A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process. It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
Still, the phylogenetics of early
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
and the increasing agreement of
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process. It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account."It's all about you, isn't it?"
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
Still, the phylogenetics of earlyYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.
And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
I'd have thought you might haveAncient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
and the increasing agreement ofOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process. It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account."It's all about you, isn't it?"
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
Still, the phylogenetics of earlyYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.
And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
I'd have thought you might haveAncient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
and the increasing agreement ofOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations? flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
Ichthyosaurs are another group that has been put into archosauromorphs. Wasn't that a surprise for you too?
Of course, none of these placements has anything to do with the "increasing agreement"
of which Erik made so much.
By the way, I have another criticism of Fig. 1. It should have been supplemented
with another tree that didn't concern itself with divergence times but just made
it easy to see what the individual clades are. I had a dickens of a time making sure
turtles weren't archosauromorphs but were archelosaurs according to the tree.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account."It's all about you, isn't it?"
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
Still, the phylogenetics of early
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.
And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement ofOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
In the past you did show great interest in
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
No trolling intended.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account."It's all about you, isn't it?"
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
Still, the phylogenetics of early
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.
And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement ofOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you said this time around, not about the OP:
[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest inI asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
No trolling intended.
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.More flamebait.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account."It's all about you, isn't it?"
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
Still, the phylogenetics of early
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.
And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement ofOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement". Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:
[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest inI asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
No trolling intended.
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.More flamebait.
Peter Nyikos
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
[end of copy]I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,
whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good.
[end of copy]You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer-- University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account."It's all about you, isn't it?"
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
Still, the phylogenetics of early
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.
And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement ofOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988] to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement". Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:
[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest inI asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
No trolling intended.
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.More flamebait.
Peter Nyikos
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT goingWhat part of the above didn't you understand?
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
[repeated from above]
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
[end of copy]To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
The text to which I was referring is this
[also repeated from above]
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
See also below.
whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we[also repeated from above]
stick to paleo, good.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
[end of copy]That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately trolling this time around.
Why don't you post something from the article that you
would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
Peter Nyikos
No trolling intended.
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.More flamebait.
Peter Nyikos
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
I'm also not "flamebaiting" you, whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good. Otherwise, I'm gone.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:31:21 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898I'm not happy with the tree. Nowhere does it mention what Thalattosauria includes, and the genera it includes
for it and for Sauropterygia make it impossible for me to tell in which clade plesiosaurs belong.
I could tell from the silhouette into which group Placodus goes, and ironically, it is the only
listed genus among the two groups whose name I recognized.
So, to work out what belongs with which sub-clade is an arduous process.
It's a tree for specialists in the paleontology of amniotes, catering to nobody else
except amateurs whose main interest is the early sauropsids and synapsids.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I'm pretty sure your happiness was not a factor the authors took into account.
"It's all about you, isn't it?"
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote, in its proper context.
Still, the phylogenetics of early
Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else except
amateurs".
You are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
If working out the details is arduous, well, that's the way it goes.When a mountain labors and brings out a mouse of a tree that caters to perhaps
less than 100 people in the whole world, it reflects no credit on the mountain
that it labored long and arduously.
And the text is hardly better. I did a word search for Thalattosauria and Sauropterygia, and
nowhere does it mention ANY of the genera either group includes.
Worse yet, when I started a word search for "plesiosaur" it stopped at "plesi" with one hit,
an article that falls under "Recommended reading." Not even a footnote or endnote or reference.
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement ofOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
From "not happy" to "happiness"...LOL! In a very real way, authors of scientific papers should be concerned with whether others are satisfied with their assumptions and results.
That should not be restricted to a select group of "others". That Erik wants you to believe they aren't concerned says volumes about Erik, and not a peep about the authors themselves.
Arrogance doesn't necessarily indicate a conscious motive to troll, but regardless...it is ironic, and quite curious, that the result is the same, and that arrogant people often do not see that.
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement of
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:
[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest in
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
No trolling intended.
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
More flamebait.
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
What part of the above didn't you understand?
[repeated from above]
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
[end of copy]To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
The text to which I was referring is this
[also repeated from above]
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
See also below.
whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good.
[also repeated from above]
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
[end of copy]That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately trolling this time around.
