Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • The Talk Rational forum. It seems like a bunch of dudebros who want to talk about how smart they are, and how ugly women are.

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 - Saunt Taunga

676
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
Better encumbered by "philosophical assumptions" than bronze age superstitions around a goat herders war god, if you ask me.
677
...Amazing Stuff From Nature...
The interesting question is: What is the source of that intelligence? Science has been documenting HOW the intelligence functions.
The source of the "intelligence" is the minds of unsophisicated people. Primitive thinkers are prone to attribute agency to everything complex. It is an instance of the "Fundamental Attribution Error" and Attributing Intentional Agency to Inanimate Objects.

This is logical. Humans have been social animals for a long time, they have well developed and mostly effective mental machinery for dealing with persons, intelligent agents.
This mental machinery is used to deal with all impactful and/or complex things, and so, for example, lighting, floods, bad weather, failing crops, disease, blue halos, etc, become purposeful actions of powerful agents; spirits, angels, demons, gods etc.

Primitive minds like yourself cannot see that model and reality, map and territory are distinct.
You are still stuck in the cave looking at the shadows.
678
If Nature had made bees so that they would not need blue halos to find flowers, would that be more intelligent or less intelligent? :hmm:
679
Tall, blond, (Nazis!) sounds like Vril
680
Do Roombas count?
681
Since the folks here cannot even make up excuses for the dino to bird theory objections that I have raised, I will take it that the dino to bird theory is not credible. No point me wasting time on it.
Oh good!
Finally!
"Socrates" has satisfied himself that "dino to bird theory" is not credible.
Done and dusted!

Now maybe we can move on to some of the more entertaining "Socratic " theories - like schizophrenia is actually demonic possession, or that some humans evolved from gorillas, others from chimpanzees, or whales are actually modern mosasaurs, or the ever popular genetic diddlers from the Quantum Plenum!  :popcorn:

My guess is he'll stick around, but his increasingly peevish tone (you can almost see his lower lip sticking out) would indicate that he's beginning to get an inkling that everybody here has his number and won't play his game.  And what recourse does he have, to go back to his blog?  As far as participation goes, it might as well be an on-line diary.
My guess is he needs the insults and ridicule, it tells him he must be right. It empowers him.
682

Quote
What would be interesting would be to see another excuse.
But we may never see another excuse. After all I had to help you with this one.

Another absurd excuse:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.915.8222&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Quote
A clear pattern emerges: Branches along the bird stem undergo substantially faster morphological evolution than those of the rest of the tree.
The theropod lineage directly ancestral to birds undergoes sustained miniaturization across 50 million years and at least 12 consecutive branches (internodes) and evolves skeletal adaptations four times faster than other dinosaurs.

I'm coming up with all your excuses. You guys are not even trying.
From another study:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(14)01047-1
Quote
There is growing evidence that changes in discrete character evolution, body size, and limb anatomy occurred quickly in the vicinity of the origin of birds, either at the node Avialae, in close avialan outgroups [basal paraves] or beginning with slightly more derived birds [3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 21, 22]. It is likely that different types of data will pinpoint changes at slightly different positions on phylogeny, but in general, recent studies converge in identifying the dinosaur-bird transition as an abnormally rapid period of morphological evolution.
"an abnormally rapid period of morphological evolution"
More excuses/stories:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/
Quote
The ancestors of Paraves first started to shrink in size in the early Jurassic 200 million years ago, and fossil evidence show that this theropod line evolved new adaptations four times faster than other groups of dinosaurs,[8] and was shrinking 160 times faster than other dinosaur lineages were growing.[9]
There seems to be no end to the absurdities.
People ramp up the personal attacks.
People are telling you the truth. The truth can be insulting.  You are clearly too stupid to realize how stupid you are. People of moderate intelligence would realize that when the whole world disagrees with them they are probably wrong themselves. But not you. When people deride your stupidity you take that as proof that you are right.
Quote
Sad.
Yes.
Quote
But what else can you do when the evidence so strongly contradicts the dino to bird theory. Nothing else. Oh, I suppose you could start to question the theory yourself.
Well, pointing and laughing at the lone ignoramus making a fool of himself is more fun.
It is also more sensible. What are the odds that a universally despised ignoramus, that nobody agrees with, and refuses to be educated, is right?
683
It would help his case if he knew how cladograms work.
That would be nice.
But that nobody is currently able to believe that he might possibly be capable of understanding, would be the first hurdle he needs to scale.
684
For reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269715801_An_integrative_approach_to_understanding_bird_origins


