Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitudeevironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitudeevironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.
I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
On 7/4/22 2:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.
I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I looked around but couldn't find that defiance explicitly. Did you
infer it from something in the article, and if so, what?
That conventional wisdom is quite well supported. And of course in order
not to be secondarily anapside they would have to be equally far from
both birds and lepidosaurs, i.e. originating below the diapsid node.
There may be a couple of paleontologists who still think they're parareptiles, but I'm not sure that's still true.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:21:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On 7/4/22 2:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.
I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I looked around but couldn't find that defiance explicitly. Did you
infer it from something in the article, and if so, what?
You didn't take a good look at Fig. 3. I would have thought your eyes would have
been drawn to that cladogram like bees to a flowering bush.
Our big blueberry bushes made that simile a natural.
That conventional wisdom is quite well supported. And of course in order
not to be secondarily anapside they would have to be equally far from
both birds and lepidosaurs, i.e. originating below the diapsid node.
That, in fact, was the conventional wisdom before molecular systematics totally
dethroned morphological.
Trouble is, a few new discoveries of fossil stem turtles could upset the apple-cart.
There may be a couple of paleontologists who still think they're
parareptiles, but I'm not sure that's still true.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
<snip shameless flamebait by Harshman>
On 7/4/22 7:06 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:21:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 2:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here: >>>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
<snip shameless flamebait by Harshman>
Another superfluous bit.
Why not just snip it if you don't want to
reply? Why the need to characterize it?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:46:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 7:06 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:21:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 2:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here: >>>>>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
<snip shameless flamebait by Harshman>
Another superfluous bit.
Your flamebait exemplified your obsession with protecting Erik Simpson from the
consequences of his irresponsible behavior. The "awful lot of wasted time" [see above]
on that other thread was due to you giving full vent to this obsession and
my having to issue corrections to keep newcomer The Sight Reader
from having the wool pulled over his eyes.
Why not just snip it if you don't want to
reply? Why the need to characterize it?
Why the need for you to respond at all? Were you so obsessed by your concern for Erik,
that you did not realize that this was the FIRST (and still the only)
time I directly confronted Erik with his irresponsible behavior?
That is not a rhetorical question. I expect a Yes or No answer. You may accompany
it with a denial of any obsession by you, if you wish.
Thanks to your overprotective behavior, Erik had up to then been in a position
where he could act blissfully unaware of the damage he had done.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
On 7/6/22 7:06 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:46:13 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 7:06 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:21:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/4/22 2:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here: >>>>>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
<snip shameless flamebait by Harshman>
Another superfluous bit.
Your flamebait exemplified your obsession with protecting Erik Simpson from theAnd you were behaving so well for a while since your return. Pull back
consequences of his irresponsible behavior. The "awful lot of wasted time" [see above]
on that other thread was due to you giving full vent to this obsession and my having to issue corrections to keep newcomer The Sight Reader
from having the wool pulled over his eyes.
from that abyss.
Why not just snip it if you don't want to
reply? Why the need to characterize it?
Why the need for you to respond at all? Were you so obsessed by your concern for Erik,
that you did not realize that this was the FIRST (and still the only)
time I directly confronted Erik with his irresponsible behavior?
That is not a rhetorical question. I expect a Yes or No answer. You may accompanyNo. Shall we go back to paleontology?
it with a denial of any obsession by you, if you wish.
Thanks to your overprotective behavior, Erik had up to then been in a position
where he could act blissfully unaware of the damage he had done.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "Yankee
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Let me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Let me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or the
early Jurassic or turtles? And if you had some point to make, what was it?
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:51:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or theLet me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here: >>>>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
early Jurassic or turtles? And if you had some point to make, what was it?
Why do you not take your own advice?
"Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored."
What did that have to do with anything? Was it a "point"?
On 7/6/22 10:49 PM, Glenn wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:51:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>> Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or theLet me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here: >>>>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
early Jurassic or turtles? And if you had some point to make, what was it?
Why do you not take your own advice?
"Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored."
What did that have to do with anything? Was it a "point"?
Do you agree that you are best ignored? Is there any reason a person
might like to converse with you?
Why do you not take your own advice?
"Word of advice: Glenn is best ignored."
What did that have to do with anything? Was it a "point"?
I missed where you obsessively defended me from the onslaught of Peter's scorn,
to be true".Be advised that 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian who can see the downside to any kind of curiosity. Fakes have been presented in paleontology, but they're generally quickly found out. Real fossils are very rarely "too good
Readers may not notice that nothing was said in this thread about "fakes". Yet reconstructions and dating are not absolute and sometimes do reflect a bias, if not an economic motive. So is a fossil that is a composite of parts from different animals,or from a different location, a "fake"?
