Very unlikely.


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

There's obviously a missing link between a contemporary photo and million of years old dinosaurs at the very least.

And tectonics is a reality, measured and proved.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1776 on: May 07, 2012, 04:47:46 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 04:50:31 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1777 on: May 07, 2012, 05:56:23 PM »
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.
I am not even interested in classification. My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor, and therefore the definition of what classifies with what is quite arbitrary. What makes the common ancestor between a dinosaur and a bird "close enough" and the common ancestor between a lizard and a human "not close enough"? There has to be a classification so the living beings can be studied, but the exact place where the divisions are placed is arbitrary.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1778 on: May 07, 2012, 06:25:34 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:


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 want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1779 on: May 08, 2012, 12:29:15 AM »
It is a wild guess to imagine what dinosaurs could have done more than 60 million years ago. It canonly be hypothesis, not zetetic work.

Tectonics is much more interesting because the Earth (lands and seas) have been entirely cartographied and we know for sure that the old world and the new world are drifting apart, at a rate of a couple centimetre each year, which gives, if we rewind the clock, a much more plausible theory of a single continent.
Problem solved!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1780 on: May 08, 2012, 01:38:03 AM »
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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1781 on: May 08, 2012, 06:44:50 AM »
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?

Same goes with FET.


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.

It is not what you call "Scientific Orthodoxy". Tectonic is the accepted theory until proven otherwise.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1782 on: May 08, 2012, 09:48:07 AM »
No, it's the accepted scientific theory, and damn the evidence that might suggest otherwise.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1783 on: May 08, 2012, 10:18:35 AM »
No, it's the accepted scientific theory, and damn the evidence that might suggest otherwise.

What evidence suggests otherwise?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1784 on: May 08, 2012, 10:29:19 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...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1785 on: May 08, 2012, 10:44:28 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.

I'm sorry but I'm confused.  Do you have evidence that plate tectonics does not occur or are you saying that you have never encountered evidence that it does?  They are two completely different things and I'm not sure of what you're trying to say.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1786 on: May 08, 2012, 11:40:13 AM »
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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1787 on: May 08, 2012, 12:10:56 PM »
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?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1788 on: May 08, 2012, 12:55:12 PM »
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.

Again, what evidence are you referring to?

Quote
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.

No, competing theories do not need to disprove anything.  They just need to have have better way of explaining the evidence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1789 on: May 08, 2012, 02:33:30 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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1790 on: May 08, 2012, 02:46:15 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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1791 on: May 08, 2012, 03:14:16 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.

You should read some history of the sciences before saying such nonsense.
Look a little big in the story of The big bang and of Fred Hoyle. You'll 2 theories debating and fighting each other, in contradiction with what you think.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1792 on: May 08, 2012, 04:58:07 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.

Wikipedia, for example, tells us simply that the lithosphere floats atop a molten asthenosphere  Decades of work such as "Jordan (1978). Composition and development of the continental tectosphere""Jordan, T. H. (1979). The deep structure of the continents", and "Pollack & Chapman (1977). On the regional variation of heat flow, geotherms, and lithospheric thickness" show us that the asthenosphere is quite thin or absent beneath the roots of the plates. Orthodoxy would have the depth of the continental crust at 40-70km thick. Yet most modern seismic topography shows roots of the continents extending at least 400km depth. In some cases like "Gossler, J., & Kind, R. (1996 ). Seismic evidence for very deep roots of continents", we see depths of up to 660km observed. With the absence of the asthenosphere beneath, Nina Pavlenkova (among others) suggests the crust is rooted in the mantle itself and that the long-distance movement of lithospheric plates in one piece is "utterly impossible" to use her words.

Paleomagnetism is another field cited as "proof" of plate tectonics, yet surveys show that the anomalies are ovals, not lines, and that in many cases there are no ridges to accompany them. Many are oblique to the ridge they are found near and less than half are symmetrical to their associated ridges.

It is clear that there is much and more that we have no clue about and no explanation for, yet orthodoxy would give us a simple and arbitrary picture of the continents and pangea in a book without the slightest hint that there are difficulties. Apparently no one here made it through geology class hearing the slightest hint that something might be awry with our understanding of plate tectonics.

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1793 on: May 09, 2012, 01:06:47 AM »
My point is that the definition of clade only requires a common ancestor


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


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.
It is you who should read a little about clades and cladistics. Essentially every living being shares a clade with every other being, and the question is not whether there is a common ancestor, but how far back in history it is.

From the very same place you said I had quoted but not read:
Quote
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.

Which brings us to the question: Where on Earth did you read that fish and humans are not in the same clade? I have my sources and actually read what I quote. Why don't you?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1794 on: May 09, 2012, 11:42:33 PM »
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.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1795 on: May 10, 2012, 04:51:24 AM »
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.
Have the common courtesy to quote with precision and within context. Since you are not doing so, you do not even deserve an answer. There is a difference between belonging to the same clade and being the same.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1796 on: May 12, 2012, 07:44:10 AM »
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
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1797 on: May 12, 2012, 09:41:33 AM »
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
Your answer to a request for a quote in full context is the exact quote taken out of context. How mature. I don't even remember saying those words. I did say you are misusing the whole idea of clade. If you still claim I said what you wrote, give us the exact place so we can all see if you took it out of context.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1798 on: May 12, 2012, 10:01:42 AM »
How am I misusing the idea of a clade? Please quote anything that suggests such is the case.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #1799 on: May 12, 2012, 10:07:03 AM »
Okay, this little sub-debate really needs to die.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Quote
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.

http://10000birds.com/are-birds-really-dinosaurs.htm

Quote
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.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html

Quote
• 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.

See, Trig?  According to most people who study dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs, and no amount of semantic gameplaying on your part is going to change that this is a fact.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?