Notice the characteristics that are shown to evolve between the paraves and the dinosaurs from which they are purported to have evolved and the earliest of both appear in the fossil record at the same time.
Notice that Scansoriopteryx and Serikornis are members of Paraves and not on the cladogram from Xu et al. The reason I posted the Xu et al cladogram was to show the large number of characteristics separating the members of paraves and the dinosaurs from which they are purported to have evolved which is significant in that the earliest of both appear in the fossil record at the same time.
The red line on the Xu et al cladogram that Dean W added shows what I am talking about. Scansoriopteryx and Serikornis and Proceratosaurus are all on that line (ie the same distance back in the fossil record).
It would help your case if you could show yourself capable of posting a diagram with the red line and Scansoriopteryx, Serikornis and Proceratosaurus on it.
685
The thin red lines represent hypothesized lines*. What is actually known are the black lines. Are people really confused about this?


* based on cladistic analyses
The thin red lines represent hypothesized lines*. What is actually known are the black lines. Are people really confused about this?


* based on cladistic analyses
I will be leaving this shortly. There is no point posting with people who are just pretending. Someone honest will have to come along. Generally that is the Dave Godfrey lout.
Let's see if someone honest will come along.
It would really help if you could find someone willing to say they agree with you. You can't make any progress by yourself.
And "begrudging acceptance" that only you can see doesn't count.
686
The thin red lines represent hypothesized lines*. What is actually known are the black lines. Are people really confused about this?


* based on cladistic analyses
The thin red lines represent hypothesized lines*. What is actually known are the black lines. Are people really confused about this?


* based on cladistic analyses
I will be leaving this shortly. There is no point posting with people who are just pretending. Someone honest will have to come along. Generally that is the Dave Godfrey lout.
Let's see if someone honest will come along.
It would really help if you could find someone willing to say they agree with you. You can't make any progress by yourself.
687
In general terms:
There are some members of euparaves that are dated earlier than the dinosaurs they are purported to have evolved from.
This is enough to bring the dino to bird theory into doubt.
If I understand this situation correctly it is like me being older than my grandfather.
Indeed "if". Everybody who knows you is quite convinced you do not understand. This statement strengthens that conviction.
688
Here is another point in the article:
Quote
One thing that argues against the volant ancestry of these groups is the
propubic pubis. A retroverted pubis would be better for flying ecause it
makes a airfoil ( convex dorsally and concave ventrally )  shape of the
body. A propubic pubis would create a reverse-airfoil, which would not
be advantageous for flying because it would not create lift and the
"bird" would divebomb to the ground! Paul ( 1988 ) argued that the
propubic pubis was a reversal, which it may well be, but there is no
reason why that these groups should evolve a propubic pubis.
It seems to me that a ground-based, secondarily flightless creature would want a pubis that would keep it from rising up into the air. So I do not understand the point the author is making.
Can anyone help with this?
Perhaps someone will come along.
The bottom line is that the oviraptorosaur pubis is not contradictory to the idea that oviraptorosaurs were secondarily flightless.
No, you misunderstand. That is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that, except for the deficiencies in your intellect, and character, you have not convinced anybody of anything anywhere.

It is also the top line.
In between is you farting in the wind.
And people here commenting on the noises.
689
Quote
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?


In other words it would not alert you to anything. It would just give you a pterosaur to bird phylogeny. That is the first point I am making.

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.

So that is perhaps all that needs to be said using YOUR logic. Birds evolved from pterosaurs.
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?
You're not getting my logic. According to my logic, a bird plus only pterosaur analysis would get us a tree made up of a separate bird tree and pterosaur tree joined at the root. If I add more pterosaurs the two sides will remain separate and the pterosaur side gets more branches.
Very unlike the bird plus only dinosaur analysis, where, according to my logic, we have the bird tree inside the dinosaur tree, and adding more dinosaurs would surround birds with more dinosaurs.

690
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?
No, it would show "Euparaves" and pterosaurs separate and joined at the root. Show me wrong, get to work! And don't come back before you have some results.
691
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?
The fact that you have not done this analysis does seem to confirm that you cannot, and that trusting your judgement in this would be unwise.
I suspect such an analysis would show "Euparaves" and pterosaurs as sister groups, not "Euparaves" within pterosaurs like  "Euparaves" is within dinosaurs.

Time to do this analysis!
Maybe go back and study the analysis software for a year and get back to us then?
The world deserves to know the truth. This task falls on you!
692
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?
The fact that you have not done this analysis does seem to confirm that you cannot, and that trusting your judgement in this would be unwise.
I suspect such an analysis would show "Euparaves" and pterosaurs as sister groups, not "Euparaves" within pterosaurs like  "Euparaves" is within dinosaurs.

Time to do this analysis!
Maybe go back and study the analysis software for a year and get back to us then?
693
No, there's a disagreement of this point. We understand what you are saying. We just think its bollocks. You seem incapable of understanding the distinction.
Socrates, (and crackpots in general) quoting authorities who disagree with them in support for their ideas in not new, but it is nice to see it this close up and explicit.
694
Quote
At times some people here seem to have understood this but not at all times and not everyone here.
This is hard for folks to grasp.
But people here keep trying to distract from the straightforward facts.
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.
This is hard to grasp for the folks here. But if you do grasp it you are well on your way.
Great!
 So, the answer to
Quote
If A and B are both known to be members of the same clade, and analysis determines C to be closer to A than to B, is not C also a member of that clade?
is Yes!

And so: if A and B are both dinosaurs and C is closer to A than to B, C is also a dinosaur.

And therefore it is possible to do an analysis with only dinosaurs to determine if something is a dinosaur.

Are you getting it?
The problem with that is that if your outgroup is also a dinosaur then of course it'll be a dinosaur. If you've made a mistake and classified something as being a dinosaur when it isn't then hopefully it'll show updown at the base by the outgroup. and, y'know, you'd notice that it doesn't have any of the synapomorphies you associate with dinosaurs, theropods, maniraptorans, etc, etc.

But only if its complete enough that you can see that it doesn't have these characters. So for example for much of the 20th century Teratosaurus was thought to be a very early theropod. Which isn't surprising, because all that was known was the front part of the snout, (and the postcrania that were associated with it turned out to be from something completely different- the basal sauropodomorph Efraasia).

This, of course, is not the case with the various maniraptoran theropods that Self-Quotes is talking about, where we have some really good material, in some cases with a decent number of specimens (there are 12 Archaeopteryx specimens known, in various states of completeness, which is a lot for most dinosaurs). So you can actually be pretty sure before you even start your analysis that you have a dinosaur, and even what kind of dinosaur you have.

So yes, Sucky is correct. But he's correct in a really boring and pointless manner, and, because he knows nothing about how systematics is actually done, and has no actual understanding of anatomy, he doesn't know that people will already have done a bunch of study to work out if its a dinosaur. Especially if they're dealing with something very fragmentary where there are plenty of possibilities for confusion. And that doesn't make it into the paper, because this stuff is written for people who already know what they're talking about, rather than armchair hand-wavers, who've never cracked open a textbook on the subject, and clearly can't be bothered to read even the popular literature on the subject. I mean I'm not a professional palaeontologist (I'm working on it), I doubt I'd ever specialise on pterosaurs if I became one, although I'm certainly interested in them, but I've got a copy of all three of the popular books written by people who study them that came out in my lifetime. (That's the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs by Peter Wellenhofer, The Pterosaurs from Deep Time, by David Unwin, and Pterosaurs by Mark Witton). You'd have thought Socks would have dug out a copy of at least one of these from his library, or picked up one used from Amazon, but, nope. I've had to write out passages from these books because he's stamped his foot and demanded that I "copy and paste" whatever it is, because he's too lazy to read a basic introduction text on the animals he keeps babbling on about.

So, if cladistic analysis were done with humans and only dinosaurs, humans would show up as another dinosaur?

My example was for the simplistic case where A and B are known to be dinosaurs, and the data is good enough to distinguish between C closer to A than B, C closer to B than A and C as to close B as A.

My problem with socrates statement is that he says that when comparing with with only dinosaurs, the result is on a fundamental level in principle guaranteed to have zero value. As if the species turning up deeply inside the clade means the same thing as turning up near the edge.
695
Quote
At times some people here seem to have understood this but not at all times and not everyone here.
This is hard for folks to grasp.
But people here keep trying to distract from the straightforward facts.
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.
This is hard to grasp for the folks here. But if you do grasp it you are well on your way.
Great!
 So, the answer to
Quote
If A and B are both known to be members of the same clade, and analysis determines C to be closer to A than to B, is not C also a member of that clade?
is Yes!

And so: if A and B are both dinosaurs and C is closer to A than to B, C is also a dinosaur.

