Forums → WEPR → Evolution

Ah, but what is obvious to the human eye is that the mass of a bird is considerably less than a dinosaur and that birds can fly whereas not all dinosaurs can.

And anyway, it wasn't my biology teacher that told me that, I just know that I'm right.

Well if they are the same size as a bird and they have the same feathers as a bird and if they have the same skeleton of a bird, then clearly they are just birds, not dinosaurs. Clearly that is true.

You clearly are incorrect.

birds are quite clearly different to dinosaurs.

no? Okay, then. Tell me how the apocalypse managed to wipe out dinosaurs yet nothing else. Tell me how this is humanly possible.

Does anybody here know anything about Evolutionary Game Theory? I just got two books on the subject... But I still don't know that much about it. Sounds pretty interesting though.

They're the same in ever single way. Therefore they are clearly the same.

Don't oversimplify things.

There have been developments in the debate and you need to follow it better before you place your moral opinions on the matter.

And anyway, it wasn't my biology teacher that told me that, I just know that I'm right.

We may be from the same class as fish. But doesn't mean to say that we are the same phylum as fish. We are clearly different. And birds are of a different phylum to dinosaurs. Straightforward as that.

Wait, what is that supposed to me? That dinosaurs can't fly? What about pterodactyls? You're just being silly and contradictive now.

For a start the arms have feathers coming off it, but not the body.

Therefore, maybe birds evolved from this state, but it looks absolutely nothing like a bird whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure that the whole scientific community don't all agree with your batty claims about birds being exactly the same as dinosaurs, yet somehow not the other way round.

I already told you how mammals survived.

If you want an answer to a question then find it out yourself because wikipedia exists.

Ok look, we've had already enough of this I think, and now I really want to hear about that Evolutionary Game theory, so, let's settle it with a neat wikipedia article that might interest you. You are cordially invited to point me at every thing I said that contradicts this article; show me every last mistake I made that this site doesn't. Go on, read it.

=>Origin of birds<=

It was HahiHa who claimed that birds are the same as the hybrids. Like you correctly pointed out, they aren't.

That's what you said that I said, therefore you are clearly incorrect. I was saying that they aren't the same and HahiHa was saying that they were, therefore you agree with me and disagree with what HahiHa said.

Okay, stop saying silly things now. You're clearly just making stuff up to annoy me now. Please refrain from doing so in the future...

And pterodactyls are dinosaurs. They are of the same skin as dinosaurs and they come from the triassic period like dinosaurs. Plus they have the same limbs as dinosaurs. Therefore I don't need evidence, because it is quite obvious by common logic that they are dinosaurs.

I already told you how mammals survived. they were really small at the time and therefore they didn't need to much food. Therefore they managed to outlast the apocalypse without dying out. However dinosaurs didn't and therefore they can't have evolved into birds as otherwise they would've survived the apocalypse and there wouldn't have been any mass extinction.

Well, how come the dinosaurs were evolving into birds before the apocalypse when they didn't have a changing environment in order to need to adapt. I don't understand the reason for evolving in the first place. That makes no sense whatsoever.

And pterodactyls ARE dinosaurs, as I've previously mentioned.

They're not going to set up a site saying that things didn't happen, they're only going to set up sites that are saying that things are happening.

Therefore you should be the one providing evidence from third part constituents, not me.

And pterodactyls are dinosaurs. They are of the same skin as dinosaurs and they come from the triassic period like dinosaurs. Plus they have the same limbs as dinosaurs. Therefore I don't need evidence, because it is quite obvious by common logic that they are dinosaurs.

Then wouldn't they start off longer for thermal insulation? They need to be longer to catch a thicker layer of insulative air, obviously. Why are the longer on the limbs than the torso? Can you tell me that?

That's where you said it, obviously. Stop being contradictive now.

I'm not a genius, I just know biology. You aren't really thinking that I'm a genius, are you? Why... that's nice, that is...

Okay, I will say one last thing about this, which will hopefully end the discussion.

What is Dinosauria? In other words, what characteristics does one must have in order to be considered part of Dinosauria? Well, These (or traits that evolved from these):

in the skull, a supratemporal fossa (excavation) is present in front of the supratemporal fenestra

epipophyses present in anterior neck vertebrae (except atlas and axis)

apex of deltopectoral crest (a projection on which the deltopectoral muscles attach) located at or more than 30% down the length of the humerus (upper arm bone)

radius shorter than 80% of humerus length

fourth trochanter (projection where the caudofemoralis muscle attaches) on the femur (thigh bone) is a sharp flange

fourth trochanter asymmetrical, with distal margin forming a steeper angle to the shaft

on the astragalus and calcaneum the proximal articular facet for fibula occupies less than 30% of the transverse width of the element

exocciptials (bones at the back of the skull) do not meet along the midline on the floor of the endocranial cavity

proximal articular surfaces of the ischium with the ilium and the pubis separated by a large concave surface

cnemial crest on the tibia (shinbone) arcs anterolaterally
distinct proximodistally oriented ridge present on the posterior face of the distal end of the tibia

If you share ALL of these characteristics, you are a dinosaur. Do you have all these traits? No. You are not a dinosaur, congrats. Does the modern eagle? Yes. So it is a dinosaur.

It is literally that simple. If you disagree, then you disagree with the accepted classification of dinosaurs. When means further argument is pointless, since you are essentially using your own made up taxonomic system.

So, on to game theory:
I literally got the books a few hours ago, I was just wondering if anybody else here knew anything. You can read the Stanford article on it, which is pretty good. It is a pretty recent study, and I'm interested it in largely due to my mathematical background.

It tries to model different strategies using basic game theory, except the models have to be much more dynamic than they would in economics. The population composition has to change at each "turn", and the model has to be able to compensate for this change in order to determine the composition at the next turn.

It originally dealt with questions like this one that arose after I watched a documentary on birds of paradise:

Birds of paradise (as you may know) use a very complicated mating ritual. It goes on for quite a while, and often the male is not successful. In this documentary I was watching, a male bird of paradise had finally gained the attention of a female after trying for literally days. But in the middle of its ritual, another bird swoops in and immediately mates with the female.

It would seem as though this second strategy would be more successful. The ritual strategy might be successful if the aggressive strategy resulted in too much violence and injuries to make it worth it. But, doesn't the existence of the aggressive strategy prove that this is not the case?

Game theory can be used to model the two strategies against each other on an evolutionary time scale. In other cases (I don't know if there is a model addressing this exact issue, I just thought it was a very vivid example) consisting of "ritual v Aggressive", it turns out the the population reaches an equilibrium with most of the population consisting of ritualistic members.

I know this kind of concept, two different mating srategies with one being opportunistic and rather rare, and the other more elaborate and widely spread across the population. And isn't the reason of the equilibrium the fact that if there were more opportunistic males, they would conflict each other too much resp. there'd be too few elaborate ones to parasite; though since they have a higher reproduction success they don't die out. I'm not sure if this is what game theory is about, but I'll definitely read the link tomorrow.

No, they aren't. they evolved from dinosaurs (apparently), but they aren't actually birds, obviously.

Okay, that's contradictive. First you said that dinosaurs aren't birds and then you said that they are. Make up your mind.

[quote]What makes you think the environment in which they lived was static?

I'm just saying that birds and dinosaurs aren't the same thing, like what Moe and HahiHa are claiming.

Same difference. They are still fairly similar in physical properties.

I'm not making any claims,

I wasn't saying that they didn't,

I'm just saying that they aren't actually birds themselves, like I said that HahiHa and Moe are saying (which they are).