I think you fit the label contrarian more accurately than I, since I provide only truth where you use words such as "generally" and "very rarely" to support your bias, as well as claiming that "real" fossils are rarely "too good to be true", withoutsupport of any kind offered except your flapping lips.
Erik seriously misunderstood what those links were all about.
Have you even looked at them?
No, but it seems clear that he's attacking paleontology, especially in
the second link, which plays up the prevalence of faked (composite) fossils.
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or theLet me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here: >>>>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
early Jurassic or turtles?
It's off-topic in the most strict sense of the word, but then you
have gone far further off-topic in a lot of your posts.
And if you had some point to make, what was it?
I have no way of reading Glenn's mind, but the video suggests a forgery
of the same degree of seriousness as the Piltdown forgery.
The video is only three and a half minutes long. I suggest you take a good look,
then try to find out whether it has been debunked and if so, where.
Be careful to distinguish where it shows clips from a PBS "Nova" program and where Dr. David Menton is editorializing.
PS I dislike the way Glenn avoided answering your second question. Unfortunately,
evasiveness is all too common around here; I showed a striking example near the end
of my reply to Erik a bit less than an hour ago.
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Let me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or the
early Jurassic or turtles?
And if you had some point to make, what was it?
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low latitude
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Let me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here: >>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or the
early Jurassic or turtles?
It's off-topic in the most strict sense of the word, but then you
have gone far further off-topic in a lot of your posts.
And if you had some point to make, what was it?I have no way of reading Glenn's mind, but the video suggests a forgery
of the same degree of seriousness as the Piltdown forgery.
The video is only three and a half minutes long. I suggest you take a good look,
then try to find out whether it has been debunked and if so, where.
Be careful to distinguish where it shows clips from a PBS "Nova" program and where Dr. David Menton is editorializing.
PS I dislike the way Glenn avoided answering your second question. Unfortunately,Apparently you dislike my "avoidance" because you regard it as evasiveness. Most everyone else appears to dislike my "avoiding" such questioning because it is often said that I never give my opinion on anything. Do you agree with that? Have you considered what "a point" really means? And why these evolutionists often demand one?
evasiveness is all too common around here; I showed a striking example near the end
of my reply to Erik a bit less than an hour ago.
What a fascinating idea! I just kinda skimmed the article, but a cold snap would certainly explain why feathered dinosaurs might have outlasted the pseudosuchians. I’m wondering about the therapsids, though: if I recall correctly, the big cynodontsand dicynodonts came from a Permian that was much colder than the Triassic, so I would think the lowering of global temperatures would not have posed a significant challenge for them.
If global cooling was indeed a factor in Triassic extinctions, is there any way global temperatures could have been the DOMINANT factor in the extinctions? Were these bigger therapsids already extinct, or might there be an alternate mechanism otherthan temperature - perhaps something about those atmospheric CO2 concentrations - that led to their demise? Can cold temperatures explain why the smaller, more cursorial crocodylomorphs survived while their bigger cousins did not?
What a fascinating idea! I just kinda skimmed the article, but a cold snap would certainly explain why feathered dinosaurs might have outlasted the pseudosuchians. I’m wondering about the therapsids, though: if I recall correctly, the big cynodontsand dicynodonts came from a Permian that was much colder than the Triassic, so I would think the lowering of global temperatures would not have posed a significant challenge for them.
If global cooling was indeed a factor in Triassic extinctions, is there any way global temperatures could have been the DOMINANT factor in the extinctions?
Were these bigger therapsids already extinct, or might there be an alternate mechanism other than temperature - perhaps something about those atmospheric CO2 concentrations - that led to their demise?
Can cold temperatures explain why the smaller, more cursorial crocodylomorphs survived while their bigger cousins did not?
Thanks for any ideas!
Sight Reader, I don't recall whether I told you that I almost never post here on weekends,
I believe it was competition from the rapidly evolving archosaurs that is responsible for their demise.
By the end of the Cretaceous, ALL but one or two of the many pterosaur species had wingspreads
of substantially more than 2 meters; whereas NONE of the birds known from that time had a wingspread greater than that.
Possibly they had retained the old reptilian habit of hibernating through the winter.
