Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Internet Home for Milquetoast Fence-Sitters.

Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 21532 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #25
How long did you say you were "studying" all this, "socrates"? A year?

Keep it up, champ. You're getting there!
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.

  • Monad
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #26
LOL



 :awgee:



ETA: Monad already took care of it, of course.

I'm also wondering why Socrates thinks they should add an unrelated 3rd criterion to a dichotomous character concerning feather form? How does that make sense (not just in terms of cladistics but just simple logic)?
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 02:08:46 PM by Monad

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #27
Quote
Another issue that is perhaps larger than the others is the conflicting opinions on a number of characters related to the manus, carpus and the tarsus. James and Pourtless emphasize this in Appendix 3.
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
A total of 21 characters were turned on for the alternative analysis: 1 character for the basipterygoid process, 5 characters of the palate, 14 characters of the carpus and manus, and 1 character of the tarsus (Appendix 2)

This will probably enrage people even more.

What the mainstream researchers do is make up stories and then code those stories into their matrices. But this is well known.

This is well known.
As a sidenote, I am not correcting every misconception and distortion that people post.
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 05:01:14 PM by socrates1

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #28
What's well known is that you are a notorious liar.  So your empty assertion is doubly worthless.  Let's move on.  I see you cannot come up with a single objection to the manus character selection.  Noted.  What do you want to fail at next?

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #29
Now I see the problem. You folks do not know this subject [support indices]. 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.

So you'd been studying it for a year and discussing it with experts and you thought that the best consensus tree was derived using synapomorphies but the trees used to calculate support indices were derived using symplesiomorphies.  Either you were lying or you're an incredibly slow learner.  Which is it?

ETA: There is of course a third possibility - BOTH.  That's the one my money's on.
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 05:56:35 PM by Dean W

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #30
This is the level of raw intellectual power we're dealing with.

Quote from: Socrates;679732
Let's start with the high level of eukaryote. Now if it is a nested hierarchy, like the other examples and we were to look inside the eukaryote we should be able to see all the inner subsets like insects and lizards and fish etc. However when we look in an eukaryote we do not see those things. Things like insects and lizards and fish etc are not inside the eukaryote!
It is not a nested hierarchy.

This is the clown who thinks we are "enraged" at his percipience.
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 06:07:42 PM by Dean W

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #31
This is the level of raw intellectual power we're dealing with.

Quote from: Socrates;679732
Let's start with the high level of eukaryote. Now if it is a nested hierarchy, like the other examples and we were to look inside the eukaryote we should be able to see all the inner subsets like insects and lizards and fish etc. However when we look in an eukaryote we do not see those things. Things like insects and lizards and fish etc are not inside the eukaryote!
It is not a nested hierarchy.

This is the clown who thinks we are "enraged" at his percipience.


Now that is pretty funny. Almost as much as his flail about common ancestry on his last active thread at zombie TR.


Hi sock-o!  I see you!  :wave:  It's about your bedtime there buddy.





"I'm over 70 and have never seen such , arrogance, incompetence and Ill -intentions as this President and his aids."    The Dotard     (posted 12 days after his 68th birthday)

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #32
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #33
Ah, the intimation of an issue existing, but no evidence.  Boring.  And from a confirmed liar, to boot.  Socrates, the spark has gone out.  Pick up your game a little.  A boring crank isn't entertaining.  Perhaps you should "educate" us some more about support indices.  Or is the egg still on your face about that?
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 09:01:56 PM by Dean W

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #34
Character 439: Manus, combined length of metacarpal I and phalanx I-1:
0: greater than length of MC II
1: equal to or less than length of MC II

Character 769: Manus, shape of proximal articular surface of ungual of first digit:
0: ovoid, dorsoventrally taller than mediolaterally wide
1: approximately square shaped, as mediolaterally wide as dorsoventrally tall

Character 770: Manus, form of lateral groove on ungual of first digit:
0: unenclosed or partially enclosed proximally by small flange
1: proximal end of grooves passes through foramena on ventral surface of ungual

Character 799: Manus, ratio of the proximodistal length of metacarpal II to that of the combined proximodistal lengths of phalanges II-1 and II-2:
0: less than or equal to 1.0
1: greater than 1.0 (i.e., metacarpal II longer than combined lengths of phalanges II-1 and II-2)

Character 800: Manus, ligament pits on manual phalanges:
0: strongly developed
1: weakly developed or absent

Character 801: Manus, manual unguals, proximodistal length:
0: shorter to, equal to, or slightly longer than length of penultimate phalanx
1: elongate, twice or more as long as penultimate phalanx

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #35
Why don't you tell us more about symplesiomorphies in support indices?  It went over so well the first time, right?  Idiot.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #36
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

Let me guess.  When we look inside the eukaryote, we don't see digits I, II, or III.  Is that it?  Is that your point?  Because, in your universe, that would be devastating to the Coelurosaurian clade (including Paraves) that is so strongly supported by those support indices that are based on synapomorphies, which you didn't learn after more than a year of study and "consultation" with experts.
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 09:12:55 PM by Dean W

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #37
You see Doug, this is the price you must pay to get the attention you crave, that you only get here, the attention that is lacking at your pathetic blog.  You must endure being recognized for the posturing ignoramus that you are, instead of being adulated as the mighty intellectual you perceive yourself to be.  However much you try but fail to promote your charade of competency, how satisfying can it be to have your failings paraded for the world to see? Admit to yourself what you are,  it might be painful at first, but in the long run you'll be happier.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #38
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
Brusatte et al
Supplementary Appendix 1: Character List
Character 1: Feathers, vaned feathers on forelimb, form:
0: symmetric
1: asymmetric


http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf
Xu et al
Character list (Characters 1-363 are from Hu et al. (2009), whereas 364-374 are newly
added).
1. Vaned feathers on forelimb symmetric (0) or asymmetric (1). The barbs on opposite
sides of the rachis differ in length; in extant birds, the barbs on the leading edge of flight
feathers are shorter than those on the trailing edge.

