Hey, did do you guys already talk about Fujianvenator? I might have missed the discussion…Looks interesting, but it's paywalled. I'll see if I can find a way to get it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06513-7
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Sight Reader wrote:Oh dang. There are news reports and some preliminary in Wikipedia… https://www.reuters.com/science/bizarre-long-legged-bird-like-dinosaur-has-scientists-enthralled-2023-09-06/
Hey, did do you guys already talk about Fujianvenator? I might have missed the discussion…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06513-7Looks interesting, but it's paywalled. I'll see if I can find a way to get it.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:30:33 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:As Wang Min points out, whether this is a "bird" or not is a subjective call. It may not have been flight-capable,
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Sight Reader wrote:
Hey, did do you guys already talk about Fujianvenator? I might have missed the discussion…
Oh dang. There are news reports and some preliminary in Wikipedia… https://www.reuters.com/science/bizarre-long-legged-bird-like-dinosaur-has-scientists-enthralled-2023-09-06/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06513-7Looks interesting, but it's paywalled. I'll see if I can find a way to get it.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 11:30:33 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids. This result is robust to maximum parsimony and Bayesian analyses using tip-dating methods (Extended Data Figs. 5 and 6). Given that it is at present the southernmost record of Jurassic
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Sight Reader wrote:
Hey, did do you guys already talk about Fujianvenator? I might have missed the discussion…
Did you succeed? Thanks to my university"s subscription, I saw it right away.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06513-7Looks interesting, but it's paywalled. I'll see if I can find a way to get it.
Occasionally, figures are not paywalled. See whether you can see this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06513-7/figures/1
It includes a fairly detailed phylogenetic tree.
If you can't see it, the following may convey enough information about the key features.
Discussion
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within the
The last two sentences remind me of the time, over two decades ago, when I did a detailed
study of five factors in the blood clotting cascade. All of them are judged to be
closely related to each other. However, instead of a clear
phylogenetic tree of them, I saw a great deal of mosaicism in which
one factor matched another factor for several amino acids, only to switch its "allegiance" to another factor.
When I emailed one of the authors about this, he replied that my kind of analysis was more detailed and painstaking than the usual kind, and he wished that other researchers would exhibit similar patience for details.
Peter NyikosYes, I've seen it. My son is a paleobotanist, and has access to Nature.
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Sight Reader wrote:
Hey, did do you guys already talk about Fujianvenator? I might have missed the discussion…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06513-7Looks interesting, but it's paywalled. I'll see if I can find a way to get it.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:30:33 AM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Sight Reader wrote:
Hey, did do you guys already talk about Fujianvenator? I might have missed the discussion…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06513-7
Looks interesting, but it's paywalled. I'll see if I can find a way to get it.
Oh dang. There are news reports and some preliminary in Wikipedia… https://www.reuters.com/science/bizarre-long-legged-bird-like-dinosaur-has-scientists-enthralled-2023-09-06/
As with most popularizations, one can expect false generalizations. Here is one that immediately
aroused my suspicions:
""The fossil itself does not preserve feathers. However, its closest relatives and nearly all the known avialan theropods have feathers,
and feathers are widely distributed among dinosaurs."
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within theAvialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within the
Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that aresister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:Phylogenetic trees never ascribe ancestry to any taxa. Nothing leads
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered FujianvenatorOk, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they
within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other
Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging
group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within
the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the
anchiornithids.
saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains
Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both
different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:hurriedly trying to submit that post and I don’t think I got it to say what I meant it to say…
On 11/17/23 6:45 AM, Sight Reader wrote:Ok, that’s what I thought: all 3 (birds, anchios, archeo) are on different branches within the Avialae tree, all 3 appear to be sisters of each other, and none of them appear to be ancestors of each other. Sorry, this kid was talking to me as I was
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:Phylogenetic trees never ascribe ancestry to any taxa. Nothing leads directly to anything else. And this is because there can be no evidence for direct ancestry, only that one species is more closely related to
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered FujianvenatorOk, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?
within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other
Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging
group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within
the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the
anchiornithids.
one other species than to some third species. What this tree shows is
that Archaeopteryx is more closely related to birds than to anchiornithids. How would you distinguish an ancestor from a cousin?
