On 28.4.2021. 23:57, 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.
>         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.

BTW, if you think that you will make a scenario using those tiny
pieces that you know something about, this is a waste of time, because
along with those coexisted things you know absolutely nothing about,
have no evidence of them, nor you will ever have.
Regarding me, I have to use things I don't know nothing about in order
for my scenario to work. It is simple as that. Scenario will not work if
I miss things I have no knowledge of, and no evidence of. I have to
incorporate those in order for scenario to work, or scenario will not work.

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