Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • You have an unprecedented ability to fool yourself with the most transparent bullshit.

Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 17958 times) previous topic - next topic

DaveGodfrey (+ 1 Hidden) and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Monad
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4200
To be brutally honest, I've been skeptical of the styliformes of Yi, given the virtually identical nature of Yi and Epidexipteryx except for the styliformes.   It seems to me unlikely that Epidexipteryx and Xi could be so similar except for a gigantic styliform bone, evidenced by a single specimen.

Either that or other members of the clade did have membranous wings but not so developed, or the styliform was lost in their fossils. Even in ancestral Panda and Red panda fossils there is quite a range of sizes in the 'thumb' in otherwise similar species.

I can see why Socrates feels a need to question this feature since it would not make sense if this was derived from a pterosaur.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4201
This is a pointless line of discussion.
"Discussion"?
Quote
I am moving back to looking at Yi qi. I will shortly be away for a bit.

Aw man, and I was looking forward to our 'ANTERIOR uropatagium' discussion...
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 #4202
The LSE was drawn on the fossil picture. You can see that.


Oh, so when you said that "the 'bones' are just drawn in", you meant in the picture?

So, elements of a drawing have been drawn in! Fascinating!

Any other meaningful contributions?
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 #4203
The LSE was drawn on the fossil picture. You can see that.


Oh, so when you said that "the 'bones' are just drawn in", you meant in the picture?

So, elements of a drawing have been drawn in! Fascinating!

Any other meaningful contributions?

And what does Socrates think is there in the photo?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4204
I have said  few times that I am not sure that they have interpreted Yi qi correctly. Anyone recall that? Part of my doubt is based on the "bones" they have simply drawn in.

  • Monad
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4205
I have said  few times that I am not sure that they have interpreted Yi qi correctly. Anyone recall that? Part of my doubt is based on the "bones" they have simply drawn in.

Where is your evidence for this? Are you referring to the fossil too, which seems very unlikely? Obviously the drawing is drawn so are you claiming here there is no corresponding bone or impression of bone in the fossil because if so that doesn't seem to match what is observable.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4206
Who among us can possibly doubt that "Socrates" has a much better grasp of how to interpret the fossils (that he's never seen) than do Xu et al. ?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4207
Who among us can possibly doubt that "Socrates" has a much better grasp of how to interpret the fossils (that he's never seen) than do Xu et al. ?
Are you suggesting there is no contradictory evidence for that hypothesis, therefore it must be wrong?
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4208
I have said  few times that I am not sure that they have interpreted Yi qi correctly. Anyone recall that? Part of my doubt is based on the "bones" they have simply drawn in.
You should totes tell Xu about your "doubts". IIRC, you have all his addresses (and have no problem posting them online).
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 #4209
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4210
Not from the "fourth wing finger". As we've already explained.

You're welcome. If you forget again, let us know.
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 #4211
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.

"Us"?

Who've you got with you Socrates?  Is he by any chance wearing a black leather face mask and a ball gag?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4212
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.

"Us"?

Who've you got with you Socrates?  Is he by any chance wearing a black leather face mask and a ball gag?
It's sucky who's wearing the mask and gag.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4213
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4214
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
Perhaps from the Quantum Plenum?  :dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4215
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
  • Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 06:53:35 PM by socrates1

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4216
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.

Poor Socrates.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4217
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
:facepalm:

"Dr." Pterosaur is confused again. Can someone help "Dr." Pterosaur with this?
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 #4218
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
Nothing comes from "nowhere".
Simplistically speaking the membrane and "styliform element" came from skin.
Yes, that is vague, which is appropriate because "comes from" is also vague.
  • Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 01:41:40 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4219
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
In other words, you believe anything as long as it supports the dino to bird theory. And you have to believe the most fantastic things.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4220
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
In other words, you believe anything as long as it supports the dino to bird theory. And you have to believe the most fantastic things.
To be fair, what a lone internet blogger (considered a crackpot by all who know him) considers fantastic, does not count for much.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4221
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
In other words, you believe anything as long as it supports the dino to bird theory. And you have to believe the most fantastic things.
To be fair, what a lone internet blogger (considered a crackpot by all who know him) considers fantastic, does not count for much.
Indeed, anyone who was once (and perhaps still) capable of believing that penguins are not birds has disqualified himself as a judge of what is fantastic.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4222
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
In other words, you believe anything as long as it supports the dino to bird theory. And you have to believe the most fantastic things.
Like animals developing a membrane! for gliding or flying! Who ever thought of such an absurd thing?

If you believe THAT, you can believe ANYTHING!















And, of course...



...The most FANTASTIC things!
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 #4223
Some of those gliding mammals have styliform elements.
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #4224
Perhaps someone could remind us about where the membrane and "styliform element" came from.
From nowhere, right?
If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
In other words, you believe anything as long as it supports the dino to bird theory. And you have to believe the most fantastic things.
So your objections to the pterosaur to bird theory are simply absurd since you would accept anything in the dino to bird theory.