Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Meh, I strolled over, read though, and found absolutely nothing of value at the "talk rational" forum. What a waste of time, space, and pixels.- utter rubbish.

Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 21263 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1425
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1426
Quote
It probably comes as a surprise[...]
It comes at no surprise that you are, once again, wrong.

In the PRH, digit II would have identity II.
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 #1427
After that, it would take a great deal of convergence to make the morphology of the digit to look i]just like[/i] the first digit of theropod dinosaurs.

It's not like we haven't told you 100 times already.
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 #1428
Quote
The PRH, on the other hand, argues that birds have regular
digits II, III, and IV,
and that digits I and V were lost in the avian
dinosaur ancestors. This causes problems with fossils that
display a posterior reduction of two digits. While the PRH solves
this contradiction by excluding the relevant fossils,
the TDH
argues that the pressure to reduce digit I was stronger than the
one to reduce digit IV. Therefore, what started as a trend toward
loosing two digits posteriorly, became a bilateral reduction.
Genetically, the PRH has difficulties to deal with the hox and
transcriptomic evidence, which suggests I, II, III interpretation of
the bird digits.

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.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1429
Moving on:
https://www.academia.edu/1486957/Transcriptomic_analysis_of_avian_digits_reveals_conserved_and_derived_digit_identities_in_birds
Quote
To discover genes that specifically contribute to the second and third wing digit identities, we performed differential expression analysis of the mRNA-seq data between samples LFb and LFc. We found two genes, Tbx3 and Socs2, with high expression in sample LFc (Supplementary Fig. 9 and Fig. 3a). To our knowledge no studies have been published indicating a role for Socs2 in limb development. ISH confirms its strong expression in the third forelimb digit to the exclusion of all other digits in forelimb and hindlimb(Fig.3b-g). Recently it has been shown that the third forelimb digit has a unique mode of development in birds8. This, combined with our gene expression survey,supports the idea that the third wing digit has a unique derived identity in birds.
http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=SOCS2
Quote
SOCS family proteins form part of a classical negative feedback system that regulates cytokine signal transduction. SOCS2 appears to be a negative regulator in the growth hormone/IGF1 signaling pathway.
http://www.sinobiological.com/Cytokine-Signaling-Cytokine-Signalling-a-5799.html
Quote
Some cytokine signals are not local but rather travel a long distance throughout the body. These cytokines are sometimes classified as hormones. This classification is changing, however, because cytokines are not secreted from glands. Instead, they are secreted from glial cells of the nervous system. These growth hormones are essential for embryonic development.
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/22710
Quote
SOCS2 negatively regulates growth hormone action in vitro and in vivo
Mice deficient in SOCS2 display an excessive growth phenotype characterized by a 30-50% increase in mature body size. Here we show that the SOCS2-/- phenotype is dependent upon the presence of endogenous growth hormone (GH) and that treatment with exogenous GH induced excessive growth in mice lacking both endogenous GH and SOCS2. This was reflected in terms of overall body weight, body and bone lengths, and the weight of internal organs and tissues. A heightened response to GH was also measured by examining GH-responsive genes expressed in the liver after exogenous GH administration. To further understand the link between SOCS2 and the GH-signaling cascade, we investigated the nature of these interactions using structure/function and biochemical interaction studies. Analysis of the 3 structural motifs of the SOCS2 molecule revealed that each plays a crucial role in SOCS2 function, with the conserved SOCS-box motif being essential for all inhibitory function. SOCS2 was found to bind 2 phosphorylated tyrosines on the GH receptor, and mutational analysis of these amino acids showed that both were essential for SOCS2 function. Together, the data provide clear evidence that SOCS2 is a negative regulator of GH signaling.

Quote
To our knowledge no studies have been published indicating a role for Socs2 in limb development. ISH confirms its strong expression in the third forelimb digit to the exclusion of all other digits in forelimb and hindlimb(Fig.3b-g)

What is that all about?


