[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Pneumaticity in Triassic pterosaurs OFFLIST
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 15:15:16 -0700
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Pneumaticity in Triassic pterosaurs OFFLIST
>>> Third, if a given matrix and its scores deliver a
>> single MPT in which all sister taxa are similar in size,
>> shape, niche and chronology, isn't that a good result?
>> I know I'd be suspicious - look at bats.
> Always be suspicious. Go back to MacClade and look for problems.
Are you suggesting that Anne MacClade isn't pretty?
>> or, to bring this back to dinosaurs, aren't
>> therizinosaurs most similar in size, shape, and niche to the
> We're also talking every last bone and every last shape of every last bone.
holy cripes, it has a backbone! with that flat thing sticking up from each
bone in the backbone!
(translation: if you're trying to tell the difference between two raptors, you
probably don't care about the similarities)
>>>>> I can show you the path of most parsimony if
>>>> you're interested.
>>>> Erm, PAUP* will do that... :-)
>>> By that I meant, if you are accidentally excluding any
>> pertinent taxa, you should be told.
>> I know there's a difference between not being aware of
>> excluding taxa, and not listening when it comes to excluding
>> taxa....there's a way to distinguish the two, yes?
> To each his own.
er, I was referring to you; basing my statement upon that which others - far
wiser than I - have attempted to point out to you.
>>>> - For the probably twentieth time, the vertebrate
>>>> record -- let alone our knowledge of it!!! --
>>>> isn't complete enough that we could expect to
>> do what
>>>> the Unnameable Ones ask us to do (to present them
>> a complete
>>>> series of transitional fossils documenting each
>> and every
>>>> speciation-or-whatever between two arbitrary
>>> Respectfully, that's an opinion, David. If I can
>> do it, you can too.
>> I can misspell the names of most prehistoric taxa. does
>> that mean you should too?
> I won't be able to reply any more, Anthony, as you're making a joke of this.
well, you already replied (both here and completely missing the point to my
Desmostylian post)...but besides, I *have to* make a joke of it, otherwise I'll
weep at how you're missing the point others are making.
>>> Also, when you say 'complete series' I hope
>> you don't mean every mother's son. What I'm
>> saying is you'll be able to line them up like the famous
>> Australopithecus to Homo sapiens march.
>> and here I thought evolutionary history was more
>> bush-shaped than ladder-shaped.
> Indeed, when you look at the whole picture. But from bacteria to you there is
> indeed a ladder of parent and child excluding uncles and siblings.
great. when are you going to name all the parents and children who aren't
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.