HOME | DD
Haters-Gonna-Hate-Me β Fail Logic
Published: 2012-03-28 00:00:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 30594; Favourites: 1783; Downloads: 103
Redirect to original
Description
I think that mindset is complete and utter bullshit. In the end, who's not going to Hell?You're supposed to be nice and kind, like they told you to be, right? Not spiteful little bitches that say everyone is going to hell for not thinking like you. Hell doesn't even exist and if it does, then I'd rather hang out with Lucifer than god.
What else should I add to this, guys?
EDIT: People who can't read: nowhere did I state this came from the Bible and nowhere did I state that all religious people think this way. You silly, illiterate people. c:
Related content
Comments: 2370
"potentials problems" are a couple of millions of years...NO 230 MILLIONS (early triassic)!!!! And we are not even talking about earliest organisms, fossils of the Archaean, 3500 million years ago...
...fossil Shoes??? Seriously, you are giving me a good headache now...
I could give you perfectly reasonable answers all the day and you wouldn't trust me.
There is a lot of people much better than me to explain it to you. I recommend you this group: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
yea lols im not gonna join that group or maby i do so i can tell the truth
trust me, my dad is a scientist who has to deal with these things and even he is sure that there is no proof for evo.
alot of things are been hidden because if its not true than we have to think about our life and maby have to change it.
it does not fit our lifestile
watch this:
[link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Why would scientists hide the facts? Do you think all scientists are in on some big atheist conspiracy? Most scientists are actually agnostic, some are religious, and dogmatic atheists like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne are a fringe minority. Think about that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sorry. Dinosaurs exists today, too. Because Birds are dinosaurs.
π: 0 β©: 1
Birds are not dinosaurs. They evolved from them
π: 0 β©: 2
Dinosaurs are ornithodirans (as are pterosaurs), alligators are crurotarsans (as are crocodiles). Two completely separate diapsid lineages whose last common ancestor evolved well before the first dinosaur OR the first alligator. Ornithodirans have a straight ankle joint and erect legs, crurotarsans have a bent ankle joint that results in a sprawling gait. The divergence in ankle joint shape happened very early in diapsid evolution. So it's actually very easy to tell any ornithodiran apart from any crurotarsan if you have the ankle and foot bones.
If you're not an ornithodiran, there is by definition NO WAY that you can be a dinosaur. Hence alligators, being crurotarsans rather than ornithodirans, are not even close to being dinosaurs.
Sheesh I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet, it's basic paleontology 101.
π: 0 β©: 2
Actually, dinosaurs are crurotarsans: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Nice try. "the post you are looking for does not exist".
π: 0 β©: 1
Really? The link works just fine for me.
If the link really isn't working for you, here's the entire post:
There is much confusion surrounding the taxonomic name given to the crocodylian branch of Archosauria. Two names are often given for this clade, Pseudosuchia and Crurotarsi, and despite detailed discussion by Brochu (1997) and others, most recently Senter (2005),Β these names are often used interchangeably. However, this general usage is not correct because both taxonomic names have been explicitly defined cladistically and their definitions vary. As I have stated in an earlier post, Pseudosuchia is a stem-based (branch-based) definition that includes all archosaurs closer to crocodylians than to avians; whereas Crurotarsi has a node-based definition delimited by the inclusion of specific taxa, including parasuchians or phytosaurs. It has long been recognized that the definition of Crurotarsi is unstable (e.g., Brochu, 1997), because if one of the specifier taxa used to define this clade is found to lie outside of Archosauria then the taxonomic composition of Crurotarsi would change, possibly to something not actually meant when one uses the name or Crurotarsi could actually end up being a synonym of another node-based clade such as Archosauria. On the other hand the content of Pseudosuchia would not change, and thus that definition is more stable. Nonetheless to date this has not really been a problem because as defined Crurotarsi and Pseudosuchia currently comprise the same taxa. The former name is used much more frequently by workers presumably because of a preference for the name itself rather than a dislike for its definition (Brochu, 1997).
Sterling Nesbittβs upcoming detailed phylogenetic analysis of the Archosauria (Nesbitt, in press), which is previewed in the recent paper on Poposaurus by Gauthier et al. (2011), recovers phytosaurs as the sister taxon to Archosauria. This placement is extremely well-supported in his analysis and actually makes a lot of sense if you spend a lot of time working with this group and with pseudosuchians. As I noted earlier the recovery of Phytosauria outside of Archosauria changes the definition of Crurotarsi quite significantly, with Crurotarsi now the name of the clade Phytosauridae + Archosauria. This means that all ornithodirans including dinosaurs are now crurotarsans. Clearly this is not exactly what is meant when workers utilize this name.
