Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Faid

1
Odd. No value for lack of feathers.


Odd. You're still posting.
2
Like a moth to a flame. It's amazing.
3
A few people have pretended that I am arguing against cladistics in general. I am arguing against this particular cladistic analysis because it is not supported by the support indices.
You may now continue your insults.

You just can't keep away, can you?
4
I other news, all those stories about how smoking kills are just octohatter myths. My great-uncle smoked two packs a day and died well into his eighties.
5
"But if you ate no green vegetables you would not be."

This is evidence free bullshit.

I almost never eat green vegetables.  I ate a leaf of lettuce on my hamburger last night and that was the first time in about a month that I have had any green vegetables.

I cannot remember the last time I ate green beans. But it was probably at Thanksgiving or Christmas because I do enjoy eating those green beans with cream of mushroom soup and crunchy onion topping.  I almost never eat peas.   I go to Olive Garden maybe once every three months or so and eat their salad, not because I need green vegetables though. It's simply because I like the taste.

Your idea about needing green vegetables to be healthy is complete bullshit.
As an exercise, try to spot the implied premise in that line of reasoning.
6
I want YOUR ideas, with specifics. Not links to other peoples' ideas.
Why?
7
I have given you guys enough food for thought. If anyone would like more just prevail upon the admins here to move this to the Science section.
And if guests have questions, just go to the blog below and ask to your heart's content.

For the others, post insults to your heart's content here.
No need for any of that. It all led to the inevitable flounce.

As I had said:
Your only chance, "socrates", is to propose that those magical "synapomorhies" affect SOME nodes but not others. And of course, you'll need to explain WHY and HOW that happens.

:popcorn:
Quite predictably, "socrates" was forced to claim just that. However (also quite predictably), he was utterly unable to provide even the simplest explanation, let alone support, for his 'selective symplesiomorphic ptero-fairies' theory.

So that's that. Nothing more needs to be said, not here, and certainly not in the Science forum. We have no reason to dispute any high values, therefore we see significant support (by said high values) that Paraves are coelurosaur dinosaurs.

No need for further questions.

No need for insults.

End of the line.

Bye, "socrates". Better luck next life.
8
People here are not likely to be able to contribute on this specific topic since you are not experts on support value calculations, and even if you were, nobody has published anything on this specific subject. To come to any conclusions on this will require thinking beyond what has been published.
IOW: "Here's a just-so story I just pulled out of my ass with no support whatsoever, and you can't prove me wrong cuz' you're not experts".

::)

At some level, even "socrates" himself must realize just how pathetic he looks.
9
From this, I deduce that we should be cautious about the meaning of high values but we can take low values to be significant. But again, unfortunately I'm just talking out of my ass, proposing imaginary selective effects with not even an argument, let alone support.

Sigh.

Fixed your post. You're really doubling down now, huh?
Go ahead, "socrates". Explain to us HOW you "deduce" that "SOME" high values "COULD" be "due to symplesiomorphies", but not others.

Should be simple enough. :popcorn:
Worth repeating.
10
Go ahead, "socrates". Explain to us HOW you "deduce" that "SOME" high values "COULD" be "due to symplesiomorphies", but not others.

Should be simple enough. :popcorn:
11
Please note that I am not saying that every high value must be due to symplesiomorphies. Just that some COULD be due to symplesiomorphies. That is what I deduce, but unfortunately nobody has published anything on this specific point. talking out of my ass, with no reference to any source, link or even a coherent argument as to why that "selective influence" takes place, and how. I'm basically throwing stuff out there, hoping something sticks. I'm really pathetic, I know.
We all know, "socrates". We all know.

Why don't you just say magical ptero-fairies did it? :rofl:
12
Looks like the end of the line.
13
I deduce that this applies to high values but not low values because with a low value not even the symplesiomorphies can save it. I deduce this, but unfortunately nobody has published anything on this specific point.
In other words, you don't "deduce" anything. You just pull stuff out of your ass. And it shows.

But here's the thing: If you think that low vaues cannot be "saved" by those magically-acting "symplesiomorphies", then you STILL admit that SOME nodes have a greater support, that allows the to be "saved". A support that "symplesiomorphies" help raise to very high values. So those nodes STILL have a much better support than others, even under this flawed and non-substantive system you imagine is influenced by "synapomorphies".

Whoops!

Your only chance, "socrates", is to propose that those magical "synapomorhies" affect SOME nodes but not others. And of course, you'll need to explain WHY and HOW that happens.

:popcorn:
14
One thing that seems clear is the following:
Cladistic analysis is based on synapomorphies
Support indices are based on characters. In other words symplesiomorphies are included.
:facepalm:

Let's assume that this just-so story you pulled out of your ass, to explain those inconvenient values, should not be dismissed from the start.

Can you explain why only HIGH values are "due to symplesiomorphies"? And if not ALL high values are "due to symplesiomorphies", can you explain HOW you know which ones are, and which ones are not? And WHY?

