FYI: Re: Origins of Flight: adaptation or exaptation? "A new species of flying reptile that died out with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago has been named for its fang-like teeth....Pterosaurs, or winged lizards, evolved the ability to fly. They lived from about 228 million to 65 million years ago. Their size ranged from those of a small bird to a creature with a wing-span of up to 18 meters or 60 feet. They had hollow bones, thin bodies, large brains, crests and long beaks. Flight in pterosaurs evolved separately from birds. Scientists had thought that the creatures used to glide on the wind, but research has shown that large species could fly. Some species had a hair-like covering on their body. Martill said the flying reptile evolved many different forms and that at least two groups became toothless." "Flying reptile named for fang teeth" Tuesday, October 18, 2005; Posted: 11:48 a.m. EDT (15:48 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/18/reptile.fang.teeth.reut/index.html
FYI: Re: Origins of Flight: adaptation or exaptation? Hi guys! Just a follow-up on the above post. I fully read the original article that appeared in the most recent edition of the journal "Cretaceous research" and there is no mention that this particulary dinosaur species "evolved the ability to fly." The researchers did a thorough examination of the bone structure found and concluded that it is an Ornithocheirid, which are related to the Albatross and Frigate Bird. The assumption that "winged lizards, evolved the abiliy to fly," or through direct adaptation to fly, may only be a speculation on the part of the reporter's interview. As is often the case with the media and news interviewers, they often get the facts screwed up. In this case, don't know? No way to know what the scientist/paleontologist Martill said to the interviewer.
Valich, from the top. One more time. What are you saying? You appear to be saying that a) You doubt that Pterosaurs had evolved the ability to fly. b) That the Ornithocheirid's are related to the Albatross and Frigate Bird. No, wait. On relfection that is exactly what you are saying. Your words: a) "there is no mention that this particulary dinosaur species "evolved the ability to fly." "The assumption that "winged lizards, evolved the abiliy to fly," or through direct adaptation to fly, may only be a speculation on the part of the reporter's interview." b) "it is an Ornithocheirid, which are related to the Albatross and Frigate Bird." You have repeatedly stated that you have come here to learn and criticised others for not being open enough to do so. Well learn these points dumbass. a) The pterosaurs, of which this is an example, were winged lizards that had evolved the ability to fly. This is not an assumption, but a widly recognised 'fact' in the field. It has been , I think, since Cuvier first examined specimens one hundred and fifty years ago. Don't go running around posting links to papers that argue they didn't fly, but merely glided - that is such a transparent escape route it. b) Nonsense. Frigate birds and Pterosaurs are postulated to have lived related lifestyles. That is entirely different from saying they are related. They are as related as a dolphin and a shark. Does the little phrase form and function mean anything to you? Once again valiach you have done some reading, picked up some phrases, found a link or two, and put them all together in a misleading, inaccurate, irrelevant, time-wasting amalgam. It's a technique a good friend of mine once called jumping to a concussion.
You just don't seem to get it! the entire scope of the sciforums are to expand our horizons and increase our knowledge and understanding - not to argue needlessly, belittle people, put people down, contradict and laugh at others. The first post was "quoted" ground breaking news hot off the press cited from an interview with one of the paleontoligist researchers who conducted and analyzed this new archaelogical finding. My second post was stated in my own words but consisted of the factual statements that the paleontologist said in the journal ""Cretaceous research." I took the time out to go to our library and get the original article to see if what the original interviewer/reporter said were factually accurate statements reflecting the factual findings of the paleontologist, or were just all in his own words and a possible misinterpretation. We cannot know this because we didn't hear the interview. Don't you want to learn? I first posted the interview of the paleontologist who wrote this ground breaking article, then I followed through on it and posted the paleontologists factial findings as stated in the journal. The fossil that he discovered on the Western European coast turned out to be an "an Ornithocheirid, related to the Albatross and Frigate Bird." This is what they (there were five paleontologists involved in the archaeology and findings) stated in their own words. This was based on analysis of the bones and their anatomical attachment locations. One thing different that they noticed was that this Ornithocheirid was found near the shores of Western Europe, while other Ornithocheirid fossils were all found more inland. I posted the facts of te conversation as they came out from the press, and the facts of the paleontologists' team findings as they reported them in the journal. Do you ever read any journals? Or just troll around criticizing findings and get your jollies out of trying to cut other people down. You seem to always get highly offensive when someone posts something intelllectual that is beyond your scope of understanding.