This is also fairly significant in the evolutionary sense because it means that phytosaurs are ancestral to dinosaurs and other ornithodirans. Gauthier et al. (2011) discuss this ancestry in the sense of the functional ankle. They note that phytosaurs possess a primitive form of a crurotarsal joint that is quite different from that in suchians, and also that the ankle joint in the earliest ornithodiran, Lagosuchus, also utilizes crurotarsal motion that is lost in later ornithodirans with the development of the hinge-like ankle joint characteristic of that clade.
Overall the placement of phytosaurs outside of Archosauria is very well supported and may not be overturned. Thus, following Brochu (1997) I advocate the use of Pseudosuchia for the crocodylian branch of Archosauria to promote taxonomic stability. Furthermore, IMHO it is much easier and proper to use than non-ornithodiran crurotarsan, although I expect that more people will start to use Pan-Crocodylia for the clade because of the general dislike of the name Pseudosuchia.
βCareful attention to their [Crurotarsi and Pseudosuchia] ultimate distinctness can be a source of stability for future phylogenetic work. The definitions will remain stable, and we have a nomenclatural framework within which new fossils can be placed. Taxa more closely related to crocodiles than to birds, but not descended from the last common ancestor of parasuchians, ornithosuchids, prestosuchids, and suchians, will still be pseudosuchians. We fully expect diagnoses, group memberships, and minimum divergence times to change as new fossils or data sets are analyzed, and the parameters of Pseudosuchia and Crurotarsi will diverge as more basal pseudosuchians are foundβ (Brochu, 1997:448).
REFERENCES
Brochu, C. A. 1997. Synonymy, Redundancy, and the Name of the Crocodile Stem-Group. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17:448-449.
Gauthier, J. A., Nesbitt, S. J., Schachner, E. R., Bever, G. S., and W. G. Joyce. 2011. The bipedal stem-crocodilian Poposaurus gracilis: inferring function in fossils and innovation in archosaur locomotion. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 52:107-126.
Nesbitt, S. J. in press. The early evolution of archosaurs: relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 352:1-292.
Senter, P. 2005. Phylogenetic taxonomy and the names of the major archosaurian (Reptilia) clades. PaleoBios 25:1β7.
π: 0 β©: 1
But you said that DINOSAURS are crurotarsans. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Dinosaurs are ornithodirans, which are, in turn, crurotarsans. Phytosauridae, a specifier for Crurotarsi, probably lies outside Archosauria.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's jacked up, ornithodirans and crurotarsans are separate groups that diverged from each other long ago. To be a crurotarsan you need to have a crooked ankle joint, dinosaurs have straight ankle joints, which are a major factor in erect leg posture. Furthermore you previously made the point that phytosaurs are crurotarsans, now you say they are outside archosauria altogether? I don't like the inane direction these comments are heading in. If you want to have a serious discussion please read the research. There is no credible scientist out there willing to risk their PhD on the claim that dinosaurs are somehow crurotarsans.
π: 0 β©: 2
Admit it, you've been defeated.
π: 0 β©: 1
Defeated? Hardly. No more than sound science could be defeated overnight by BANDits and Creationists. The burden of proof is upon those who bring the challenge to accepted evidence. And crurotarsans are BY DEFINITION archosaurs with a croked ankle joint. Now if Phytosaurs are outside archosauria together, so be it. Makes more sense to say they're not crurotarsi, than to expand crurotarsi to include all archosaurs. That is like when people try to claim Henodus was actually a turtle.
π: 0 β©: 1
Again, Crurotarsi is not an apomorphy-based clade and never was. Crurotarsi has always been the latest common ancestor of crocodiles, ornithosuchids, aetosaurs, and phytosaurs and any descendant thereof. Phytosaurs are one of the specifiers, so they will always be crurotarsans by definition regardless of where they fall. Crurotarsi was named after the crooked ankle joint because it was indeed coined with the intention of referring to the croc line back when no one suspected that any of its specifiers would turn out not to be part of the croc line. But as one of its specifiers (phytosaurs) has fallen outside of the croc line, the clade is no longer restricted to the croc line, at least in that particular phylogeny. Simple as that. Its name no longer being accurate is unfortunate, but has no bearing on its contents.
(The clade that has been specifically defined to include only the croc line is, ironically, Pseudosuchia, though many people probably prefer Pan-Crocodylia because it's less contradictory, even though Pseudosuchia takes precedence.)
π: 0 β©: 1
So let me get this straight, Phytosaurs also have the same sort of crooked ankle joint as crocodylians and pseudosuchians, but fall outside of archosauria altogether?
