Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

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

Messages - Monad

1
Science / Re: early tetrapods got weird
I would have loved to see a piece in Nature titled "Early tetrapods got weird"
2
Science / Re: New fossil caecilians!
Can't access it :(
3
Hey Socrates, I'm curious.

Have you asked these experts precisely what they think this polytomy indicates? If so, could you reproduce it here?

Go ahead. Ask the study authors. Tell us what you find out.

If anyone wishes to take up this challenge, please do. The study authors have been loath to discuss it to this point. But I am certainly not wasting my time arguing this with you folks.
You yourselves can see the material in the Supplementary Information. You yourselves can contact the authors. If this is important to you that is what you might do. If this is not important to you, why are you wasting your time here? It is neither here not there to me what you do. If you can get an answer from the authors then we can all gain.
The authors do not acknowledge the significance of the huge polytomy. And you folks have not acknowledged the significance of the huge polytomy. I have explained the significance.

The authors do not even try to explain the significance of the huge polytomy. The significance of Euparaves (as I have called it for reference).

Why would they if they do not accept your (arguably incorrect) interpretation of the polytomies? You seem to think if people disagree with you they must be denying 'the truth', can you not accept that maybe sometimes it is you who is wrong? I know you find it hard to acknowledge errors but for once at least try to consider that possibility.
4
Games / Re: Image Association
5
Clearly they did acknowledge the existence of the polytomies (well more than that, they identified them first), they just did not agree with you about their significance. Perhaps it is you who is unclear about what they imply? You have already made several errors in this thread regarding that so I would not be surprised.
6
Games / Re: Image Association
7
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.

Wow. So they got a "huge polytomy", they published charts with the "huge polytomy", but they did not acknowledge it until you told them!

Except they did - they identify polytomies themselves 10 times in their supplementary data:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(14)01047-1?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982214010471%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&cc=y=#app3

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2019474733/2039573094/mmc1.pdf

No doubt they did not draw the conclusions Socrates wanted them to (which appear to be based on his wilful misunderstanding of what all this means) but to say they did not acknowledge their existence is false.
9
Quote
The Brusatte et al (2014) cladogram was done later and is better than the Xu et al (2011) study because it shows the tyrannosauroids separate from the huge polytomy.
The node of the huge polytomy does not have a name, so I will label it "Euparaves" which is a good name for it since it is actually basal Paraves.
Whatever you call that node, it shows that there is no evidence that links the tyrannosauroids and that node ("Euparaves").
The cladistic analyses show that a dinosaur to bird hypothesis requires a huge saltation between creatures like tyrannosauroids and Euparaves.

The interesting work begins AFTER the acknowledgement of this fact.
In the published literature nobody has tried to explain the huge saltation, because they have not even acknowledged the huge polytomy, even though they document it in the supplementary information sections of their studies.
Of course, the huge saltation can never be explained.

If they acknowledged the huge saltation, that would be the collapse of the dinosaur to bird hypothesis. Euparaves is not a node in a dinosaur to bird phylogeny. The 65 jackknife value indicates that tyrannosauroids are not related to Euparaves.

The alternatives are "thecodonts" or pterosaurs. And the thecodont hypothesis suffers from the same problems as the dinosaur to bird hypothesis. Keep in mind that the 65 jackknife value indicates that tyrannosauroids are not related to Euparaves.

Well no, the other hypothesis is the BCF one (birds came first) which I posted a summary of here:

http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1302345&highlight=Olshevsky#post1302345

and which Feduccia and Czerkas essentially resurrected with their 2014 paper on Yi Qi (ironically proposing a link to Scleromochlus which may mean birds and pterosaurs share a common ancestor but not one group evolved from the other)
10
Science / Re: Chronic Lyme Disease
Could it be that the Borrelia infection is masking an infection by a viral agent and when the spirochaete is killed off by antibiotics the viral agent lingers? After all ticks probably carry lots of bugs, not just Borrelia.
Well, conceivably - given that there is always the possibility of some completely unknown and unsuspected virus unrelated to anything that's ever been noticed.

But not likely based on what what is known about any currently identified tick-borne viruses capable of infecting humans. None of the known tick-borne viruses is associated with any chronic disease.