Anyone?
This could be related to the reduction of the large IV digit in the transition from pterosaur to basal Paraves.
How would it fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).
It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1430
Wrong. See above.
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 #1431
Moving on:
https://www.academia.edu/1486957/Transcriptomic_analysis_of_avian_digits_reveals_conserved_and_derived_digit_identities_in_birds
Quote
To discover genes that specifically contribute to the second and third wing digit identities, we performed differential expression analysis of the mRNA-seq data between samples LFb and LFc. We found two genes, Tbx3 and Socs2, with high expression in sample LFc (Supplementary Fig. 9 and Fig. 3a). To our knowledge no studies have been published indicating a role for Socs2 in limb development. ISH confirms its strong expression in the third forelimb digit to the exclusion of all other digits in forelimb and hindlimb(Fig.3b-g). Recently it has been shown that the third forelimb digit has a unique mode of development in birds8. This, combined with our gene expression survey,supports the idea that the third wing digit has a unique derived identity in birds.
http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=SOCS2
Quote
SOCS family proteins form part of a classical negative feedback system that regulates cytokine signal transduction. SOCS2 appears to be a negative regulator in the growth hormone/IGF1 signaling pathway.
http://www.sinobiological.com/Cytokine-Signaling-Cytokine-Signalling-a-5799.html
Quote
Some cytokine signals are not local but rather travel a long distance throughout the body. These cytokines are sometimes classified as hormones. This classification is changing, however, because cytokines are not secreted from glands. Instead, they are secreted from glial cells of the nervous system. These growth hormones are essential for embryonic development.
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/22710
Quote
SOCS2 negatively regulates growth hormone action in vitro and in vivo
Mice deficient in SOCS2 display an excessive growth phenotype characterized by a 30-50% increase in mature body size. Here we show that the SOCS2-/- phenotype is dependent upon the presence of endogenous growth hormone (GH) and that treatment with exogenous GH induced excessive growth in mice lacking both endogenous GH and SOCS2. This was reflected in terms of overall body weight, body and bone lengths, and the weight of internal organs and tissues. A heightened response to GH was also measured by examining GH-responsive genes expressed in the liver after exogenous GH administration. To further understand the link between SOCS2 and the GH-signaling cascade, we investigated the nature of these interactions using structure/function and biochemical interaction studies. Analysis of the 3 structural motifs of the SOCS2 molecule revealed that each plays a crucial role in SOCS2 function, with the conserved SOCS-box motif being essential for all inhibitory function. SOCS2 was found to bind 2 phosphorylated tyrosines on the GH receptor, and mutational analysis of these amino acids showed that both were essential for SOCS2 function. Together, the data provide clear evidence that SOCS2 is a negative regulator of GH signaling.

Quote
To our knowledge no studies have been published indicating a role for Socs2 in limb development. ISH confirms its strong expression in the third forelimb digit to the exclusion of all other digits in forelimb and hindlimb(Fig.3b-g)

What is that all about?


Anyone?
This could be related to the reduction of the large IV digit in the transition from pterosaur to basal Paraves.
How would it fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).
It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1432
Let me answer again:

Quote
How would it fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?
Quite simply. Let us ask the authors:
Quote
Overall, these results suggest that the second and third wing digits diverged and may have acquired derived digit identities during theropod evolution, making it difficult to find corresponding digit identities in the hindlimb.
And that's about it. Note that a frameshift can occur with derived identities of II and III, and in fact the identity of digit I (which remains constrained in relation to the hindlimb) shows that this is the case. Again, as the authors say:
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.

Any questions?
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 #1433
Reality has a way of kicking you in the butt when you least, expect it, right "socrates"?
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 #1434


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1435


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

Certainly more parsimonious than the constantly changing fraameshift hypotheses that at the end of the day simply produce the same finger configuration as before the purported frameshift.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1436


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?
Aaaaaaand let me embarass you further by making you continue to ignore my response:
Let me answer again:

Quote
How would it fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?
Quite simply. Let us ask the authors:
Quote
Overall, these results suggest that the second and third wing digits diverged and may have acquired derived digit identities during theropod evolution, making it difficult to find corresponding digit identities in the hindlimb.
And that's about it. Note that a frameshift can occur with derived identities of II and III, and in fact the identity of digit I (which remains constrained in relation to the hindlimb) shows that this is the case. Again, as the authors say:
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.

