Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: :goonsay:

Topic: Which is more parsimonious? (Read 539 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • socrates1
Which is more parsimonious?
Which is more parsimonious?
Oviraptorids as ground based, feathered dinosaurs? Or secondarily flightless members of Paraves?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #1
Which is more parsimonious?
Oviraptorids as ground based, feathered dinosaurs? Or secondarily flightless members of Paraves?
You dying.
Or getting lost in the great North West.
Or going to Mars.
Or the Center of the Earth.
Or just fucking off,.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #2
Which is more parsimonious?
Oviraptorids as ground based, feathered dinosaurs? Or secondarily flightless members of Paraves?

On behalf of the position that Oviraptorids were ground-based feathered dinosaurs, it is claimed that cladistic analysis supports this interpretation.

Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #3
Sucky, you do know that the paper by Maryanska et al that proposed that Oviraptorosauria are secondarily flightless birds more advanced than Archaeopteryx was a cladistic analysis too? You do know this don't you?

Avialan status for Oviraptorosauri Teresa Maryańska, Halszka Osmólska, and Mieczysław Wolsan
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 47 (1), 2002: 97-116


Quote
Oviraptorosauria is a clade of Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs of uncertain affinities within Maniraptoriformes. All previous phylogenetic analyses placed oviraptorosaurs outside a close relationship to birds (Avialae), recognizing Dromaeosauridae or Troodontidae, or a clade containing these two taxa (Deinonychosauria), as sister taxon to birds. Here we present the results of a phylogenetic analysis using 195 characters scored for four outgroup and 13 maniraptoriform (ingroup) terminal taxa, including new data on oviraptorids. This analysis places Oviraptorosauria within Avialae, in a sister-group relationship with Confuciusornis. Archaeopteryx, Therizinosauria, Dromaeosauridae, and Ornithomimosauria are successively more distant outgroups to the Confuciusornis-oviraptorosaur clade. Avimimus and Caudipteryx are successively more closely related to Oviraptoroidea, which contains the sister taxa Caenagnathidae and Oviraptoridae. Within Oviraptoridae, "Oviraptor" mongoliensis and Oviraptor philoceratops are successively more closely related to the Conchoraptor-Ingenia clade. Oviraptorosaurs are hypothesized to be secondarily flightless. Emended phylogenetic definitions are provided for Oviraptoridae, Caenagnathidae, Oviraptoroidea, Oviraptorosauria, Avialae, Eumaniraptora, Maniraptora, and Maniraptoriformes.
And if you actually read the paper and look at the bootrap values for those nodes the one connecting Confuciusornis and the Oviraptorosauria has a value of 62, and the one connecting Archaeopteryx and the Aves/Oviraptorosauria clade only has a value of 59. Which you yourself agree are "weak".
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #4
Which is more parsimonious?
Oviraptorids as ground based, feathered dinosaurs? Or secondarily flightless members of Paraves?

On behalf of the position that Oviraptorids were ground-based feathered dinosaurs, it is claimed that cladistic analysis supports this interpretation.


But we know that the cladistic analyses show a huge polytomy, so the cladistic analyses do not actually support the position that Oviraptorids were ground-based feathered dinosaurs.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #5
Perhaps we'll never know for sure.
Not much point in anyone other than paleontologists losing sleep over it, AFAICT.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #6
Which is more parsimonious?
Oviraptorids as ground based, feathered dinosaurs? Or secondarily flightless members of Paraves?

On behalf of the position that Oviraptorids were ground-based feathered dinosaurs, it is claimed that cladistic analysis supports this interpretation.


But we know that the cladistic analyses show a huge polytomy, so the cladistic analyses do not actually support the position that Oviraptorids were ground-based feathered dinosaurs.

So we need to consider other aspects since cladistic analysis tells us nothing about this case.

  • socrates1
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #7
End of the line.

Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #8
This is a subset of the clades from the bootstrap thread, from page 23 of this.
 http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf



The polytomy is irrelevant to the elephant in the room, which is that (at a bootstrap value of 97) Oviraptor, Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, and Archaeopteryx are all more closely related to each other than they are to Sinraptor, and (at a bootstrap value of 100) they and Sinraptor are more closely related to each other than they are to Allosaurus

Allosaurus, Sinraptor, and Tyrannosaurus are theropod dinosaurs.  Does anybody want to take a stab at making a sensible argument for Oviraptor, Velociraptor, or Archaeopteryx not being nested within theropod dinosaurs, regardless of their relationship with each other or Tyrannosaurus?

