The role of pyschopathy in modern society.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, September 29, 2025 19:26
VIEWED: 9758
PAGE 8 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The classifications are defined somewhat by who is making the list of species. Many don't include Birds as Dinosaurs after Arceopteryx because there are so many birds extinct and still alive that the few(700-800) dinosaur genus known would be just a minute portion of the list. One of the problems we are haveing here is that Dinosaurs are not known by their species, but their genus, Tyrannosaur is the genus, Rex is the species. If all dinosaurs were the same species then they could interbreed. Because almost nothing is known about their genetics, it's almost impossible to determine what species a particular dinosaur belonged to, other than by common appearance. If you want to cut off your list of Dinosaurs so feathered genus after Arceopteryx are not included, then yes all genus of Dinosaurs are extinct. The only problem I see with this is that Dinosaurs did not become extinct when Archeopterex emerged, so it's just an arbitrary point in the evolution of Dinosaurs. By doing so you are assuming all other genus of Dinosaurs did become extinct. If we conclusively knew that all modern bird were descended from genus Archyopteryx then I would have no problem saying all Dinosaurs are extinct and calling a Sparrow Archyopteryx Sparrow. The problem I see with that is, a few year form now we might discover that Archyopteryx was just another dead end Dinosaur genus and that modern birds are actually descended from a Dinosaur genus that emerged a million years after Arceopteryx.
It doesn't make a difference. Birds are not part of the Dinosaur group of species, regardless of what species they may have evolved from. It's not just an arbitrary distinction, Birds have a number of physical differences and adaptations to Dinosaur species that warrants them being placed in a separate category. There are still bird species in the world, but that doesn't mean the Dodo isn't extinct.
There are no species that fit into the Dinosaur classification left alive in the world, thus they are extinct.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:You need to check your numbers REALLY badly. Humans and micro-organisms are entirely different species, birds and Dinosaurs aren't the same species. Just because they may have evolved from Dinosaurs, doesn't mean they're the same species. If your proposal had any weight there could be no extinction of species. There is.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium.
I didn't say humans and Paramecium have 99.99% identical genetics. Obviously a Paramecium has only a fraction of the genetic material of a human. All species on earth contain the genetic code of organisms that precede them in the evolutionary tree. Just because I contain the genetic code of a Paramecium doesn't make me a Paramecium.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I didn't say humans and Paramecium have 99.99% identical genetics. Obviously a Paramecium has only a fraction of the genetic material of a human. All species on earth contain the genetic code of organisms that precede them in the evolutionary tree. Just because I contain the genetic code of a Paramecium doesn't make me a Paramecium.
It's a misconception that more complex animals have a greater amount of, or more complex DNA. Actually evidence suggests that specialisation has reduced the number of base pairs in complex life forms. So no, you don't contain all the genetic material of all your evolutionary ancestors.
Besides, wasn't the "being evolved from an older species doesn't make you that older species" actually my point?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.
Just wondering.
Mike
That is an interesting thought. We just don't know whether or not the earliest feathered dinosaur could breed with a modern bird. Seems highly unlikely, buy not impossible. If they could, Birds are definitely Dinosaurs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
That is an interesting thought. We just don't know whether or not the earliest feathered dinosaur could breed with a modern bird. Seems highly unlikely, buy not impossible. If they could, Birds are definitely Dinosaurs.
By that reasoning we don't know for sure modern day people couldn't breed with dinosaurs, having no living Dinosaurs to test the theory with. But again, Birds are very different to dinosaur species, there's basically no chance they could interbreed, and even then it's not actually proof that the species are the same. Horses and Donkeys are obviously not the same Species, but can produce infertile offspring.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Horses and Donkeys are obviously not the same Species, but can produce infertile offspring.
"related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
Now you are the one arguing with Swish's dictionary definition of species. Have you added the requirement that the offspring be fertile? My dictionary only requires "a group of animals or plants which bear a close resemblance to each other in the more essential features of their organisation, and produce similar progeny".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
"related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
Now you are the one arguing with Swish's dictionary definition of species. Have you added the requirement that the offspring be fertile? My dictionary only requires "a group of animals or plants which bear a close resemblance to each other in the more essential features of their organisation, and produce similar progeny".
I haven't added anything. I'm going by the definition made by biologists, last time I checked dictionaries weren't considered biological texts. No interbreeding is fine for a rule of thumb, and I'll say for sure that no dinosaur species could breed with modern birds, because the genetic morphology is far to remote, but it's not all encompassing. Horses and Donkeys are different species, even the dictionary won't tell you different.
The fact is that species definitions become blurred with very closely related species, such as horses, donkeys and so on, Birds are not closely related to Dinosaurs. They're quite far removed morphologically and genetically, so while closely related species may "blur" to some extent, Birds are well out of "blurring range" with Dinosaurs.
Quote:
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology.
...
Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I'll add that that was not my definition, it was from dictionary.com, and can be found in any high school, or probably junior high or even elementary biology textbook. The issue of different but similar species, such as horses and donkeys, being able to procreate would also be addressed in these texts.
Kirk - really, it doesn't help the discussion if you have no respect for common definitions, or don't take the time to learn them. You probably have a very good point, but if you continually misuse basic terms like "species", it's hard to understand you!
What was this discussion about anyway? Psychopathic birds doing it with dinosaurs?
*confused*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re Greenlanders going extinct
"I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. ."
Yes, Greenlanders did actually all go extinct. The trading records of the day indicated no trading ships went to Greenland in a span of 100 years (one left Iceland for Greenland early in that timeframe but never returned. Voyaging was a dangerous occupation.) Furthermore, the Greenlanders had cleared all the available trees for pasture for their beloved cows, so they couldn't build ships. Without visiting ships and unable to make their own they were unable to go elsewhere. Finally, the archeological evidence is of a once large and thriving community with major elements long fallen into disrepair and disuse, indications of economic and population contraction. And the few skeletons and waste left behind indicated a half-dozen people living with their few remaining precious cattle, eating them, and eating each other. While ships occasionally sheltered near Greenland during the interim, knowledge of the colony itself was lost to time. The next time anyone visited the colony was hundreds of years later and, and obviously, no one was home.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The fact is that species definitions become blurred with very closely related species, such as horses, donkeys and so on, Birds are not closely related to Dinosaurs. They're quite far removed morphologically and genetically, so while closely related species may "blur" to some extent, Birds are well out of "blurring range" with Dinosaurs.
In my original post that is all I was trying to imply about Neanderthal. The "general consensus" among scientists is that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal are separate species. This is not a scientific fact. They are classified that way because the current consensus is that most of the evidence in the fossil record suggests that this may be the case. Many scientists believe that modern humans might be the result of Neanderthal, Homo Sapien hybridization. If this is the case then the name given to our species is just a result of the fact that the consensus is that our skeletons more closely resemble Homo Sapien. It's possible that future evidence will determine that the Neanderthal contribution to human genetics is much greater than currently thought. If that is the case it would be just as reasonable to call modern man Neanderthal as Homo Sapien. By any of the definitions of species you accept, Neanderthal and Homo Sapien would be considered the same due to the "blurring" between closely related species. They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile. The difference in their skeletal structure is significant, but so is the deference in skeletal structure among different populations of Homo Sapiens.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME