Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: Yes, I keep a list.

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 - socrates1

1
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-romanian-dinosaur-balaur-seems-to-be-a-flightless-bird/
 (Cau et al. 2015)
Quote
This dromaeosaurid interpretation of Balaur looks reasonable on the basis of the animal's size and foot anatomy, and Balaur is certainly dromaeosaurid-like in a general sense. But it's also similar to members of another, closely related paravian lineage: Avialae, the bird lineage. And that's the primary contention of our new study. Based on phylogenetic analyses and critique of the various unusual features of this theropod, we argue that Balaur is likely not a dromaeosaurid, but a secondarily flightless bird. If you're at all aware of the discussion that's surrounded the possible evolution of flightlessness in non-bird paravians (Paul 1988, 2002), the significance of this won't be lost on you. Our paper (Cau et al. 2015) is published in the open access journal PeerJ, so is available for free to everyone.

https://peerj.com/articles/1032/
Quote
The hypothesis that some Mesozoic paravians represent the flightless descendants of volant, Archaeopteryx-like ancestors, most vigorously promoted by Paul (1988) and Paul (2002), has not been supported by recent phylogenetic hypotheses (e.g., Senter, 2007b; Turner, Makovicky & Norell, 2012; Agnolín & Novas, 2013). Furthemore, phylogenetic analyses that incorporate sufficient character data are able to differentiate the members of such paravian lineages as Dromaeosauridae, Troodontidae and Avialae, as demonstrated by our present study. Nevertheless, reinterpretation of Balaur as a flightless avialan reinforces the point that at least some Mesozoic paravian taxa, highly similar in general form and appearance to dromaeosaurids, may indeed be the enlarged, terrestrialised descendants of smaller, flighted ancestors, and that the evolutionary transition involved may have required relatively little in the way of morphological or trophic transformation.

To accommodate the secondarily flightless creatures I have put forward the name "Euparaves" which includes all the flying and secondarily flightless, feathered creatures.
The secondarily flightless, feathered creatures are the "enlarged, terrestrialised descendants of smaller, flighted ancestors".
Quote
Balaur got a rightful amount of press coverage following its discovery, with much of the attention being focused on the fact that it was regarded as an especially close relative of the east Asian, desert-dwelling dromaeosaurid Velociraptor (Csiki et al. 2010).
.....
Balaur was about similar in size to a goose and seems to have been similar in overall form and proportions to mid-sized dromaeosaurids, like Velociraptor.
Velociraptor is another good candidate for a secondarily flightless, feathered creature.
2
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-romanian-dinosaur-balaur-seems-to-be-a-flightless-bird/
 (Cau et al. 2015)
Quote
This dromaeosaurid interpretation of Balaur looks reasonable on the basis of the animal's size and foot anatomy, and Balaur is certainly dromaeosaurid-like in a general sense. But it's also similar to members of another, closely related paravian lineage: Avialae, the bird lineage. And that's the primary contention of our new study. Based on phylogenetic analyses and critique of the various unusual features of this theropod, we argue that Balaur is likely not a dromaeosaurid, but a secondarily flightless bird. If you're at all aware of the discussion that's surrounded the possible evolution of flightlessness in non-bird paravians (Paul 1988, 2002), the significance of this won't be lost on you. Our paper (Cau et al. 2015) is published in the open access journal PeerJ, so is available for free to everyone.

https://peerj.com/articles/1032/
Quote
The hypothesis that some Mesozoic paravians represent the flightless descendants of volant, Archaeopteryx-like ancestors, most vigorously promoted by Paul (1988) and Paul (2002), has not been supported by recent phylogenetic hypotheses (e.g., Senter, 2007b; Turner, Makovicky & Norell, 2012; Agnolín & Novas, 2013). Furthemore, phylogenetic analyses that incorporate sufficient character data are able to differentiate the members of such paravian lineages as Dromaeosauridae, Troodontidae and Avialae, as demonstrated by our present study. Nevertheless, reinterpretation of Balaur as a flightless avialan reinforces the point that at least some Mesozoic paravian taxa, highly similar in general form and appearance to dromaeosaurids, may indeed be the enlarged, terrestrialised descendants of smaller, flighted ancestors, and that the evolutionary transition involved may have required relatively little in the way of morphological or trophic transformation.

To accommodate the secondarily flightless creatures I have put forward the name "Euparaves" which includes all the flying and secondarily flightless, feathered creatures.
The secondarily flightless, feathered creatures are the "enlarged, terrestrialised descendants of smaller, flighted ancestors".
3
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-romanian-dinosaur-balaur-seems-to-be-a-flightless-bird/
Quote
This dromaeosaurid interpretation of Balaur looks reasonable on the basis of the animal's size and foot anatomy, and Balaur is certainly dromaeosaurid-like in a general sense. But it's also similar to members of another, closely related paravian lineage: Avialae, the bird lineage. And that's the primary contention of our new study. Based on phylogenetic analyses and critique of the various unusual features of this theropod, we argue that Balaur is likely not a dromaeosaurid, but a secondarily flightless bird. If you're at all aware of the discussion that's surrounded the possible evolution of flightlessness in non-bird paravians (Paul 1988, 2002), the significance of this won't be lost on you. Our paper (Cau et al. 2015) is published in the open access journal PeerJ, so is available for free to everyone.

https://peerj.com/articles/1032/
Quote
The hypothesis that some Mesozoic paravians represent the flightless descendants of volant, Archaeopteryx-like ancestors, most vigorously promoted by Paul (1988) and Paul (2002), has not been supported by recent phylogenetic hypotheses (e.g., Senter, 2007b; Turner, Makovicky & Norell, 2012; Agnolín & Novas, 2013). Furthemore, phylogenetic analyses that incorporate sufficient character data are able to differentiate the members of such paravian lineages as Dromaeosauridae, Troodontidae and Avialae, as demonstrated by our present study. Nevertheless, reinterpretation of Balaur as a flightless avialan reinforces the point that at least some Mesozoic paravian taxa, highly similar in general form and appearance to dromaeosaurids, may indeed be the enlarged, terrestrialised descendants of smaller, flighted ancestors, and that the evolutionary transition involved may have required relatively little in the way of morphological or trophic transformation.
4
Quote
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
If you have a cladistic analysis that includes only dinosaurs then adding more dinosaurs does not show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does everyone (anyone?) understand that?
Do people get it now?
If people do not get it, then we will go with the idea that if you do analyses that only include pterosaurs then that will show that birds actually did evolve from pterosaurs.

I will be moving on shortly. By YOUR own logic we can conclude that birds evolved from pterosaurs.
AND
If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.
5
Quote
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
If you have a cladistic analysis that includes only dinosaurs then adding more dinosaurs does not show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does everyone (anyone?) understand that?
Do people get it now?
If people do not get it, then we will go with the idea that if you do analyses that only include pterosaurs then that will show that birds actually did evolve from pterosaurs.

I will be moving on shortly. By YOUR own logic we can conclude that birds evolved from pterosaurs.
6
Quote
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
If you have a cladistic analysis that includes only dinosaurs then adding more dinosaurs does not show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does everyone (anyone?) understand that?
Do people get it now?
If people do not get it, then we will go with the idea that if you do analyses that only include pterosaurs then that will show that birds actually did evolve from pterosaurs.
7
Quote
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
If you have a cladistic analysis that includes only dinosaurs then adding more dinosaurs does not show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does everyone (anyone?) understand that?
Do people get it now?
8
Quote
This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?

To clarify since you folks cannot figure out very much on your own. In our scenario, if it only includes pterosaurs then the outgroup would be a pterosaur.

Does anyone understand that in this scenario that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, that the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds?


In other words it would not alert you to anything. It would just give you a pterosaur to bird phylogeny. That is the first point I am making.

So following the logic that you folks have insisted on, this analysis would show that birds evolved from pterosaurs. I am not saying I agree with that logic. YOU guys are insisting on that logic.

So that is perhaps all that needs to be said using YOUR logic. Birds evolved from pterosaurs.
And according to your logic, the more pterosaurs I add in, the stronger the case is that birds evolved from pterosaurs.
Anyone starting to get it?
9
Quote
This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?

To clarify since you folks cannot figure out very much on your own. In our scenario, if it only includes pterosaurs then the outgroup would be a pterosaur.

Does anyone understand that in this scenario that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, that the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds?


In other words it would not alert you to anything. It would just give you a pterosaur to bird phylogeny. That is the first point I am making.

So following the logic that you folks have insisted on, this analysis would show that birds evolved from pterosaurs. I am not saying I agree with that logic. YOU guys are insisting on that logic.

So that is perhaps all that needs to be said using YOUR logic. Birds evolved from pterosaurs.
And according to your logic, the more pterosaurs I add in, the stronger the case is that birds evolved from pterosaurs.
10
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with? And second does that show that birds evolved from pterosaurs?

This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?
To clarify since you folks cannot figure out very much on your own. In our scenario, if it only includes pterosaurs then the outgroup would be a pterosaur.
Does anyone understand that in this scenario that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, that the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds?