How throughly has this been tested in cladistic matrices?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yep... kind of. In phytosaurs the joint itself is reportedly actually quite different from that in definite pseudosuchians, and the ankle joint being crooked appears to be a basal condition for archosauriforms, even present in very basal ornithodirans. (All this is going on Bill Parker's post on Nesbitt's paper and the other references therein; I haven't looked very deep into the literature on this myself.)
The main study showing this result is Nesbitt's 2011 analysis , but it's a very, very thorough one (the AMNH website has the PDF for free), and I'm not aware of any more recent papers that directly challenge it regarding the position of phytosaurs (but then I haven't followed the study of basal archosauriforms very closely at all).
π: 0 β©: 1
Perhaps we could just limit crurotarsi to crocodylomorphs + pseudosuchians ... if the ankle joint in phytosaurs is so different. The original dichotomy being ornithodira vs. crurotarsi thus being preservable.
I know inaccurate names stick much of the time as cladistics evolves, but I prefer to make the names as "least confusing" as possible.
π: 0 β©: 2
Sereno tried to do exactly that in his online databse of archosaur clade definitions, but as it's not in a technical paper it might not count. PhyloCode isn't out yet, so there's probably still a chance to properly propose revised definitions and get them in though. If Crurotarsi is defined specifically as the croc line it becomes equivalent to Pseudosuchia, however, and the latter would gain precedence. (Not that that has stopped anyone from using Tyrannosauroidea over Deinodontoidea for instance though! I suspect that if Crurotarsi is redefined everyone's probably going to flock over to it rather than Pseudosuchia, precedence be damned.)
The clades that are currently inherently specified as the croc line/bird line in their phylogenetic definitions are really Pseudosuchia and Avemetatarsalia, but the node-based (and, as we can see with Crurotarsi, potentially unstable) Crurotarsi and Ornithodira are more commonly used to draw the distinction for some reason. (In the case of Pseudosuchia at least it's probably because some people don't appreciate the irony of having "false crocs" include real crocs, but then there's always Pan-Crocodylia, which has the same definition.)
π: 0 β©: 1
Wasn't Crurotarsi named before Pseudosuchia?
π: 0 β©: 1
Pseudosuchia was named in 1887, Crurotarsi in 1990.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why wasn't Crurotarsi sunk into Pseudosuchia (at least when they were the same group)?
π: 0 β©: 1
Different definitions. It's like Paraves and Eumaniraptora; Paraves is actually more inclusive than Eumaniraptora, but we tend to use them for the same group because we don't know of any definite non-eumaniraptor paravians.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, crocodylomorphs are pseudosuchians, so not quite.
π: 0 β©: 0
Clades are defined by their phylogenetic definitions. Diagnostic features are there to help us recognize them, but they don't define clades (unless said clade in apomorphy based). Crurotarsi is defined as the latest common ancestor of phytosaurs, ornithosuchids, aetosaurs, and crocodilians. As phytosaurs are part of the definition of Crurotarsi, they will always be crurotarsans regardless of where they fall in a phylogenetic tree. And if phytosaurs are outside of Archosauria as Nesbitt's extensive new phylogeny shows, then Crurotarsi encompasses phytosaurs as well as all of Archosauria itself, because all archosaurs would be descendants of the latest common ancestor of phyosaurs and crocodilians, including dinosaurs. Yes, this means the diagnosis of Crurotarsi will have to be revised, but it's the diagnosis that changes with phylogenetic results, not the other way around.
If Crurotarsi was an apomorphy-based clade based on the croc line ankle joint, or a stem-based clade that explicitly excluded dinosaurs from its definition (e.g.: closer to crocs than to birds, or closer to phytosaurs than to birds, etc.), that would indeed preclude dinosaurs from being crurotarsans, but as things stand dinosaurs being crurotarsans is a perfectly legitimate possibility. The inherent problem with node-based clades is that if just one of the specifiers turn out to be not what we thought they were, it can drastically shift the clade's contents, even if said clade is now named inaccurately. That's why a number of researchers advocate using Pseudosuchia or Pan-Crocodylia for the croc line, because they, as stem-based clades, are by definition the croc line and, unlike Crurotarsi, have no danger of ending up with taxa we don't "want" them to include.
As for the assertion that "no credible scientist" would agree that dinosaurs are crurotarsans, the original post linked to above by SpongeBobFossilPants (which I'm not sure why doesn't work for you; the link works for me perfectly fine) was written by Bill Parker, so take from that what you will. No credible scientist would claim that dinosaurs had a croc-like ankle joint, but a credible scientist would accept that Nesbitt's phylogeny would expand Crurotarsi based on its phylogenetic definition to include all of Archosauria.
