Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: if anyone on this site uses comic sans i will fucking murder them, is that perfectly clear, jb?

Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 17770 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • socrates1
No value for lack of feathers
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.


Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #1
At least you won't be pontificating (i.e., lying) about support indices anymore.  Carry on.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #2
BTW, with all your "research" and communication with experts over the past year (yeah, right), you are still so ignorant of cladistics as to not think to look at the value for that trait in the outgroup.  What a staggering intellect you possess.

? 0 1 !!!

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3
Repeat after me, "synapomorphies = shared derived characters."  You still don't understand what derived means.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4
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.

  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 08:57:19 AM by socrates1

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #5
You question the integrity of the analyses.  Just like you questioned support indices.  How'd that work out?  What a pathetic silly man you are.  But please continue.  Perhaps another year of "study" and pestering experts will help.  But probably not.  Nest more of your own inane quotes.  Entertain us while demonstrating yet again what a pompous ignorant lying fraud you are.
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 09:23:56 AM by Dean W

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6
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".

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #7
Odd. No value for lack of feathers.


Odd. You're still posting.
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
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #8
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.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #9
Good lord, Socrates.  Take a step back and remember how pig-ignorant and stupid you are.  Remember how I shut you down cold regarding support indices?  How utterly wrong you were on that one?  You suffer from a severe misconception about your intellectual powers.

  • Monad
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #10
Character 1 is referring to the shape of the feathers in terms of their aerodynamic properties, not whether there are feathers, that is a separate character (2 actually) - it would be stupid to add it to this particular character for several reasons:

Character 455: Feathers, filamentous integumentary structures (Stage 1 feathers):
0: absent
1: present
Character 456: Feathers, vaned feathers (Stage 4 feathers):
0: absent
1: present

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #11
It would be because the character would have to be coded as 'present' in the species its known to be present in, and '?', or unknown in everything else, because we have no way of conclusively showing they're absent in everything else.

So it would be an utterly fucking useless character.
Why do I bother?

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #12
Socrates,
Think about the effect "ability to purr" had on this analysis and you might get a clue.  Does "autopomorphy" ring a bell in all your "research"?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #13
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.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #14
Character 1 is referring to the shape of the feathers in terms of their aerodynamic properties, not whether there are feathers, that is a separate character (2 actually) - it would be stupid to add it to this particular character for several reasons:

Character 455: Feathers, filamentous integumentary structures (Stage 1 feathers):
0: absent
1: present
Character 456: Feathers, vaned feathers (Stage 4 feathers):
0: absent
1: present


If Socrates were honest, your post would shut him down.  He'd admit that he fucked up by just looking at the first character in a list of
hundreds, because his "research" abilities are negligible.  But of course we all know what a dishonest, lying prick he is.  So, he'll just double-down on the stupidity and keep on self-quoting.  All we can do is keep poking him with a stick to make him perform for our amusement.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #15
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And to top it off they have it as unknown ("?") in the outgroup Allosaurus.

Hey fuckhead, how do you think a "?" in the outgroup is used in cladistic analyses?  Get a clue.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #16
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.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #17
Try addressing Monad's post if you want to "deal" with something.  Until you do, you earn every insult you receive, asswipe.  And why don't you talk about support indices if you want to "deal" with something else?  Gutless fuck.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #18
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.

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.

  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 11:32:09 AM by socrates1

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #19
Nobody's enraged.  You overestimate your "challenge" to the analyses.  You're amusing and it's fun to pop your balloons over and over again while you flail and make stupid arguments because you are so utterly ignorant of every single thing involved.  Tell us (it's OK to lie), have you ever wondered why you've never convinced anybody anywhere that you have a valid point?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #20
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.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #21
So Socrates is flinging poo frantically.  Well professor, here's every manus character used in Brusatte.  Give us a detailed explanation why any or all of them are invalid.  Cut and paste your references, or don't bother.  You know the drill.

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

When you've finished, we will move on to carpals and tarsals.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #22
BTW, the Brusatte study had a 97% bootstrap value for the Coelurosauria clade (including Paravians).  Think about that.  853 characters randomly shuffled and analyzed, and 97% of the trees retained the Coelurosauria clade.  Wow.  97%

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #23
LOL



 :awgee:



ETA: Monad already took care of it, of course.
  • Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 01:01:21 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.

  • MikeS
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #24
This is a Dave level fail.