Yeah that's true - I followed the link to the page on Borrelia - it seems at least some species are known to coat themselves in host antigens to evade the immune system so I would have thought that could induce an autoimmune reaction as it makes it harder for the host to distinguish friend from foe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relapsing_fever
11
Games / Re: Image Association
12
Science / Re: Chronic Lyme Disease
Based on what I've learned from working with dogs, treating with doxycycline after a positive ELISA is standard practice, but it's common to see subsequent positives even in symptomatic dogs that see symptoms reside with treatment. In some cases, a quantitative measure of antibody can help clear up what might be going on, but not necessarily. There was one canine model study done years ago that showed antibiotic therapy didn't completely eliminate the bacteria and that immunosuppressed dogs (in this case, infected dogs given corticosteroids) saw reactivation of symptoms. There's some suspicion that doxy might help through its anti-inflammatory properties more than anything.

If it's the same in humans, then chronic Lyme is a possibility if antibiotics don't completely clear a person of the organism and if it can be reactivated in certain circumstances. Or it could be that the bacteria are completely cleared but that enough damage/change makes people susceptible to inflammatory flare ups.

Could it be that the Borrelia infection is masking an infection by a viral agent and when the spirochaete is killed off by antibiotics the viral agent lingers? After all ticks probably carry lots of bugs, not just Borrelia.

Either that or there's an autoimmune reaction persisting after the infection (don't some spirochaetes hide themselves from the immune system by coating themselves with host antigens?)
13
lol no it doesn't. You don't understand any of this so stop pretending you do.
14
The first one, the second one was soso
15
Might go see it this weekend - so far every DC movie I have seen has disappointed but I live in hope

She is certainly a Gal to fall for
16
It's a Platonic essence thing.
17
The Soap Opera / Re: Socrates
It's just spam really
18
But seriously folks...
A thread with just four posts from one individual - only two of which contain any verbs, for christ's sake - ending with "This is all I plan to say on this topic" has no business being in a discussion forum.



I guess Soccie's masterly anti evilutionist strategy has degenerated into drowning the forum in spam and boring us all to death
19
Science / Re: Bird wings in amber
Brilliant find, interesting about the different feather types. Seems Enantiornithe chicks were highly precocial.
20
Games / Re: Image Association
21
Anyway, what actually happened to this socrates guy? At what point did he descent into nested self-quoting without ever bothering to actually discuss anything, and why does a person do something like that?

He's never discussed stuff, alway pontificated from 'on high' (probably thinks that literally) and avoided direct discussion or at most responded with ad hom jibes.
22
Politics and Current Events / Re: corbyn won
I am learning more about the DUP than I ever wanted.  What are more knowledgeable people's thoughts on May's likely concessions to them to make this work, i.e. how badly are we women and gay people and such gonna get fucked over?  Seems to me that the priority for them right now could well be the Brexit terms and ensuring free movement between NI and the ROI, no?  I gather that's a pretty big concern for their constituents right now.

eta: well, fucked over in england, at least; apparently control over abortion laws were among the things the scottish parliament recently gained following the independence referendum

They're a bunch of almost fascists basically.
23
literally couldn't care less.

next up, elephants are not mammals because they too have pebbly skin
Its interesting in that Yutyrannus has extensive feathering, but Albertosaurus seems not to, and they're both about the same size. So something interesting is going on there.

The map is not the territory
Indeed not, but if you have two species of roughly the same size, and one has extensive feathering and the other doesn't then at the very least "feather reduction is more complicated than we thought" is a pretty logical conclusion to draw, and that is interesting, even if the answer as to why that might be turns out to be unknowable, or as simple as "chance".

That's my point, it implies their model is incomplete and the reality is more complex than the model accounts for (which is hardly surprising really given the lack of data)
24
literally couldn't care less.

next up, elephants are not mammals because they too have pebbly skin
Its interesting in that Yutyrannus has extensive feathering, but Albertosaurus seems not to, and they're both about the same size. So something interesting is going on there.

The map is not the territory
25
What could possibly go wrong?   :ohdear: