Re: KT boundry event

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

John Harshman wrote:


Once again you are having trouble with the concept of groups within
groups.


No, I do not. You have trouble with the concept of evolutionary
transformation.

Yes, you do. Evolutionary transformation may turn a dinosaur into a
bird, but it's still a bird after that, just as evolutionary
transformation may turn a mammal into a whale, but it's still a mammal
after that.


Did you mean: "volutionary transformation may turn a dinosaur into a
bird, but it's still a dinosaur after that, just as evolutionary transformation may turn a mammal into a whale, but it's still a mammal after that."?


No matter how much a vertebrate is transformed during evolution,
it's still a vertebrate.


But 'vertebrate' is not the same sort of thing as 'fish' or 'dinosaur'.

How so?

True, but that is because of what the word 'vertebrate' means. It means
'having bones'.

Afraid not. That is its etymological origin, of course. But what the
word means is "belonging to a clade that we choose to give that name
to".

I was referring to the origin of the term. yes. It was intended to
divide slugs etc from animals with backbones.

Except of course that sharks don't have backbones. They have cartilage.
So the etymological origin of a term doesn't matter.

"Tetrapod", for example, includes a great many animals without 4
legs. You will be able to think of a few. When evolution transformed
them so that they lost legs or changed them into non-legs, they didn't
stop being tetrapods. Similarly, sharks lost all their bones, but
they're still vertebrates.

Have you looked up "cladistics" yet?

How about now?

Now matter how much a mammal is transformed,
it's still a mammal.

That is true, but that's because we have not entered a new level of
animals so far. It's NOT true of fish.

You are wrong. Once a mammal, always a mammal, even if it "entered a new
level of animals", whatever that means.

Something more 'advanced' than mammals. Something like mammals are to
fish.

Again, you are wrong. It would still be a mammal. That's the way these
words (the ones that describe taxa) work.

A mammal that no longer has hair
(like a whale, for example) is still a mammal, even though hair is the
primary distinguishing characteristic of mammals. Any other
distinguishing characteristic you like, or even all of them, could be
lost or transformed, and we would still have a mammal. That's because
the actual definition is cladistic.

No, the most important characteristics of mammals are warm-bloodedness
and milk production. Even monotremes have these characteristics.

Not according the usual definition of "mammal". But what if a mammal
lost one or both of these characteristics. Would it no longer be a mammal?

Everyone, including you (I think) agrees with that.

With the stipulations expressed above.

No, without any stipulations at all. You made up the stipulations.


Now just extend that idea to dinosaurs: no matter how much a dinosaur is
transformed during evolution, it's still a dinosaur.

That's simply false and you know it. 'Dinosaurs' are extinct. Some of
their lineages left descendents, as did other groups, both extinct
groups and non-extinct groups.

How do I know that's false? Because a dictionary once said so? But let's
go back to coelacanths. Are they extinct because a dictionary once said
so? Not according to you. And those cases are different
because...because you say so, apparently.

The cases are not parallel. No-one is claiming any modern animal that
is not remotely like a coelacanth is a coelacanth.

Indeed. Nor is anyone claiming that any modern animal that is not
remotely like a dinosaur is a dinosaur. Birds, for example, are quite a
bit like other dinosaurs.

Don't know why we
should say it any differently.

Language makes it so.

How?

Because we cannot change the meanings of words at a whim.

What if it's not a whim? And what if the meaning has already changed,
but you haven't noticed?

See what Sachs said, above.

You have grossly misinterpreted what Sachs said, which is in fact
exactly opposite to your point.

Land snails are still snails.


Right.




Land
arthropods are still arthropods. How come land fish aren't fish any
more?

What's a land fish? I can't find that word in any dictionary.

Back to dictionaries, eh?

I never heard of the word. Don't get smart.

You mistake my meaning. I mean that now you choose to rely on
dictionaries after rejecting the dictionary definition of "bird".

For one, because they can't breathe in water.

Neither can land snails or land arthropods. Try again, and this time
please do try not to point out irrelevancies.