Why don't you post something from the article that you
would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
Peter Nyikos
Let me be perfectly clear:
I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not
to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
who is saying what to whom.
The repeated material above is a case in point.
The following is not an insult:
the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.
I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement of
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correctOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:
because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest in
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
What is your definition of trolling, Erik?No trolling intended.
Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case, copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify when called out on it.
I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."More flamebait.
And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
after I called out on it:
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
What part of the above didn't you understand?
[repeated from above]
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
[end of copy]To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
The text to which I was referring is this
<crickets>[also repeated from above]
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
That's another form of trolling.I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
See also below.
You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good.
[also repeated from above]
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
[end of copy]That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
Here came the invitation:I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
trolling this time around.
Why don't you post something from the article that you
would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
Peter Nyikos
Let me be perfectly clear:You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise notJillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
who is saying what to whom.
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter
small excerpt:
It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was, that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read. The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
[end of excerpt]
The repeated material above is a case in point.
I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
The following is not an insult:True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
as well as declining my invitation [see above].
Peter Nyikos
On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement of
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correctOf turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:
because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest in
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
What is your definition of trolling, Erik?No trolling intended.
Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case, copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
when called out on it.
I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."More flamebait.
And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
after I called out on it:
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
What part of the above didn't you understand?
[repeated from above]
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
[end of copy]To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
The text to which I was referring is this
<crickets>[also repeated from above]
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
That's another form of trolling.I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
See also below.
You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good.
[also repeated from above]
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
[end of copy]That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
Here came the invitation:I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
trolling this time around.
Why don't you post something from the article that you
would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
Peter Nyikos
Let me be perfectly clear:You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise notJillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
who is saying what to whom.
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter
small excerpt:
It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was, that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
[end of excerpt]
The repeated material above is a case in point.
I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
The following is not an insult:True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
as well as declining my invitation [see above].
Peter Nyikos
This post is a perfect example of the sort of thing I have absolutely no intention of reading through ( haven't).
It's clear to me we have nothing to discuss.
[end of repetition]I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track ofJillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
who is saying what to whom.
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter
On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement of
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:
because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest in
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
What is your definition of trolling, Erik?No trolling intended.
Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
when called out on it.
I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."More flamebait.
And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
after I called out on it:
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
What part of the above didn't you understand?
[repeated from above]
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
[end of copy]To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
The text to which I was referring is this
<crickets>[also repeated from above]
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
That's another form of trolling.I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
See also below.
You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good.
[also repeated from above]
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
[end of copy]That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
Here came the invitation:I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
trolling this time around.
Why don't you post something from the article that you
would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
Peter Nyikos
Let me be perfectly clear:You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise not to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track ofJillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
who is saying what to whom.
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter
small excerpt:
It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
[end of excerpt]
The repeated material above is a case in point.
I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
The following is not an insult:True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
as well as declining my invitation [see above].
You are being disingenuous here, as usual, Erik:Peter Nyikos
This post is a perfect example of the sort of thing I have absolutely no intention of reading through ( haven't).Especially since jillery has shackled herself to you with the following ridiculous
It's clear to me we have nothing to discuss.
projection of a deficiency of hers onto me, in direct reply to you:
"ISTM the peter is incapable of separating substance from noise."
This shackling was NOT the main reason I wrote the following in the above post,
which stands on its own merits:
[repeated from above]
I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track ofJillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
who is saying what to whom.
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
[end of repetition]https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ
Re: Bad Form, Peter
The jillery's shackling was already predictable from the intellectual prostitution
of the integrity of both of you in opposite directions over the years.
IIRC both of you have acted all that time as though you were ignorant of what the other was doing. Now it is out in the open.
Peter Nyikos
On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 6:13:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 3:20:19 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 5:49:30 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 10:54:08 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
I'd have thought you might have
been interested in the discussion of the difficulties in placement of turtles,
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
and the increasing agreement of
morphological vs. genetic analysis.
You never answered this question, Erik, probably because the correct answer was "Nothing else." And I gave the reason:Of turtles, and what else that wasn't already agreed on in Carroll's 1988 text?
Genetic analysis can't touch long extinct species.
All Sauropterygians died out before the Cenozoic, and
all Thalattosaurs during the Triassic.