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:flourishing in archosaur populations - especially in the niches the large therapsids occupied? If, conversely, therapsid extinction was concurrent with pseudosuchian extinctions, then might environmental mechanisms - such as Atlantic rift volcanism - be
Sight Reader, I don't recall whether I told you that I almost never post here on weekends,
Oh, don’t worry about that! I post whenever I find time and am not in any particular rush to see an answer and J Harshman already posted some helpful thoughts!
I believe it was competition from the rapidly evolving archosaurs that is responsible for their demise.
Hmm. Could we check this competition hypothesis by determining exactly when these large therapsids went extinct? If it was indeed archosaur competition that wiped them out, then would you expect therapsid extinction to be accompanied by a concurrent
rausuchians. Sauropods, of course, seemed to leapfrog the size of everybody with their ability to access and digest completely different types of vegetation than anyone had ever gotten to. However, where were the large therapsids at this time? Were theyBy the end of the Cretaceous, ALL but one or two of the many pterosaur species had wingspreads
of substantially more than 2 meters; whereas NONE of the birds known from that time had a wingspread greater than that.
I wonder if that dynamic was present in the late Triassic as well? It seemed that dinosaurs were positively bursting at the seams in the small predatory roles but were being held off from the large predatory roles until the extinction of the
Possibly they had retained the old reptilian habit of hibernating through the winter.
Ooh! Interesting possibility! Where might those little guys find a safe place to hibernate? I wonder if anyone has ever found a crocodylomorph burrow - or were they even capable of digging?
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:flourishing in archosaur populations - especially in the niches the large therapsids occupied? If, conversely, therapsid extinction was concurrent with pseudosuchian extinctions, then might environmental mechanisms - such as Atlantic rift volcanism - be
Sight Reader, I don't recall whether I told you that I almost never post here on weekends,Oh, don’t worry about that! I post whenever I find time and am not in any particular rush to see an answer and J Harshman already posted some helpful thoughts!
I believe it was competition from the rapidly evolving archosaurs that is responsible for their demise.Hmm. Could we check this competition hypothesis by determining exactly when these large therapsids went extinct? If it was indeed archosaur competition that wiped them out, then would you expect therapsid extinction to be accompanied by a concurrent
rausuchians. Sauropods, of course, seemed to leapfrog the size of everybody with their ability to access and digest completely different types of vegetation than anyone had ever gotten to. However, where were the large therapsids at this time? Were theyBy the end of the Cretaceous, ALL but one or two of the many pterosaur species had wingspreadsI wonder if that dynamic was present in the late Triassic as well? It seemed that dinosaurs were positively bursting at the seams in the small predatory roles but were being held off from the large predatory roles until the extinction of the
of substantially more than 2 meters; whereas NONE of the birds known from that time had a wingspread greater than that.
Possibly they had retained the old reptilian habit of hibernating through the winter.Ooh! Interesting possibility! Where might those little guys find a safe place to hibernate? I wonder if anyone has ever found a crocodylomorph burrow - or were they even capable of digging?
Thanks again!
Modern crocodiles make burrows in river banks. It's been supposed that
the survived the K/T extinction for that reason. Burrowing saves you
from broiling.
By coincidence, I am currently reading "The Rise and Reign of the Mammals" byStever Brusatte. It's a modern look at current paleotological ideas, lots of history, and not too technical for a persistent layman. I'll give a short summary tomorrow abouthis discussion of the end-Triassic exctinction event and its follow-ons.
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:capability from skeletal anatomy?
Modern crocodiles make burrows in river banks. It's been supposed that
the survived the K/T extinction for that reason. Burrowing saves you
from broiling.
Maybe I’ll need to learn to do that this summer… getting sick of 100 degree days. I wonder - can you tell from a croc’s anatomy that they burrow well? Those cute little crocodylomorphs seem so delicate: would you be able to detect burrowing
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:capability from skeletal anatomy?
Modern crocodiles make burrows in river banks. It's been supposed that
the survived the K/T extinction for that reason. Burrowing saves you
from broiling.
Maybe I’ll need to learn to do that this summer… getting sick of 100 degree days. I wonder - can you tell from a croc’s anatomy that they burrow well? Those cute little crocodylomorphs seem so delicate: would you be able to detect burrowing
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:24:20 PM UTC-6, erik simpson wrote:his discussion of the end-Triassic exctinction event and its follow-ons.
By coincidence, I am currently reading "The Rise and Reign of the Mammals" byStever Brusatte. It's a modern look at current paleotological ideas, lots of history, and not too technical for a persistent layman. I'll give a short summary tomorrow about
Ooh ooh, I can’t wait! I think Brusatte is a very talented teacher and works both hard and enthusiastically to make his writing accessible to us laymen who cause most researchers to lose patience.
