Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: I hope you are happy, SteveF.

Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 21221 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #50
Hey, professor, I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it, or are you going to talk to yourself?
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #51
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #52
I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Really? I thought you were looking at the supposedly missing "value for lack of feathers"!

That WAS what this thread was about, after all.

What happened?

...Oh wait, I know:
Odd. No value for lack of feathers.





:rofl:
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #53
Poor "socrates".

The Denial Stage is VERY hard to move past.

Especially when the only other stage available is that of Begrudging Admission.

Oh well.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #54
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #55
LOL. You know "socrates" is desperate when he brings up James and Pourtless again. ::)

Tell you what champ. We both know your "feathers" fail needs closure. You can't escape from that, and you know it.

So go ahead, offer your "begrudging admission" about it. Then we'll accept your apology, put that behind us and discuss (well, some of us will try to discuss) J&P's claims to your heart's content.

Deal?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #56
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #57
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #58
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1
  • Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 09:26:57 AM by socrates1

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #59
No deal, obviously. Oh well...
I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Really? I thought you were looking at the supposedly missing "value for lack of feathers"!

That WAS what this thread was about, after all.

What happened?

...Oh wait, I know:
Odd. No value for lack of feathers.





:rofl:

Worth repeating.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Monad
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #60

This is where people here go very quiet.

This is a lie. It's a shame that 'Socrates' lacks the honesty and integrity to even admit he made a mistake.
  • Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 09:43:59 AM by Monad

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #61
Even dave would have admitted his mistake by now. Then again, dave's an adult.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #62
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?

  • Monad
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #63
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?



Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #64
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?
I don't believe they include it. So what? Please explain your point? I'm sure there are lots of characters in the James & Pourtless study that they don't include.

Do Pourtless & James include Confusciusornisin their analysis? How do they code it for that character? How do they code Archaeopteryx? How do they code Ichthyornis? How do they code Velociraptor?

So what, indeed.  P & J looked at 221 characters in 79 taxa (242 characters when they included the 21 they chose to omit in their primary analysis).  Brusatte looked at 853 characters in 152 taxa.  Whatever Brusatte left out that P & J included certainly doesn't impugn his results, given how much more thorough his study is relative to P & J's.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #65
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1


Ah, the old Socrates "Do what I want done for me" ploy.  From a guy who claimed this.

 
Now I see the problem. You folks do not know this subject. I have been studying it over the course of the last year and having some discussion with experts. It is not reasonable for me to think you know it.

Not only that, I have the TNT software and have imported the matrix data from the two studies and run them. And then run the bootstrap and jackknife support calculations and got basically the same results as they did. Including the huge polytomy. It is not that I know better than them. It is that I am acknowledging the results that they themselves obtained that they do not acknowledge. But you yourselves can see all this from their own studies - look at the Supplementary Information.


So champ, why don't you do it yourself? 

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #66
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?


What? So you don't know which characteristics to code for? You don't already have a plan?  Dude, what are you objecting to then, when it is clear you are guessing or making uninformed assumptions about their coding?

It looks like a content-free bluff.  And it has been called.

If you disagree, let's see your characteristic list, and your code.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #67
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?
What do folks think about that specific question?

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #68
Sigh.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #69
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?
What do folks think about that specific question?
Definitely makes you a leading candidate for this year's DK Medal with Oak Clusters for Perverse Derangement.
Are we there yet?

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #70
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?
What do folks think about that specific question?
How would you know which is which? What if some maniraptorans have a "ascending process of the astragalus", and some have a "descending pretibial ossification"? How would you propose to tell the difference? You insist that Brusatte has to code some things in one way and some other things another way, when that simply isn't how good science is done. You look at the fossils and you code them as they appear to be. So if Allosaurus has an ascending process of the astragalus then you say so. If it has a descending pretibial ossification instead, then you say that instead. If none of the fossils are complete enough to say, then you put a "?" in because the data simply isn't there. (For instance there's nothing in that matrix about postcranial material for Proceratosaurus, because Proceratosaurus is only known from a skull).

So you won't code Maniraptoriformes differently unless you can show that they are all, indeed, different, and you have data for each specimen in your matrix to show it.
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #71
 
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.


I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?

What do folks think about that specific question?
My point is what would the Brusatte et al data look like if we accepted the alternate interpretation? This is a question that not only has never been answered - the question itself has never even been asked.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #72

My point is what would the Brusatte et al data look like if we accepted the alternate interpretation? This is a question that not only has never been answered - the question itself has never even been asked.


This is Hawkins-level tard.  You are essentially claiming there is a vast conspiracy by scientists to dishonestly present observable characteristics, or that professional scientists are incompetent, or like the infamous TARD radioactive dating chart, that even though the current data all seems to conform to an extremely consistent tree of life, what if all the next data falls off the line? 

TARD.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #73
The thing is what they do is rather than say "hey this thing has this character and this thing has this character that looks identical", and coding them as the same, because that's what they look like, and then seeing if they come up as homologies in their analysis, they code them as "?", which isn't the same at all. It implies that we don't have any data, when in fact in many cases we absolutely do, we just don't know if the two character states are homologous. And the whole point of doing the cladistic analysis is to see if those character states are homologous, or merely convergences.

As you bloody well know, having presumably read the various criticisms of James & Pourtless that were published back when you mentioned it on your blog.

Also, P&J's cladogram is mostly huge polytomies. Whaddaya say about that champ?
  • Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 12:08:05 PM by DaveGodfrey
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #74

Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.


I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?

What do folks think about that specific question?
My point is what would the Brusatte et al data look like if we accepted the alternate interpretation? This is a question that not only has never been answered - the question itself has never even been asked.

For those interested, this subject is covered in the section titled:
Tarsus: Ascending Process of the Astragalus
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
In birds and theropods, a sheet of bone that
braces the anterior face of the tibia is usually
called the "ascending process of the astragalus"
or simply the "ascending process." It is less evident
in adult neornithines than in juvenile (or embryonic)
neornithines and Mesozoic birds. This
sheet of bone is particularly conspicuous in basal
birds, including Archaeopteryx. This common feature
has consistently been regarded as one of the
most striking homologies shared by birds and
theropods (e.g., Paul 2002), but comparative anatomical
research reveals that establishing the homologies
of the ascending processes of theropods
and birds is difficult.


  • Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 12:16:17 PM by socrates1