News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Dinosaurs v. Mammals: The Final Conflict

Started by Queequeg, January 02, 2010, 11:57:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2010, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 11:39:11 PM
Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.
Mammals were already stepping up in the late Cretaceous.  For small animals, the Age of Dinosaurs ended in the middle Cretaceous.
Don't birds count as small animals and as dinosaurs? There were a lot of them in the late Cretaceous.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Neil

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2010, 09:42:01 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2010, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 11:39:11 PM
Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.
Mammals were already stepping up in the late Cretaceous.  For small animals, the Age of Dinosaurs ended in the middle Cretaceous.
Don't birds count as small animals and as dinosaurs? There were a lot of them in the late Cretaceous.
True, but birds mostly avoided being land animals, and dinosaurs never ruled the skies.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

alfred russel

Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 09:15:41 AM
An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds?

I buy into the argument that bacteria are actually more evolved than we are--just because they don't have structures that we consider advanced doesn't change that they evolve just like everything else. And their shorter generation times mean there has been much more opportunity for natural selection to take place.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Brain

Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2010, 09:48:54 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 09:15:41 AM
An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds?

I buy into the argument that bacteria are actually more evolved than we are--just because they don't have structures that we consider advanced doesn't change that they evolve just like everything else. And their shorter generation times mean there has been much more opportunity for natural selection to take place.

Sure, but we have created war, New York and Harry Potter. Who is really superior?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

alfred russel

Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2010, 09:51:46 AM

Sure, but we have created war, New York and Harry Potter. Who is really superior?

I could repost a few Lettow classics to show that e. coli have the edge.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Viking

Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2010, 09:48:54 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 09:15:41 AM
An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds?

I buy into the argument that bacteria are actually more evolved than we are--just because they don't have structures that we consider advanced doesn't change that they evolve just like everything else. And their shorter generation times mean there has been much more opportunity for natural selection to take place.

I don't accept the concept "more evolved". I can accept the concept "better suited to it's environment", but that is only determined when one species has gone extinct and the other hasn't.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Queequeg

#81
Quote from: Viking on January 04, 2010, 10:14:29 AM
I don't accept the concept "more evolved". I can accept the concept "better suited to it's environment", but that is only determined when one species has gone extinct and the other hasn't.
This is true and it isn't.  One of the earliest amphibians would probably not do all that well in a cenozoic swamp; it would be a total anachronism.  Similarly, I think some of the earliest dinosaurs would not do so hot in the Cretaceous.  But it is obviously difficult to be sure; I don't think Possums have changed that much in form the time of the Dinosaurs, but they are still resilient fuckers. 

We probably shouldn't use the term "more evolved".  "Basal", meaning conservative of form, is probably more accurate, and compare it to derived/advanced. 

AR, have you seen the Field Museum's remodeled paleontology wing?   Afraid that I haven't.  I was a huge dinosaur nut as a little kid, and my parents got a ticket to the opening night of the last remodeling (when they had the old ABC Newscaster who now does A&E biography talking about events in the Paleozoic).  One of the best nights of my childhood.   Still remember how excited I was that I was able to make a sound like some kind of big ornithopod.     
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

alfred russel

Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 10:22:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 04, 2010, 10:14:29 AM
I don't accept the concept "more evolved". I can accept the concept "better suited to it's environment", but that is only determined when one species has gone extinct and the other hasn't.
This is true and it isn't.  One of the earliest amphibians would probably not do all that well in a cenozoic swamp; it would be a total anachronism.  Similarly, I think some of the earliest dinosaurs would not do so hot in the Cretaceous. 

We probably shouldn't use the term "more evolved".  "Basal", meaning conservative of form, is probably more accurate, and compare it to derived/advanced.

AR, have you seen the Field Museum's remodeled paleontology wing?   Afraid that I haven't.  I was a huge dinosaur nut as a little kid, and my parents got a ticket to the opening night of the last remodeling (when they had the old ABC Newscaster who now does A&E biography talking about events in the Paleozoic).  One of the best nights of my childhood.   Still remember how excited I was that I was able to make a sound like some kind of big ornithopod.   

I haven't seen it.

"More evolved" might be a terrible phrase, but if evolve means "to undergo evolutionary change" then I'd say bacteria are "more evolved" than mammals. But that is arguable.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

HVC

Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 09:12:47 AM
I thought this was one of the most interesting questions; why is it that we kind of took over the small terrestrial land niches in the mid-late Cretaceous, along with the birds? 
IIRC insect and the insect explosion brought about by flowering plants.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Queequeg

Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2010, 10:31:24 AM

"More evolved" might be a terrible phrase, but if evolve means "to undergo evolutionary change" then I'd say bacteria are "more evolved" than mammals. But that is arguable.
Considering that bacteria exist in symbiosis with all forms of multicellular life with which I am familiar, I'm inclined to think of these things as just in a different category.  Like comparing orange chicken with a single orange. 
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

Viking

First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Queequeg

Quote from: Viking on January 04, 2010, 11:17:08 AM
How is it not true?
A human being is a more complex organism than a Myllokunmingia.  I don't think "more evolved" would be unfair. 
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

Razgovory

Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 05:10:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 04, 2010, 11:17:08 AM
How is it not true?
A human being is a more complex organism than a Myllokunmingia.  I don't think "more evolved" would be unfair.

I think it would be.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Barrister

Just reminded by this thread: over Christmas I had opportunity to visit the Beringia Centre in Whitehorse.  There are some spectacular fossil finds in northern Yukon of Ice Age remains, since it was the center of the Beringia Land Bridge.  The bones and models they had on display were very cool. :nerd:
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

The Brain

Why am I not surprised that there is a Beria Centre in Whitehorse?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.