Valich, If pterosaurs are actually ornithocheirids and are related to the Albatross and Frigate birds then this is more than a 'new archeological finding'. This would completely rewrite everything we know about the evolution of birds. Birds are not descended from pterosaurs. I can only guess that by 'related to' they actually mean 'similar to'. Two very different meanings. The first would be a truly momentous statement. The latter would be ho-hum. Or are you saying that the fossil in question is not a pterosaur at all but rather a bird? You still don't know what troll means, do you? You're getting warmer though. Want a link? Muaha! Ophiolite does quite well here at sciforums, in case you haven't noticed. He doesn't simply go around belittling people. Until they prove worthy of such treatment. You might remember him defending you back when you made your mad ressurection spree? Ring any bells? Now, I, on the other hand, am a bit quicker on the gun. I wouldn't say that I make my purpose to belittle people either, but I do tend to go with my instincts a little more than Ophiolite. And, hey, I was right about you. I do sometimes make mistakes, but my record is actually pretty good. The thing about you is that you're just... odd. You're not a brain dead teenager (well. Maybe you are. But, I mean you're not one of the "lol, d00d. Roxxorz" crowd. Despite your difficulties in comprehension and communication, you at least have an honest interest in things. The problem comes from your constant miscomprehension of so many things. Simple things. Complex things. It seems that there is very little you do 'get'. This, in itself, wouldn't be so bad if you were amenable to correction, but you are a fucking obstinate motherfucker that refuses to ever concede that you misunderstood something. You go to great lengths to refuse to concede your lack of understanding. So. I'm left wondering. Are you a troll? (I.e. is this a purposeful and deliberate act?) Are you stubborn? (I.e. you realize that you're wrong but refuse to admit to it.) Are you stupid? (I.e. do you really fail to comprehend just how wrong you have been in so many instances?) Are you trying appear knowledgeable where you in fact have little to no knowledge? (I strongly suspect this latter. You would probably describe it as trying to learn or gather knowledge or whatever. But, the way you carry it off is as though you are lecturing. But you're lecturing on subjects you don't understand and you come off foolish because of it.) You really are an interesting character. You have a strange vantage point on reality. Are you autistic? Is that it? A touch of asperger's syndrome? That would explain some things. Anyway. The fact of the matter is that the most annoying thing about you is your inability to respond to posts. I don't know how many times you've simply changed the subject when things get too hot for you to handle. You've never adequately defended anything you've tried to argue in this or in any other thread. You seem to think you have though, which is somewhat interesting.
Its always been my personal speculation that memory is transmitted through DNA, this would explain how your offspring would be better suited to change its genes to suit its environment. Just a hunch ::shrug::
Are you aware that some dinosaurs, for example Ornithocheirids, could fly but are not birds? Diapsidia evolved into Archosauromorpha evolved into Archosauria evolved into Dinosauria which then evolved into two distinct clades: Dinosaurs and Birds. Some dinosaurs could evolved feathers and could fly. The other lineage Avians are modern day birds that evolved from a seperate clade than that of dinosaurs: Dinosauria to Saurischia to Theropoda evolving into Coelurosauria then Aves.
Duh der. The name 'ornithocheirid' is a new one on me, but neither am I a dinosaur expert. What I was objecting to is not that but rather that your 'related to' implies that the Albatross and the Frigate birds evolved from ornithocheirids. Evolved from pterosaurs. Thanks for repeating that back to us. We didn't realize any of these. We thought birds came from nocturnal emissions.... That's the point. They didn't evolve from pterosaurs therefore your use of 'related to' is misleading. AS I ALREADY SAID BUT YOU APPARENTLY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE RESPONDING TO THAT PORTION OF THE POST... You're fucking hopeless. What I suspect is being said is that the bone structure of ornithocheirids (i.e. pterosaurs) is similar to the bone structure of albatrosses and frigate birds. And/or their lifestyles are similar. And/or they inhabit similar ecological niches. Now. You can be an ass and simply refuse to admit that 'related to' is a poor choice of words and that the real meaning is something similar to what I've just said (you, after all, are the only one that has read the journal...) or you can continue to be an obstinate ass. Your choice.
He can't tell the difference between a homologous or analogous structure just as he can't tell the difference between his ass and his mouth.
