[__ Science __ ] No birds are non-birds.

[Paul E. Michael]

I had asked Barbarian:

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?

Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

Here are your only, two possible answers to this Yes/No question, Barbarian:

• Affirmative answer: "Yes, I call fish 'primates'."
• Negative answer: "No, I do not call fish 'primates'."

Barbarian, thus far, you've neither affirmed that you call fish "primates," nor denied that you call fish "primates"; thus, you've thus far not answered this Yes/No question that I've asked you.

I had asked you:

You assert that one-celled organisms are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call one-celled organisms "primates"?

Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

Here are your only, two possible answers to this Yes/No question, Barbarian:

• Affirmative answer: "Yes, I call one-celled organisms 'primates'."
• Negative answer: "No, I do not call one-celled organisms 'primates'."

Barbarian, thus far, you've neither affirmed that you call one-celled organisms "primates," nor denied that you call fish "primates"; thus, you've thus far not answered this Yes/No question that I've asked you.

I answered this,

False. Which is why you cannot quote yourself answering it in the affirmative, nor answering it in the negative. Do you really not understand the nature of Yes/No questions, Barbarian?

pointing out that I call them "eukaryotes."

Once again, no one asked you whether or not you call one-celled organisms "eukaryotes." Once again, you're merely "pointing out" your answer to a question no one asked you, and asserting falsely that you have therein answered the Yes/No question I've been asking you.

Gorillas are eukaryotes, too. I get that you didn't like the answer, but denying that I gave you one isn't a very smart move

Careful, there, Barbarian, it looks like you're hinting at drifting back to your old practice of using ad hominem attacks against me, there. Obviously I am smart, so I make smart moves, such as denying the falsehood you're asserting here, that you gave me an answer to the Yes/No questions I've been asking you. Since it is the truth that you have not given me answers to the Yes/No questions I've been asking you, my affirmation of this truth is, indeed, obviously a very smart move.

I get that you don't like being asked Yes/No questions, and that you like to never answer them and yet turn around and say, falsely, that you answered them. But your "pointing out" that you have answered questions that I never asked you has never whitewashed, and never will whitewash, the fact that you have never answered the Yes/No questions I've been asking you.

 

[Barbarian]

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?

Twice I told you that I call them "vertebrates." You don't want to hear my answer, so you pretended twice that I didn't answer.

Yes or No?

You don't get to decide what my choice of answers is. Learn to live with it.

Here are your only, two possible answers to this Yes/No question, Barbarian:

Sorry, you don't get to decide what my answers can be. I know it probably seems like a clever deception to you, but everyone here sees through it.

"Tell us; do you still lie constantly on message boards? Your choices are "yes" or "no.""

It's called the "Have you stopped beating your wife" dishonesty. Do you actually think anyone is fooled? You're not nearly as smart as you thought you were.

Meantime, let's get back to the question you've repeatedly refused to answer. What is one difference between birds and other dinosaurs?

You can't even name one. That being so, it's odd that you continue to deny that they are dinosaurs. It would be easier to show that gorillas are different than many other vertebrates. Wouldn't be that hard to show that gorillas are different than other primates. But you're stuck with finding a way to tell the difference between birds and other dinosaurs.

And every time you refuse to answer, people draw conclusions.

 

[Barbarian]

Careful, there, Barbarian, it looks like you're hinting at drifting back to your old practice of using ad hominem attacks against me, there.

Recently, someone here got taken to the woodshed for doing that stuff, didn't he? Wasn't me, though. If I were you, I wouldn't be reminding people. Learn from the experience and let it go.

 

[Barbarian]

Obviously you can't, or else you'd tell us at least one difference between birds and the ancestors of birds.

Sorry, not doing your work for you. If you can't figure out even one difference between birds and other dinosaurs, what makes you think birds aren't dinosaurs?

I showed you a large list of characteristics found just in other dinosaurs and birds. And you still can't find even one way that they differ. If you have no reason to think that they are different, why would you even continue to insist that they are.

BTW, I've been checking the literature, and another supposed difference just went down. Until recently, it was thought only dinosaurs had an elongnated deltopectoral crest on the humerus (the bottom part is sometimes called the funny bone). Now it turns out, that it is present in early birds. Possibly making it easy to grasp small annelids.

An especially long and prominent deltopectoral crest is a dinosaurian synapomorphy, i.e., a feature differentiating the group from other groups.

Glossary of dinosaur anatomy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No longer...

PeerJ. 2014; 2: e234.
Published online 2014 Jan 2.

