Re: KT boundry event

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


John Harshman wrote:



Whales can't live on land and probably would be hard-pressed to regain
that capability. Yet they are mammals.

Right. Who said that being a mammal requires a terrestrial life?

Who said that being a fish requires an aquatic life?


You're once again wrong.

Merriam-Webster online.

"any of numerous cold-blooded strictly aquatic craniate vertebrates
that include the bony fishes and usually the cartilaginous and jawless
fishes and that have typically an elongated somewhat spindle-shaped
body terminating in a broad caudal fin, limbs in the form of fins when
present at all, and a 2-chambered heart by which blood is sent through
thoracic gills to be oxygenated."

So now you like dictionaries. I notice you use them as it suits you, and
reject them as it suits you.

You're wrong, or am I mistaken? Are you going to admit you're wrong or
not?

You are mistaken.

The point about mammals being fish is a cladistic one.

What has that to do with language?

Word usage has everything to do with language. Perhaps your point is
that the vernacular term "fish" is not generally used to refer to the
clade Gnathostomata. Sure. Usually it's used to refer to any member of
Gnathostomata that's not a member of Tetrapoda, with a few ambiguous
cases near the origin of the clade (is Ichthyostega a fish? Tiktaalik?).

But I wouldn't say it's wrong, precisely, to call tetrapods "fish". It's
not in general usage, but the surprise value leads some people
(obviously not you) to think about their evolutionary history.

It's not part of
the vernacular language.

Right. That;'s my argument.

Then you're right about that little point.

At least not yet. (The part about birds being
dinosaurs is getting to be that way, though.)

Not if I have anything to say about it.

You have nothing to say about it. But why do you care so much? You seem
quite irrationally exercised on this subject.

So, it is SIMPLY FALSE to say men or any mammal is a fish. It's false
on several levels. The gasoline I bought this morning has been
converted to heat and then to angular momentum. It's now no longer
gasoline.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

It has to do with change.

But what does it have to do with evolution?

It has to do with change. Evolution is a kind of change.

Not only don't you understand nested groups, you don't understand nested
categories. Channel-surfing is a kind of change too, but it's neither
gasoline combustion nor evolution. There is no relevance.

Once something has changed, it's no longer what it was before. Fish
become mammals and stop being fish. Whales have to breathe air because
they're mammals and no longer fish. If they were still fish, they would
not have lungs and breathe air.

You do understand, don't you, that there is lots of evolutionary change
within both fish and mammals? Whether something is a "different thing"
after some particular amount of change is arbitrary. And becoming a new
thing doesn't prevent you from still being the old thing too. That's
your lack of understanding of nested groups again.

Mammals existed before the KT boundry.

They did not change names at that
time just because some of them survived.

They had been around much longer that 'earlybirds'.

Have they? Not by the most common definitions, in which Mammalia is
defined as a crown group and Aves includes Archaeopteryx. The fossil
record of birds by this definition actually predates, by just a bit, the
fossil record of mammals. And anyway, wouldn't being around much longer
make things worse for you?

Not necessarily. Anyway, it does not matter. The 'mammals' of this time
were not the same sort of thing as mammals of today. It's a mistake to
call them mammals anyway. We have to use terms like 'mammal-like
reptiles' to get around these problems.

Was this a mammal-like reptile?

Was WHAT a mammal-like reptile?

The animal described in the link.

I didn't see it.

You didn't see the link, or you didn't see the animal because you didn't
look at the link?

I did not see the link at first.

Try it now. Mammal or not?

I'm saying we don't have a separate
word in our regular vocabulary for mammal-like reptiles, so we call
them 'mammal-like reptiles'.

Actually, we used to have a separate word.

Are you simple? We don't have a 'natural' English word for such
animals, which were not lnown to exist until quite recently. No word
like 'bird' or 'dog' or 'fish'.

Maybe not in your vocabulary. Were we for some reason rejecting all
scientific terms from being part of "our regular vocabulary"? If so,
then you're right.

Yes, that's what I mean. We had to make up a scientific word (although
it's not very scientific) for them because they are not current animals
or recent ones, which have vernacular names. We made up the word
'hominid' for ancient animals in the human ancestral tree.