Valich, stop trying to teach me what I learned when you were in diapers: Valich said "The assumption that "winged lizards, evolved the ability to fly," or through direct adaptation to fly, may only be a speculation on the part of the reporter's interview." No. It is not only speculation on the part of the reporter. We know that pterosaurs flew. No expert in this field would challenge this . You apparently do not know whether they flew or not. Thus the above statement reveals your ignorance in this area. Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance, but do not corrupt the casual reader. Valich said: b) "it is an Ornithocheirid, which are related to the Albatross and Frigate Bird."Absolutely and irrevocably false. This beast is a Pterosaur, the other two are birds. That is two completely different things. You have made two serious errors in your post, yet you try to wriggle of the hook. Just admit you are wrong, then we can move on. Since you seem to be so proud of your ability to find original research papers and then actually read them, why don't you look for this one: Matthew T. Wilkinson, David M. Unwin, Charles P. Ellington High lift function of the pteroid bone and forewing of pterosaurs Proceedings of the Royal Society B ISSN:0962-8452 While I have faith in your ability to locate and read such papers, I do doubt your ability to understand them. So, I'll give you some help here. In this paper you will discover that not only did pterosaurs fly, but they used an articulating bone, called the pteroid bone, to which was attached a skin membrane that functioned as a flap. This would have allowed pterosaurs to take off easily, and to land at a lower velocity, thus minimising the risk of broken bones.
What you are highlighting in bold print is not what Valich said, it is what valich posted for the benefit of everyone to see and think about, and to see the current state-of-the-art research that is currently going on in the field, yet by putting it in bold print you are erroneously suggesting that this is my quote? How misleading! So much misleading preposteraus gall! I have no time to waste to wallow! What a ridiculous presumption. I am an extremely busy, and why I am wasting my time replying is beyond me. So then we all know that Pterosauria could fly, but they are not related to Aves, except through ancestry. Pterosauria could fly but they went extinct - different clade. Archosauria remained and evolved into both dinosaurs, and birds. Christ. Now I have to look this up again. "This new Yaverland pterosaur is undoubtedly an ornithocheirid, and similar to several species that belong to this family. However, it lacks distinguishing features of all genera currently included in this taxon and represented by cranial material, but exhibits a number of characters (maxillo/premaxillary suture descends slightly posteriorly, fifth to seventh pair of dental alveoli of similar size and significantly smaller than pairs one to four; palatal ridge extends no further anteriorly than dental alveoli 8 and 9; and presence of fronto/parietal and maxillo/premaxillary crests that do not merge over the nasoantorbital fenestra or cranium) that are not found in any other ornithocheirid. Consequently, we assign this taxon to a new genus and species of the Ornithocheiridae....This new record fills that gap and further encourages the idea that ornithocheirids were present in Western Europe throughout the Early Cretaceous. An unusual feature of the material described here is its discovery in a plant bed deposited within a fluvial continental setting. Most ornithocheirids have been recovered from marginal or fully marine sediments (Unwin, 2001, table 1) and they are thought to have had a life style broadly similar to that of some modern ocean-going birds such as the Albatross and Frigate Bird. This record of an ornithocheirid preserved in a continental environment adds to other recent reports of these pterosaurs from similar settings (Unwin et al., 2000 and Unwin, 2001), although it is still not clear if these represent accidental occurrences or indications that some ornithocheirids lived in terrestrial environments." from "A new pterodactyloid pterosaur from the Wessex Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of the Isle of Wight, England," by Lorna Steela, David M. Martillb, David M. Unwinc and John D. Winchd, Cretaceous Research, Vol. 26, Issue 4 , August 2005, Pages 686-698 I hope this clears up any misunderstandings?
Ah. Here we are: "...and they are thought to have had a life style broadly similar to that of some modern ocean-going birds such as the Albatross and Frigate Bird." Wow. That was like pulling teeth. And you still never just admitted it. So. Now. You concede that pterosaurs and albatrosses are not related? (Well. No more related than we are all related in some roundabout fashion....) By the way, neither phrase that is boldfaced and to which you are denying authorship is in the article you linked to. Neither is the words 'related to' or any mention of 'assumptions'. Would you like to rephrase your wriggling? Spurious did rather well in terming you tragic. Christ, man! Just be intellectually honest for a change. Have you ever tried it? Or have you carried on this way your whole life?
If these words came out of a doctoral student then I am obligated, out of a dutiful responsibility to the integrity of my country and to the integrity to the school of higher education that granted you a PhD, to inform them what type of students they are granting a doctoral degree to. Kindly inform of the name of that school and what degree you have, and in what academic field, and I promise you that I will do just that. You are proving yourself to be a disgrace to all Americans that have been awarded a doctoral degree in our country by your condescending vulgar remarks, unobjective unscientific criticism, close-mindedness to the views of others, and your obnoxious behavior on these forums.
What are you talking about? My original post today quoted what was said in the CNN(Reutors) report: "Pterosaurs, or winged lizards, evolved the ability to fly...." Obviously you have yet to read the original article printed in Cretaceous Research or the quote that I just posted taken directly from it. Do you read journals? Or just criticize other people that do? Let's be intellectually honest here regarding what I posted today. I was relaying groundbreaking news. Do you not appreciate this???
