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.
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.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com