Odd. No value for lack of feathers.
This is particularly odd since feathers are such an important character and they have no value for the specific dinosaurs that are acknowledged to have no feathers.
Consequently they make no distinction between "absent" on the one hand and "unknown" ("?") on the other. This is bizarre and makes one question the integrity of the analyses.

This itself may well invalidate the entire analyses. It is bizarre that they set up the character without a value for "absent".

What would be the effect of this bizarre decision?
Well it would downplay the difference between the dinosaurs and the creatures with feathers. It would make them appear to be more similar than they actually are.

And to top it off they have it as unknown ("?") in the outgroup Allosaurus.

When the folks here are not able to deal with the material I post, they ramp up the insults. That is sad.
From where I'm standing it looks more like you are unable to respond to the content of people's "dealing" and instead see only the form. You seem easily distracted from the content by a form that uses colorful language. Have you considered moving to a place that has rules against colorful language? It seems to me that you could do your important work more efficiently in a place that avoids offending your delicate sensibilities.
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 11:03:24 PM by Saunt Taunga

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #39
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
Brusatte et al
Supplementary Appendix 1: Character List
Character 1: Feathers, vaned feathers on forelimb, form:
0: symmetric
1: asymmetric


http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf
Xu et al
Character list (Characters 1-363 are from Hu et al. (2009), whereas 364-374 are newly
added).
1. Vaned feathers on forelimb symmetric (0) or asymmetric (1). The barbs on opposite
sides of the rachis differ in length; in extant birds, the barbs on the leading edge of flight
feathers are shorter than those on the trailing edge.

Odd. No value for lack of feathers.
This is particularly odd since feathers are such an important character and they have no value for the specific dinosaurs that are acknowledged to have no feathers.
Consequently they make no distinction between "absent" on the one hand and "unknown" ("?") on the other. This is bizarre and makes one question the integrity of the analyses.

This itself may well invalidate the entire analyses. It is bizarre that they set up the character without a value for "absent".

What would be the effect of this bizarre decision?
Well it would downplay the difference between the dinosaurs and the creatures with feathers. It would make them appear to be more similar than they actually are.

And to top it off they have it as unknown ("?") in the outgroup Allosaurus.

When the folks here are not able to deal with the material I post, they ramp up the insults. That is sad.
From where I'm standing it looks more like you are unable to respond to the content of people's "dealing" and instead see only the form. You seem easily distracted from the content by a form that uses colorful language. Have you considered moving to a place that has rules against colorful language? It seems to me that you could do your important work more efficiently in a place that avoids offending your delicate sensibilities.
Not that I would like to see you go. I like seeing colorful descriptions of your character and intellect with a unity of form and content usually only seen in more artful endeavors.

  • Monad
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #40
Quote
Another issue that is perhaps larger than the others is the conflicting opinions on a number of characters related to the manus, carpus and the tarsus. James and Pourtless emphasize this in Appendix 3.
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
A total of 21 characters were turned on for the alternative analysis: 1 character for the basipterygoid process, 5 characters of the palate, 14 characters of the carpus and manus, and 1 character of the tarsus (Appendix 2)

This will probably enrage people even more.

What the mainstream researchers do is make up stories and then code those stories into their matrices. But this is well known.

This is well known.
As a sidenote, I am not correcting every misconception and distortion that people post.

Good thing we have already corrected yours then.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #41
As a sidenote, I am not correcting every misconception and distortion that people post.
You have no business being on a discussion forum then.
Correcting misconceptions and distortions is crucial for discussion.
Also, others are happy to correct yours, why not extend them the same courtesy?

If that is too hard, you have a blog, why not just stay there?
  • Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 12:53:55 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #42
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #43
As a sidenote, I am not correcting every misconception and distortion that people post.
It's fine. We'll take care of correcting yours.

For example:
Odd. No value for lack of feathers.




Thank us later! :D
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 #44
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

Who cares? This thread is about "No value for lack of feathers".

Don't you have anything to add about that? Like, oh Idunno, some kind of "begrudging admission"?
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.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #45
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?
I don't believe they include it. So what? Please explain your point? I'm sure there are lots of characters in the James & Pourtless study that they don't include.

Do Pourtless & James include Confusciusornisin their analysis? How do they code it for that character? How do they code Archaeopteryx? How do they code Ichthyornis? How do they code Velociraptor?
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #46
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #47
Perhaps there's a comparable character for deez nuts as well.
"I'm over 70 and have never seen such , arrogance, incompetence and Ill -intentions as this President and his aids."    The Dotard     (posted 12 days after his 68th birthday)

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #48
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #49
Is there a psychiatric diagnosis number for people who endlessly quote themselves or other resources and refuse to engage in discussions, like soc1 and  Pahu? Even Dave sometimes reacts to rebuttals.