Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 11213 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 4,073

  • 387

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3825
The hindlimb wings provided extra lift to help in the transition from pterosaur to basal Euparaves.
It is not easy to fly. It needs all the help it can get. Including hindlimb wings and a transition from skin membrane to feathers.
Funny how pterosaurs were doing just fine for millions of years before realizing they "needed" all those things, and contacting the Quantum Plenum engineers.
Hey, if you find out about the diddling sticks and what they can do, why should you shun them?
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 4,073

  • 387

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3826
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Starting to see? 
Are you kidding us?
We've been noting how strange you are for years now.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3827
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?

So nobody.
Why even pretend to support the dino to bird theory?
  • Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 11:48:01 AM by socrates1

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3828
Indeed. No need to pretend.
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3829
BTW, there were 3050 million years of unfound therizinosaurs as well. Until we found some of them.

Surprisingly, the "dino to bird theory" did not collapse in the meantime. Go figure.

Then again, it didn't have a brave B&B owner to face in the assault against it that time...
  • Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 12:30:27 PM 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.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 6,405

  • 1206

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3830
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?
Well, there's nothing particularly strange about the fact that the play-pretend "Professor" is wibbling on about some purported "claim" while blandly, obtusely, ignoring the fact that he has failed to identify any such claim.
All in a days work for the play-pretend "Professor"
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3831
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?

So nobody.
Why even pretend to support the dino to bird theory?
And more of the same:
Odd that there is a claim of 25 million years of unfound ornithomimids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimosauria
Quote
The sheer abundance of ornithomimids -- they are the most common small dinosaurs in North America -- is consistent with the idea that they were plant eaters, as herbivores usually outnumber carnivores in an ecosystem. However, they may have been omnivores that ate both plants and small animal prey.

  • 425

  • 95

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3832
Fossilization is rare. What's the issue?

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3833
I forget- Does "Dr. Pterosaur" consider onnithomimosaurs "secondarily-flightless Paraves" these days? He's changed his mind on that so many times I've lost track.
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3834
Another fun fact: Before 2000, we had nearly 70 million years of unfound or undescribed ornithomimosaurs.

Again, the "dino to bird theory" fared just fine during that period. Who'd have thunk it?
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3835
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?

So nobody.
Why even pretend to support the dino to bird theory?
And more of the same:
Odd that there is a claim of 25 million years of unfound ornithomimids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimosauria
Quote
The sheer abundance of ornithomimids -- they are the most common small dinosaurs in North America -- is consistent with the idea that they were plant eaters, as herbivores usually outnumber carnivores in an ecosystem. However, they may have been omnivores that ate both plants and small animal prey.
Everyone probably realizes that the dino to bird folks hold on to these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years because they do not want to accept the more straightforward explanation that they are secondarily flightless members of Euparaves.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3836
BTW, there were 3050 million years of unfound therizinosaurs as well. Until we found some of them.

Surprisingly, the "dino to bird theory" did not collapse in the meantime. Go figure.

Then again, it didn't have a brave B&B owner to face in the assault against it that time...
Another fun fact: Before 2000, we had nearly 70 million years of unfound or undescribed ornithomimosaurs.

Again, the "dino to bird theory" fared just fine during that period. Who'd have thunk it?
Worth repeating.

But everyone realizes that playing those pointless date games is all "socrates" is left with.
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.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 6,405

  • 1206

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3837
Still no purported "claims" even articulated, let alone supported with reference, link or copy-pasted relevant material.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3838
BTW, there were 3050 million years of unfound therizinosaurs as well. Until we found some of them.

Surprisingly, the "dino to bird theory" did not collapse in the meantime. Go figure.

Then again, it didn't have a brave B&B owner to face in the assault against it that time...
Another fun fact: Before 2000, we had nearly 70 million years of unfound or undescribed ornithomimosaurs.

Again, the "dino to bird theory" fared just fine during that period. Who'd have thunk it?
Worth repeating.

But everyone realizes that playing those pointless date games is all "socrates" is left with.
And yet another fun fact: Before the late nineties, the "ghost lineage" for oviraptorosaurs was about 90 million years.

Why do these ghosts keep geting smaller? Odd.
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3839
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?

So nobody.
Why even pretend to support the dino to bird theory?
And more of the same:
Odd that there is a claim of 25 million years of unfound ornithomimids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimosauria
Quote
The sheer abundance of ornithomimids -- they are the most common small dinosaurs in North America -- is consistent with the idea that they were plant eaters, as herbivores usually outnumber carnivores in an ecosystem. However, they may have been omnivores that ate both plants and small animal prey.
Everyone probably realizes that the dino to bird folks hold on to these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years because they do not want to accept the more straightforward explanation that they are secondarily flightless members of Euparaves.
We have seen that the support indices (jackknife, bootstrap) show a huge polytomy including most everything including oviraptors and ornithomimosaurs. So cladistic analysis actually gives no reason to purport these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3840
:facepalm:
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3841
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?