In other words it would not alert you to anything. It would just give you a pterosaur to bird phylogeny. That is the first point I am making.
So following the logic that you folks have insisted on, this analysis would show that birds evolved from pterosaurs. I am not saying I agree with that logic. YOU guys are insisting on that logic.
So that is perhaps all that needs to be said using YOUR logic. Birds evolved from pterosaurs.
11
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with? And second does that show that birds evolved from pterosaurs?

This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?
To clarify since you folks cannot figure out very much on your own. In our scenario, if it only includes pterosaurs then the outgroup would be a pterosaur.
Does anyone understand that in this scenario that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, that the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds?

In other words it would not alert you to anything. It would just give you a pterosaur to bird phylogeny. That is the first point I am making.
So following the logic that you folks have insisted on, this analysis would show that birds evolved from pterosaurs. I am not saying I agree with that logic. YOU guys are insisting on that logic.
12
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with? And second does that show that birds evolved from pterosaurs?

This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?
To clarify since you folks cannot figure out very much on your own. In our scenario, if it only includes pterosaurs then the outgroup would be a pterosaur.
Does anyone understand that in this scenario that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, that the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds?

In other words it would not alert you to anything. It would just give you a pterosaur to bird phylogeny. That is the first point I am making.
13
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with? And second does that show that birds evolved from pterosaurs?

This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?
To clarify since you folks cannot figure out very much on your own. In our scenario, if it only includes pterosaurs then the outgroup would be a pterosaur.
Does anyone understand that in this scenario that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, that the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds?
14
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with? And second does that show that birds evolved from pterosaurs?

This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?
To clarify since you folks cannot figure out very much on your own. In our scenario, if it only includes pterosaurs then the outgroup would be a pterosaur.
15
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with? And second does that show that birds evolved from pterosaurs?

This may be too difficult for you folks. Begin with the first point.
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with?
If anyone does, how would you explain that?
16
If someone did a cladistic analysis that only included pterosaurs and Euparaves, then the result would show a lineage from pterosaur to birds. Do people understand that to begin with? And second does that show that birds evolved from pterosaurs?
17
This may help:
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
If you have a cladistic analysis that includes only dinosaurs then adding more dinosaurs does not show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does everyone (anyone?) understand that?
Other than the lout Dave Godfrey it seems nobody else grasps this. And even with the lout it is not clear that he actually understands it. After all he used the phrase "maniraptoran theropod" as if that phrase had an actual supported meaning.
If you have only included theropod dinosaurs, then the result does not show that maniraptorans are dinosaurs.
18
This may help:
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
If you have a cladistic analysis that includes only dinosaurs then adding more dinosaurs does not show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does everyone (anyone?) understand that?
Other than the lout Dave Godfrey it seems nobody else grasps this. And even with the lout it is not clear that he actually understands it. After all he used the phrase "maniraptoran theropod" as if that phrase had an actual supported meaning.
19
This may help:
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
If you have a cladistic analysis that includes only dinosaurs then adding more dinosaurs does not show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does everyone (anyone?) understand that?
20
This may help:
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
I think there may be an understanding of this point. But with you folks it is hard to tell.
21
Quote
The problem with that is that if your outgroup is also a dinosaur then of course it'll be a dinosaur.
I wondered if someone would clear that up.

But the lout Dave Godfrey then falls back into the trap again when he talks about "maniraptoran theropods".

This topic seems very difficult for people to grasp.
22
This may help:
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.

What this means is that the accumulation of cladistic analyses that only include dinosaurs, produces not one iota to show that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evidence for a dino to bird theory is not accumulating.
23
This may help:
If a cladistic analysis only includes ONE purported ancestral group (and no other candidates) then it will produce a cladogram showing the included group as the ancestral group. But of course that does not show that the descendants actually came from that group.
A cladistic analysis does not judge the credibility of the cladogram. It just works with what it is given.

If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.
24
Quote
At times some people here seem to have understood this but not at all times and not everyone here.
This is hard for folks to grasp.
But people here keep trying to distract from the straightforward facts.
If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.
This is hard to grasp for the folks here. But if you do grasp it you are well on your way.

You will be well on your way to understanding what most people do not understand. Including many (most?) of the people here. It seems that the lout Dave Godfrey is the only one willing so far to acknowledge that:
If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.
25
Quote
At times some people here seem to have understood this but not at all times and not everyone here.
This is hard for folks to grasp.
But people here keep trying to distract from the straightforward facts.
If a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs and Euparaves, it cannot (and does not) tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And that is true no matter how many dinosaurs you add into the analysis.
This is hard to grasp for the folks here. But if you do grasp it you are well on your way.