??? Unintelligible.

The point is simple. You say that mammals can't be called "land fish"
because they can't breathe in water. But you have no problem with
calling pulmonates "land snails" even though they can't breathe in
water, so that can't be your actual objection.

Different differences.

How so?

But that's just me.




NOW do you understand?

BIRDS are NOT dinosaurs! The ancestors of birds used to be
dinosaurs, but now they have their own class, birds, just like
mammals do.

I do not understand what you mean by "just like mammals do".

Mammals existed before the KT boundry.

I know this.





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. 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 mammals aren't mammals, and birds aren't birds. Is there no end to
your weirdness?

HUH? Mammals are mammals, not fish. Birds are birds, not dinosaurs.

Because you say so? But we weren't talking here about whether mammals
are fish or birds are dinosaurs. That's a different question. We were
talking about whether extinct animals that everyone except you calls
"mammal" or "bird' are really mammals or birds. Focus on the question at
hand.

Modern vernacular language applies most accurately only to modern
animals. Its use for ancient animals is highly dubious.

According to you and to nobody else in the world.

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.

I would like to point out that at least two people who have read Kant
and the Platypus have said that you are out to lunch.

They have reading comprehension problem, perhaps.

Or perhaps you do. Considering your misinterpretation of both dictionary
definitions and your little quote from that guy Sachs, I'm inclined to
go with the idea that you have reading comprehension problems.

I interpreted the quote precisely. He's referring to the situation in
which a discredited theory changes our understanding of something; some
people want to avoid using the old terminology. A perfect case is
'influenza', or the flu, the viral disease which was formerly believed
to be caused by the influence of heavenly bodies. We DO NOT have to
stop using the word 'influenza' to refer to the viral disease which was
formerly believed to be caused by the influence of heavenly bodies EVEN
THOUGH we now know it is NOT caused by the influence of heavenly
bodies. That's what Sachs was referring to. Read the quote again!

Precisely. So we don't have to stop using the term "dinosaur" once we
realize that it applies to birds also, not just to extinct animals.

As I explained above "birds" is a
much more specific level of classification than "mammals".

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Why?

The variety of mammal body types is much greater than that of birds.

I'll agree with that. But so what?

That the word 'bird' creates a much narrow, more limited picture in
your mind than the word 'mammal' does.

When I hear the word 'mammal', I think of lions, humans, ferrets,
weasers. shrews, mice and rats, squirrels, elephants, cows, dogs, cats,
and whales. Did you know that elephants have breasts, not udders?

Yes, but I don't see the point. We are all agreed that mammals are more
disparate than birds. Again, so what?

It proves that birds are highly specialized and differentiated from
dinosaurs, and to say that they ARE dinosaurs is simply false.

It proves nothing of the sort. Mammals are also more disparate than
tyrannosaurids. Therefore tyrannosaurids are not dinosaurs by your
reasoning. (They're highly specialized too.)

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.

Again, so what? How does that make "bird" more specific than "mammal".

Because when I think of birds, I have a more specific picture in my
mind:

Sparrows, penguins, herons, robins, egrets, pigeons, finches, parrots,
ostriches, etc. All of these resemble each other much more closely than
elephants and weasers.

We could quibble about "much", and in fact I think that elephants
resemble weasels more closely than ostriches resemble hummingbirds. But
I agree that mammals are more disparate than birds. But I don't think
that makes the term "bird" more specific than "mammal". However, let's
say that it is. So what now?

See above.

Nothing useful above.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Yet they are mammals. ... Who said that being a fish requires an aquatic life? ... Your problem here is just like your problem with birds. ... Since there are no aquatic dinosaurs, that gives evidence, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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
    ... Evolutionary transformation may turn a dinosaur into a ... Something more 'advanced' than mammals. ... 'Dinosaurs' are extinct. ... BIRDS are NOT dinosaurs! ...
    (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)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... 'Enough' difference to say that it is false to call birds dinosaurs. ... I frequently call men fish. ... water-dwelling mammals or reptiles, ...
    (talk.origins)