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:20:40 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:his discussion of the end-Triassic exctinction event and its follow-ons.
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:24:20 PM UTC-6, erik simpson wrote:
By coincidence, I am currently reading "The Rise and Reign of the Mammals" byStever Brusatte. It's a modern look at current paleotological ideas, lots of history, and not too technical for a persistent layman. I'll give a short summary tomorrow about
Ooh ooh, I can’t wait! I think Brusatte is a very talented teacher and works both hard and enthusiastically to make his writing accessible to us laymen who cause most researchers to lose patience.
Well, I tried a response earlier this afternoon, but it's not here. Imust have blown it off. Maybe that's just as well; I'm not
particularly qualified to paraphrase a chapter in Brusatte's book, so I'll just briefly describe what he talks about. First, there's
a couple more books I'll recommend:
"The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs", also by Brusatte.
"Vertebrate Evolution" by Donald Prothero.
The latter is quite different in its approach, being more of a systematic catalog of the important clades. It's more technical in language,
but somewhat disappointing that it isn't more extensive with more references. It's also sloppy in editing here and there, but
overall it's quite informative (at least for me). Pros will want more. All three books are accessible, and can be had for less than
the cost of a tank of gas.
Brusatte's books are aimed at the interested adult, and are much more story-line organized. He's a fluid writer, and includes
not only the titular subject but lots of the paleontological history surrounding it.
This is a brief summary of the second chapter of Brusatte's mammal book "Making a mammal". He bookends the chapter with
two famous mammals; Thrinaxodon and Moganucodon. The former is a cynodont (derived from therapsids) and the latter is
a mammaliaform (derived from cynodonts). Thrinaxodon appeared very early in the Triassic, soon after the end-Permian mass
extinction. It resembled a small weasel in size, but retained some of sprawled limbs more characteristic of therapsids. Moganucodon
was mouse-sized, but its limbs are fully under the body, its principle jaw joint was that of a modern mammal, and there are some
who would call it a mammal. (Most paleontologists don't, and Brusatte discusses the difference between character-based and
crown clade definitions. He then calls it a mammal, hoping his peers will forgive him. He would do that in a scientific paper.)
The decrease in size is significant, and continues into the rest of the Mesozoic, as synapsids (us) had their day in the Permian,
but Mesozoic belonged to the "reptiles". Not dinosaurs yet, they show up just at the end of the Jurassic, but earlier archosaurs
were formidable claimants of the animal spotlight. The Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction did for many proto-mammals,
although Moganucodon survived and was widely distributed through the mid-Jurrasic.
This thumbnail doesn't do justice to the book; if you're not a pro, read it. Also to be mentioned, Wikipedia is often very good on
paleontology, up to date with many references. If I've made any mistakes here, a) I'm not surprised. and b) let me know.
"The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs", also by Brusatte.
"Vertebrate Evolution" by Donald Prothero.
but Mesozoic belonged to the "reptiles". Not dinosaurs yet, they show up just at the end of the Jurassic, but earlier archosaurs
were formidable claimants of the animal spotlight.
On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 8:34:15 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:latitude evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
Let me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic.
Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or the early Jurassic or turtles?
It's off-topic in the most strict sense of the word, but then you
have gone far further off-topic in a lot of your posts.
Not sure what you mean by that, but Lucy's reconstruction should not be off-topic to the subject of the group, paleontology.
As far as "subjects" are concerned, they are still part of the overall subject of paleontology. As you say, but not in any stretch of the imagination restricted to John or a selected group of people, does John stay "on-topic" of a specific "subject"thread, if ever. John himself strayed way off topic in that "thread" when he posted his advice that I am best ignored.
You can be seen to stray off-topic here by referring to another "thread" with a different "subject" header, but fossil "reconstructions" can also be seen as relevant to the current topic and discussion of cold_adapted dinosaurs or early Jurassic orturtles.
And if you had some point to make, what was it?I have no way of reading Glenn's mind, but the video suggests a forgery
of the same degree of seriousness as the Piltdown forgery.
fossilization" able to be identified, and assumedly removed by a power tool. Not a peer review article by any means,The video is only three and a half minutes long. I suggest you take a good look,
then try to find out whether it has been debunked and if so, where.
Be careful to distinguish where it shows clips from a PBS "Nova" program and
where Dr. David Menton is editorializing.