Thus, moving placodonts from Diapsida Incertae Sedis [Carroll, 1988]
to Sauropterygia had NOTHING to do with the "increasing agreement".
PS Do you deny engaging in deliberate flamebait with your misrepresentations?
flamebait = trolling with hopes of getting the targeted person to be "rude" to you
I called attention to what I regard as an interesting article. No flamebait.
I'm changing the "flamebait" accusation to the more general one of trolling [see below for my definition]Transparently disingenous (= more flamebait). I said that because of what you
said this time around, not about the OP:
because I can't document your hopes, and your "reply" to my accusation named something innocuous
that you did, followed by transferring the "denial" to *it*.
You breezed by this documentation of trolling as though it hadn't existed.[repeated from above]
[end of copy]Synapsids and Sauropsids is a very active area in current paleonlotogy, not "catering to nobody else exceptYou are changing the subject from the paper to something that is such a no-brainer,
amateurs".
even Glenn would probably agree with it, and cherry-picking words of mine into a context
where you know they don't belong.
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
In the past you did show great interest in
the phylogenitic placement of turtles, making much of the difference between trees
constructed using morphology alone, or molecular phylogeny. This paper addresses that.
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
What is your definition of trolling, Erik?No trolling intended.
Mine is making provocative statements that lack integrity -- in your case,
copious highly disingenuous statements -- which you make no effort to justify
when called out on it.
I called you out on one of them in my next comment, which you ignored:
If you are sincere, you must offend a lot of people without realizing it.
If you think they all wrong, fine. I'm not arguing with you.
I may have misread your intent, so I am modifying the accusation to "More trolling."More flamebait.
And here you are, doing more trolling [keyword: "delve"] that you make no effort to justify
after I called out on it:
If you want to talk about the substance of the paper, great; I'll participate. I'm NOT going
to delve into your previous posts to look for your question. If it's important, just ask.
What part of the above didn't you understand?
[repeated from above]
I asked you a question about that above, which you are ignoring. Can you find it and answer it?
[end of copy]To make it easy for you, I improved on the text to which you bottom-posted
by putting in spacing before and after the question. Google keeps ignoring spacing
between lines of text which it is hiding.
The text to which I was referring is this
<crickets>[also repeated from above]
Ancient history. What *new* difficulties did they bring up?
That's another form of trolling.I'm also not "flamebaiting" you,For this time around, I'll put you down for "selectively ignoring an indeterminate amount of new text in the post to which you are replying."
See also below.
You showed no inclination to stick to it, despite my invitation below.whatever you perceive, not will I argue about that. If we
stick to paleo, good.
[also repeated from above]
You don't seem interested, and raised objections.
[end of copy]That shows I AM interested. And now that I've read more of it, I have changed
my overall opinion of it. If you want to know how, clean up your act.
Here came the invitation:I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you weren't deliberately
trolling this time around.
Why don't you post something from the article that you
would like for us to discuss? I'm really short on time by now.
Peter Nyikos
Let me be perfectly clear:You are channeling Richard Nixon. :)
I'm not going to pretend that we are simpatico, but I will promise notJillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
to insult you. I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track of
who is saying what to whom.
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ Re: Bad Form, Peter
small excerpt:
It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.
I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...
[end of excerpt]
The repeated material above is a case in point.
I believe you would be delighted to see how flagrantly jillery and Zen Cycle were working the opposite side
of the street from your workings here, if you could bring yourself to read the whole post I've linked.
The following is not an insult:True, I do not find such mild condescension insulting.
the paper cites a number of "surprises" and you can enumerate them as well as I.You brought the paper to our attention, so you might have had some surprises in
I also have other things to occupy myself. Have fun.
mind that nobody else might have thought of. So "them" is begging the question,
as well as declining my invitation [see above].
You are being disingenuous here, as usual, Erik:Peter Nyikos
This post is a perfect example of the sort of thing I have absolutely no intention of reading through ( haven't).Especially since jillery has shackled herself to you with the following ridiculous
It's clear to me we have nothing to discuss.
projection of a deficiency of hers onto me, in direct reply to you:
"ISTM the peter is incapable of separating substance from noise."
This shackling was NOT the main reason I wrote the following in the above post,
which stands on its own merits:
[repeated from above]
I rarely read your longer posts to the end or at all; I find it too hard to keep track ofJillery should be delighted to see you are (unwittingly, perhaps) working the opposite side of
who is saying what to whom.
the street from herself and Zen Cycle, which they worked to the hilt over in talk.origins:
[end of repetition]https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/pN6QVZE-BwAJ Re: Bad Form, Peter
The jillery's shackling was already predictable from the intellectual prostitution
of the integrity of both of you in opposite directions over the years.
IIRC both of you have acted all that time as though you were ignorant of what
the other was doing. Now it is out in the open.
I'm pretty sure your happiness is not a factor that Peter takes into account.Peter NyikosLast call: Reading your recent posts make my brain itch. Engaging you is like scratching; makes the itch worse.
What items of interest to me seem always to be accompanied by many more lines of boasting, insults,
irrelevant digressions and denunciations of third parties who may or may not be following the conversations.
As if it could be made even more unappealing, much of it is highly repetitive and in a word, boring. So just forget
it. I know the denunciations will continue, probably for years, and that bothers me not at all. After all, I don't itch
anymore.
On 8/23/22 12:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
Ichthyosaurs are another group that has been put into archosauromorphs. Wasn't that a surprise for you too?
It would have been if I had noticed, but I was concentrating on Sauropterygia.
Of course, none of these placements has anything to do with the "increasing agreement"
of which Erik made so much.
By the way, I have another criticism of Fig. 1. It should have been supplemented
with another tree that didn't concern itself with divergence times but just made
it easy to see what the individual clades are. I had a dickens of a time making sure
turtles weren't archosauromorphs but were archelosaurs according to the tree.
I had no trouble reading the tree.
And of course Science likes to cut
space to the bone, so two versions of the same tree would be very
unlikely to make it into the paper.
Reviewing this thread as part of a recent discussion/debate on the "False Dichotomy..." thread,
I noticed that there were a couple of loose ends on it.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:19:49 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/23/22 12:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:34:55 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/20/22 9:47 AM, erik simpson wrote:
A new dataset of morphlogical characters is used to build an evolutionary tree for Amniotes and early Synapsids and Sauropsids. Bayesian analysis, and divergence times estimates are included.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq1898
I note that, though the text doesn't mention it, the tree makes
sauropterygians into archosauromorphs, when if I recall they have
previously been considered more closely related to lepidosaurs.
Ichthyosaurs are another group that has been put into archosauromorphs.
Wasn't that a surprise for you too?
It would have been if I had noticed, but I was concentrating on
Sauropterygia.
Both were surprises for me; I hadn't even been aware of ichthyosaurs being
in the sauropsid crown group. Were you?
Carroll (1988) hadn't placed either them or the sauropterygians insidedistinct order, Sauropterygia, which may be a sister group of the lepidosaurs." [p. 241]
what we now consider to be the crown group:
"The placodonts appear to be derived from among early diapsids, but we cannot be more specific about their ancestry at present. Nothosaurs and plesiosaurs are united by unique features of the skull and shoulder girdle that support their inclusion in a
Benton (2005) third edition has the placodonts in a clade with sauropterigians on Fig.6.6, p. 150,
with lepdidosauroformes as the sister group, but ichthyosaurs are outside the sauropsid crown group.
Of course, none of these placements has anything to do with the "increasing agreement"
of which Erik made so much.
The only increasing agreement, at least according to the article Erik linked, was in
the placement of turtles, where previously the morphological evidence was
at odds with the molecular. Carroll, relying only on the morphological, placed
turtles outside Diapsida. Ironically, this resulted in sauropterytgians being inside
the sauropsid crown group, for an entirely different reason than this article has them.
By the way, I have another criticism of Fig. 1. It should have been supplemented
with another tree that didn't concern itself with divergence times but just made
it easy to see what the individual clades are. I had a dickens of a time making sure
turtles weren't archosauromorphs but were archelosaurs according to the tree.
I had no trouble reading the tree.
This was the only hard part for me. The twofold division above is extremely tall
and extremely thin, crammed into the "G" portion of the Permian.
And of course Science likes to cut
space to the bone, so two versions of the same tree would be very
unlikely to make it into the paper.
What with all the nodes labeled with dates, it would have been child's play to expand the "G" portion of the tree two or threefold with a little note at the
bottom about that.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 97:01:39 |
| Calls: | 6,764 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,370 |
| Posted today: | 1 |