Once again, you miss the nested group thing. Hominids are ancient and
modern, though there's only one modern species. (Or more if you use the
new definition.)

We called them synapsids or
therapsids. But these days the meanings of those words have been changed
to include mammals too, because we like to name only clades.

Your problem here is just like your problem with birds. Where mammals
start is an arbitrary decision, but they have to start at some node or
other. And if all living synapsids are mammals, that node has to be
somewhere in the Mesozoic.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224195600.htm




There are far fewer names than
the things to be referred to, so we tend to group them for referential
convenience. Read Kant and the Platypus.

So what's wrong with grouping pre-KT birds with birds for convenience?

It's inaccurate. Here's why: Australopithicenes are not men. They're
homininds, and modern humans are hominids. We use the scientific term
'Hominid' to refer to all groups related to humans in the present and
past, and 'primate' to refer to the group in the present that includes
humans, apes, and monkeys. The term 'hominid' is one that reaches back
in time, but not across species that are not connected directly to
humans.

That was a very confused paragraph. It didn't explain why "it's
inaccurate" either.

Let me try again. We distinguish older human lineage from modern humans
by using the term 'hominid'.

No we don't. Modern humans are hominids too. You have confused yourself
about nested groups again. For the life of me I can't imagine why you
deny that you don't understand the concept, when you constantly provide
examples.

I expressed myself poorly there. The analogy was to 'avians', which
include modern birds and older forms. We don't call Astralopithecines
'man', right? But they are called hominids and we are called hominids.

Yes. Just as we call both modern birds and a fair number of other forms
birds.

We don't call Australopithecines 'men' or
'apes', because we wish to distinguish them from men and apes. They are
neither: they are called 'hominids'.

Actually, they're "hominins" these days. All apes, these days, are
commonly considered hominids.

That's not what I was taught.'Homo' is the root in 'homonid' to
distinguish them from simians.

How long ago were you taught?

Simians, primates, hominids, hominins, homo, all are differentiated to
a much higher degree in language than avians are.

No idea what that means.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_08.html


'Hominid' is historical (modern back to ancient); 'primate' is modern
only, across various species.

This is nonsense. All hominids are primates. If you think differently,
you are (once again) the only person in the world who does, and
therefore (by the only rules language has) you are wrong.

The term 'primate' refers across species, but not back in time
(although I suppose it could be used that way, but that would not be
the best usage).

It's universally used that way. But why wouldn't that be the best usage?
Because you say so?

To clarify that we're talking about modern versus ancient life.

So you admit that you have just invented this usage, and want everyone
to adopt it?

I admit nothing of the sort.

Why not? You did.

The term 'avians' is probably best. 'Earlybirds' is another possibility
(not, I emphasize 'early birds').

You are inventing a new word to no purpose.

It was just a joke.

But "avians" wasn't. Same thing.

'Avians' is already in use.

Apparently, as a synonym for "bird".

We cannot use the word 'bird' for the same reason we cannot use the
word 'man' to refer to Australopithecines. Australopithecines are not
men, they are Hominids. 'Avians' is probably the best term to use for
'earlybirds', as it is analogous to 'Hominids'.

Again, you are confused about the concept of nested groups.


I certainly am not.

Have it your way. You understand the concept of nested groups but are
deliberately misusing it for unknown purposes.

I certainly am not.

Have it your way. You are confused about the concept of nested groups.
But make up your mind.

We distinguish between 'men' (modern species) from
ancient species which we do not call 'men'.

In fact we do call some ancient species "men". H. neanderthalensis, H.
heidelbergensis, etc.

We link ourselves to them
by using a special scientific name 'hominid' or 'hominim', as I have
just learned). 'Primate' is used to refer to all species closely
related to us, but the intention here is to refer to the modern
species, such as gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc.

Again, you are without a clue. Don't you know that there are quite a few
fossil primates? Or at least, other people call them primates. What
would you like to call them?

We usually
restrict "men" to the genus Homo, or even to Homo sapiens. Men, of
course, are hominids too. But you have not explained why, because we
restrict the scope of "men" in some way, we also have to restrict the
scope of "bird" in the particular way you happen to like.

