On 29.4.2021. 17:31, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/28/21 8:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 29.4.2021. 1:45, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 2:57 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 28.4.2021. 22:35, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/21 11:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half
>>>>>>>>>>>>> months of 2021, and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> close to a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere. For instance, I thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that produces new orders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which some take to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> once-in-a-blue moon (for him)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gaylord Simpson had coined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John's direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strength of the two directions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of flora and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were no large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recover after a mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exploring scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never showed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OP of hers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to evolve out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acquire that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive. Why would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, dinos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> K-T extinction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now-extinct branches of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the first really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>> million years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that prevented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pockets of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't hit the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preceding sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>>>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolves. The point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go
>>>>>>>>>>>> extinct without a reason. Herbivores of mammalian type
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't go extinct (as you mentioned), large herbivores of
>>>>>>>>>>>> mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at
>>>>>>>>>>>> least, didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my later.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their
>>>>>>>>>>>> predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The question was, did ecology change because of dinos went
>>>>>>>>>>>> extinct? There is no reason for just a specific type of
>>>>>>>>>>>> dinos to go extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it
>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, nobody knows for the reason, there is no theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> about that reason, there is no idea about the reason, there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is no just-so story about the reason, absolutely nothing,
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is only a "possibility" that this could have happened
>>>>>>>>>>>> (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a possibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> that life on Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are we
>>>>>>>>>>>> at that level of reasoning? Or, is science on that level of
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning? If it shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they
>>>>>>>>>>>> are on that level?
>>>>>>>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for
>>>>>>>>>>>> ecology to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for
>>>>>>>>>>>> sunlight already evolved at poles (definitely there is some
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic in it). The impact created the lack of sunlight (there
>>>>>>>>>>>> were already some theories about that), so the plants that
>>>>>>>>>>>> are able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> is one simple and logical explanation for this mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For the mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went
>>>>>>>>>>>> extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more
>>>>>>>>>>>> members, Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion going on at all. So far I am happy, this is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good start, :) .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern
>>>>>>>>>>> spike". For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the
>>>>>>>>>>> terrestrial vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get
>>>>>>>>>>> much less sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave
>>>>>>>>>>> for" sunlight would be less likely to be located there than
>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight could
>>>>>>>>>>> have lasted a couple of years at most. Finally, you have no
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on ferns,
>>>>>>>>>>> which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds
>>>>>>>>>>> or mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly
>>>>>>>>>>> thought, extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant
>>>>>>>>>>> heat from the sky resulting from the re-entry of small
>>>>>>>>>>> ejecta, big animals would be less able to hide under rocks
>>>>>>>>>>> and in burrows than small ones. And there you have the filter
>>>>>>>>>>> to explain the extinction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>>>>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>>>>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely
>>>>>>>>>> being better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in
>>>>>>>>>> blood, which extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously
>>>>>>>>>> the animals adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>>>>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>>>>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to
>>>>>>>>>> strip ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any
>>>>>>>>> evidence that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight
>>>>>>>>> than tropical ones? You should probably check out the
>>>>>>>>> difference between C3 and C4 plants. And no, a couple of years
>>>>>>>>> isn't enough at all; you should probably check out the term
>>>>>>>>> "seed bank". In general, you should learn something about
>>>>>>>>> botany. And what you believe about the teeth of dinosaurs is
>>>>>>>>> not supported by anything that I know of and, I strongly
>>>>>>>>> suspect, not anything that you know of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have,
>>>>>>>> both, plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>>>>>>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I
>>>>>>>> don't see your point.
>>>>>>>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long
>>>>>>>> time ago. And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are
>>>>>>>> for stripping ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would
>>>>>>>> presume that they are adapted to eat it. I see no problem in
>>>>>>>> this, whichever way you put it.
>>>>>>>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario
>>>>>>>> for "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes,
>>>>>>>> dinosaurs were pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs,
>>>>>>>> all the birds, all other animals, all plants, everybody. The
>>>>>>>> question is why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>>>>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>>>>>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>>>>>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now,
>>>>>>>> dinosaurs were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So,
>>>>>>>> not a lot of narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten
>>>>>>>> ferns. But, some other types of trees were better adapted to the
>>>>>>>> conditions, so those types of trees started to grow. And those
>>>>>>>> types overwhelmed ferns.
>>>>>>>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in
>>>>>>>> real world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high
>>>>>>> insolation environments, and they're the plants that are most
>>>>>>> efficient at photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to
>>>>>>> say, they aren't found at the poles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary
>>>>>>> some time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation
>>>>>>> for your theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs
>>>>>>> kept the ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing?
>>>>>>> The angiosperms killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why
>>>>>> it isn't obvious, and this is why this is still a question that
>>>>>> needs the answer.
>>>>>>          I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came,
>>>>>> and killed just the right animals. Nice and simple, just like 'God
>>>>>> said: Let there be light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes
>>>>>> simple explanations. Sheer beauty.
>>>>>>          So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only
>>>>>> problem is, simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much
>>>>>> more sense, and it is a better theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide a coherent and complete explanation of your theory,
>>>>> which you have never managed to do so far. Try to use complete
>>>>> sentences with grammatical English, as best you can. Try to provide
>>>>> a clear cause-and-effect scenario.
>>>>
>>>>          But why? Use what you've got. You should be more than
>>>> satisfied with what I already provided.
>>>
>>> No, what you've already provided is disjointed and incoherent. If
>>> that's the best you can do, then there's nowhere to go.
>>>
>>>>          I thank you for all your help, but I cannot work by
>>>> providing "coherent and complete explanation". This isn't actually
>>>> my theory, I am trying to figure out what actually happened.
>>>>          I cannot concentrate on my work if I am concentrating on
>>>> how this will sound to English speaking people.
>>>>          Clear cause-and-effect scenario I can provide for my launch
>>>> (I cooked it, I ate it), how to provide clear cause-and-effect
>>>> scenario for something I know so little about, and which happened 66
>>>> mya? I am doing the best I can.
>>>
>>> If so, that's unfortunate.
>>
>>          Yes, I agree.
>>          This is similar to that Nazism/communism discussion that we
>> had recently. I am liberal democrat, but if I am discussing
>> Nazism/communism I, simply, *have to* say that Nazism is better than
>> communism. Now, I knew that 100 % of people will immediately call me a
>> nazist, simply, because I said that, but, I didn't have a choice, I
>> had to be right. I learnt a long time ago (remember, I am the sole
>> soul that claims that the West is the best, in a country full with
>> people who claim that the East is the best) that, if seven billion
>> people says one thing, and I say the other thing, and if I am the
>> right one, I, alone, am stronger than seven billion people. And, if I
>> cannot get along with seven billion people, that's really
>> unfortunate,... for them.
>>          So, you are asking me to *bias* my ideas towards that they
>> are perceived more clearly by the rest, but, if I am biasing my
>> thinking, this will steer me away from the truth. I don't want to do
>> that, because doing this, I am, actually, wasting my time.
>>          And, lastly, notice this, I am doing all this in your
>> language, and I am not complaining. You are communicating with me in
>> your language, and you are full with complains. Try to complain in
>> Croatian, so that I have a little laugh, ;) .
>>
> I'm sorry, but that was an insane rant.