Seems a complicated issue. The "crushed" bones appear to have been claimed to have fossilized in a different shape. I'd be interested in finding a plain language explanation and science behind this reconstruction. For instance, how was this "re-
https://northstatescience.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/correcting-creationists-redux-was-lucy%E2%80%99s-pelvis-reconstruction-a-fraud/
Here an atheist activist ranting about creationists, seems to have no problem assuming there was nothing wrong with the reconstruction, using nothing that I can see in the article except the transcript of the PBS video.
Yet Lovejoy's "impossible position" doesn't fit with Johanson's "illusion":
" OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they’re in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps."
Both these men are anthropologists. How is this " fused together in later fossilization" a "perfect fit"?
Is it perhaps an indication of bias, assumption and inference that this was an "illusion", or is there hard science behind it that no one wants to identify?
And how is it that "some of her bones lying in the mud MUST have been crushed or broken"? (Caps mine) Is that science?
PS I dislike the way Glenn avoided answering your second question. Unfortunately,
evasiveness is all too common around here; I showed a striking example near the end
of my reply to Erik a bit less than an hour ago.
Apparently you dislike my "avoidance" because you regard it as evasiveness. Most everyone else appears to dislike my "avoiding" such questioning because it is often said that I never give my opinion on anything. Do you agree with that?
Have you considered what "a point" really means? And why these evolutionists often demand one?
And what do they do with one when they get it?
On 7/12/22 3:32 PM, erik simpson wrote:about his discussion of the end-Triassic exctinction event and its follow-ons.
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:20:40 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:24:20 PM UTC-6, erik simpson wrote:
By coincidence, I am currently reading "The Rise and Reign of the Mammals" byStever Brusatte. It's a modern look at current paleotological ideas, lots of history, and not too technical for a persistent layman. I'll give a short summary tomorrow
Ooh ooh, I can’t wait! I think Brusatte is a very talented teacher and works both hard and enthusiastically to make his writing accessible to us laymen who cause most researchers to lose patience.
Well, I tried a response earlier this afternoon, but it's not here. Imust have blown it off. Maybe that's just as well; I'm not
particularly qualified to paraphrase a chapter in Brusatte's book, so I'll just briefly describe what he talks about. First, there's
a couple more books I'll recommend:
"The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs", also by Brusatte.
"Vertebrate Evolution" by Donald Prothero.
The latter is quite different in its approach, being more of a systematic catalog of the important clades. It's more technical in language,
but somewhat disappointing that it isn't more extensive with more references. It's also sloppy in editing here and there, but
overall it's quite informative (at least for me). Pros will want more. All three books are accessible, and can be had for less than
the cost of a tank of gas.
Brusatte's books are aimed at the interested adult, and are much more story-line organized. He's a fluid writer, and includes
not only the titular subject but lots of the paleontological history surrounding it.
This is a brief summary of the second chapter of Brusatte's mammal book "Making a mammal". He bookends the chapter with
two famous mammals; Thrinaxodon and Moganucodon. The former is a cynodont (derived from therapsids) and the latter is
a mammaliaform (derived from cynodonts). Thrinaxodon appeared very early in the Triassic, soon after the end-Permian mass
extinction. It resembled a small weasel in size, but retained some of sprawled limbs more characteristic of therapsids. Moganucodon
was mouse-sized, but its limbs are fully under the body, its principle jaw joint was that of a modern mammal, and there are some
who would call it a mammal. (Most paleontologists don't, and Brusatte discusses the difference between character-based and
crown clade definitions. He then calls it a mammal, hoping his peers will forgive him. He would do that in a scientific paper.)
The decrease in size is significant, and continues into the rest of the Mesozoic, as synapsids (us) had their day in the Permian,
but Mesozoic belonged to the "reptiles". Not dinosaurs yet, they show up just at the end of the Jurassic, but earlier archosaurs
were formidable claimants of the animal spotlight. The Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction did for many proto-mammals,
although Moganucodon survived and was widely distributed through the mid-Jurrasic.
This thumbnail doesn't do justice to the book; if you're not a pro, read it. Also to be mentioned, Wikipedia is often very good onThere's some confusion here. First, mammals are mammaliaforms are
paleontology, up to date with many references. If I've made any mistakes here, a) I'm not surprised. and b) let me know.
cynodonts are therapsids. Groups within groups.
Second, dinosaurs appear in the early Triassic, but only become dominant toward the end of the Triassic.
Third, Fairly large therapsids persisted until late in the Triassic, dicynodonts for example.
