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, ;) .

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