Any questions?
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 #1437
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
BZZZZZZZT! Wrong:
Quote
The PRH, on the other hand, argues that birds have regular
digits II, III, and IV,
and that digits I and V were lost in the avian
dinosaur ancestors. This causes problems with fossils that
display a posterior reduction of two digits. While the PRH solves
this contradiction by excluding the relevant fossils,
the TDH
argues that the pressure to reduce digit I was stronger than the
one to reduce digit IV. Therefore, what started as a trend toward
loosing two digits posteriorly, became a bilateral reduction.
Genetically, the PRH has difficulties to deal with the hox and
transcriptomic evidence, which suggests I, II, III interpretation of
the bird digits.

Worth repeating.


Certainly more parsimonious than the constantly changing fraameshift hypotheses that at the end of the day simply produce the same finger configuration as before the purported frameshift.

:facepalm:

Right. Because a flying animal immediately losing its wings is "more parsimonious" than no morphological change at all.

What color is the sky on your planet? :rofl:
  • Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 08:08:37 AM by Faid
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 #1438
Come on, "socrates", say it. "I am not correcting Faid, time for nothing else, 'X' stage, cows come home, yadda yadda".

You know that's all you can do at this point.
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 #1439


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

Certainly more parsimonious than the constantly changing frameshift hypotheses that at the end of the day simply produce the same finger configuration as before the purported frameshift.

With the influence of SOCS2 there can be a graduated reduction of digit IV toward the transition to basal Paraves.
  • Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 08:54:43 AM by socrates1

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1440
With the influence of SOCS2 there can be a graduated reduction of digit IV toward the transition to basal Paraves.
Wrong. Again.

Is there anything in all that that we haven't already addressed?

Quote
This could be related to the reduction of the large IV digit in the transition from pterosaur to basal Paraves.
Indeed it could- to further disprove it.

Remember: We are discussing about the Digit III identity. In pterosaurs, it is the identity of digit IV that is highly derived- But that identity is immediately LOST in the Fatal Frameshift that makes the wing aplastic (always according to your bogus "theory"). After the FF (which will kill the animal anyway, but let us forget about that for a moment), the embryological postition IV creates a digit with identity III. Whether that identity was "highly derived" in your imaginary rhamphorhynchid is irrelevant, since we know it's that small third finger.
IOW, you're grasping at smoke. Happy to help.


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 #1441
You just can't make a frameshift work, "socrates". And we have evidence for a frameshift.

So much for the ptero-bird theory.

Sorry if it stings, but it really is Time To Move On.
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 #1442


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

Certainly more parsimonious than the constantly changing frameshift hypotheses that at the end of the day simply produce the same finger configuration as before the purported frameshift.

With the influence of SOCS2 there can be a graduated reduction of digit IV toward the transition to basal Paraves.
This whole thing seems too difficult for Faid. Does everyone else get it? The scenario I am suggesting does not involve a frameshift. I am not wasting my time responding to his misunderstandings.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1443
Well I won that bet.
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 #1444


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

Certainly more parsimonious than the constantly changing frameshift hypotheses that at the end of the day simply produce the same finger configuration as before the purported frameshift.

With the influence of SOCS2 there can be a graduated reduction of digit IV toward the transition to basal Paraves.
This whole thing seems too difficult for Faid. Does everyone else get it? The scenario I am suggesting does not involve a frameshift. I am not wasting my time responding to his misunderstandings.
This can go further down the rabbit hole than I am interested in going but perhaps the SOCS2 by itself could account for the large reduction in digit IV and the removal of one phalange from each digit.

http://aracnologia.macn.gov.ar/st/biblio/Capek%20et%20al%202013%20Thumbs%20Down-A%20Molecular-Morphogenetic%20Approach%20to%20Avian%20Digit%20Homology.pdf
Quote
Experiments with molecular signaling pathways in early limb development have shown that
modulating interdigital bmp signaling (Dahn and Fallon, 2000) or blocking bmp with a dominant negative receptor (Zou and Niswander, '96) is able to remove one phalanx from each digit

