Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • The last one like you slipped on a patch of ice behind a restaurant on the street in San Francisco. Broke his head open, right there on the concrete. Died. Have nice karma, you stinking piece of shit psychopath.

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
Me folk wonders: If we put pterosaurs in an analysis with birds, using a bird as an outgroup, would that show that pterosaurs evolved form birds? And if we added more birds, would that show even more that pterosaurs evolved form birds?

What does Dr. Pterosaur think?
2
You have no idea what a "sloth year of poop" is, Dave. You pulled that number out of your ass.
No I didn't. 

I studied up a bit on the nearest living relative of the Shasta sloth and found out two interesting things ... that the modern sloth poops 1/3 of it's body weight about once per week in the same spot each time.  So the natural, logical inference from that would be that [...]
That we have no  way of telling what the habits of the Shasta sloth were. Inferring them from those of a much smaller relative that lives thousands of years later and has a completely different lifestyle, is not only unwarranted, but idiotic.

Thank me later.
3
You are being awfully shy about saying how old you think the youngest and oldest sloth poop is, Dave.

It would seem to be quite important to your argument as to how quickly it was pooped.
No it's not important. What's important is showing how ridiculous it is to spread 15 (or 60) sloth years of poop over 2000 years.  THEN we can look at Brown's model and see what we've got. THEN maybe we can make some educated guesses about sloth poop that are not in la la land.
OK. Let's do the "important" thing first.

Your numbers are all GARBAGE.

"15 years"? GARBAGE. That assumes continuous year-long use of the cave, and the POLLEN EVIDENCE (which you have finally acknowledged, with a 40+ page delay) shows otherwise.

"60 years"? GARBAGE. That ASSUMES that sloths used the cave for no less than three months each year- A claim you provided NO support or argument for, and tried to sneak it in quietly as a given.

"2000 years"? GARBAGE. The authors clearly refer to 1500 years. You have SEEN that, you have ADMITTED that's what the article says, and yet you DISHONESTLY continue to use the bogus 2000 number.


So there you go. Your numberwanking is shown to be ridiculous. Now that the "important' stuff is behind us, shall we 'focus on the details' of Brown's model? ;)
4
A Charm of Hummingbirds sounds like the book GRRM never wrote about life in New Jersey.
5
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?
Me folk still not get it. Why it not show that pterosaurs evolved from birds?
Worth repeating part me folk not get.
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?
Me folk still not get it. Can you make font larger?
7
Inb4 "yeah well annual rates from tree rings are bullshit as well!". :rofl:
8
Bingo!

I did a little refresher on this "clonal colony" bullshit ... here's how they "date" these colonies ...

Quote
The tree's true age was revealed by carbon-14 dating its root system. https://www.livescience.com/29152-oldest-tree-in-world.html

Lol
This is ONE way to date these colonies. And there's nothing wrong with it- Unless you want your "not trees older that whatever" argument against C14 to be circular.

However:

A Pleistocene Clone of Palmer's Oak Persisting in Southern California
Quote
The size of the clone and estimates of annual growth from multiple populations lead us to conclude that the clone is in excess of 13,000 years old.
Lol.

Keep trying, champ.
9
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?
Me folk still not get it. Why it not show that pterosaurs evolved from birds?
10
So that is perhaps all that needs to be said using YOUR logic. Birds evolved from pterosaurs.
Why not pterosaurs from birds?
11
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.
Me folk still confused. Why could it not show that pterosaurs evolved from birds?
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?

Me folk cannot understand.

How do we know that it wouldn't show a lineage from, say, birds to pterosaurs?
14
Tree people have also noticed this little problem and have begun finding trees that are  supposedly older than 5000 years as well. Voila! "clonal trees"  or some such bullshit. It's been a while since I read up on that nonsense.

While you are plucking up courage to attempt to estimate the age of the youngest sloth poop in the cave, given Brown's model, you may like to consider that some trees do indeed reproduce by cloning.