So nobody.
Why even pretend to support the dino to bird theory?
And more of the same:
Odd that there is a claim of 25 million years of unfound ornithomimids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimosauria
Quote
The sheer abundance of ornithomimids -- they are the most common small dinosaurs in North America -- is consistent with the idea that they were plant eaters, as herbivores usually outnumber carnivores in an ecosystem. However, they may have been omnivores that ate both plants and small animal prey.
Everyone probably realizes that the dino to bird folks hold on to these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years because they do not want to accept the more straightforward explanation that they are secondarily flightless members of Euparaves.
We have seen that the support indices (jackknife, bootstrap) show a huge polytomy including most everything including oviraptors and ornithomimosaurs. So cladistic analysis actually gives no reason to purport these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years.
So why should the dino to bird folks care if the oviraptorids and the ornithomimosaurs are actually secondarily flightless Euparaves?

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3842
No one "cares". It's just that they are not.

If they were, they wouldn't show up in a polytomy with Paraves you dumbo.
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3843
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?

So nobody.
Why even pretend to support the dino to bird theory?
And more of the same:
Odd that there is a claim of 25 million years of unfound ornithomimids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimosauria
Quote
The sheer abundance of ornithomimids -- they are the most common small dinosaurs in North America -- is consistent with the idea that they were plant eaters, as herbivores usually outnumber carnivores in an ecosystem. However, they may have been omnivores that ate both plants and small animal prey.
Everyone probably realizes that the dino to bird folks hold on to these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years because they do not want to accept the more straightforward explanation that they are secondarily flightless members of Euparaves.
We have seen that the support indices (jackknife, bootstrap) show a huge polytomy including most everything including oviraptors and ornithomimosaurs. So cladistic analysis actually gives no reason to purport these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years.
So why should the dino to bird folks care if the oviraptorids and the ornithomimosaurs are actually secondarily flightless Euparaves?
They care because if you take them as secondarily flightless members of Euparaves the dino to bird theory simply collapses.

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 4,073

  • 387

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3844

[SNIP, SNIP, SNIPPITY SNIP USELESS SELF INDULGENT SELF QUOTING]

So why should the dino to bird folks care if the oviraptorids and the ornithomimosaurs are actually secondarily flightless Euparaves?
They care because if you take them as secondarily flightless members of Euparaves the dino to bird theory simply collapses.

By that logic, given the theory hasn't collapsed, it follows the oviraptorids and ornithomimosaurs are not secondarily flightless Euparaves.

You lose, sucky.
Again.
Are we there yet?

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Needs a Life
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
  • 975

  • 371

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3845
Fun Fact: Field mice are secondarily flightless bats.     :parrot:


"You know what uranium is, right? It's this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that."

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3846
They care because if you take them as secondarily flightless members of Euparaves the dino to bird theory simply collapses.
Really? Says who?
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3847
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptoridae
Quote
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids.
Odd that there is a claim of 35 million years of unfound oviraptorids. Are people starting to see something strange?
Anyone care to admit that there is something strange about that claim?

So nobody.
Why even pretend to support the dino to bird theory?
And more of the same:
Odd that there is a claim of 25 million years of unfound ornithomimids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimosauria
Quote
The sheer abundance of ornithomimids -- they are the most common small dinosaurs in North America -- is consistent with the idea that they were plant eaters, as herbivores usually outnumber carnivores in an ecosystem. However, they may have been omnivores that ate both plants and small animal prey.
Everyone probably realizes that the dino to bird folks hold on to these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years because they do not want to accept the more straightforward explanation that they are secondarily flightless members of Euparaves.
We have seen that the support indices (jackknife, bootstrap) show a huge polytomy including most everything including oviraptors and ornithomimosaurs. So cladistic analysis actually gives no reason to purport these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years.
So why should the dino to bird folks care if the oviraptorids and the ornithomimosaurs are actually secondarily flightless Euparaves?
They care because if you take them as secondarily flightless members of Euparaves the dino to bird theory simply collapses.
Perhaps someone could describe the dino to bird theory taking oviraptorids and ornithomimosaurs as secondarily flightless.
If anyone is interested, please do.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,488

  • 756

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3848
With the premise of secondary flightless oviraptorids? Sure:

Birds evolved within theropod dinosaurs. Some of those birds became secondarily flightless.

For more info ask Gregory S. Paul.

Anything else?
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,684

  • 0

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3849
Quote
We have seen that the support indices (jackknife, bootstrap) show a huge polytomy including most everything including oviraptors and ornithomimosaurs. So cladistic analysis actually gives no reason to purport these ghost lineages of tens of millions of years.

So why should the dino to bird folks care if the oviraptorids and the ornithomimosaurs are actually secondarily flightless Euparaves?
They care because if you take them as secondarily flightless members of Euparaves the dino to bird theory simply collapses.

Perhaps someone could describe the dino to bird theory taking oviraptorids and ornithomimosaurs as secondarily flightless.
If anyone is interested, please do.

Anyone? What would the transition be from real dinosaurs (eg. basal Tyrannoraptora) to basal Euparaves?
  • Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 06:37:41 AM by socrates1