On 11/17/23 6:45 AM, Sight Reader wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:Phylogenetic trees never ascribe ancestry to any taxa. Nothing leads directly to anything else. And this is because there can be no evidence
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered FujianvenatorOk, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains
within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other
Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging
group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within
the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the
anchiornithids.
Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?
for direct ancestry, only that one species is more closely related to
one other species than to some third species. What this tree shows is
that Archaeopteryx is more closely related to birds than to
anchiornithids. How would you distinguish an ancestor from a cousin?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:hurriedly trying to submit that post and I don’t think I got it to say what I meant it to say…
On 11/17/23 6:45 AM, Sight Reader wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote: >>>> Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered FujianvenatorPhylogenetic trees never ascribe ancestry to any taxa. Nothing leads
within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites otherOk, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they
Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging
group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within
the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the
anchiornithids.
saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains
Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both
different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are sister to birds - but >>> neither of lead directly TO birds?
directly to anything else. And this is because there can be no evidence
for direct ancestry, only that one species is more closely related to
one other species than to some third species. What this tree shows is
that Archaeopteryx is more closely related to birds than to
anchiornithids. How would you distinguish an ancestor from a cousin?
Ok, that’s what I thought: all 3 (birds, anchios, archeo) are on different branches within the Avialae tree, all 3 appear to be sisters of each other, and none of them appear to be ancestors of each other. Sorry, this kid was talking to me as I was
all 3 appear to be sisters
On 11/17/23 16:19, Sight Reader wrote:
all 3 appear to be sisters
brothers.
On 11/17/23 16:19, Sight Reader wrote:
all 3 appear to be sistersbrothers.
On 11/20/23 20:24, Sight Reader wrote:
Do you think they’re mad at me?Did you ever see Hitckocks "The Birds"
Do you think they’re mad at me?
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within the
Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that aresister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:45:04 AM UTC-5, Sight Reader wrote:Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within the
sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are
Correct. Paleontologists have abandoned Archie as a bird ancestor. But I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
On 11/21/23 6:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:45:04 AM UTC-5, Sight Reader wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within
sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are
Correct. Paleontologists have abandoned Archie as a bird ancestor. But I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
A little of both, really.
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
What would count as evidence? If I recall, you mostly won't say.
I would suggest that the best evidence
would be character optimization on a tree
showing a zero-length branch between a species and the ancestral node.
But would even that be ver good evidence?
Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the
on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
I'm not quite sure if you think that's a bad thing.
But if that's the
case, why? Shouldn't we always be prepared to question traditional
wisdom in the light of new evidence?
Isn't uncertainty preferable to
false confidence?
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to undermine
the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply.
In any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
On 11/21/23 6:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:45:04 AM UTC-5, Sight Reader wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within
sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are
Correct. Paleontologists have abandoned Archie as a bird ancestor. But I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
We've been over all this before. Who is the intended audience for your proposed ancestor candidates? It's certainly not paleotologists or evolutionary biologists.A little of both, really.What would be an apomorphy that disqualifies it from direct ancestry? [See below for
why I am wording it this way.]
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
What would count as evidence? If I recall, you mostly won't say.Your memory seems to be worsening lately. I've told you umpteen times
about what I call a "prime candidate for ancestry of __________________":
a reasonably complete skeleton [a fraction of missing ribs and vertebrae don't count]
with no apomorphies that could reasonably disqualify it from direct ancestry of __________________.
With basal avialans, I would also include "some pennaceous feathers" if the putative
descendant had them.
I would suggest that the best evidenceDidn't you mean to say "the only thing *I* might consider to be evidence" instead
of the last two words? See "equality" above.
would be character optimization on a treeThat would depend on how complete the skeleton was, and
showing a zero-length branch between a species and the ancestral node.
whether almost ALL representative bones [and, in the case above, feathers] were included in the analysis.
But would even that be ver good evidence?Mine is so demanding, it can only apply in a few places on the tree of vertebrata. About the only place where it occurs in abundance is in Equidae.
Contrast that with the ubiquitous use of "sister group," where almost everything is the alleged sister group of something else. This is why I
am annoyed at your doctrinaire claim that "prime ancestor candidate"
is not "objective" enough to be acceptable to a leading peer-reviewed journal.
Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the
on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
I'm not quite sure if you think that's a bad thing.It seriously undermines your notion that "sister group" claims are "objective."
At the very least, such claims should be coupled with "based on the phylogenetic analysis in __________________." That way, people can judge
for themselves how near to being "objective" these claims are.
But if that's the"Prime ancestor candidate" does that very well, while giving us
case, why? Shouldn't we always be prepared to question traditional
wisdom in the light of new evidence?
a window into what the actual LCA might have been like.
Isn't uncertainty preferable toCertainly, but look at the false confidence you displayed where my then-future
false confidence?
reply to this very post of yours was the issue in talk.origins:
________________________ begin excerpt, my words alternating with your ripostes_______________________
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to undermine
the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
Yes, it might be expected that I would explain how you are wrong about
so much of what you say. Though you never listen, it's possible that
someone else may.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply.
In any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
I doubt it. There might be a response, but I don't expect anything substantive.
++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/LR0mNH1OAAAJ November 22, 2023, 1:01 AM
Re: DNA PROOFREADING AND ?REPAIR MECHANISMS ~ REVISITED
[original subject line: Origin of Life Challenge]
Your cocksure attitude in the excerpt is well suited to talk.origins, where you have
quite a lot of people who look up to you as a "biology guru."
However, it imparts a tinge of hypocrisy to your question,
"Isn't uncertainty preferable to false confidence?"
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:wrote:
On 11/21/23 6:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:45:04 AM UTC-5, Sight Reader wrote: >>>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos
within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator
they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains
Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are
But I have no idea
Correct. Paleontologists have abandoned Archie as a bird ancestor.
due to an ideologyhow much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much
that any fossil species is ancestralthat dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence"
to any other species, fossil or extant.
Obviously, no apomorphy could completely disqualify it, since reversalsA little of both, really.
What would be an apomorphy that disqualifies it from direct
ancestry?> [See below for why I am wording it this way.]
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
What would count as evidence? If I recall, you mostly won't say.
Your memory seems to be worsening lately. I've told you umpteen
times about what I call a "prime candidate for ancestry of __________________": a reasonably complete skeleton [a fraction of
missing ribs and vertebrae don't count] with no apomorphies that
could reasonably disqualify it from direct ancestry of
__________________.
With basal avialans, I would also include "some pennaceous feathers"Why that one in particular?
if the putative descendant had them.
There is no such word above, so I'm not clear on what you mean. WhatI would suggest that the best evidence
Didn't you mean to say "the only thing *I* might consider to be
evidence" instead of the last two words? See "equality" above.
If I understand you, you're saying that a zero-length branch would bewould be character optimization on a tree
showing a zero-length branch between a species and the ancestral node.
That would depend on how complete the skeleton was, and whether
almost ALL representative bones [and, in the case above, feathers]
were included in the analysis.
But would even that be ver good evidence?
Mine is so demanding, it can only apply in a few places on the tree of vertebrata. About the only place where it occurs in abundance is in
Equidae.
Contrast that with the ubiquitous use of "sister group," whereI don't understand what you're trying to say there. And I don't have
almost everything is the alleged sister group of something else. This
is why > I am annoyed at your doctrinaire claim that "prime ancestor candidate" is not "objective" enough to be acceptable to a leading peer-reviewed journal.
from theMeanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen
You're saying that any doubt about any node on the tree renders allon-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
I'm not quite sure if you think that's a bad thing.
It seriously undermines your notion that "sister group" claims are "objective." At the very least, such claims should be coupled with
"based on the phylogenetic analysis in __________________." That way,
people can judge for themselves how near to being "objective" these
claims are.
But if that's the
case, why? Shouldn't we always be prepared to question traditional
wisdom in the light of new evidence?
"Prime ancestor candidate" does that very well, while giving us
a window into what the actual LCA might have been like.
Isn't uncertainty preferable to
false confidence?
Certainly, but look at the false confidence you displayed where my then-future reply to this very post of yours was the issue in
talk.origins:
________________________ begin excerpt, my words alternating with
your ripostes_______________________
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to
undermine the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
Yes, it might be expected that I would explain how you are wrong
about so much of what you say. Though you never listen, it's possible
that someone else may.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply. In
any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
I doubt it. There might be a response, but I don't expect anything substantive.