Surely an educated and experienced scholar such as yourself will have no trouble explaining all that.
15
Quote
I see how that statement can be misinterpreted. I am saying that it shows that some actual dinosaurs are similar to some other actual dinosaurs. We know that it does not show that actual dinosaurs are similar to paraves because of the 65 support value.

This is why I have said that the support indices do not support the dinosaur to bird theory.

Support indices are not calculated in the same way (obviously) as the cladistic analysis calculations.
The high support indices in the early nodes show that some actual dinosaurs are similar to some other actual dinosaurs. We know that support indices do not show that actual dinosaurs are similar to paraves because of the 65 support value.

The problem is that nobody here is very familiar with these support index calculations. Even the authors of the studies are not that familiar as I have found when emailing them questions.
As far as I can see, there is nothing published on the precise questions we are dealing with here.
In other news, nobody is familiar with the types of cheese the moon is made of. Is it cheddar, emmentaler? There is nothing published on the precise questions we are dealing with here.
16
:facepalm:

OK, one more time, just in case "socrates" manages to muster the brain cells needed:

The group the coelurosauria node signifies INCLUDES Paraves.

The high support for it shows that Paraves ARE dinosaurs. Coelurosaur dinosaurs.

Low values do not support a specific 'Tyrannoraptora' group, or various other groups WITHIN coelurosauria. But the HIGH value for the coelurosauria node shows that ALL those groups, even if their specific interrelations cannot be safely recovered, are supported as members of coelurosauria.

It's quite simple, "socrates". An experienced and educated scholar such as yourself should have figured it out a dozen times by now.

Unless, of course, you're just pretending.
17
I think I understand the base of "socrates"' pathetic confusion. After all these years, he still doesn't grasp the basics of cladistics. He thinks that each node represents a specific transitional species. he thinks that nodes "beside" that represent close relatives of those species, and nodes after them show descendants of the species.
He doesn't see groups. He sees dots.

And if he doesn't get it after all this time, then his brain is obviously unable to comprehend it.

Poor guy.
18
The high values for the earlier nodes only show that some dinosaurs are similar to some other dinosaurs.
:facepalm:

Those high-valued earlier nodes define branches that INCLUDE Paraves you doofus.

You just admitted they are dinosaurs.

Progress! :rofl:
19
There is an interesting pattern. The node support values are high when the immediate branches are dinosaurs. Very low (65) when the immediate branches are dinosaurs (tyrannosauroids) and Euparaves. And below 50 (in other words collapsed) for Euparaves.

How do people understand the 65 support value for (the unlabeled) tyrannoraptora node?

The pattern would seem to indicate that the two branches (Tyrannosauroidea and Euparaves) are not similar. Which of course is obvious when you consider the taxa in those two dissimilar groups.
Are dromeosaurids and troodontids "not similar", then? should we "consider the taxa"?

Flailing.

Hopelessly.
20
There is an interesting pattern. The node support values are high when the immediate branches are dinosaurs. Very low (65) when the immediate branches are dinosaurs (tyrannosauroids) and Euparaves. And below 50 (in other words collapsed) for Euparaves.
Bullshit.

Look at the Paraves clade. See that 85% value for Avialae excluding Archaeopteryx? See the high values within Avialae?

Wipe the sweat off your glasses, and look again.

You're flailing hopelessly.
21
There is an interesting pattern. The node support values are high when the immediate branches are dinosaurs. Very low (65) when the immediate branches are dinosaurs (tyrannosauroids) and Euparaves. And below 50 (in other words collapsed) for Euparaves.

So you're saying that the members of Paraves are NOT similar?

Are you even thinking?
22
Flailing.

Hopelessly.
23
This seems consistent throughout all the node calculations on the cladogram. The support value seems to be influenced by the immediate branches.
When the immediate branches are similar the support value for the node is high. When the immediate branches are not similar the support value for the node is low.
Wow.

The only thing that's consistent is your delusions. There is no such "pattern". Unless you think that say, Dromeosauridae and troodontidae are "NOT similar" in which case, you have learned presicely nothing after all these years.
24
I gotta say, "socrates": You've managed to dig a pretty nice hole for yourself. :D
25

It seems to be influenced by the immediate branches. This seems consistent throughout all the node calculations on the cladogram.
Nope.
There is an interesting pattern. The support values are high when the immediate branches are dinosaurs. Very low (65) when the immediate branches are dinosaurs (tyrannosauroids) and Euparaves. And below 50 (in other words collapsed) for Euparaves.
Nope.

Again:

There are consecutive 99% jackknife values for Therizinosauroidea groups.

There is an 85% value for the node for all avialae excluding Archaeopteryx.

There is a 93% value for the hesperornithes clade, and a 97%value for Galliformes.

Try again.
Aaaaand try again.