James's theory on dinosaurs

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.

I am not disputing that in some classifications birds are dinosaurs. That is a judgment call, since every animal we used to call a dinosaur is extinct, and a common ancestor to both the likes of the T. Rex and the modern bird is absolutely accepted to have existed. Whether you believe that common ancestor is close enough to warrant the use of the name "dinosaur" for both is not a matter that keeps me awake.

What I am disputing is the false definition of clade that some in this forum have adopted. They have jumped to say that Jurassic dinosaurs and modern birds are in the same clade (which is true, since there was a common ancestor to both) and that humans and fish are not in the same clade (which is totally false, since there was a common ancestor to both).

If you do not qualify your assertions about clades you have to say that every living being, from the bacteria to the human, belong to the same clade, since it is generally accepted that there is a common ancestor to all living beings.

You can safely say that humans and fish do not belong to any common clade which started after the Cretaceous, but you cannot say that there are no clades with humans and fish. That is, after all, the very definition of a tree (in mathematics).

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

Here is your misuse of the term "clade". All living beings share genes and structures. So much so, that even some or all bacteria share genes with humans, and this is why they are able to fool human cells into producing bacteria.

You are deciding that, by magic, those species you like fall within your "preserving genes and structures" clause and not the others. That is Biology of the worst kind.

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

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

Here is your misuse of the term "clade". All living beings share genes and structures. So much so, that even some or all bacteria share genes with humans, and this is why they are able to fool human cells into producing bacteria.

You are deciding that, by magic, those species you like fall within your "preserving genes and structures" clause and not the others. That is Biology of the worst kind.

In that sentence I have not defined a clade I am simply remarking that because you have a common ancestor doesn't mean 'lolol I can classify things however I want! Bacteria are fish because they have a common ancestor!'

Quote from: trig on May 13, 2012, 02:24:31 PM

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

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

Here is your misuse of the term "clade". All living beings share genes and structures. So much so, that even some or all bacteria share genes with humans, and this is why they are able to fool human cells into producing bacteria.

You are deciding that, by magic, those species you like fall within your "preserving genes and structures" clause and not the others. That is Biology of the worst kind.

In that sentence I have not defined a clade I am simply remarking that because you have a common ancestor doesn't mean 'lolol I can classify things however I want! Bacteria are fish because they have a common ancestor!'

I have quoted the definition of clade, Check here if you want another definition. You are the one who wants to impose the definition that comes out of your head. Sorry if Merriam-Webster does not agree with you. You are trying to confuse the subject of classification just because you do not like the current classification.

And I have never said bacteria are fish. I said there is a common ancestor to bacteria and fish. Just as there is a common ancestor to T. Rex and modern birds.

T. Rex and modern birds share the same phylum, which says little about the common ancestor of both. And humans and fish also share the phylum Chordata. This just tells us that classification is just a small part of the story. Somebody had to place names for the living beings without the benefit of DNA analysis, so any classification is better than nothing. And your "birds are dinosaurs" claim is just a cry to change the rather poor current classification system to a slightly improved, but still poor classification system.

How can I impose a definition if I never gave one?

Actually being a dinosaur requires unique characteristics which makes it very useful. Chordates all share unifying characteristics specific to their grouping. It is important to distinguish them from other organisms without nerve cords in their life cycle. Or do you claim that is not important?
Your whole argument is a bunch of whinging without really saying anything.
"Things conserve DNA sequences!" Well no shit.
Birds are dinosaurs because they exhibit the unique characteristics of dinosaurs.

Can we please get back to the dinosaur discussion?  Taxonomy is hardly part of FET.

I think that it's interesting that the modern day dinosaurs are all of the flying type. Considering the hypothesis that there are walking dinosaurs across the ice plane, could it be that the walking dinosaurs do not allow flying dinosaurs to join their kind? Are dinosaurs racist? There are examples of modern day dinosaurs turned racist against black people, did they get this from their walking brethren?

racist dinosaur

Did flightless birds not evolve from dinosaurs?  I apologize if that was already discussed, but I don't want to go searching back through this thread.

Did flightless birds not evolve from dinosaurs?  I apologize if that was already discussed, but I don't want to go searching back through this thread.

Flightless dinosaurs can't be found here anymore. You have some lazy dinosaurs though.

There are flightless birds/dinosaurs.   

There are flightless birds/dinosaurs.   

They are lazy. If they wanted they could fly.

James,

I post the link for you as a resource for your Theory on Dinosaurs Project.  More and more data is becoming available that will be useful.

http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-topics/birds-are-dinosaurs

Best,

g