End of the line indeed.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #9
End of the line - Traveling Wilburys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA
  • Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 01:36:56 PM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #10
If people want to contribute to this subject do not move the thread to Alternative Reality. Move it back to Science and I will respond to Dean W who has made the first worthwhile contribution to any of the material I have posted. But if not, so be it.
  • Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 02:07:09 PM by socrates1

  • Faid
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #11
End of the line.

You keep saying that.

I don't think you understand what it means.
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: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #12
If people want to contribute to this subject do not move the thread to Alternative Reality. Move it back to Science and I will respond to Dean W who has made the first worthwhile contribution to any of the material I have posted. But if not, so be it.
Good.

Bye.
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.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #13
If people want to contribute to this subject do not move the thread to Alternative Reality. Move it back to Science and I will respond to Dean W who has made the first worthwhile contribution to any of the material I have posted. But if not, so be it.
Read and respond to your PM please.

Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #14
People other than you will contribute regardless of where the thread is. If you want to quote yourself endlessly and don't respond to other people then you aren't participating in a discussion, so your thread does not belong in a discussion forum.

Given your irrational hatred of cladistics why do you think it wasn't worthwhile pointing out that the paper you rely on used that very methodology, and explicitly described the groupings as clades?
Why do I bother?

Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #15


To boot, this relationship is unquestioned per the dataset Socrates himself cited.  So, If Oviraptor, Velociraptor, and Archaeopteryx are supposedly more closely related to some mysterious pterosaur ancestor than they are to anything else in this cladogram, where does the pterosaur go?  How does that mysterious pterosaur dodge being in a subclade within Theropoda?

Luckily for his fragile self-image,  Socrates will no doubt claim that unfair discrimination precludes him from offering some devasting rebuttal.  So be it.  End of the line, for his pteroidiocy at any rate.



Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #16
If people want to contribute to this subject do not move the thread to Alternative Reality. Move it back to Science and I will respond to Dean W who has made the first worthwhile contribution to any of the material I have posted. But if not, so be it.
If this is about a better alternative to cladistics what better place than Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza?
When it becomes clear what this alternative is and it's sciency enough it can always be moved to science. No?

Why don't you just present this alternative and explain why it is better?
People here want to know if the alternative is actually better before they choose it over something that is bad.
Did you think people here are the kind that think that just because Clinton is bad, Trump must automatically be better?

If this not about a better alternative to cladistics then what is it about?
Are you just here to complain?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #17
... So, If Oviraptor, Velociraptor, and Archaeopteryx are supposedly more closely related to some mysterious pterosaur ancestor than they are to anything else in this cladogram, where does the pterosaur go?  How does that mysterious pterosaur dodge being in a subclade within Theropoda?

You're missing the point.*
The point is cladistics leaves some polytomies unresolved.
Therefore cladistics tells us nothing.
Therefore any phylogenetic trees relying on cladistics are worthless.
Therefore pterosaurs (by some undisclosed methodology other than cladistics).


* (Or pretending to miss the point. As we all know, it is not possible to have a discussion with people who pretend)
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #18
If people want to contribute to this subject do not move the thread to Alternative Reality. Move it back to Science and I will respond to Dean W who has made the first worthwhile contribution to any of the material I have posted. But if not, so be it.

If anyone wants to see how the pieces fit together, check here:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.ca/2017/05/following-logic.html

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #19
lol
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #20
Nothing there about your supposed method for working out any of this. What is it?
Why do I bother?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #21
Perhaps it has something to do with Prisca Sapienta:dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #22
If people want to contribute to this subject do not move the thread to Alternative Reality. Move it back to Science and I will respond to Dean W who has made the first worthwhile contribution to any of the material I have posted. But if not, so be it.

If anyone wants to see how the pieces fit together, check here:
[link deleted]


If you feel there is anything relevant to this thread on that site, cut and paste the information here.  Isn't that the standard you demand?
In the meantime, let's return to your OP.  After all, this is the topic we're here to discuss.

Which is more parsimonious?
Oviraptorids as ground based, feathered dinosaurs? Or secondarily flightless members of Paraves?



We've seen from the paper you cited that the paravian Archaeopteryx is more closely related to Tyrannosaurus than it is to Sinraptor (with an extremely high bootstrap value) and that Archaeopteryx Tyrannosaurus, and Sinraptor are more closely related to each other than to Allosaurus (with an even higher bootstrap value).  If Paraves are more closely related to pterosaurs than they are to Tyrannosaurus, Sinraptor, and Allosaurus, then Figures 1 and 2 above show where a pterosaur would fit in.  Which do you think is more parsimonious.  Let's discuss.
  • Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 09:03:44 AM by Dean W

  • Faid
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #23
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.

  • Peez
Re: Which is more parsimonious?
Reply #24
Quote
author=Dean W:
Let's discuss.
:rofl:

Peez