Well, i asked for it. Thanks, and apologies for hurrying a sloppy reply.
On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 1:33:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:latitude evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 8:34:15 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low
Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some reason "
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
thread, if ever. John himself strayed way off topic in that "thread" when he posted his advice that I am best ignored.Let me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic. >>> Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or the early Jurassic or turtles?
It's off-topic in the most strict sense of the word, but then you
have gone far further off-topic in a lot of your posts.
Not sure what you mean by that, but Lucy's reconstruction should not be off-topic to the subject of the group, paleontology.It certainly is on-topic for s.b.p. and also, especially, for sci.anthropolgy.paleo. But if you want to
post about it there, I strongly recommend that you include the url to the webpage that you
gave this time around, right in your OP.
Harshman was being rather disingenuous. He was implicitly objecting to your introducing a whole new topic, apparently unconnected to anything that went before,
without spelling that out. Be glad he didn't ride herd on you, like he often does to me,
by accusing you of hijacking the thread.
As far as "subjects" are concerned, they are still part of the overall subject of paleontology. As you say, but not in any stretch of the imagination restricted to John or a selected group of people, does John stay "on-topic" of a specific "subject"
John is addicted to double standards. I'm sure you found that out long ago, perhaps even longer ago than I did.turtles.
You can be seen to stray off-topic here by referring to another "thread" with a different "subject" header, but fossil "reconstructions" can also be seen as relevant to the current topic and discussion of cold_adapted dinosaurs or early Jurassic or
Not sure how. Did you have something specific in mind?fossilization" able to be identified, and assumedly removed by a power tool. Not a peer review article by any means,
John and Erik don't seem to be at all interested in this bombshell.And if you had some point to make, what was it?I have no way of reading Glenn's mind, but the video suggests a forgery of the same degree of seriousness as the Piltdown forgery.
John can't bring himself to watch a 3:28 video even after I dropped it.
Erik hasn't shown any sign of having seen this reply of mine or John's reply to it.
But then, it becomes much less of a bombshell on reading what you write next.
The video is only three and a half minutes long. I suggest you take a good look,
then try to find out whether it has been debunked and if so, where.
Be careful to distinguish where it shows clips from a PBS "Nova" program and
where Dr. David Menton is editorializing.
Seems a complicated issue. The "crushed" bones appear to have been claimed to have fossilized in a different shape. I'd be interested in finding a plain language explanation and science behind this reconstruction. For instance, how was this "re-
All this in contradiction to "DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps."https://northstatescience.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/correcting-creationists-redux-was-lucy%E2%80%99s-pelvis-reconstruction-a-fraud/
Here an atheist activist ranting about creationists, seems to have no problem assuming there was nothing wrong with the reconstruction, using nothing that I can see in the article except the transcript of the PBS video.In fact, he flat out says:
"Lovejoy simply cut the broken parts out and re-fit them into the position they occupied at the time Lucy was alive."
He gave a source in a professional journal which may or may not explain just how the reconstruction was determined to be accurate.
He probably didn't have the understanding of anatomy to be able to clarify this one way or another.
He didn't even have the decency to sign his name, but kept going by the username "cjobrien".
Erik and John would accuse him of being "unclear," were not cjobrien "One of Us" from their POV.
Yet Lovejoy's "impossible position" doesn't fit with Johanson's "illusion":There's no inconsistency here. The illusion is enough to fool someone who never looked
at the anatomy of pelvises.
" OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they’re in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps."
Both these men are anthropologists. How is this " fused together in later fossilization" a "perfect fit"?Because they were forced together to the point where it took a trained eye to realize that something was amiss.
Is it perhaps an indication of bias, assumption and inference that this was an "illusion", or is there hard science behind it that no one wants to identify?The hard science is in the way a professional anatomist could see that the pelvis seemed to be
of a shape that no known vertebrate ever came close to having.
And how is it that "some of her bones lying in the mud MUST have been crushed or broken"? (Caps mine) Is that science?No, it's an attempted explanation of how the anatomically incorrect shape was achieved.
There had to be first a break and then a re-fusing to the shape in which the fossil was found. Mere bending
or twisting would not have had that effect.
My opinion is that the reconstructor[s] did the best they could to be accurate.
There is no reason to suspect Piltdown-style fraud.
PS I dislike the way Glenn avoided answering your second question. Unfortunately,
evasiveness is all too common around here; I showed a striking example near the end
of my reply to Erik a bit less than an hour ago.