A new specimen of the Early Cretaceous bird Hongshanornis longicresta: insights into the aerodynamics and diet of a basal ornithuromorph​

A new specimen of the Early Cretaceous bird Hongshanornis longicresta: insights into the aerodynamics and diet of a basal ornithuromorph

The discovery of Hongshanornis longicresta, a small ornithuromorph bird with unusually long hindlimb proportions, was followed by the discovery of two closely related species, Longicrusavis houi and Parahongshanornis chaoyangensis. Together forming the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The list (of which you clearly have no clue) is getting smaller and smaller.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I've numerous times asked Barbarian:​

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?​

Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

I've numerous times asked Barbarian:​

You assert that one-celled organisms are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call one-celled organisms "primates"?​

Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>​

---

​

Twice I told you that I call them "vertebrates."​

Twice I told you that no one asked you if you call them "vertebrates."
​

You don't want to hear my answer, so you pretended twice that I didn't answer.​

You don't want to answer my question, so, instead of answering the question* I've asked you, you answered a question** no one asked you, while saying mistakenly that you answered the question I've asked you.

* "Do you call fish 'primates'? Yes or No?"
** "Do you call fish 'vertebrates'? Yes or No?"
​

You don't get to decide what my choice of answers is. Learn to live with it.​

You don't get to decide what my choice of questions is.

I've asked you a Yes/No question, and thus far, you've not answered it.

Barbarian, can you not tell the difference between these two, different questions:​

1. "Do you call fish 'primates'? Yes or No?" (The question I asked you, which you have not answered.)​
2. "Do you call fish 'vertebrates'? Yes or No?" (A question which no one asked you, which you have answered.)​

Why do you like to answer question #2, yet continue in your refusal to answer question #1?
​

Sorry, you don't get to decide what my answers can be. ​

Sorry, you don't get to decide what my questions can be.

I've asked you a Yes/No question, and thus far, you've not answered it: "Do you call fish 'primates'? Yes or No?"​

---

​

I know it probably seems like a clever deception to you, but everyone here sees through it.​

Here, once again, you are accusing me of lying.

BTW, who is/are this "everyone" you keep mentioning?
​

"Tell us; do you still lie constantly on message boards? Your choices are "yes" or "no.""​

No.
​

It's called the "Have you stopped beating your wife" dishonesty.​

Are you accusing me of dishonesty? Could you tell me what (if any) difference there is between dishonesty and lying? Remember, stovebolts banned me from a thread for accusing someone of lying.

(And, if you're not accusing me of dishonesty, what point were you trying to make by bringing up dishonesty?)
​

Do you actually think anyone is fooled?​

Are you accusing me of trying to fool someone? If so, whom? Could you tell me what (if any) difference there is between trying to fool someone and lying to them? Remember, stovebolts banned me from a thread for having accused someone of lying. I do not know if you, Barbarian, somehow have immunity from being banned from threads for accusing people of lying, but, in case you are not immune from it, I thought I should be courteous enough to give you the opportunity to learn from my mistake, in case you were inclined to accuse me of lying.
​

You're not nearly as smart as you thought you were.​

Oh? And how smart was that?

Here, once again, you are resorting to abrasive, derogatory personal remarks against me. Barbarian, how would you like someone to say, to you, "You're not nearly as smart as you thought you were"? Would you consider someone as being respectful of you, were they to say to you what you have just said to me? Remember what stovebolts says:
​

stovebolts:

Most of all, be respectful of others.​

---

​

What is one difference between birds and other dinosaurs?​

What is one difference between birds and other non-dinosaurs?
​

---

1. Barbarian, do you call fish "vertebrates"? Yes or No?​
2. Barbarian, do you call fish "primates"? Yes or No?​

I already know your answer to question #2, of course, because you've, unsolicited, already answered it multiple times, even though I had never asked you it until this post. (I'm asking you it, here, though, because I know how much you love to answer it.) But, I'm still curious as to how (if at all) you would answer question #1, because, so far, even though I've asked you question #1 multiple times, you've never yet answered it.​

 

[Barbarian]

Paul E. Michael said:
You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?

I've told you twice that I call them "vertebrates." As you know, both fish and gorillas are verebrates, just as birds and other dinosaurs are dinosaurs.

Twice I told you that no one asked you if you call them "vertebrates."

If you don't want to know what I think, then don't ask. That doesn't seem like a difficult thing to figure out.

Yes or No?

Sorry, you don't get to decide what my answer can be.

"Do you still shoplift? Yes or no?" That isn't a clever as you think it is.

What is one difference between birds and other non-dinosaurs?

You're frustrated because you can't answer my question. I get that. But I'm not answering for you. Far as I know, there still is at least one way to tell birds from other dinosaurs. But you don't know what it is. And if you can't even name one difference, what makes you think they are different?