++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt from https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/LR0mNH1OAAAJ November 22, 2023, 1:01 AM
Re: DNA PROOFREADING AND ?REPAIR MECHANISMS ~ REVISITED [original
subject line: Origin of Life Challenge]
Your cocksure attitude in the excerpt is well suited to
talk.origins, where you have quite a lot of people who look up to you
as a "biology guru." However, it imparts a tinge of hypocrisy to your question, >
"Isn't uncertainty preferable to false confidence?"
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 1:45:14 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:within the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/21/23 6:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:45:04 AM UTC-5, Sight Reader wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved
are sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that
Correct. Paleontologists have abandoned Archie as a bird ancestor. But I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
A little of both, really.What would be an apomorphy that disqualifies it from direct ancestry? [See below for
why I am wording it this way.]
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
What would count as evidence? If I recall, you mostly won't say.Your memory seems to be worsening lately. I've told you umpteen times about what I call a "prime candidate for ancestry of __________________": a reasonably complete skeleton [a fraction of missing ribs and vertebrae don't count]
with no apomorphies that could reasonably disqualify it from direct ancestry of __________________.
With basal avialans, I would also include "some pennaceous feathers" if the putative
descendant had them.
I would suggest that the best evidenceDidn't you mean to say "the only thing *I* might consider to be evidence" instead
of the last two words? See "equality" above.
would be character optimization on a treeThat would depend on how complete the skeleton was, and
showing a zero-length branch between a species and the ancestral node.
whether almost ALL representative bones [and, in the case above, feathers] were included in the analysis.
But would even that be ver good evidence?Mine is so demanding, it can only apply in a few places on the tree of vertebrata. About the only place where it occurs in abundance is in Equidae.
Contrast that with the ubiquitous use of "sister group," where almost everything is the alleged sister group of something else. This is why I
am annoyed at your doctrinaire claim that "prime ancestor candidate"
is not "objective" enough to be acceptable to a leading peer-reviewed journal.
Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the
on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is {Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
I'm not quite sure if you think that's a bad thing.It seriously undermines your notion that "sister group" claims are "objective."
At the very least, such claims should be coupled with "based on the phylogenetic analysis in __________________." That way, people can judge for themselves how near to being "objective" these claims are.
But if that's the"Prime ancestor candidate" does that very well, while giving us
case, why? Shouldn't we always be prepared to question traditional wisdom in the light of new evidence?
a window into what the actual LCA might have been like.
Isn't uncertainty preferable toCertainly, but look at the false confidence you displayed where my then-future
false confidence?
reply to this very post of yours was the issue in talk.origins:
________________________ begin excerpt, my words alternating with your ripostes_______________________
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to undermine
the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
Yes, it might be expected that I would explain how you are wrong about
so much of what you say. Though you never listen, it's possible that someone else may.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply.
In any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
I doubt it. There might be a response, but I don't expect anything substantive.
++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/LR0mNH1OAAAJ November 22, 2023, 1:01 AM
Re: DNA PROOFREADING AND ?REPAIR MECHANISMS ~ REVISITED
[original subject line: Origin of Life Challenge]
Your cocksure attitude in the excerpt is well suited to talk.origins, where you have
quite a lot of people who look up to you as a "biology guru."
However, it imparts a tinge of hypocrisy to your question,
"Isn't uncertainty preferable to false confidence?"
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
We've been over all this before.
Who is the intended audience for your
proposed ancestor candidates?
It's certainly not paleotologists or
evolutionary biologists.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:19:18 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:the Avialae as the sister to other avialans except the anchiornithids.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 1:45:14 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 11/21/23 6:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:45:04 AM UTC-5, Sight Reader wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:54:33 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Our phylogenetic analyses consistently recovered Fujianvenator within the clade Anchiornithidae, which unites other Anchiornis-like taxa51 and is resolved as the earliest diverging group of the Avialae (Fig. 1b). Archaeopteryx was resolved within
sister to birds - but neither of lead directly TO birds?
Ok, so I’m trying to wrap my puny little mind around this. Are they saying here that Anchiornithidae (which, I gather, contains Fujianvenator) and whatever group Archeopteryx belongs to are both different “spurs” of the Avialae tree that are
Correct. Paleontologists have abandoned Archie as a bird ancestor. But I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
A little of both, really.What would be an apomorphy that disqualifies it from direct ancestry? [See below for
why I am wording it this way.]