Apparently you dislike my "avoidance" because you regard it as evasiveness.No, you give your opinion often enough. What bothered me was that you
Most everyone else appears to dislike my "avoiding" such questioning because it is often said that I never give my opinion on anything. Do you agree with that?
seemed to be sitting on a bombshell yet not giving any hint of what
it was all about.
Have you considered what "a point" really means? And why these evolutionists often demand one?It's a scam I've been subjected to by them, because unlike in this case of yours, I explain things as I go along.
They want to think that I have a hidden agenda behind it all, and they ask for a point when the
point is staring them in the face: I am a conveyer of interesting and sometimes paradoxical looking
facts and reasonings, all related to evolution and/or paleontology. Quality control, in many cases.
And what do they do with one when they get it?Like I suggested just now, they act as though they haven't gotten it.
Erik in particular was so blatant with this scam in talk.origins, that I finally caught on to what he was doing
after about a year of it, and accused him of scamming.
Then all hell broke loose. Robert Camp made a complete fool of himself by the way he "defended" Erik in a traditional t.o. meaning of the word; two implacable foes of yourself
tried to do a more careful "defense" of Erik, but made lesser fools of themselves;
the more implacable of the two even ventured to "defend" Robert Camp.
As for Erik, he never showed any awareness of any of this, but simply left the thread for good.
On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 6:46:03 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:latitude evironments had been very warm and wet, and the predominant animals were crocodile-related (and other large reptilian forms). Then came volcanic winters and the cold weather adaptations of hte dinosaurs gave them an edge in the early Jurassic.
On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 1:33:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 8:34:15 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 5:51:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/6/22 12:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:31:45 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:58:16 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:59:33 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
Evidence for glacier-rafted debris coeval with dinosaur tracks at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction indicates that non-avian dinosaurs were ready for the extensive volcanic eruptions that marked the end of the Triassic. At the time, low
reason "Yankee Doodle Dandy" is flashing through my mind.So these tracks survived exposed till the glaciers pushed over them, depositing little stones in the footprints. Pics? And they "were ready"? As if the dinos that made the tracks were being chased by an approaching glacier...for some
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6342
thread, if ever. John himself strayed way off topic in that "thread" when he posted his advice that I am best ignored.Let me heat things up.
Congratulations! At least you read what I said. Unfortunately, I stumbled in my description of the lake shore. The shore has dinosaur tracks.I couldn't find pictures of tracks in the article. Why would they be omitted?
The lakebed sediments contain the expected fine sand, but also pebbles, such as would be frozen in when the lake froze (or at the shoreline froze).It does, however, defy the conventional wisdom that turtles are secondarily anapsid and
They would be deposited in the lake when the ice went out inthe spring, The "glacier-rafted" was my error. The paper (which has pictures, by the way) doesn't make that error.
closer to birds than are lepidosaurians.
I was surprised to see there weren't any large species of either group in the early Jurassic;
also that Lissamphibians are believed to go all the way back to before the beginning of the Permian,
despite the lack of fossils until the beginning of the Triassic. >>> Your mind is wasting time. If you're interested, you could look at the article.
Good advice. Too bad you don't always follow it. An awful lot of wasted time could have been avoided if you had
read two articles more carefully than you did. Glenn linked them here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/o7a-W7iuTZE/m/qBnnno4cBAAJ
Re: Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1
Lucy's pelvis reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio
How is this relevant to the subject of cold-adapted dinosaurs or the early Jurassic or turtles?
It's off-topic in the most strict sense of the word, but then you
have gone far further off-topic in a lot of your posts.
Not sure what you mean by that, but Lucy's reconstruction should not be off-topic to the subject of the group, paleontology.It certainly is on-topic for s.b.p. and also, especially, for sci.anthropolgy.paleo. But if you want to
post about it there, I strongly recommend that you include the url to the webpage that you
gave this time around, right in your OP.
Harshman was being rather disingenuous. He was implicitly objecting to your
introducing a whole new topic, apparently unconnected to anything that went before,
without spelling that out. Be glad he didn't ride herd on you, like he often does to me,
by accusing you of hijacking the thread.
As far as "subjects" are concerned, they are still part of the overall subject of paleontology. As you say, but not in any stretch of the imagination restricted to John or a selected group of people, does John stay "on-topic" of a specific "subject"
turtles.John is addicted to double standards. I'm sure you found that out long ago, perhaps even longer ago than I did.