Your own, included, if that elm of yours is an English elm.  An English elm grove is often a single individual, which is one reason they can be vulnerable to disease.


Inb4 "Clonal elms? Nonsense"!
15
BTW, one cannot help but wonder: WHY aren't there historical documents before 5000 ybp, under YECism? And before some disingenuous YEC member screams "Lol, there was a FLOOD silly octohatter", they might take into consideration that that magical Flood of theirs supposedly preserved egg shells, spider tracks, animal burrows and vertical dinosaur tracks! Why wasn't there a single sign of their writing preserved? If not the equivalent of the Rossetta stone, why not a SINGLE inscription on a collumn or pillar or slab? In fact, why don't we see any collumns or pillars or slabs in the first place? Where are the remains of all those magnificent architectural wonders the Wise Ancients must have built? How come that magical Fludde wiped all traces of them from existence, but  preserved the most delicate of features of the natural world?

Talk about the Paraceratherium in the room...
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?

No. I don't understand that to begin with.

How do we know that it wouldn't show a lineage from, say, birds to pterosaurs?
17
I'm confused now.

So, 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 what if we want to use ANOTHER purported ancestral group? Perhaps a group that is already in the cladogram? Would the cladogram change?

Suppose we want to fit HUMANS inside a dinosaur group, with a dinosaur as the ancestral group. Where would humans fit?
Then, suppose we try to fit HUMANS in the same dinosaur group, this time with an archosaur as the ancestral group. Where would humans fit?

Surely "Dr pterosaur", being one of the few people on the planet who understand these things, will be able to explain it to me.

19
That's not what people were talking about. They specifically quoted the thing you said that was spectacularly ignorant, and which you were holding up as "evidence". You might have dropped it like a hot potato. But you certainly said it.
Dave Godfrey I don't think you are a blatant liar, but you're not too good with facts.  I never said anyone was "insane" for believing sloths are solitary.  I simply repeated what Brown suggested at first, then gave you guys the benefit of the doubt.

Faid is a proven liar.  Has been for 11 years.  Which is why I rarely read his posts any more.

Pingu is quickly becoming one.
Andyet, for 11 years, you cannot name a SINGlE lie I've said.
I just spelled it out for you. 
No. You did not. You just spouted some irratlional gibberish that only make you look like an idiot. By "Living in groups' you meant "we need at least two for a viable population?"? seriously?

Who do you think you're fooling? Who do you think such nonsense is going to convince?
Quote
As I have many times before.
L.

O.

L.
Quote
But I probably won't bother much any more.
You NEVER "bother", dave. The only time my posts become visible to you is when you think you can score some 'gotcha' shit on me: Like now, or like previously with your "maximum average" bullshit. You never, EVER attempt to engage a single one of my points against your reasoning. And that's quite telling.
Quote
I put you on ignore for several years and it looks like that was a good decision.  Less cluttered reading of the thread that way.

HAH! You were supposed to have me "on ignore" RIGHT NOW, dave. That is what you had said months ago. You forgot, dint'cha?

We all know the truth. You've NEVER put me on ignore. You only say "on ignore" as a davination of consciously avoiding my posts- Except you don't even do that. You always read them carefully, trying to catch me on something, anything you can use or distort to call me out- Like you unsuccessfully tried to do now. But it never works, does it?

It's ok. Maybe next time you'll manage to score one against me. On my part, I'm quite pleased that I have such an effect on you. Who knows, maybe something good will come of it one day. ;)
20
That's not what people were talking about. They specifically quoted the thing you said that was spectacularly ignorant, and which you were holding up as "evidence". You might have dropped it like a hot potato. But you certainly said it.
Dave Godfrey I don't think you are a blatant liar, but you're not too good with facts.  I never said anyone was "insane" for believing sloths are solitary.  I simply repeated what Brown suggested at first, then gave you guys the benefit of the doubt.

Faid is a proven liar.  Has been for 11 years.  Which is why I rarely read his posts any more.

Pingu is quickly becoming one.
What was your "duh" comment supposed to mean then? That people were merely stupid for thinking that ground sloths were solitary because otherwise they couldn't breed? Lots of animals are solitary, and manage to breed just fine. Including tree sloths as it happens.
My "duh" comment was to denote that it should be obvious that there would have to be at least two sloths in order to have a viable population.  From my reading about modern sloth behavior, it appears that it's quite reasonable to think that 2 or more sloths used Rampart Cave as a pooping / mating spot. 

Faid's lie was to say that I called octohatters insane for thinking sloths are generally solitary.  And for lying about my zoology knowledge.

That makes Zero sense. You said that they "lived in groups". "Duh". That is the exact ANTITHESIS of solitary! It certainly does NOT mean "we need more than one to have a viable population"! "Lived IN GROUPS" means LIVED IN GROUPS, dave. In the English language, like in every language, words and sentences have MEANINGS.

You poor little try-hard. Watching you desperately grasping at straws to make me look dishonest, is almost embarrassing. Like watching an actor on stage lose his line and gasp and flail around.
21
I'm finding this to be typical behavior ...

1) Lie about Dave: "Dave called octohatters insane for believing sloths are solitary"
2) Dave calls out the lie
3) Pretend you are confused (or that Dave is confused) about the conversation
4) Use bold font to "prove" your rightness about a different thing than what you lied about

Very slick.

Plexus would love to have you guys as sales people.
...WHAT?

This is what I said: "Dave also thinks it's insane to suppose the Shasta sloth was a solitary animal, I mean, if they were solitary, how did they reproduce?"

This is what you had said: "The Shasta ground sloth lived in groups - duh - how else would they reproduce?"

...HOW IS THAT A "DIFFERENT THING"?

You're losing it, Brilllllllliant Dave.
22
That's not what people were talking about. They specifically quoted the thing you said that was spectacularly ignorant, and which you were holding up as "evidence". You might have dropped it like a hot potato. But you certainly said it.
Dave Godfrey I don't think you are a blatant liar, but you're not too good with facts.  I never said anyone was "insane" for believing sloths are solitary.  I simply repeated what Brown suggested at first, then gave you guys the benefit of the doubt.

Faid is a proven liar.  Has been for 11 years.  Which is why I rarely read his posts any more.

Pingu is quickly becoming one.
Andyet, for 11 years, you cannot name a SINGlE lie I've said. Every time you even try, you end up with your nose rubbed in your own bullshit.

Gee, I wonder why.

What a pathetic little man you are, Dave Hawkins.
23
Nevermind that in do interpretation based on the English language, does calculating the defecation rate of a "SINGLE" sloth necessarily imply that sloths are solitary.

No more than calculating the defecation rate of a "single RAT" implies that RATS are solitary.

But even if it did (and it DID NOT, dave is not fooling anyone), You're not supposed to IMPLY that you've relised you've made a mistake. You're supposed to ADMIT it.

And if you DON'T admit it, others holding you accountable for YOUR OWN WORDS does not make them liars. But it makes YOU a slandering jerk.

Get it, "Brilliant" dave?

Now apologize.
24
Dave: "4) If we calculate volumes, we find that a single Shasta sloth ..."

Faid: "Dave also thinks it's insane to suppose the Shasta sloth was a solitary animal, I mean, if they were solitary, how did they reproduce? Checkmate, octohatters!"

And of course Pingu and Borealis chime in with "Me too! Me too! Pick me! Pick me!  WE wanna be Dave Bashers too!  Dave doesn't know the first thing about zoology!  Hahahahaha!"

I'm really embarrassed for some of you people.
Wow. Talk about doubling down.

Again:
Quote
The Shasta ground sloth lived in groups - duh - how else would they reproduce?
Own up to your own words for once in your life, you jerk.
25

Like I said ... blatant lies when all else fails ...
Yeah. We see.