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

I'm pointing out the dishonesty in the question. Maybe you just saw it somewhere and didn't realize it was dishonest.

The phrase "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is an example of a loaded question. This particular phrase is a canonical example used in the book The Power of Logic (C. Stephen Layman) and is often quoted.

On using phrases like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" to point out logical fallacies

The phrase "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is an example of a loaded question. This particular phrase is a canonical example used in the book The Power of Logic (C. Stephen Layman) and is often

meta.stackexchange.com

Even if you aren't able to realize that it's a dishonesty, people here see it and it colors their opinion of you. Avoid it.

 

[Barbarian]

List of apomorphic characters shared by birds and other dinosaurs:

"Avian"four-chambered heart
"Avian"metabolism and activity, (with Haversian canals found in warm-blooded animals)
"Avian"feathers
"Avian" hollow bones
"Avian" Large orbits
"Avian" Secondary bony palate
"Avian" Expanded pneumatic sinuses
"Avian" Teeth with a constriction between the root and crown
"Avian" S-shaped curved neck
"Avian" Strap-like scapula
"Avian" 3-fingered opposable grasping hand,
"Avian" Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal
"Avian" Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed hands
"Avian" Fused clavicles form a furcula
"Avian" Pubis is shifted to a more posterior orientation
"Avian" Four or five vertebrae form the sacrum
"Avian" Reduced, stiffened tail
"Avian" Erect, digitgrade stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
"Avian" Hingelike ankle joint, with restricted movement.
"Avian" Elongated metatarsals.
"Avian" 4-toed foot supported by 3 main toes. (frequently with reversed hallux)
"Avian" elongnated deltopectoral crest on the humerus
Then there's that bit of dinosaur heme found in the bones of a T. rex. It turns out to be more like the heme of birds than of the heme of other reptiles. Which is once more consistent with all those apomorphic characters, the large number of transistional forms, and so on.

So what do you have that's different between birds and other dinosaurs?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I've told you twice that I call them "vertebrates." As you know, both fish and gorillas are verebrates, just as birds and other dinosaurs are dinosaurs.



If you don't want to know what I think, then don't ask. That doesn't seem like a difficult thing to figure out.



Sorry, you don't get to decide what my answer can be.

"Do you still shoplift? Yes or no?" That isn't a clever as you think it is.


You're frustrated because you can't answer my question. I get that. But I'm not answering for you. Far as I know, there still is at least one way to tell birds from other dinosaurs. But you don't know what it is. And if you can't even name one difference, what makes you think they are different?


I'm pointing out the dishonesty in the question. Maybe you just saw it somewhere and didn't realize it was dishonest.

The phrase "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is an example of a loaded question. This particular phrase is a canonical example used in the book The Power of Logic (C. Stephen Layman) and is often quoted.

On using phrases like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" to point out logical fallacies

The phrase "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is an example of a loaded question. This particular phrase is a canonical example used in the book The Power of Logic (C. Stephen Layman) and is often

meta.stackexchange.com

Even if you aren't able to realize that it's a dishonesty, people here see it and it colors their opinion of you. Avoid it.

Barbarian, see post #45. Apparently you've not read it yet. Thanks.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you can't even tell the difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, what makes you think the ancestors of birds are not birds?

I can.

Obviously you can't, or else you'd tell us at least one difference between birds and the ancestors of birds.

Sorry, not doing your work for you.

It's all right that you can't do your work for yourself, that you can't get yourself out from under your burden. I don't hold it against you. I'm just puzzled as to why, since you can't even tell us at least one difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, you nevertheless continue to think the ancestors of birds are not birds.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The phrase "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is an example of a loaded question.

Oh, you mean like when you say,

What is one difference between birds and other dinosaurs?

And, what of the question I've been asking you, which you continue to falsely claim you've answered:

Barbarian, do you call fish "primates"? Yes or No?

Do you call that question a "loaded question"? If so, please tell us exactly how—in what sense—according to your imagination, it is "loaded". With what (if anything) would you say it is "loaded"? Would you say that I am assuming something in/by asking you that question? If so, what would you say I am assuming in/by asking it? Would you say that it is somehow fallacious to ask someone whether or not he/she calls fish "primates"? If so, please explain to us exactly how, according to your imagination, it is fallacious to do so.

Remember, you keep insisting (falsely) that you've answered the question, so it'll be funny if you want to call a question you insist you've answered, a "loaded question".

Here are some additional fun and interesting questions for you, Barbarian:

• Is "Do you call fish 'primates'? Yes or No?" a "loaded question"?
• Is "Do you call fish 'vertebrates'? Yes or No?" a "loaded question"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

BTW, Barbarian, if you can't figure out even one difference between brontosauruses and the ancestors of brontosauruses, what makes you think the ancestors of brontosauruses are not dinosaurs?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

the ancestors of gorillas were non-gorillas and we call the ancestors of gorillas "primates."