You can be seen to stray off-topic here by referring to another "thread" with a different "subject" header, but fossil "reconstructions" can also be seen as relevant to the current topic and discussion of cold_adapted dinosaurs or early Jurassic or
fossilization" able to be identified, and assumedly removed by a power tool. Not a peer review article by any means,Not sure how. Did you have something specific in mind?
John and Erik don't seem to be at all interested in this bombshell.And if you had some point to make, what was it?I have no way of reading Glenn's mind, but the video suggests a forgery
of the same degree of seriousness as the Piltdown forgery.
John can't bring himself to watch a 3:28 video even after I dropped it. Erik hasn't shown any sign of having seen this reply of mine or John's reply to it.
But then, it becomes much less of a bombshell on reading what you write next.
The video is only three and a half minutes long. I suggest you take a good look,
then try to find out whether it has been debunked and if so, where.
Be careful to distinguish where it shows clips from a PBS "Nova" program and
where Dr. David Menton is editorializing.
Seems a complicated issue. The "crushed" bones appear to have been claimed to have fossilized in a different shape. I'd be interested in finding a plain language explanation and science behind this reconstruction. For instance, how was this "re-
https://northstatescience.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/correcting-creationists-redux-was-lucy%E2%80%99s-pelvis-reconstruction-a-fraud/
Here an atheist activist ranting about creationists, seems to have no problem assuming there was nothing wrong with the reconstruction, using nothing that I can see in the article except the transcript of the PBS video.In fact, he flat out says:
"Lovejoy simply cut the broken parts out and re-fit them into the position they occupied at the time Lucy was alive."
He gave a source in a professional journal which may or may not explain just how the reconstruction was determined to be accurate.
He probably didn't have the understanding of anatomy to be able to clarify this one way or another.
He didn't even have the decency to sign his name, but kept going by the username "cjobrien".
Erik and John would accuse him of being "unclear," were not cjobrien "One of Us" from their POV.
Yet Lovejoy's "impossible position" doesn't fit with Johanson's "illusion":There's no inconsistency here. The illusion is enough to fool someone who never looked
at the anatomy of pelvises.
" OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they’re in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps."
Both these men are anthropologists. How is this " fused together in later fossilization" a "perfect fit"?Because they were forced together to the point where it took a trained eye to realize that something was amiss.
Is it perhaps an indication of bias, assumption and inference that this was an "illusion", or is there hard science behind it that no one wants to identify?The hard science is in the way a professional anatomist could see that the pelvis seemed to be
of a shape that no known vertebrate ever came close to having.
And how is it that "some of her bones lying in the mud MUST have been crushed or broken"? (Caps mine) Is that science?No, it's an attempted explanation of how the anatomically incorrect shape was achieved.
There had to be first a break and then a re-fusing to the shape in which the fossil was found. Mere bending
or twisting would not have had that effect.
All this in contradiction to "DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps."
My opinion is that the reconstructor[s] did the best they could to be accurate.
There is no reason to suspect Piltdown-style fraud.
PS I dislike the way Glenn avoided answering your second question. Unfortunately,
evasiveness is all too common around here; I showed a striking example near the end
of my reply to Erik a bit less than an hour ago.
I wasn't sitting on anything.Apparently you dislike my "avoidance" because you regard it as evasiveness.No, you give your opinion often enough. What bothered me was that you seemed to be sitting on a bombshell yet not giving any hint of what
Most everyone else appears to dislike my "avoiding" such questioning because it is often said that I never give my opinion on anything. Do you agree with that?
it was all about.
Have you considered what "a point" really means? And why these evolutionists often demand one?It's a scam I've been subjected to by them, because unlike in this case of yours, I explain things as I go along.
They want to think that I have a hidden agenda behind it all, and they ask for a point when the
point is staring them in the face: I am a conveyer of interesting and sometimes paradoxical looking
facts and reasonings, all related to evolution and/or paleontology. Quality control, in many cases.
And what do they do with one when they get it?Like I suggested just now, they act as though they haven't gotten it.
Erik in particular was so blatant with this scam in talk.origins, that I finally caught on to what he was doing
after about a year of it, and accused him of scamming.
Then all hell broke loose. Robert Camp made a complete fool of himself by the way he "defended" Erik in a traditional t.o. meaning of the word; two implacable foes of yourself
tried to do a more careful "defense" of Erik, but made lesser fools of themselves;
the more implacable of the two even ventured to "defend" Robert Camp.
As for Erik, he never showed any awareness of any of this, but simply left the thread for good.Erik is an odd bird that often contradicts himself.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 78:17:53 |
| Calls: | 6,805 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,328 |
| Messages: | 5,400,434 |