π: 0 β©: 0
I told him the separation of crurotarsi and dinosauria (although I should have used avemetatarsalia or ornithodira), but I didn't go as in detail as you did.
π: 0 β©: 0
Birds ARE Dinosaurs. Literally, and according to actual cladograms, they are: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
First, there's no fact or proof of any of that. Second, they've proven that the only dinosaur still around today is ALLIGATORS and the last time I checked, they weren't birds.
Next time use actual facts as proof. I'd hate to see any college papers you've produced if that's all you can come up with.
π: 0 β©: 1
hehehe you make me laugh!
This was the first I found. There are lots of scientific papers, but I really doubt you could understand a line of them.
Alligators are dinosaurs??? WHAT THE FUCK????? They are from cousin lineages!
READ SCIENCE BOOKS, AND THEN, WE TALK
π: 0 β©: 1
I have. You, on the other hand, seem to have not
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm Paleoillustrator [link] I talk with scientists...but you say I don't know nothing...hehehe omg
π: 0 β©: 1
and yet again that proves nothing. anyone can get that information out of a book
π: 0 β©: 2
Look, to make it simple:
Are you a Human?
Are you a Primate?
Are you a Tetrapod?
Are you an Amniote?
Are you a Vertebrate?
Are you an Animal?
Are you a living being?
The answer to all these questions is...YES! It is the same principle what I try to explain you. Dinosauria includes Aves, so Aves are Dinosaurs
π: 0 β©: 1
if you work by that logic then everything living is Dinosaurs. your logic is flawed
π: 0 β©: 1
Please please please! look at the first link I posted (it may be roughly made with a pencil, but it is true). Only birds are dinosaurs, because Dinosauria included Ornithischia and Saurischia, Saurischia includes Aves and non-avian dinosaurs. Ornithischians and non-avian Theropods are exinct, but Aves are not.
That is the logic. Mammals, fishes, reptiles, insects, trees...they are not fcking included in Dinosauria, so they are not dinosaurs.
π: 0 β©: 1
and again, I'm telling you that you're wrong
π: 0 β©: 1
I (and the whole educated world) am right, you are wrong
bye rhino!
π: 0 β©: 1
hahahaha XD Oh, man. Thank you for providing me with such a laugh.
You are either a hilarious troll or a complete moron. Either way, cheers for teh lulz.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, come on. Alligators are dinosaurs? Crocs are closer than birds? Every species is descended from dinosaurs? You can't seriously claim to actually believe any of this if you have any knowledge on the subject?
Gotta be trolling.
π: 0 β©: 2
ok so with your fail logic we're not humans, we're monkeys then
π: 0 β©: 2
No. For a start 'human' and 'monkey' are just arbitrary common speak and not scientific terms.
We are 'humans' ie. we are of the genus Homo (species sapien) but we are also hominids, and hominids are also hominoids (ie. "apes").
It would appear that you are unable to comprehend something being 2 or more things at once for some reason.
π: 0 β©: 0
No, we're APES, not monkeys. Apes and monkeys split from the primate lineage quite some time ago. However, both groups are still primates, you would agree.
Likewise, birds split off the theropod lineage quite some time ago. However, ultimately birds are still therapods, and thus dinosaurs.
You agree that a therapod is a type of dinosaur, right? So if a bird is a type of therapod, then it is ultimately a dinosaur. ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
I can SO imagine this girl at school.
TEACHER - Alright class, what does 2 plus 2 equal?
CRYSALEYES - 30.
TEACHER - No, 2 plus 2 equals 4
CRYSALEYES - Shut up, you're so stupid! 30 is bigger than 2, so I must be right!
Or something like that. I'm not going to claim myself as any good at on-the-spot jokes. X3
π: 0 β©: 1
lol I can see that.
Honestly I don't really want to pile on the poor girl anymore as she's clearly in way over her head.
Though, she's not helping the cause by continuously going on when she is so very, very wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, which is why I'm not getting involved with her aside from that one joke.
π: 0 β©: 0
sure? Out there is plenty of books with wrong facts. Even some school books. This panel is a recopilation of good books, blogs, papers, SVP presentations, opinions, etc.
I'm not saying I have all the truths, but...alligator-surus? nono, we have evidence that birds are closer. I would really like to know where did you get that "info".
Be sure I don't want to offend you, but that shows absolute ignorance.
π: 0 β©: 1
and I just read something that proves you wrong. Birds, like every creature on this earth today, evolved from them but they are actually no closer than crocs and in fact crocs have been around LONGER
π: 0 β©: 1
OK, so you are a rhino, 'cause rhinos are older than humans
I can't deal with you ignorance, I'm telling you that 5>3 and you say 3>8413...
bye rhino!
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>