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16419040
Quote
Suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS)-2 regulates normal postnatal growth and its deficiency in mice causes gigantism with increased bone length and proportional enlargement in skeletal muscles. Using C2C12 mesenchymal precursor cell line as a model, we investigated a possible role of SOCS-2 in the differentiation process of mesenchymal precursors. Stable transfection of SOCS-2 into C2C12 cells resulted in the acceleration of proliferation and survival, and inhibition of spontaneous myotube formation. In addition, SOCS-2 potentiated bone morphogenic protein (BMP)-induced transdifferentiation of C2C12 cells into osteoblast phenotypes. These effects of SOCS-2 on C2C12 cells differed strikingly from that of SOCS-1, another member of SOCS family, and its mechanisms were evaluated. SOCS-2 did not alter BMP-induced phosphorylation and nuclear accumulation of Smad1, nor the expression of inhibitory-Smads mRNA. However, SOCS-2 enhanced BMP-induced transcriptional activation of the Smad-responsive reporter gene, suggesting that the action of SOCS-2 is exerted at the transcriptional level. Interestingly, SOCS-2 overexpression in C2C12 cells increased the endogenous JunB protein, one of the key transcriptional factors in the control of BMP/Smad signaling responsiveness. In addition, the proteasome inhibitor enhanced JunB protein expression in C2C12 cells. Moreover, we found that SOCS-2 reduced JunB ubiquitination in COS-7 cells. Although SOCS-2 is a modulator of growth hormone (GH) signaling, the upregulation of JunB by SOCS-2 did not require GH signaling. Taken together, these results suggest that SOCS-2 positively regulates endogenous JunB protein expression in C2C12 cells through inhibition of JunB destabilization by the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, and thereby regulates the cell fate of mesenchymal precursors.
  • Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 10:16:25 AM by socrates1

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1445
Does it account for the first digit expressing identity I, even though it develops from position II?

No?

Then so much for that.

Try again.
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

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1447


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

Certainly more parsimonious than the constantly changing frameshift hypotheses that at the end of the day simply produce the same finger configuration as before the purported frameshift.

With the influence of SOCS2 there can be a graduated reduction of digit IV toward the transition to basal Paraves.
This whole thing seems too difficult for Faid. Does everyone else get it? The scenario I am suggesting does not involve a frameshift. I am not wasting my time responding to his misunderstandings.
Let's see if someone other than Faid can contribute to this topic.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1448


Quote
A couple of things.
A pyramid reduction hypothesis results in 3 digits that look like they could have come from a frameshift but in that case did not.
Also I should say again that the pterosaur to basal parves hypothesis works with both a frameshift and a form of pyramid reduction so I am not pushing for one or the other. I just want to know which one fits best with the evidence (including SOCS2).

It probably comes as a surprise to people to learn that the result of a pyramid reduction hypothesis would have the same appearance as a frameshift.

So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.
Let me ask again
How would the SOCS2 influence fit into a dino to basal paraves transition?

Anyone?
So with SOCS2 (digit IV reduction) and a form of pyramid reduction (to cause a phalange to disappear on each digit) the entire digit transition is accounted for parsimoniously.

Certainly more parsimonious than the constantly changing frameshift hypotheses that at the end of the day simply produce the same finger configuration as before the purported frameshift.

With the influence of SOCS2 there can be a graduated reduction of digit IV toward the transition to basal Paraves.
This whole thing seems too difficult for Faid. Does everyone else get it? The scenario I am suggesting does not involve a frameshift. I am not wasting my time responding to his misunderstandings.
Let's see if someone other than Faid can contribute to this topic.

Maybe someone will come along.

But certainly not worth arguing about as you've already been completely trounced by Faid and others but are just too thick, ignorant and obnoxious to notice.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1449
For reference:

For reference:

Quote
The PRH, on the other hand, argues that birds have regular
digits II, III, and IV,
and that digits I and V were lost in the avian
dinosaur ancestors. This causes problems with fossils that
display a posterior reduction of two digits. While the PRH solves
this contradiction by excluding the relevant fossils,
the TDH
argues that the pressure to reduce digit I was stronger than the
one to reduce digit IV. Therefore, what started as a trend toward
loosing two digits posteriorly, became a bilateral reduction.
Genetically, the PRH has difficulties to deal with the hox and
transcriptomic evidence, which suggests I, II, III interpretation of
the bird digits.

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.