So, if (as you, being a Darwinist, assert) the ancestors of gorillas are fish, here is what you are telling us:

"[fish] were non-gorillas and we call [fish] 'primates.'"

​

 

[Barbarian]

So, if (as you, being a Darwinist, assert) the ancestors of gorillas are fish, here is what you are telling us:

"[fish] were non-gorillas and we call [fish] 'primates.'"​

So when I gave you an answer you didn't like, you just made up a false statement and pretended I told it to you.

Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

BTW, @Barbarian, if you can't figure out even one difference between brontosauruses and the ancestors of brontosauruses, what makes you think the ancestors of brontosauruses are not dinosaurs?

I know the differences between brontosaurs and their ancestors. This guy spent some time analyzing sauropods, and found some interesting functional trends in their evolution:

What the team found is perhaps intuitive, but cool nonetheless. It seems that all major changes in body size within sauropods and their ancestors (sauropodomorphs) are related to major macroevolutionary events in the history of the group.

In the Middle Triassic (245-230 million years ago), when dinosaurs were just getting going, there is evidence for shift in the centre of mass of saurischian dinosaurs (early theropods and sauropodomorphs). This tail-wards shift in centre of mass seems to be associated with the evolution of bipedalism in these early dinosaurs.

However, this change was reversed by the Late Triassic, as sauropods became more graviportal and took to four legs to support their increasing body sizes during the Early to Middle Jurassic. This constraint to using four limbs to walk is called 'obligate quadrupedalism'.

Later on in their evolution during the Late Jurassic (around 161 million years ago), this reversal becomes more prominent as the centre of mass moved more towards the skull, particularly striking in the titanosauriforms – the sauropod group that included the largest species of all (in case you didn't get that from the name..)

Centre of mass shifts towards the front end of the animal are each associated with lengthening of the neck, a trait that was probably one of the most important factors in the evolution of gigantism in sauropods. A longer neck gives an animal a greater 'feeding envelope' and it becomes more efficient in gathering food. Additionally, it means you can reach food that other smaller herbivores are incapable of. And trees thought they were so smart..

These shifts are also related to changes in locomotory habit and environmental distributions in titanosaurs. For example, some sauropods had what is called a 'narrow gauge' stance while others had a 'wide gauge', which relates to the relative distances between pairs of legs beneath the torso. Wider gauge trackways are those in which the legs are planted further away from the midline of the animal. The evolution of this 'wide gauge' stance is coincident in time with the evolution of a more cranial-positioned centre of mass, and development of a greater neck length.

The evolution of sauropod dinosaurs

Sauropod dinosaurs are some of the most notoriously recognisable animals. With their whiplash tails, and long searching necks, they are the biggest terrestrial vertebrates ever to walk the Earth.

phys.org

There's a nice graph, which explains how some of the evolved characters fit the process.

But you're still unable to find even one difference between birds and other dinosaurs. There is at least one, but you have no idea what it is, because birds are so closely related to other dinosaurs that it's a tough call.

 

[Milk-Drops]

So, if (as you, being a Darwinist, assert) the ancestors of gorillas are fish, here is what you are telling us:

"[fish] were non-gorillas and we call [fish] 'primates.'"

​

Primates descended from Sarcopterygii which were a specific line of aquatic animals that are related to fish, but diverged off to land based animals.

So technicly fish, but not what we would call modern fish by any means.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Why do you call fish "primates," Barbarian?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

"Do you still shoplift? Yes or no?"

No. Do you?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Primates descended from Sarcopterygii which were a specific line of aquatic animals that are related to fish, but diverged off to land based animals.

So technicly fish, but not what we would call modern fish by any means.

So you agree with Barbarian in calling fish "primates"? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked Barbarian:

Is "Do you call fish 'primates'? Yes or No?" a "loaded question"?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

• Why do you want to remain silent regarding that question, Barbarian?
• Why do you want to not tell me that my question, "Do you call fish 'primates'? Yes or No?" is a "loaded question"?
• Why do you want to not tell me that my question, "Do you call fish 'primates'? Yes or No?" is not a "loaded question"?

 

[Barbarian]

So you agree with @Barbarian in calling fish "primates"? If so, why? If not, why not?

Paul has gone from insults to lying about what other people say. How sad.

 

[Milk-Drops]

So you agree with Barbarian in calling fish "primates"? If so, why? If not, why not?

No, I do not think fish are primates.

My reasoning is that primates are in the lineage after fish diversified. So modern fish can not be primates.