I was giving an example of a case in which it seemed essential to use a
different term. It seems we're much more sensitive about our own
lineage than that of birds. I don't see the reason to treat birds any
differently than humans. If Australopithecines are not 'men'.
Archaeoptryx is not a bird.

Your problem is that you could use exactly the same reasoning to show
that any word should be used to describe a more restrictive group than
it already does. If australopithecines are not men, horses are not
mammals. Same logic entirely.

Nope. Ancient members of equus are not 'horses' either. 'Horse' is a
vernacular word that refers to the modern animals. Use terms such as
Cormohipparion, Sinohippus, Astrohippus, but not 'horse'.

Everyone other than you calls these "horses". Even Hyracotherium is a
horse.

Classes are all mental constructs and do not actually represent true
attributes of the classes. This is proved by the fact that different
cultural groups hav classed animal and natural phenomena differently.

Read Kant and the Platypus.

On what? Which chapter or page is the relevant one here?

The whole book.

I find that hard to believe. It's a seamless whole, all of which refutes
whatever anyone else says? And it would appear to be a collection of
essays, which in my esperience tend to be self-contained.

Read the book.

Universal answer. Perhaps I should pick a book to be the universal
answer too. Then I wouldn't have to think or try to express myself either.

Unless you read the book, you don't understand what my perspective is.
It's linguistic/conceptual, not biological.

Your perspective makes no sense, and according to the oher people who
have read the book has nothing to do with Eco.

The variety of mammal body types is much greater than that of birds.
This is clearly because of the limitations imposed on body size by the
requirements of flight, as well as the limitations imposed by
bipedalism. The largest birds have given up flight completely in
exchange for large size. Mammals have much less restriction in size.
One of the characters that we recognize as 'birdness' is relatively
small size. Another is wings. Another is a beak of some sort.

New Zealand moa didn't have wings and was 3 m tall.
Archaeopteryx had wings, feathers, a beak of some sort and was
relatively small.
Therefore, Archaeopteryx was more of a bird than moa, QED.

Smallest mammals and birds are about the same size, btw.

The limit is caused by warm-bloodedness. The reason we have no birds
(yet) that live underground or in the water (exclusively) is that not
enough time has gone by since the Cretaceous to allow it, and the
conditions have not been quite right. we have a whole series of mammals
that live in or near the water, to which they show various degrees of
adaptation:

Beavers
Otters
Hippos
Manatees
Seals
Walruses
Porpoises
Whales


As for the birds, only penguins and related species swim under water
and are adpted better for an aquatic environment than terrestrial.

I suggest that you don't know much about birds. There are plenty of
birds that swim under water, and many of them are adapted better for an
aquatic environment than terrestrial.

But they're not like whales that cannot live or function out of water.

So?

That gives evidence that they are highly specialized.

No, it gives evidence that they aren't specialized in the same way as
whales are. Since there are no aquatic dinosaurs, that gives evidence,
according to your claim, that dinosaurs are also highly specialized.

Some of them are even more adapted
than penguins -- grebes, for example, can't even walk. Some extinct
birds went ever further, e.g. Hesperornis.



Penguins are very awkward on land, but they still must breed on land,
because of their hard eggs and need for the young to be born in air.
(Whales cannot come onto land at all, so the young are born at sea.)

Grebes never come onto land either. They build nests of floating vegetation.

They don't live IN the water like whales, do they? They fly, don't
they?

Most of them. If flying is so important, there are a number of
flightless grebe species.


Penguins are not fish. They're birds. They're not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
are all extinct.

Your assertions don't become more convincing with repetition. And you
don't seem to have an argument. Let me summarize your argument for you.

1. Birds are not dinosaurs because dinosaurs are extinct and birds
aren't extinct.

1a. Birds that are extinct aren't really birds.

No, I never claimed that.

It's a logical requirement of your justification. You say the word
"bird" was invented to apply just to modern birds. You have arbitrarily
extended this to the K/T boundary, but you have no justification for
doing so.

It depends on when the avian became 'extinct'. Archaeoptryx is not a
'bird'.