And therefore it is possible to do an analysis with only dinosaurs to determine if something is a dinosaur.

Are you getting it?
696
Quote
So the lout Dave Godfrey acknowledges the straightforward facts. Now everyone can admit it is obvious.
And what this means is that the stream of cladistic analyses done over the years that add dinosaurs one by one STILL does not tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It adds not one iota of evidence that birds actually evolved from dinosaurs.


If you folks now realize that when a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs that it cannot tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then you know something that very likely almost nobody on planet earth realizes. Most people likely think that more and more evidence has accumulated for the dino to bird theory. In fact not one iota of evidence has accumulated that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

This is hard for people to grasp.
Each small step requires an effort.
Let's go back to the basics;
Well we have had an acknowledgement that if a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs then it will show you how the lineage would go IF birds evolved from dinosaurs. The analysis can do nothing other than that. It cannot tell you that birds did evolve from dinosaurs.
I don't acknowledge this. I think it is wrong. I think that you think this was acknowledged is because you misunderstood someone. Also cladistic analysis with more than dinosaurs was done, and showed birds to be dinosaurs.
I need to go further back.
Tell me.
If A and B are both known to be members of the same clade, and analysis determines C to be closer to A than to B, is not C also a member of that clade?
697
Quote
So the lout Dave Godfrey acknowledges the straightforward facts. Now everyone can admit it is obvious.
And what this means is that the stream of cladistic analyses done over the years that add dinosaurs one by one STILL does not tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It adds not one iota of evidence that birds actually evolved from dinosaurs.


If you folks now realize that when a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs that it cannot tell you that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then you know something that very likely almost nobody on planet earth realizes. Most people likely think that more and more evidence has accumulated for the dino to bird theory. In fact not one iota of evidence has accumulated that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

This is hard for people to grasp.
Each small step requires an effort.
Let's go back to the basics;
Well we have had an acknowledgement that if a cladistic analysis only includes dinosaurs then it will show you how the lineage would go IF birds evolved from dinosaurs. The analysis can do nothing other than that. It cannot tell you that birds did evolve from dinosaurs.
I don't acknowledge this. I think it is wrong. I think that you think this was acknowledged is because you misunderstood someone. Also cladistic analysis with more than dinosaurs was done, and showed birds to be dinosaurs.
698
It seems that socrates is wrong about two things in his most recent and ongoing runaway feedback loop of quotes.
1. Analysis of bird ancestry using only dinosaurs can tell us nothing about whether birds are dinosaurs.
2. Analysis of bird ancestry using more than only dinosaurs has never been done.
699
Is not anything outside a clade equally closely related to all inside that clade?
Humans are equally closely related to bananas and kelp for example.
No?
Kelp isn't a plant, its a brown algae, that belongs in a completely different group (its more distantly related to green plants than, for instance, animals are to fungi). So its possible that kelp could be more closely related to humans than bananas. However so far as I can see both kelp and bananas are members of the "Diaphoretickes" whereas humans (and the other opsithokonts) aren't.

Heh, Diaphoretikes actually means "different ones" in Greek.
OneZoom.com has Bikonta as the most recent common ancestor of banana and kelp
700

Quote
A cladistic analysis that only includes dinosaurs will tell you only what the lineage would be IF birds evolved from dinosaurs. It can never tell you if birds actually did evolve from dinosaurs. Perhaps people here did not realize that.
Anyone care to acknowledge this straightforward truth?
A cladistic analysis that only includes dinosaurs will tell you only what the lineage would be IF birds evolved from dinosaurs. It can never tell you if birds actually did evolve from dinosaurs.
Let me help you with this. If you only include dinosaurs then the cladistic analysis will show you how the lineage would go IF birds evolved from dinosaurs. The analysis can do nothing other than that. It cannot tell you that birds did evolve from dinosaurs. That is obvious. But it is an interesting aspect of cladistic analysis.
If you only include dinosaurs then the cladistic analysis will show you how the lineage would go IF birds evolved from dinosaurs. The analysis can do nothing other than that. It cannot tell you that birds did evolve from dinosaurs. That is obvious. But it is an interesting aspect of cladistic analysis.
It seems to me that if you only include dinosaurs and IF birds are not actually dinosaurs THEN the cladistic analysis will show birds as equally closely related to all dinosaurs. Cladistic analyses does not show that.

Some dinosaurs are closer to birds than others. No?

Is not anything outside a clade equally closely related to all inside that clade?
Humans are equally closely related to bananas and kelp for example.
No?