Your memory seems to be worsening lately. I've told you umpteen times"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
What would count as evidence? If I recall, you mostly won't say.
about what I call a "prime candidate for ancestry of __________________": >>> a reasonably complete skeleton [a fraction of missing ribs and vertebrae don't count]
with no apomorphies that could reasonably disqualify it from direct ancestry of __________________.
With basal avialans, I would also include "some pennaceous feathers" if the putative
descendant had them.
I would suggest that the best evidenceDidn't you mean to say "the only thing *I* might consider to be evidence" instead
of the last two words? See "equality" above.
would be character optimization on a treeThat would depend on how complete the skeleton was, and
showing a zero-length branch between a species and the ancestral node.
whether almost ALL representative bones [and, in the case above, feathers] >>> were included in the analysis.
But would even that be ver good evidence?Mine is so demanding, it can only apply in a few places on the tree of
vertebrata. About the only place where it occurs in abundance is in Equidae.
Contrast that with the ubiquitous use of "sister group," where almost
everything is the alleged sister group of something else. This is why I
am annoyed at your doctrinaire claim that "prime ancestor candidate"
is not "objective" enough to be acceptable to a leading peer-reviewed journal.
It seriously undermines your notion that "sister group" claims are "objective."Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the
on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct: >>>>>
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
I'm not quite sure if you think that's a bad thing.
At the very least, such claims should be coupled with "based on the
phylogenetic analysis in __________________." That way, people can judge >>> for themselves how near to being "objective" these claims are.
But if that's the"Prime ancestor candidate" does that very well, while giving us
case, why? Shouldn't we always be prepared to question traditional
wisdom in the light of new evidence?
a window into what the actual LCA might have been like.
Isn't uncertainty preferable toCertainly, but look at the false confidence you displayed where my then-future
false confidence?
reply to this very post of yours was the issue in talk.origins:
________________________ begin excerpt, my words alternating with your ripostes_______________________
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to undermine
the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
Yes, it might be expected that I would explain how you are wrong about
so much of what you say. Though you never listen, it's possible that
someone else may.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply.
In any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
I doubt it. There might be a response, but I don't expect anything
substantive.
++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/LR0mNH1OAAAJ
November 22, 2023, 1:01 AM
Re: DNA PROOFREADING AND ?REPAIR MECHANISMS ~ REVISITED
[original subject line: Origin of Life Challenge]
Your cocksure attitude in the excerpt is well suited to talk.origins, where you have
quite a lot of people who look up to you as a "biology guru."
However, it imparts a tinge of hypocrisy to your question,
"Isn't uncertainty preferable to false confidence?"
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
We've been over all this before.
No, we haven't. Harshman's display of arrogance over in talk.origins is new even for him,
but it is true that your failure to bat an eye at it is the same old same old with you.
Who is the intended audience for your
proposed ancestor candidates?
(1) Anyone who wants to make sense of Kathleen Hunt's excellent FAQ on
the horse superfamily:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
In it, Kathleen Hunt displays, not a phylogenetic tree, but what Richard Zander
and some others have called an "evolutionary tree," which shows hypothesized direct ancestry, with real animals known from fossils occupying the nodes.
In contrast, phylogenetic trees even avoid giving names to the LCA's that form the nodes in them. Even ichnofossils are given names, but the
doctrines to which Harshman subscribes rate ichnofossils higher than actual species whose existence AND main suite of characters is not in doubt.
Now, what Kathleen's actual text conveys is that every genus-to-genus line in that evolutionary tree represents
a prime ancestor candidate in the genus at the lower end for the genus at the upper end.
Whether she was justified in it, it provides a rationale for the existence of the tree.
(2) Evidence that creationists cannot wave away that actual evolution has occurred.
Trying to use a phylogenetic tree for the same end invites a huge amount
of debate from more knowledgeable creationists who know that it is impossible to even approximate direct ancestry from them. For instance, the echidnas are the
sister group of the platypus, but it would be madness to claim that one is descended from the other.
It's certainly not paleotologists or
evolutionary biologists.
Kathleen Hunt was both. Who are you trying to kid?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:34:57 |
| Calls: | 12,103 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,073 |