I am doing a post doc in the good old USA. A disgrace indeed that they let me in your fine country. (they even paid for my ticket!)
Jesus fucking christ. You're still going to keep arguing about this? Uh. Yes. I did read the article that you linked to. It was a short article. A tiny little article. It did not mention assumptions about winged lizards learning to fly. It did not mention pterosaurs being related to Albatrosses and Frigate birds. Christ! You're so fucking DENSE! Tiny portions of your post were quoted from the article. Yes. That portion you just quoted again was in the fucking article. "Pterosaurs, or winged lizards, evolved the ability to fly...." YES. That WAS in the article. So what? That isn't what anybody is talking about!! Everyone is on your case because you: a.) stated that pterosaurs are related to albatrosses and frigate birds. b.) that it is 'assumed' that pterosaurs flew (as if there were any doubts about this whatsoever.) That's IT! That's what the problem is. That's what has been said to you fucking repeatedly. That is what you seem to have your typical comprehension problems with. Aaargh! Yes. I do. So? You seem to think that I am criticizing you because you read journals? Rather, I'm criticizing you because you misunderstand journals just as you seem to misunderstand everything. Also. What the fuck are you trying to say? You seem to place some sort of special quality on journal reading. As if you derive some sort of intellectual superiority from reading journals. This is the second time you've mentioned journals in this way. Hey, everybody. Give Valich a big round of applause. He reads journals! Can you believe it? We should all worship him as god and accept any stupid thing he says because he reads journals.... (I'd be more impressed if you understood them.) No. I especially don't appreciate your spin. The news itself was so-so. But your spin on the news was something else entirely. We've spent an entire page trying to get you to admit that pterosaurs aren't related to frigate birds and you still won't fucking just say it. Just say it. Just say that you were wrong. Say it. At the least say that you never meant to imply that pterosaurs and frigate birds were related and that you fell victim to a poor choice of words. At least admit that. By the way. As to 'intellectual honesty'. Your example of us being intellectually honest regarding what we think about your sharing the 'news' with us is not how it is meant. Intellectual honesty means that you actually are honest about what you know and what you don't know. Intellectual dishonesty is when you pretend to being something you're not. Knowledgeable.
I am not wriggling as I couldn't be more concise yet still straightforward, so I have no idea what it is that you keep insisting that you want me to admit. I am constanly researching! In a sense, you might say that my mind, just like evolution, is constantly evolving through the acquisition of new knowledge. Your postings of mere trivial criticisms of this and condemnation is nothing more than a trivial distraction: grow up and be real! This new PTEROSAUR is undoubtedly an ORNITHOCHEIRID, and similar to several species that belong to this family....we assign this taxon to a new genus and species of the Ornithocheiridae....they are thought to have had a life style broadly similar to that of some modern ocean-going birds such as the Albatross and Frigate Bird. This record of an ornithocheirid preserved in a continental environment adds to other recent reports "of these PTEROSAURS" We all know that Pterosaurs could fly, and Albatross and Frigate birds can fly too. It seems to me that what the authors are assuming and trying to get at is that there is no longer a clear distinctive absolute division between the two clades: pterosaur and ornithocheirid. Welcome to the world of continuous learning.
the fallacy of your argument is one of those most common in evolutionary biology: that simple things are useless. (excuss my poor wording; there is a reason i am not an english major) you are either forgetting or do not know an important thing: evolution is not goal oriented. you cant say that it was "driven" to end up as it is, it just happend to be that very slight changes over time tended to give rise to higher levels of 'complexity' (depending on your definition of complexity). i don't want to attempt to anwser this any further at the moment. i hope this wasnt anwsered smiliarily before but i dont have time to sort through 11 pages of flaming posts.
Yeh know, and I had to do all this independent research just for you! Are you not capable of doing it on your own? Do you not have a scientific mind of inquiry to research the original facts yourself if you question them? I have to reresearch all this just to satisfy your seemingly inherent instinct to spontaneously criticize and condemn? A real scientist would display a degree of curiousity and interest: not continuous condescending criticism, intense vulgarity and obscene use of the English language, and belittlement. Since this new study was unaware to you, you should've found it to be of interest on this forum! Especially on THIS forum!
Each of us who has commented on these aspects of your posts believes you have said the following (paraphrased) 1) We do not know if Pterosaurs were able to fly. 2) Ornithocheirids are related to the Albatross and Frigate Bird. We want you to a) acknowledge that this is what your posts said. b) admit you were incorrect It would also be really nice if you were to grow up and not oblige us to chase you from here to the other side of the Universe to get you to acknowledge when you are wrong. But for the moment I'll settle for a) and b) above.