Only because you say so. By the way, you are also inconsistent in your
use of "avian". Above, you claimed it included birds. Here you say it
doesn't.

2. Dinosaurs are extinct because a dictionary says so.

The usage of the word 'dinosaur' is recorded in the dictionary. That
usage reflects what people mean when they use this word.

Some people. It's in flux right now. Scientifically educated people
commonly refer to birds as dinosaurs.

That's confusing and literally false.

I'm sorry you're confused. But it's true.

Dictionaries, of course, don't
keep up.


3. But Latimeria is a coelacanth even though a dictionary says
coelacanths are extinct. This is different because it is, so there.

Not quite the same kind of case. The coelacanths that were thought
extincet were 'fish' too.

The question isn't about fish, but about coelacanths. Your justification
for birds not being dinosaurs was that dinosaurs are extinct according
to the dictionary.

No, the reason I say birds are not dinosaurs is that dinosaurs are
extinct in fact, and that is reflected in the dictionary, restricting
our usage of the vernacular term.

That's circular. Dinosaurs are extinct in fact if and only if you say
that birds aren't dinosaurs. You can't use that as justification for
saying that birds aren't dinosaurs.

Coelacanths are extinct according to the dictionary.
Explain why Latimeria is still a coelacanth, and stop dodging.


4. Anyway, birds are too different from the average dinosaur for the
word to apply properly.

Yes.


5. But whales and humans are still mammals, even though they are more
different from the average mammal than birds are from the average
dinosaur. Because they are, so there.

Not true. Birds are entirely different.

None has teeth
All have wings
All are bipedal
All have feathers

Part 1 is true because you have arbitrarily decided that toothed birds
don't count.

What toothed birds?

The toothed birds that everyone except you says are birds.

Part 2 is true, but some non-avian dinosaurs had wings too.

Pterosaurs?

Pterosaurs, as it happens, aren't dinosaurs. But Microraptor gui is a
dinosaur, and so is Caudipteryx. Look them up.

Part 3 is irrelevant because most non-avian dinosaurs were bipedal too.

Many were not.

But most were. So it isn't a distinquishing feature of birds.

Part 4 is irrelevant because lots of non-avian dinosaurs had feathers
too.

Taken together, the list characterizes birds.

Taken together, the list doesn't actually characterize birds. It
characterizes a multitude of groups, a different one for each character.
And, as it happens, none of them is what we commonly call "birds".

What does "entirely different" mean in this context? Apparently it
means that some of the members of one group have a few different
features from some of the members of another group.

6. Words are not allowed to change meanings because read Kant and the
Platypus. So there.

Words are certainly allowed to change meaning.

Then why don't you allow for the possibility that "dinosaur" might
change meaning?

I certainly think that science should be allowed to progress. The word
'dinosaur', however, is not a scientific one, but one that resides
toady primarily within the vernacular usage. Its usage is governed by
vernacular standards, not scientific ones, and this is what is
represented in the dictionaries.

If you want to say 'Aves' are 'Dinosauria', I have no objection. But
"birds are dinosaurs" is false.

Sorry if I blew your mind. You know, I tell people that birds are
dinosaurs all the time, and the general response is either "yes, I knew
that" or "really? I didn't know that".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Word usage has everything to do with language. ... that the vernacular term "fish" is not generally used to refer to the ... dinosaurs is getting to be that way, ... record of birds by this definition actually predates, by just a bit, the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Meteor strike may not have killed dinos/demise began earlier
    ... for the dinosaurs' extinction. ... Popular theory says that birds and mammals were only able to flourish on ... But Professor Penny and Dr Phillips are not convinced. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Yet they are mammals. ... Your problem here is just like your problem with birds. ... Modern humans are hominids too. ... Birds are not dinosaurs because dinosaurs are extinct and birds ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... The word 'fish' does the job it is asked to do. ... Absolutely unacceptable to say "birds are dinosaurs". ... are not 'insects', but no great harm is done in using this term by the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... become mammals and stop being fish. ... extinct birds may be called birds, ... for birds not being dinosaurs was that dinosaurs are extinct according ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading